Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The lockdown rebellion grows.
Speaker 1: California has a stay at home order for possibly three
Speaker 1: more months. Bailing out the bailouts a judge who doesn't
Speaker 1: seem to want to let Flynn go, and was Intel
Speaker 1: suppressed that Russia really wanted Hillary to win? Coming up,
Speaker 1: this is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with passionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake a great here, a great American Again
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. Now,
Speaker 1: all right, everybody, welcome to the buck Sexton Show. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining today. May or may we
Speaker 1: have much to get to. The big shift that we're
Speaker 1: seeing right now is away from the data, the day
Speaker 1: of the data, testing, test and testing. Well, they still
Speaker 1: talk about that, but they're now increasingly just pushing for
Speaker 1: what are obviously political goals in this whole process. And
Speaker 1: you can tell because they're going on offense against people
Speaker 1: who want the country to reopen. Doesn't everybody want the
Speaker 1: country to reopen. The only reason that you'd be rooting
Speaker 1: against reopen is political. There's no honest person out there
Speaker 1: who thinks that this is a good situation for the
Speaker 1: American people, that this is a sustainable situation, and yet
Speaker 1: they keep wanting to drag it out. They keep wanting
Speaker 1: to drag it out. Doctor Faucci in the testimony yesterday.
Speaker 1: I read through the transcripts of it. I didn't have
Speaker 1: time to sit there and watch Senator's grandstand, but the
Speaker 1: transcript of it was worthwhile. Doctor Fauci admits that the
Speaker 1: second that you start to reopen, there will be more
Speaker 1: infections that occur, and there will be more depths that happen.
Speaker 1: This is what we are facing now. It's not going
Speaker 1: to be overwhelming. I don't think it's going to be
Speaker 1: this massive second wave that people have been talking about.
Speaker 1: But we got to be able to have a conversation
Speaker 1: as adults in this country about what the future looks like.
Speaker 1: Instead what you get from places like CNN, which I
Speaker 1: really have been thinking about this. I believe the country
Speaker 1: would be better off, happier, and better informed if CNN
Speaker 1: just became a DIY network that actually requires some skill.
Speaker 1: I was going to say cooking network that also a
Speaker 1: network that also requires skill. You know, if CNN, I
Speaker 1: don't know, like rand music videos from the nineties or something.
Speaker 1: You know, There's just there's nothing that you get that's
Speaker 1: a benefit from this channel even existing, and the DNC
Speaker 1: has plenty of other propaganda networks. Nobody would miss it
Speaker 1: except for the people drawing a paycheck from CNN. But
Speaker 1: they have lots of other options, unlike conservatives. There are
Speaker 1: plenty of media outlets for them. But here's what you get.
Speaker 1: Here's what you get from for example, Bro Cuomo, who
Speaker 1: is like, Hey, I'm in quarantine for a while, but
Speaker 1: I was still lifting bro still working up a sweat. Wait,
Speaker 1: but didn't you break quarantine? Oh that's right, you did,
Speaker 1: and you got into a fight with a strangers likes
Speaker 1: to get into fights with strangers. What a buffoon him
Speaker 1: and his brother, both the buffoon brothers really, or the
Speaker 1: Bro's Cuomo as we call them. But here's what passes
Speaker 1: for discourse. Now you've got a national cable news show,
Speaker 1: and you can expect people to say really horrible stuff
Speaker 1: about anybody who wants to reopen. If you are sick
Speaker 1: of being locked in your home, if you're tired of
Speaker 1: this of dubious constitutionality, lockdown order of dubious scientific basis
Speaker 1: as well, Oh it's because you don't care about old people,
Speaker 1: and you're racist. That's the new that's the new addition
Speaker 1: to this play clip four. It's an interesting juxtaposition, Sanja,
Speaker 1: that the president thing is about being anti elitist. His
Speaker 1: buddy's over on Fox State TV anti elitist. Ten thousand
Speaker 1: deaths are the price tag that their model puts on
Speaker 1: this talk about being elitist. If that's okay, who do
Speaker 1: you think those ten thousand people are going to be?
Speaker 1: Who's getting affected the most? The working class, the brown
Speaker 1: working class who's most afraid of reopening too soon, the
Speaker 1: brown working class who's getting sick the most, the brown
Speaker 1: working class who's dying the most. They are is nothing
Speaker 1: elitist about that. It's everything that's elitist. Do any of
Speaker 1: you believe for one second that bro Cuomo, who because
Speaker 1: of his last name, got into certain academic institutions that
Speaker 1: he never would have otherwise, and because of his last name,
Speaker 1: has a job at CNN as a news anchor where
Speaker 1: he's entirely replaceable and deeply unimpressive. Do any of you
Speaker 1: think that he really cares about, as he calls it,
Speaker 1: the quote brown working class. This is a guy who
Speaker 1: shuttles between a multimillion dollar apartment in New York City
Speaker 1: and a house in the Hampton's which, for those who
Speaker 1: don't know, is the fancy vacation destination within a couple
Speaker 1: of hours of New York City out on Long Island.
Speaker 1: I mean, I really asked this question in earnest. Are
Speaker 1: we supposed to believe that, all of a sudden that
Speaker 1: Chris Cuomo cares so much more than everybody else about
Speaker 1: the minority working class and that's why he doesn't like
Speaker 1: the administration's plan for reopen, which the Administration's plan for
Speaker 1: reopen has been approved by and signed off on by
Speaker 1: the public health experts that are I think, having far
Speaker 1: too much influence in this whole process. But this is
Speaker 1: where it all goes. You're going to see a series
Speaker 1: of emotional and moral blackmails occur in the weeks ahead,
Speaker 1: in the days ahead. It's already happening. But this is
Speaker 1: what the argument's going to turn into. It was you
Speaker 1: want old people to die, and now it's you want
Speaker 1: old people and minorities to die. If you believe that
Speaker 1: a disease that has a ninety nine point nine percent
Speaker 1: survivability rate for everybody under the age of seventy if
Speaker 1: you believe that that is the case, that we shouldn't
Speaker 1: shut down the whole country. You don't care about old people,
Speaker 1: And now that they're saying, you don't care about minorities.
Speaker 1: As we know, the disease does not discriminate between minorities
Speaker 1: and anybody else. It's a virus. It affects human beings.
Speaker 1: But because of demographic distribution in play, particularly in New
Speaker 1: York City, and the density and the public transportation system
Speaker 1: and a few other factors add it in here. Yes,
Speaker 1: it has had a disproportionate impact on people who live
Speaker 1: in some parts of the city that are largely minority,
Speaker 1: but it's also infecting people all across the country, and
Speaker 1: people of all backgrounds that ethnicities are getting this and
Speaker 1: dying from it. Interestingly enough, I was surprised to see
Speaker 1: the numbers because I think that there was an anticipation
Speaker 1: that we had been thinking that one they were gonna
Speaker 1: be it was gonna be a lot higher overall, But
Speaker 1: smokers don't seem to be at as high of a
Speaker 1: risk for this. In the early day, smokers were, I
Speaker 1: know some. I talked a few about it, and they
Speaker 1: were terrified. It turns out that smokers aren't really as
Speaker 1: high riskless. But but regardless, the moral, the moral blackmail
Speaker 1: attempt here should be met with, first of all, the
Speaker 1: disdain that it deserves. I mean, Chris Cuomo is being
Speaker 1: and this whole thing is disingenuous. What does he want
Speaker 1: us to do. We're just gonna stay locked down forever.
Speaker 1: We're gonna allow the economy. It's the damage that is
Speaker 1: happening now economically. You won't really even be able to
Speaker 1: understand it for months to come, and it might even
Speaker 1: be years before we're able to see the full and
Speaker 1: long term impact of it, as well as the immediate
Speaker 1: damage of thirty million people unemployed of businesses that we
Speaker 1: keep thinking we're gonna come back, We're gonna we're gonna
Speaker 1: hit our stride, will be something close to previous capacity.
Speaker 1: That's not true. That's not true for the two reasons
Speaker 1: of the regulations and the restrictions that are being put
Speaker 1: on these businesses. It's also not true because there will
Speaker 1: be there'll be much less demand. And then there are
Speaker 1: whole industries that I think are at risk. There's an
Speaker 1: expectation right now that the airline industry might might end
Speaker 1: up having to lay off one hundred thousand people this fall.
Speaker 1: What do we do, I mean, how do we get
Speaker 1: our airline industry back before there's a vaccine? You know,
Speaker 1: you're going to start to see entire business sectors that
Speaker 1: are effectively collapsing. This is why we have bailouts of
Speaker 1: bailouts already, and bailouts of state governments and bailout of
Speaker 1: local governments, and you're gonna have bailouts of more companies
Speaker 1: and individuals. Now, the individuals aren't really getting a bailout.
Speaker 1: It's a rescue, and it's a rescue in response to
Speaker 1: a government policy. But that all said, we don't have
Speaker 1: the money for this, So we can be honest about
Speaker 1: this and understand that this is not a solution, and
Speaker 1: no public health expert will go on TV and say
Speaker 1: it is to just keep our heads down, stay at
Speaker 1: home home. You know, I think it's so fascinating too.
Speaker 1: For all of Chris Cuomo's bluster here about the about
Speaker 1: as he calls it, the brown working class, who does
Speaker 1: he think a lot of the frontline workers are. Who
Speaker 1: does he think a lot of the people who are
Speaker 1: still delivering food, who are still working for ups and
Speaker 1: for the postal service and working in grocery stores and
Speaker 1: working in pharmacies. There's a considerable contingent. I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't know what the percentages are, but plenty of them
Speaker 1: are minorities, and they're still risking their lives every day.
Speaker 1: If you believe that being outside and conducting any kind
Speaker 1: of business is risking your life, which is what we're
Speaker 1: all being told. You know, it's always risking your life.
Speaker 1: Right you leave your house, and I've said this to
Speaker 1: you before. I'm always reminded of the line from the
Speaker 1: movie Heat with Appuccino where he says, you get killed
Speaker 1: walking your doggie, which is true, you can, and I
Speaker 1: walk the dogs several times a day, despite the fact
Speaker 1: that it is possible to get killed walking your doggie.
Speaker 1: All right, we didn't know. And for anyone who's wondering, well, back,
Speaker 1: why are you okay with a two week shutdown? And
Speaker 1: why were you Because we were being told that this
Speaker 1: had a three or four percent mortality rate, that it
Speaker 1: could kill anybody at any age with equal at equal
Speaker 1: risk effectively or close to it. You know, we thought
Speaker 1: this was going to be a much more lethal which
Speaker 1: is I know right now with eighty thousand dead, how
Speaker 1: could you be talking about it being much more lethal.
Speaker 1: But that's where we were led to believe by all
Speaker 1: the scientists. I mean, I don't. I wasn't conducting field
Speaker 1: trials and data and looking at what was going on
Speaker 1: in the hospitals in Lombardi or in Wuhan. We were
Speaker 1: told that this was going to be orders of magnitude
Speaker 1: worse than it was in terms of death. So yeah,
Speaker 1: and that scenario, we're going to have to take a
Speaker 1: pause here and see what's going on. But now we
Speaker 1: have the numbers, now we have the data, and we
Speaker 1: can live through this. But you're seeing the game the
Speaker 1: left is going to play now, and this is for
Speaker 1: political purposes because they're not so stupid, well at least
Speaker 1: most of them. Some of them are so stupid, but
Speaker 1: they're not so stupid in general that they really think
Speaker 1: that you can just stay in lockdown indefinitely. There. I
Speaker 1: don't think they're they're that dumb. Some of them maybe,
Speaker 1: but most of them aren't. What you're seeing is using
Speaker 1: this as a moment to pretend that they care so
Speaker 1: much more about life and therefore they're the good people,
Speaker 1: the better people, when also at the end of this
Speaker 1: they view an enormous benefit to a continued Now, when
Speaker 1: I say continued shutdown, maybe it's a series of shutdowns.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's keeping us all in phase one or phase
Speaker 1: two of the reopened. They want this to go as
Speaker 1: slowly as possible before the election because they want Donald
Speaker 1: Trump to lose reelection. That is a major motivation for
Speaker 1: them at this point. The left, the Democrats, that is
Speaker 1: at the top of the list. Let stop the list.
Speaker 1: They also never even grapple with what the projections are
Speaker 1: for global fatalities, because the truly poor around the world
Speaker 1: are going to be horrifically, horrifically damaged. Many will lose
Speaker 1: their lives as a result of this decision of the
Speaker 1: economic shutdown. I'm also going to need people to explain
Speaker 1: who do we blame? As I told you yesterday and
Speaker 1: we were talking to doctor Scott Atlas here about it,
Speaker 1: who do we blame when we start seeing in three,
Speaker 1: four or five months, just how many people have terminal
Speaker 1: cancer that was allowed to grow and continue uncaught for
Speaker 1: months because of the shutdown. How many who do we
Speaker 1: turn to and yell at when we find out that
Speaker 1: people who stopped chemo for a while now are in
Speaker 1: a much worse position and may lose their lives to
Speaker 1: the disease because the chemo was stopped so that we
Speaker 1: could fight all hands on deck against COVID, including in
Speaker 1: places that barely had any cases across the country. Who
Speaker 1: do we blame for that? Do we get to call
Speaker 1: up the bros Cuomo? If you listen to the media,
Speaker 1: you're not allowed to blame Governor Cuomo for decisions that
Speaker 1: seem horrifically bad now in retrospect across the board and
Speaker 1: a record that is appalling, appalling us. If he's in
Speaker 1: charge of the health of New York State and has
Speaker 1: all these agencies and has all these people that are
Speaker 1: experts advising him, he did a god awful job, he
Speaker 1: really did, but you won't hear that from the media.
Speaker 1: That's where we're heading, my friends. It's just going to
Speaker 1: turn into political trench warfare for the next few months.
Speaker 1: They're going to try to make this as slow as possible,
Speaker 1: and they will justify all the economic pain and destruction
Speaker 1: of themselves with two things. Oh, we care so much
Speaker 1: about them. We care so much more than Republicans about
Speaker 1: the minority working class. That's what they'll say. And they'll
Speaker 1: also say anything to defeat Trump is worth this price, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, anything to defeat Trump is acceptable over the
Speaker 1: long run, because he's an existential threat. Who are democracy,
Speaker 1: as they've been telling us for years. So this is
Speaker 1: going to be tough. The rebellion is going to have
Speaker 1: to grow against the lockdown state by state and across
Speaker 1: the country, and we all have to be a part
Speaker 1: of rebelling against it in our own ways. You're in
Speaker 1: the Freedom Heart. This is the Buck Sex and Show podcast.
Speaker 1: When you wear a mask, you say I respect you.
Speaker 1: That's what the mask says to everyone you walk past.
Speaker 1: I respect you. I respect you, I respect your health,
Speaker 1: I respect your privacy, I respect your space, I respect you.
Speaker 1: I can do anything I want with myself. This is America.
Speaker 1: But I respect you, and out of respect for you,
Speaker 1: I wear this mask, and I respect the nurses and
Speaker 1: the doctors. So I'm not going to infect anyone or
Speaker 1: allow anyone else to be infected unnecessarily, so I don't
Speaker 1: cause more stress on the nurses and the doctors. This
Speaker 1: mask says, I respect the essential workers. Notice how insidious
Speaker 1: this construction, this construct of the mask wearing becomes. It's
Speaker 1: no longer about an individual choice. It's not about your risk,
Speaker 1: it's about all the people around you. This is all.
Speaker 1: This is really just becoming a stand in for you.
Speaker 1: No longer have any rights, you no longer have any
Speaker 1: say in anything, because it's about saving the people around you. Remember,
Speaker 1: saving the people around you from a disease that over
Speaker 1: ninety nine percent of people will be fine from, but
Speaker 1: because of that less than one percent risk. And there
Speaker 1: by the way they're treating this now, if you if
Speaker 1: you have a psurology test where you have antibodies, are
Speaker 1: you still supposed to wear a mask, that's anti scientific.
Speaker 1: If you're still supposed to wear a mask out in
Speaker 1: the open air where there's effectively zero risk of transmission
Speaker 1: to somebody, that's anti scientific. We have a data, we
Speaker 1: have the studies on this. The evidence does not support
Speaker 1: at least some of what the implications are here of
Speaker 1: what starts to sound like mask fascism. You know, you
Speaker 1: better do this or else because everybody else, because the
Speaker 1: collective needs it, they demand end it. Oh, don't even
Speaker 1: get me started on the peer reviewed CDC published study
Speaker 1: that said that masks in influenza season don't really do
Speaker 1: all that much. I know, I know people you know,
Speaker 1: I did a little bit of research this week back
Speaker 1: into the Spanish flu of nineteen eighteen, and it is
Speaker 1: kind of wrongly named in a sense, but they don't
Speaker 1: know where it came from. There are a couple of
Speaker 1: different theories. We know that the Spanish press wrote about
Speaker 1: it during the First World War because Spain was a
Speaker 1: neutral country, so they didn't have true propaganda restrictions on
Speaker 1: what their journalists were able to say. There were a
Speaker 1: lot of infections. In fact, there were battles that were
Speaker 1: determined in part because there were so many people on
Speaker 1: the front lines in World War One at different periods
Speaker 1: who did have influenza, and so we're completely combat ineffective.
Speaker 1: And it's not helpful to go back really and read
Speaker 1: about because that disease. There was a whole lot of
Speaker 1: stuff that happened with that one that we're not seeing here.
Speaker 1: One of the more notable ones is that it went
Speaker 1: after people, particularly twenty to forty so people who were
Speaker 1: a lot of them who were parents of young children,
Speaker 1: and you would think at a at a healthier stage
Speaker 1: to fight off a disease, but no, that didn't end up.
Speaker 1: That didn't end up being the case at all. But
Speaker 1: the government. This is why it's so notable. The government
Speaker 1: failed at effectively every level in this and you just
Speaker 1: had a rolling series of collapses of different healthcare initiatives.
Speaker 1: You had politicians who made the wrong call. You know. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: what you take from the Spanish flu of nineteen eighteen,
Speaker 1: the history of it, You look at it and you say,
Speaker 1: our public health experts and our government were effectively worthless.
Speaker 1: I mean, the disease just ripped through all over the place.
Speaker 1: They weren't able to really there was like one exam
Speaker 1: There are a couple of islands, you know, the South
Speaker 1: Pacific where the okay, we don't live on a tiny
Speaker 1: desert island in the South Pacific, or tropical island in
Speaker 1: the South Pacific. So the real lesson you take from
Speaker 1: it is that the government was coming up with all
Speaker 1: these different things, and you know, they were setting up
Speaker 1: these they were setting up different medical facilities and putting
Speaker 1: out tribunes. First of all, they didn't have a real
Speaker 1: treatment for it, so I don't even know what you know,
Speaker 1: they were just giving people stuff to give them stuff.
Speaker 1: You know, at some level, the government's panic turns into
Speaker 1: just more and more regulations, the same impulse to always
Speaker 1: write more laws to deal with every problem. The government
Speaker 1: has just laws upon laws. We're also being given all
Speaker 1: of this advice from the government or what to do here,
Speaker 1: and they've really shown us already a legacy of failure
Speaker 1: in preventing and then combating this virus. 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. Is anybody this is administration ever asked
Speaker 1: you or any member that they take the foot off
Speaker 1: the gas and try and find or any type of
Speaker 1: counter measure. No, nothing at all. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: h as you know, have me right from the very beginning,
Speaker 1: put off foot right on that accelerator in every aspect,
Speaker 1: including the development of vaccines and therapeutics. And as I
Speaker 1: described my opening statement, we actually started that in January,
Speaker 1: literally days after virus was known and its sequence was published.
Speaker 1: So no, I have never been followed by anyone to
Speaker 1: pull back on the development of any countermeasure or any
Speaker 1: basic and the research project that we've been involved in.
Speaker 1: You won't hear much coverage of the more praise of
Speaker 1: the parts of the testimony yesterday that were praiseworthy for
Speaker 1: the administration or where they were saying, you know, the
Speaker 1: Trump administration hasn't stood in the way of anything we've
Speaker 1: tried to do. We've been hearing this montra of they
Speaker 1: don't listen to the experts. They listen to the experts
Speaker 1: all the time. Unfortunately, experts have been wrong on a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of stuff. And this then makes me think
Speaker 1: of where we are in with California. Yesterday, it broke
Speaker 1: in the afternoon that California, according to its public health director,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Los Angeles, according to its public health director,
Speaker 1: was saying that they were expecting to probably be on
Speaker 1: lockdown for three more months in Los Angeles County. They've
Speaker 1: had fifteen hundred deaths from this. You're gonna lock everybody down,
Speaker 1: you know, no more, no going out to shop and
Speaker 1: live life. He can't go to restaurants, you can't go
Speaker 1: to bars, you can't buy things in most stores for
Speaker 1: three more months. I mean, are these people insane? This
Speaker 1: is what the experts the public health because look, there's
Speaker 1: no there's no down. First of all, they're getting a paycheck.
Speaker 1: There's no downside for them to say, Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: let's keep keep locking down. They don't want to deal
Speaker 1: with the heat of people like Cuomo. Oh you don't
Speaker 1: care about the working class and minorities. No, it's that's
Speaker 1: not it at all. Actually, you know who's going to
Speaker 1: get hurt the worst by the destruction the US economy,
Speaker 1: poor people and disproportionately poor minorities. That also will really
Speaker 1: affect them, the health implications of the long term for
Speaker 1: preventing people from doing any preventative medicine, from being able
Speaker 1: to treat chronic conditions, and then also on top of
Speaker 1: it all, all of the health effects of just being
Speaker 1: effectively forced to be largely sedentary. I mean, I know
Speaker 1: people say, oh, you can get out of it, but yeah,
Speaker 1: it's different, you know, and you can't see people, you
Speaker 1: can't meet up, you can't go to classes where you
Speaker 1: would you know, you work out, you can't go to
Speaker 1: the gym. You drink more than you've been drinking before.
Speaker 1: A lot of people are going to develop alcoholism, a
Speaker 1: lot of people are abusing drugs. Huge consequence is huge
Speaker 1: cost to all of this. Los Angeles like, yeah, let's
Speaker 1: do this for ninety more days. I mean, I hope
Speaker 1: there is mass non compliance. But the problem is now,
Speaker 1: the closer we get to November, and now you have
Speaker 1: to start seeing it this way, the closer they can
Speaker 1: push it to know, the better off they know Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's chances will be. And I know we shouldn't be
Speaker 1: thinking about it or we shouldn't have to think about
Speaker 1: it in those terms. I think Matthew McConaughey released some
Speaker 1: let's not make this political ad nice idea of a
Speaker 1: little too late, buddy, it's very political. They view this
Speaker 1: as just how much runway can they take away from
Speaker 1: the Trump administration to get things back on track and
Speaker 1: to improve the economy. So the more they extend, See,
Speaker 1: they are incentivized now to extend the lockdown to get
Speaker 1: that as close to November as possible. I'm not really
Speaker 1: all you have to do. I mean, if they can
Speaker 1: keep us in a state of even semi lockdown until August,
Speaker 1: they think they must know that the economy won't. First
Speaker 1: of all, the damage will be enormous, the damage gets
Speaker 1: greater in time, but also the pull out of the ditch,
Speaker 1: so to speak, right, the removing ourselves from these these
Speaker 1: difficult circumstances that will not be able to occur quickly
Speaker 1: enough for people to give the administration any credit or
Speaker 1: any any faith. And that's how you get a Joe
Speaker 1: Biden presidency. You know, they're they're just gonna, you know,
Speaker 1: take the little blankie off his shoulders and take the
Speaker 1: little thermis of warm milk out of his hands and
Speaker 1: trot him on up to the victory stage, yelling because
Speaker 1: I don't know what's going on, and we're all suppois, Yeah,
Speaker 1: this guy, he's really got it. He's really going to
Speaker 1: run the country great. But it's just a figurehead. It
Speaker 1: just it's it's not about you have to remember this
Speaker 1: because I know I like to point out what a
Speaker 1: horrible candidate he is, but it's all about the mythology
Speaker 1: they've created around him, the continuation of the Obama legacy.
Speaker 1: And it's not really about Joe Biden. For the left,
Speaker 1: it's about all the people that then are in positions
Speaker 1: of authority. It's about who Joe Biden appoints to be
Speaker 1: head of HHS, who Joe Biden would put on the
Speaker 1: Supreme Corps, who Joe Biden has running the White House.
Speaker 1: Who That's what really matters to them, and we all
Speaker 1: those people will just be the Democrat, the Democrat power
Speaker 1: and control echelon. You know, they're all already waiting in
Speaker 1: the wings. This is also why the Bernie Sanders thing,
Speaker 1: they're like, ah, the people that really call the shots,
Speaker 1: they're saying, okay, well, Biden, we know, we'll do what
Speaker 1: we want him to do. I mean, he's effectively a
Speaker 1: puppet of the left wing political apparatus in this country now,
Speaker 1: you know, of the Democrat establishment, which is the same thing.
Speaker 1: The left and the Democrats are obviously synonymous. Now, so
Speaker 1: that's that's something to remember as we go through this.
Speaker 1: But also, you know, with California thinking they might extend
Speaker 1: their lockdown ninety days, I think it is worth noting
Speaker 1: that we're talking, we're starting to see schools claim already
Speaker 1: that they're not going to be reopened for the fall.
Speaker 1: Universities some universities have said they're going to be taking
Speaker 1: teleclass only, so you know, virtual classes or teleclass or
Speaker 1: whatever however you call it. People are really going to
Speaker 1: be paying sixty thousand dollars a year to watch classes
Speaker 1: on a computer and sit at home. I don't know how.
Speaker 1: You know, university's got so fat and happy in the
Speaker 1: in the last thirty or forty years. It's just been
Speaker 1: an it should have been outrageous, this arms race of
Speaker 1: the you know, the fake credentialing system that they all
Speaker 1: have set up. There are too many schools for it
Speaker 1: to even really matter anymore. All the schools are great,
Speaker 1: and the elite schools bring in Bozo's by the truckload too,
Speaker 1: for all kinds of reasons, whether it's rich mommy and daddy,
Speaker 1: or social justice or athletics or whatever. Not. The whole
Speaker 1: university system as the preparatory ground for the leadership of
Speaker 1: the future, that's all garbage. Now. If you want to look,
Speaker 1: I mean, you really need a you need a baseline
Speaker 1: level of educational tools and skills which you can get
Speaker 1: and people are finding out you can actually get it
Speaker 1: at home. But you can also you get this by
Speaker 1: the time you're you know, if you're in a pretty
Speaker 1: rigorous program midway through high school probably and then after
Speaker 1: that just self directed study, apprenticeship, hands on learning, working
Speaker 1: at different things and jobs. That's going to become much
Speaker 1: that's going to become much more important. Sitting in a
Speaker 1: lecture hall and writing two completely monotonous research papers a
Speaker 1: semester and doing this over and over again for a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of different classes. This is not No one
Speaker 1: is impressed by, you know, someone's psyche degree from Oberlin,
Speaker 1: no one. No one cares anymore if they ever did.
Speaker 1: So that's going to be a change that comes out
Speaker 1: of all of this, I think. I know, I always
Speaker 1: pick on Overlin down. There are some schools that get
Speaker 1: picked out a lot. Oberlin's definitely one of them. Brown
Speaker 1: University too, you know, yeah, an ivy without grades. That
Speaker 1: sounds really rigorous, sounds like people are really working hard
Speaker 1: there and getting getting a great education. Sure, I digress.
Speaker 1: So here's the other part of the opening school though.
Speaker 1: This is where we get into the you know, I'm
Speaker 1: focused in on this with testing because I can only
Speaker 1: make so much noise. I can only tell so many people,
Speaker 1: you know. I mean here, here's a perfect example. I mean,
Speaker 1: this morning, I woke up and I just thought, okay,
Speaker 1: just so we're all clear here, we should be out
Speaker 1: of lockdown. This is nuts. Just a reminder, that's what
Speaker 1: I tweeted up. I'm just gonna keep telling everybody this.
Speaker 1: This is crazy. Now New York should in two days,
Speaker 1: New York should allow a phase one reopening the metrics
Speaker 1: were pretty close to it, but they're going to delay
Speaker 1: another two weeks, and then if we're a little bit
Speaker 1: behind the metrics they have, they might delay in another
Speaker 1: two weeks. Well, we shouldn't burn a month because of
Speaker 1: arbitrary metrics about leaving thirty percent of hospital beds open
Speaker 1: for COVID patients when there's no way we're going to
Speaker 1: have that kind of a surge going to the summer
Speaker 1: right now. It's not going to happen. You know, we haven't.
Speaker 1: We learned our lesson from the terrible models that they
Speaker 1: used and how far off they were. They were so
Speaker 1: wrong on ventilators, they were so wrong on ICU beds,
Speaker 1: wrong at all this stuff. But now we're supposed to
Speaker 1: you know, they keep getting the numbers wrong, the projections
Speaker 1: about the numbers are wrong, and we say, well, hold
Speaker 1: on a second. They say, oh, don't worry about that.
Speaker 1: That's water under the bridge. We see, yeah, But now
Speaker 1: today you're saying, based on this new set of projections,
Speaker 1: this is what we need to do right now. And
Speaker 1: we look at this and go, well, hold on, don't
Speaker 1: don't we get to you know, aren't we in the
Speaker 1: trust tree and the nest can't we Nope, Nope, not allowed,
Speaker 1: not allowed. You're supposed to listen or else listen or
Speaker 1: else they don't want to hear it. So yeah, the
Speaker 1: CDC director Robert doctor Robert Redfield, who was talking about testing.
Speaker 1: As you know, I'm very focused in on this testing
Speaker 1: part of it because there's it's really easy to say
Speaker 1: and remember, government never will tell you we don't have
Speaker 1: we we can't fix this for you. That the government
Speaker 1: won't really accept that. That's just not in their mindset.
Speaker 1: They think if they just have more control, they can
Speaker 1: fix anything. If you give the government more power, it
Speaker 1: is a belief of government that it will be able
Speaker 1: to handle whatever the problem is. And this is an
Speaker 1: enormous miscalculation of misconception. And really our entire system of
Speaker 1: government is premised to prevent that creep, right, but we've
Speaker 1: been losing that battle really for the last hundred years
Speaker 1: or so now where the federal government's is getting larger
Speaker 1: and more powerful all the time, but the federal government
Speaker 1: believes that it can fix the problem. Well, we'll hold on,
Speaker 1: let me come back and we'll talk about testing. And yes,
Speaker 1: there's all these numbers, but there are some things that
Speaker 1: they're not telling you as they're telling you the numbers.
Speaker 1: You're in the Freedom Hunt. This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show podcast. All right, So what's the truth of testing?
Speaker 1: Mid Romney was there during the briefing yesterday to clarify
Speaker 1: that when they said we've done more per capita testing.
Speaker 1: The President said it, and it was also brought up
Speaker 1: by Admiral Jerwar during his testimony that we're doing more
Speaker 1: per capita asking that Romney's like, well, we weren't doing
Speaker 1: more per capita testing at the beginning of this. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's true, but that's not what they said. Thanks to Mit.
Speaker 1: Always good to have Mit Romney way and tell us that,
Speaker 1: you know, he's he's on no one's team. He's on
Speaker 1: team Mit. And so that's the kind of loyalty you
Speaker 1: wanted a public servant, a guy who only cares about himself. Oh,
Speaker 1: I know there are others. There are lots of others.
Speaker 1: We could name them, but we don't have time for
Speaker 1: that right now. So here's here's what they're saying about
Speaker 1: testing and how essential it is. Play clip six. Rapid,
Speaker 1: extensive and widely available timely testing is essential for reopening
Speaker 1: America CDC's role in testing continues to support diagnosis and
Speaker 1: contact tracing, surveillance, and outbreak. Okay, testing is really important, right,
Speaker 1: Here's what they're not telling you. We're already We're already
Speaker 1: at a point we have excess capacity for the testing
Speaker 1: that we have in most states, meaning that people aren't
Speaker 1: getting tested all the time. And for what they're envisioning,
Speaker 1: they're looking at creating a capacity where you have tests
Speaker 1: that are so ubiquitous that they're all across the country
Speaker 1: and people will constantly be getting them. You know, what's
Speaker 1: going to have to happen. And they're not talking about
Speaker 1: this yet, but I'm telling you this is the next
Speaker 1: phase mandatory tests for all kinds of things. People aren't
Speaker 1: just going to show up and get tested for coronavirus,
Speaker 1: and you're gonna have to get tested to really know.
Speaker 1: And they've the health experts have said this. You're gonna
Speaker 1: have to get tested every every two weeks. You can
Speaker 1: get tested and you're negative, and the next day you
Speaker 1: get infected. So what is the expectation. They're talking about
Speaker 1: doing fifty million tests a month by the fall, it's
Speaker 1: one in six Americans getting tested. You know, over the
Speaker 1: course of the month, getting tested in the fall. How
Speaker 1: is this going to happen? Well, you look at the
Speaker 1: South Korea model, which I've brought up with you in
Speaker 1: other places, and there's a lot of you will get
Speaker 1: you know, you have to get tested, You will be tested. Okay,
Speaker 1: So we're going to trust the government that didn't see
Speaker 1: this pandemic coming, that essentially closed the barn door after
Speaker 1: the horse has left with the spread of the virus.
Speaker 1: Now we're going to trust them to determine how often
Speaker 1: we all get tested and what the ramifications of that
Speaker 1: will be. My friends, this is this is a mess.
Speaker 1: This is a mess, and it doesn't even have the
Speaker 1: intended If you test, you know, fifty percent of the
Speaker 1: US population, you know, in one month, there's still one
Speaker 1: hundred and sixty million people out there who could get
Speaker 1: infected and could spread this disease to other people. So
Speaker 1: what do we think that. Yeah, I'm not saying it's
Speaker 1: not help, of course, testing as a role of course,
Speaker 1: but we have let's just look at something that we
Speaker 1: can all understand. We have testing right now for the flu.
Speaker 1: And I brought this up i think yesterday on the show,
Speaker 1: and I got the flu a few years ago, and
Speaker 1: I took the test and they said, oh, yeah, you
Speaker 1: got full blown influenza. My friend, the whole thing it
Speaker 1: was very there. Okay, I had been kind of sick
Speaker 1: for about three or four days by the time I
Speaker 1: went in, and I had been around I'm sure plenty
Speaker 1: of people having no idea that I was sick even
Speaker 1: before I had any symptoms. So what's the huge Okay,
Speaker 1: so now I know that I've got the flu, which
Speaker 1: I pretty much knew anyway. Do you think that all
Speaker 1: these asymptomatic people are going to be going in to
Speaker 1: get tested? I mean the trace part of this too,
Speaker 1: This is where, oh my gosh, there's all this focus
Speaker 1: on how we're not up to where we need to
Speaker 1: be on the trace system memory. Yesterday we're talking to
Speaker 1: doctor Atlas and what he said about how the tracing.
Speaker 1: Oh here you go. Here's Senator Doug Jones harping on
Speaker 1: this one seven play it. Are you saying that you
Speaker 1: think that the federal government and or state governments are
Speaker 1: capable of doing the level of contact tracing that we
Speaker 1: will need. They are capable? Are they capable at this
Speaker 1: very moment? Absolutely not. We've got to get more money
Speaker 1: to him, we've got to figure out this plan. Doctor
Speaker 1: Redfield testified yesterday that he's with the states. I believe that.
Speaker 1: I think that the state, I know in my state,
Speaker 1: they're looking at trying to ramp up all this. We
Speaker 1: are not capable of doing that at this very moment,
Speaker 1: but I think we've got the time, We've got the
Speaker 1: opportunities to do that. We've got to get more money,
Speaker 1: we've got to get a plan. Those plans are being developed,
Speaker 1: but they need to put that urgency on those plans.
Speaker 1: I think by this summer, I think we can do that.
Speaker 1: You know, look, we've got the opportunities to learn from
Speaker 1: these lessons. We've got to seize those opportunities. Or as
Speaker 1: doctor Fauci said, there's going to be more needless suffering
Speaker 1: and more needless deaths. There is absolutely no way that
Speaker 1: this tracing army of one hundred thousand people that the
Speaker 1: lockdown consensus is pushing for is going to be formed
Speaker 1: in time. And even if it is, to think that
Speaker 1: this is going to be effective, I mean, you've got
Speaker 1: to be kidding me. More than half the people, by
Speaker 1: a lot of studies that have this are asymptomatic. So
Speaker 1: you're going to have some government employee that comes and
Speaker 1: visits with you and tells you you know, and you
Speaker 1: to tell them everyone you've been around, everyone you've been near.
Speaker 1: Then they're going to go talk to all those people.
Speaker 1: Think about how I went through a federal background investigation,
Speaker 1: which was a incredibly slow and grotesquely incompetent process that
Speaker 1: involved countless useless man hours, and that was in the
Speaker 1: just the elite echelon of trying to get a t
Speaker 1: S clearance to go in to the CIA. You really
Speaker 1: think this army of tracers is going to be efficient?
Speaker 1: What's their training? What do they know about anything? One
Speaker 1: hundred thousand people, you're going to have TSA agents, so
Speaker 1: to speak, no offense TSA. I know some of you
Speaker 1: love the show, and I appreciate you keep the plane safe,
Speaker 1: but you're going to have people who are newly minted
Speaker 1: federal employees who are going to be showing up and saying,
Speaker 1: guess what, you have to stay home for two weeks,
Speaker 1: and so does everyone your family, and so do all
Speaker 1: your coworkers under pain of fine. Oh yeah, that won't
Speaker 1: be a problem. Folks. Thanks for listening to the Bus
Speaker 1: Sesson Show podcast. Remember to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get your podcasts. It has
Speaker 1: become an article of faith that the Russians wanted Donald
Speaker 1: Trump to win the twenty sixteen election based upon an
Speaker 1: intelligence community assessment from years ago. What if that wasn't true.
Speaker 1: What if, in fact, there was contrary intelligence and it
Speaker 1: was suppressed. That's a bombshell, and it's one that has
Speaker 1: been raised by a man who knows what the heck
Speaker 1: he's talking about. What it comes to all this, Fred Flights.
Speaker 1: He is the president for the Center for Security Policy.
Speaker 1: He's a former National Security Council Chief of Staff and
Speaker 1: CIA analyst. Fred. Great to have you back, Hey, Bud,
Speaker 1: good to be here. All right, start with this. You
Speaker 1: wrote an article on I think it was Fox news
Speaker 1: dot com where you raise the possibility or you raise
Speaker 1: that your belief that John Brennan, when he was CI
Speaker 1: director may have done what when it comes to the
Speaker 1: Russian narrative, But it was a very strange intelligence community
Speaker 1: assessment that came out in early twenty seventeen that said
Speaker 1: the Russians meddled in the twenty seventeen election and did
Speaker 1: so to help Trump win. This is a very strange assessment.
Speaker 1: It didn't follow the rules. Only three agencies were involved,
Speaker 1: Only half a dozen analysts of those agencies were involved.
Speaker 1: And you and I know that when you do these assessments,
Speaker 1: you're bringing all the experts and you extensively vetted. But
Speaker 1: this one was rushed through. They didn't follow the rules.
Speaker 1: There were no dissents. It was just strange. And I've
Speaker 1: been talking about that for a long time. Well, I
Speaker 1: learned in the summer of twenty eighteen that there was
Speaker 1: a House Intelligence Community report that found that this assessment
Speaker 1: was rigged in that there was intelligence that the Russians
Speaker 1: wanted Hillary Clinton to win that John Brennan suppressed over
Speaker 1: the objections to CI analysts, and instead very weak intelligence
Speaker 1: that didn't meet CIA standards was included that the Russians
Speaker 1: wanted Trump to win. Brennan had that included, also over
Speaker 1: the objections of CI analysts. I think this goes to
Speaker 1: the larger narrative that there was really an all government
Speaker 1: effort by the Obama administration to destroy Donald Trump during
Speaker 1: the campaign, during the transition, and to destroy his presidency
Speaker 1: by weaponizing intelligence. This was just a piece of that.
Speaker 1: I mean, let's just put on our CIA hats for
Speaker 1: a second here, Fred, and think about if you're Vladimir
Speaker 1: Putin Hillary Clinton. The Democrats traditionally have been very malleable,
Speaker 1: very willing to play ball, did not view. I mean,
Speaker 1: you look at what Obama said tomit Romney about how
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty call they want their foreign policy back, did
Speaker 1: not view. Russia only became a problem two Democrats after
Speaker 1: Hillary lost the election. So if we just were to
Speaker 1: work backwards here, we'd say, hold on, why would it
Speaker 1: be so clear that Putin would want Trump to win?
Speaker 1: You would only believe that if you also believed all
Speaker 1: of the now entirely discredited nonsense, including you know, the
Speaker 1: Pea tape and the dossier and all this craziness which
Speaker 1: we now know was totally fabricated. If you were working
Speaker 1: backwards and you look at this from a more reasonable
Speaker 1: perspective on foreign policy, there's at least an argument that
Speaker 1: you would think that Vladimir Putin would have wanted Hillary
Speaker 1: to win. So why wouldn't anyone come to that conclusion?
Speaker 1: I think in the intelligence communities is an interesting question
Speaker 1: in and of itself. Well, the president's critics have tried
Speaker 1: to said, well, the Russians didn't like Hillary Clinton. I
Speaker 1: think that's true, but they walked all over her, and
Speaker 1: they walked all over Barack Obama and the House and
Speaker 1: tells the Comunity staffers said they wanted her to win
Speaker 1: because she was a known quantity, and they didn't want
Speaker 1: Donald Trump to win, accorded to the same staffers, because
Speaker 1: he was an unknown quantity and they were worried he
Speaker 1: was going to bring anti Russian hawks into his administration.
Speaker 1: So it's possible for the Russians not to like Hillary.
Speaker 1: But still they wanted her to win because they knew
Speaker 1: they could walk all over just like they did when
Speaker 1: she was Second of State. Now, Fred, we're speaking of
Speaker 1: Fred Flights. He's the president for the Center for Security Policy,
Speaker 1: former NSC, former CIA. Talk to me about the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry the Obama himself role in what we've seen here,
Speaker 1: given given this meeting that happened in January and the
Speaker 1: request to be kept in the loop about everything going on,
Speaker 1: and then the Susan Rice memo saying written to herself
Speaker 1: on her last I think her last hours in her role,
Speaker 1: send herself an email saying, oh, we want to make
Speaker 1: sure everything's by the book, why should we believe? Why
Speaker 1: should we believe that Barack Obama was not personally involved
Speaker 1: in the targeting of General Flynn? For example, given what
Speaker 1: we know well, Susan Rice wrote an email to herself
Speaker 1: about a January fifth meeting that she had the President
Speaker 1: Obama and Clapper was in there, and Komey and Sally said.
Speaker 1: During the meeting, Obama said, do we have to turn
Speaker 1: over everything to the income Trump administration on Russia? This
Speaker 1: was really an appalling thing for a president to say,
Speaker 1: because there's a very important principle of our country called
Speaker 1: a peaceful transfer of power. The outgoing administration fully cooperates
Speaker 1: with the incoming one. They turn over the keys of
Speaker 1: the officers. They tell them about foreign policy initiations that
Speaker 1: they're launched in, they tell them about intelligence has been collected.
Speaker 1: The idea that the outgoing administration wanted to with not
Speaker 1: just withhold intelligence that they had collected, but to task
Speaker 1: career officers like Komey and Saliates to continue to investigate
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and his staff after the left office. It
Speaker 1: is such an appalling violation of this important principle of
Speaker 1: our country. This is what distinguishes us for ten pot dictatorships.
Speaker 1: When the election is over, the losing party submits to
Speaker 1: the will of the American people and cooperates and wishes
Speaker 1: the next administration well Instead. Barack Obama clearly, by that
Speaker 1: question in that January fifth meeting, directed his staff to
Speaker 1: withhold information and to continue to undermine Trump even after
Speaker 1: inauguration day. Now there's the unmasking controversy that has gotten
Speaker 1: a little bit more attention, in part because there have
Speaker 1: been these reports that the Acting Director of National Intelligence,
Speaker 1: Richard Grinnell, has been saying, Look, I'm going to release
Speaker 1: a list of the senior administration officials now and just
Speaker 1: to review for everybody. I think this audience knows as
Speaker 1: quite well. But unmasking refers to getting information about what
Speaker 1: had been covered up US personnel names, essentially in surveillance intercepts.
Speaker 1: You unmask him, it means, well, instead of US person
Speaker 1: number one, it's Fred Flights, right, instead of US person
Speaker 1: number two, it's Buck Sexton, and they can find out
Speaker 1: who the person is having in the conversation. That's a
Speaker 1: very sensitive tool to use because you're talking now about
Speaker 1: surveillance on American citizens. Fred Oh, Where does this unmasking
Speaker 1: issue stand what's Grinnell's position and why does it seem
Speaker 1: like it's been held up. I'm not sure why it's
Speaker 1: been held up, but it's an important principle that in
Speaker 1: foreign intelligence reports, the names of Americans are redacted because
Speaker 1: we're not supposed to collect against them. I've been involved
Speaker 1: in unmasking. It's very unusual to have to be a
Speaker 1: very good reason to do it. Now. Democrats run around saying, oh,
Speaker 1: it's done all the time. It's not done all the time.
Speaker 1: I was John Bolten's chief of staff for four years.
Speaker 1: He made ten such requests. Deputy Secretary of Armatage in
Speaker 1: four years made four, but Samantha Power, Obama's ambassador to
Speaker 1: the UN, made two hundred and sixty requests, most of
Speaker 1: them in late twenty sixteen. Buck, I don't understand why
Speaker 1: the ambassador to the UN would need so many requests,
Speaker 1: reportedly of Trump campaign officials. I also don't understand why
Speaker 1: the names of these requesters hasn't been made public. It's
Speaker 1: not sensitive. I want to know specifically who asked reports
Speaker 1: massed Michael flot to be damasked, and what was the
Speaker 1: reason that they did it. I think we need to
Speaker 1: know that it's pretty clear it was an effort to
Speaker 1: destroy Flynn as part of their effort to destroy Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: And on this and look at it for me, and
Speaker 1: we're speaking to Fred Flights, the president for the Center
Speaker 1: for Security Policy x NSC and CIA Fred on this
Speaker 1: issue of basic transparency. Are we going to get this
Speaker 1: list of the maskers? And are the unmaskers rather? And
Speaker 1: you know what the number of requests was it It It
Speaker 1: seems to me like this is executive branch information or
Speaker 1: how can they stop us from knowing if we go
Speaker 1: through proper procedures. I mean, D and I Cornell seems
Speaker 1: to want to get it out there as of at
Speaker 1: least yesterday I saw there's some kind of a hold up.
Speaker 1: Are you confident we're going to find out? Because yeah,
Speaker 1: what you just said Semantha Power unm maaster, there's basically
Speaker 1: zero reason for her to be doing this. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, you and I have both seen a lot
Speaker 1: of class wider reports. I remember when we would talk
Speaker 1: about anything that would touch on us personnel. They're like,
Speaker 1: if you abuse any of this and we find out
Speaker 1: you messed around, you're out and you're going to leave
Speaker 1: in handcuffs. And that was the attitude. But with these
Speaker 1: Obama administration officials, let's say, you know whatever, it's our power,
Speaker 1: it's our prerogative. Are we going to find out? Well?
Speaker 1: I have not discussed this with mister Grenell. He sent
Speaker 1: the list of the requesters of the unmasking to the
Speaker 1: Justice Department. The Justice Department said, it's not an our
Speaker 1: authority to demask them. Now, my understanding is Burnell has
Speaker 1: the highest authority to demask or to declass by information
Speaker 1: aside from the President, that he can release it. I
Speaker 1: wonder whether maybe Gurnell sent this to the Justice Department
Speaker 1: so to make sure that his actual would not interfew
Speaker 1: with John Dorham's investigation of misconduct around the election. But
Speaker 1: the president can demask, I mean, can reveal these names immediately,
Speaker 1: they're not classified. It's under his purview, or he can
Speaker 1: direct Gronell to do it. There's there's there's no lawsuit,
Speaker 1: there's no right of these people to withhold this information. Yes,
Speaker 1: and they should should be fine with it. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is you know, the other problem here is there's
Speaker 1: there's no reason to believe that the people that were
Speaker 1: requesting these unmaskings, we're not askings, you know, we're asking
Speaker 1: how many times and who were the officials who asked
Speaker 1: for the unmasking? That should be information. I mean you
Speaker 1: just said, you know, Bolton asked for ten times. That
Speaker 1: doesn't set up any red flags, right. But if we
Speaker 1: found out that Bolton, before a Democrat was about to
Speaker 1: be president, and all of a sudden asked for you know,
Speaker 1: three or four hundred unmaskings in the last weeks that
Speaker 1: he was in the job, and there was an effort
Speaker 1: to destroy a Democrat official who you know, then people
Speaker 1: would want to know what's going on. So it seems
Speaker 1: pretty clear here that they're playing games. Are you just
Speaker 1: before before we let you go, Fred, are you confident
Speaker 1: in the look I've been very cynical about On the
Speaker 1: one hand, I've been I've known how bad a lot
Speaker 1: of the deep state as you have, too bad a
Speaker 1: lot of the deep state machinations have been, and the
Speaker 1: lies about the dossier and all this other stuff, which
Speaker 1: we've now we've been proven right, So high five you
Speaker 1: and me and along with any others. But we've been
Speaker 1: proven right. Okay. I've also said, don't expect any of
Speaker 1: these people to go to prison or even face criminal charges.
Speaker 1: So far, I've been right on that too. I don't
Speaker 1: feel good saying that, but I've been right. Do you
Speaker 1: think the Durham probe, if they've got the goods, would
Speaker 1: actually put the cuffs on somebody like a Clapper, A Brennan, etc.
Speaker 1: Because I think the answers now. I'm sort of concerned
Speaker 1: that will never happen. But I'm holding out hope that
Speaker 1: Michael Flynn will be able to sue for damages for
Speaker 1: this prosecution to him, I think was completely groundless, manufactured
Speaker 1: by multiple Obama officials. That that isn't full justice. But
Speaker 1: I think we'd all feel pretty good if he got
Speaker 1: back his legal fees and some fees for the emotional
Speaker 1: damage to discress he was put through by this fraudulent investigation. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he might be able to do a Bivens action, I
Speaker 1: think is what is called against for civil rights violations
Speaker 1: from the federal government. Those are very tough to win.
Speaker 1: So we'll have to see Fred Flights everybody, President of
Speaker 1: the Center for Security Policy, former NEC and CIA. Fred
Speaker 1: always appreciate it. Man, come back soon. Thanks, You're in
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hunt. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast team.
Speaker 1: If you recall last week, I said that we had
Speaker 1: found out finally the truth of the ambush and the
Speaker 1: effort to destroy General Flynn. Now here we are, and
Speaker 1: I mentioned to you that we got to see what
Speaker 1: the judge does because some of my savvier legal eagle
Speaker 1: friends and minds out there had had brought up to
Speaker 1: me behind you know, behind closed doors or on various
Speaker 1: communications that we had. You don't know until this judge
Speaker 1: actually says, okay, we're done here. You know, the case
Speaker 1: is dismissed, and we got a problem because Judge Sullivan,
Speaker 1: Judge emmetts Van has decided. This happened yesterday, and people
Speaker 1: are stunned by this. I was not stunned, as you know.
Speaker 1: I was saying, Okay, we gotta wait to see what
Speaker 1: the judge does. You go back, you check the transcript
Speaker 1: last week. I was like, we gotta see what this
Speaker 1: judge does. It's got can be a little crazy sometimes.
Speaker 1: And now he's allowing third parties to submit amicist curier briefs,
Speaker 1: friend of the court briefs to allow effectively to allow
Speaker 1: all these left wing interests and these groups that hate
Speaker 1: Flynn to you know, sound off on how awful he
Speaker 1: is and how this is the wrong decision. What do
Speaker 1: third parties have? Who the heck? Who the blank cares
Speaker 1: what some other person thinks of the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: dropping the case against General Flynn. Why is that relevant?
Speaker 1: I mean, now, the judge can do this. Obviously he
Speaker 1: is doing it. But what this shows us and know
Speaker 1: usually this only happens in civil cases, and it's to
Speaker 1: give buddy the opportunity. It's to give outside interests the
Speaker 1: opportunity to have their voices heard in a trial that
Speaker 1: maybe touches on, you know, issues that are sweeping and
Speaker 1: that a lot of people have a stake in this
Speaker 1: is This is not a good indicator, my friends. This
Speaker 1: is looking like he's giving a voice to left wing
Speaker 1: anti Flynn activists so that then he'll have backing for
Speaker 1: when he says, yeah, I don't care that the deal
Speaker 1: and he can do this. He can do this, Judge Sullivan.
Speaker 1: He can say I don't care that the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice has said this case never should have been prosecuted
Speaker 1: and we do not wish to continue its prosecution. Here's
Speaker 1: the problem. He already Flynn, as we know, already pleaded
Speaker 1: guilty because they stacked the deck. They essentially falsified evidence.
Speaker 1: Against him. They changed the FBI three zero two, and
Speaker 1: now the judge could just say, Okay, guess what doj
Speaker 1: I don't need you to prosecute this case anymore. I
Speaker 1: already have a guilty defend didn't who has pleaded guilty,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to sentence him. And that means he's
Speaker 1: the felony stays on his record, and you know, maybe
Speaker 1: he sends him to prison for a few weeks. I mean,
Speaker 1: the judge could theoretically send m to prison all the
Speaker 1: way up to the top of the guidelines, which I
Speaker 1: think would be a couple of years. But if he
Speaker 1: did that, and maybe you will if you did that,
Speaker 1: and then we I mean, we know this guy's completely
Speaker 1: out of his mind. There was cooperation with between Flynn
Speaker 1: and the Muller probe, so you would think that he
Speaker 1: was facing zero jail time. This was an issue of
Speaker 1: the man's honor, his integrity, getting back his reputation, the
Speaker 1: financial and psychological damage done to him. These deep state judges.
Speaker 1: I mean, you go into Washington, DC, you know the
Speaker 1: DC circuit. You got a bunch of Obama appointees. This
Speaker 1: guy's domn Obama pointee, but you got on a bunch
Speaker 1: of Obama appointees. You have a far left jury pool.
Speaker 1: They've all been watching too much of the you know,
Speaker 1: the idiot show on MSNBC and CNN, especially on Russia
Speaker 1: collusion stuff, and there's no accountability. Really, so a judge,
Speaker 1: I mean, this judge, If this judge does do what
Speaker 1: I think he may. In fact, do my friends think
Speaker 1: about this, that we would have gotten to the point
Speaker 1: where the evidence was so overwhelming of the entrapment and
Speaker 1: the setup of the Trump National Security advisor General Flynn
Speaker 1: that the Department of Justice had a career officials say
Speaker 1: even after a guilty plea, we're sorry, we messed up.
Speaker 1: We withdraw our case, and a deep state judge, activist
Speaker 1: judge decides that doesn't matter. He still he still thinks
Speaker 1: that the person should go to prison or should be ruined.
Speaker 1: Come on, this is this is absurd, But this is
Speaker 1: what we are up against. Now you're seeing it. He
Speaker 1: may force the president to pardon a in this It
Speaker 1: would be a convicted you know, a convicted felon. That's
Speaker 1: what he will be if the judge allows it to be.
Speaker 1: So that the judge's pronouncement is, you know, this is
Speaker 1: what happened, and he will. He will force the President
Speaker 1: United States to pardon Flynn. You know what that does.
Speaker 1: Then the left turns around and says, ce justice was served.
Speaker 1: It's only the president who had to bail him out,
Speaker 1: one of his political cronies. They'll forget all about the
Speaker 1: new information. They'll forget all about the do we get
Speaker 1: Flynn a lie or do we just get him fired?
Speaker 1: That's all you have to know here. The FBI never
Speaker 1: has a motivation to set up a meeting with you
Speaker 1: so they can get you fired from your job. That's
Speaker 1: not a criminal matter, that's not a criminal sanction. We
Speaker 1: don't want you to be in this position of authority anymore,
Speaker 1: so we're gonna try to mess you up. That's like
Speaker 1: a high school prank, but conducted by the most powerful
Speaker 1: law enforcement agency in the country, dudes with guns who
Speaker 1: can lock you up in prison and ruin your life.
Speaker 1: This judge is going to allow that to happen, hasn't
Speaker 1: we We don't know yet, but it's looking more and
Speaker 1: more like, yeah, yeah, he thinks that's justice. Disgusting. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to The Bus Sesson Show podcast. Remember to
Speaker 1: subscribe on Apple podcast. The iHeart radio app or wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. I wanted to talk for a
Speaker 1: moment about something that occurred on Sunday's edition of Meet
Speaker 1: the Press. During the program, we enter sound bite from
Speaker 1: a CBS News interview with the Attorney General Bill Barr.
Speaker 1: In the bite that we aired and commented on, mister
Speaker 1: Barr was asked how he thinks the history of his
Speaker 1: decision to end the prosecution of the former National Security
Speaker 1: Advisor Michael Flynn will be ready. Mister Barr answered, quote,
Speaker 1: history is written by the winner, so it largely depends
Speaker 1: on who's writing the history and the full version of
Speaker 1: the interview and transcript. He went on to say, but
Speaker 1: I think a fair history would say that it was
Speaker 1: a good decision because it upheld the rule of law. Now,
Speaker 1: we did not edit that out. That was not our edit.
Speaker 1: We didn't include it because we only saw the shorter
Speaker 1: of two clips at CBS did air. We should have
Speaker 1: looked at both and checked for a full transcript, a
Speaker 1: mistake that I wish we hadn't made, and one that
Speaker 1: I wish I hadn't made. The second part of the
Speaker 1: Attorney General's answer would have put it in the proper
Speaker 1: context and had I seen that part of the interview,
Speaker 1: I would not have framed the conversation the way I did,
Speaker 1: and I obviously am very sorry for that mistake. We
Speaker 1: strive to do better going forward. Chuck Todd with a
Speaker 1: full on I was wrong, but like kind of it
Speaker 1: was CBS's fault for putting out the shortened clip. But
Speaker 1: do we buy that one? And we have so many
Speaker 1: other things to talk about. With our buddy David Harsani,
Speaker 1: who joined us now from National Review, we'll also talk
Speaker 1: about his latest excellent piece there David Chuck Todd saying, yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: we got this wrong, but you know, CBS put out
Speaker 1: a short clip and we just went on that. I know,
Speaker 1: I actually, I actually don't think this was an error.
Speaker 1: I think they just thought they'd get away with this
Speaker 1: because it's so egregious and so clear that there's just
Speaker 1: I don't know, what do you think? Yeah, I tend
Speaker 1: to think that he did that on purpose to make
Speaker 1: a point that was something that a lot of the
Speaker 1: media was talking about at the time. But you know,
Speaker 1: the problem here, I think is that there's never any
Speaker 1: consequence for this sort of thing. I'm saying, Chuck Todd
Speaker 1: should be fired. But I mean, you know, in the
Speaker 1: old days, you are a newspaper and you cut a
Speaker 1: quote in a way to make someone seem like they're
Speaker 1: saying something they're not, there would be some kind of
Speaker 1: consequence I think for it. Even today, I saw the
Speaker 1: New York Times had a quote from Jared Kushner where
Speaker 1: he says, you know, I'm you know that the elections
Speaker 1: will be delayed. But when you look at the whole
Speaker 1: quote later on, it actually says he says I am
Speaker 1: not in charge of that, you know, which is an
Speaker 1: important part of the statement which was cut out. So
Speaker 1: then you know Hillary's repeating it. It It becomes like embedded
Speaker 1: in the conversation that we're having. Tons of people believe
Speaker 1: it and we just move on. Every time it happens
Speaker 1: every week, at least once a week, where you have
Speaker 1: someone mangling a quote, it's got to be on purpose
Speaker 1: because it always views in the same exact direction. It's
Speaker 1: just as it's impossible that they're always getting things wrong
Speaker 1: in the same direction all the time for a year
Speaker 1: after year. It's it's not plausible. Now, we were just
Speaker 1: talking before you came out about the judge Sullivan who
Speaker 1: looks like he's going to give the opportunity for amicus
Speaker 1: briefs to be filed out. What's gone on here with
Speaker 1: the DOJ dropping charges against General Flynn. I was worried
Speaker 1: about this last week. I brought it up on the
Speaker 1: show so the audience would be prepared for the possibility
Speaker 1: of something weird happening here. I didn't know how bad
Speaker 1: it would get. There is the possibility that he still
Speaker 1: sentences Flynn as if the DOJ it doesn't matter. I mean,
Speaker 1: he could. I've discussed this with a former DJ friend
Speaker 1: of mine. That is absolutely something that could go on here. Somehow,
Speaker 1: it looks like people are just planning to move past
Speaker 1: the targeting I mean on the left and the meeting
Speaker 1: in particular, to move past the targeting of Flynn and
Speaker 1: the trove of new information that I think everyone would
Speaker 1: have to agree is really relevant about what happened here.
Speaker 1: I mean, you wrote a piece Obama Gate is not
Speaker 1: a conspiracy theory there, and you say that there's more.
Speaker 1: This is up on National Review right now. There's more
Speaker 1: evidence for the targeting of Flynn and for Obama Gate,
Speaker 1: meaning Obama being directly involved in this in some capacity,
Speaker 1: than there ever was for Russia collusion. But we're just
Speaker 1: the media just wants to move passes. I mean, Brian Stelter,
Speaker 1: who's a joke in a clown, was saying that the
Speaker 1: right is obsessed with this story. Now it's so hard
Speaker 1: to even push back against what they're doing because it's gaslighting.
Speaker 1: You know, they pretend that it's a conspiracy theory, even
Speaker 1: though you ask them a slew of questions. There's a
Speaker 1: ton of evidence, a ton fies of a warrant applications
Speaker 1: over ninety percent of them in this case had fraudulent
Speaker 1: evidence and were riddled with errors errors, and you have,
Speaker 1: you know, tons of stuff that we're learning about Adam
Speaker 1: Schiff and how he lied about having evidence of collusion
Speaker 1: and so on. I mean, there's so much, and they
Speaker 1: never answer any of those specific questions. They just quickly
Speaker 1: jumped to some you know, over the top comment the
Speaker 1: Trump made, or you know, some exaggeration he made, and
Speaker 1: then sort of revolve their argument around that and ignore
Speaker 1: the massive evidence we have that something wrong had happened here.
Speaker 1: So it's difficult to push back against it. But it
Speaker 1: is not a conspiracy theory. Perhaps it's you know, perhaps
Speaker 1: Obama and I mentioned this in my peace. You know,
Speaker 1: people jumped all over. Perhaps there's no specific crime that
Speaker 1: Obama you know, engaged in that we're going to prosecute
Speaker 1: him for. I think you shouldn't think that. People shouldn't
Speaker 1: think that's going to happen. Clearly he knew what was
Speaker 1: going on, and clearly there are abuses of power here.
Speaker 1: And it matters because Joe Biden and a ton of
Speaker 1: the people involved in that are trying to take power back, right,
Speaker 1: and they used that investigation to undermine the administration here.
Speaker 1: It's an abuse of power. Yeah. And if you had
Speaker 1: heard about a European country, for example, where during the
Speaker 1: what's supposed to be the peaceful transition of power, you know,
Speaker 1: if in the UK, one outgoing prime minister had had
Speaker 1: you know, the head of m I six and m
Speaker 1: I five in a room and said, hey, let's let's
Speaker 1: pull all the phone calls and emails of the top
Speaker 1: natural security advisor to the incoming prime minister and the
Speaker 1: incoming government. Now they have a different system out of
Speaker 1: the transition doesn't work. But you know, you know what
Speaker 1: I'm saying, we would all look on this with horror.
Speaker 1: We would say, oh my gosh, what's going on in
Speaker 1: that country. I mean, that's really scary stuff here we're
Speaker 1: supposed to move past. You know, when you put it
Speaker 1: in very basic terms, I think it's it's helpful. The
Speaker 1: Obama administration elicitly spied on the Trump campaign, senior Trump officials.
Speaker 1: They lied, they covered it up, and then they actually
Speaker 1: used the lies to target people. That that is a fact.
Speaker 1: Now that did happen. No one seems to care, though
Speaker 1: on the left, its worst than that. They used concocted evidence,
Speaker 1: paid for by the Democratic Party to launch this investigation.
Speaker 1: They withheld contrary evidence in their warrants when their initial
Speaker 1: warrants on people within the Trump War of it. They
Speaker 1: then some of the agents said explicitly said that it
Speaker 1: was an insurance policy in case he was elected. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's tons of evidence. And let me just quickly say
Speaker 1: this too. Everyone's always like, you know, they'll call something
Speaker 1: a conspiracy theory because it's not plausible within their worldview,
Speaker 1: Like Obama worked tan suit. That's the worst thing you
Speaker 1: could possibly have done. Obama spied on the American people
Speaker 1: and his his you know, Clapper light about it in Congress.
Speaker 1: Brennan spied the Congress they spied on Iran deal, you
Speaker 1: know opponents, They spied on AP journalists, they spied on
Speaker 1: a Fox News journalists. They were they normalized and weaponized
Speaker 1: spying for political reasons long before they did this. Why
Speaker 1: does anyone believe that they wouldn't do this when they
Speaker 1: were doing this kind of thing for years. Well, and
Speaker 1: I look, I think a big part of it is
Speaker 1: that they also knew that. And I mean one of
Speaker 1: the biggest jokes of the mainstream media is that they
Speaker 1: you know, they would on some of these issues, they
Speaker 1: would hold Obama accountable writing one kind of milk toast
Speaker 1: editorial or having like fake Tapper over at t and
Speaker 1: be like this raises troubling questions. That's what they do.
Speaker 1: What a democrat essentially shreds the constitution. When Trump theoretically
Speaker 1: could do something, they're calling it fascism and saying that
Speaker 1: he should be kicked out of office through impeachment. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's the I mean, journalists are saying this. That's the difference.
Speaker 1: So there's no accountability Trump had done or the Trump
Speaker 1: at administration had done any of the things I just
Speaker 1: mentioned in relation to spying, especially on journalists. You know,
Speaker 1: they would have melted down. It would it would be
Speaker 1: never ending and rightfully, so you know that's the thing.
Speaker 1: It's the same thing with the Biden sexual assault allegations.
Speaker 1: It's not that you're acting wrong, now you know how
Speaker 1: you're covering these things. Maybe it's that you don't do
Speaker 1: you don't cover the other people with the same tenacity,
Speaker 1: and you don't care. And that's the problem. And I'll
Speaker 1: give you a good example of why it's a problem.
Speaker 1: David fromm who's you know, everyone knows David from is
Speaker 1: He He says, this whole conspiracy theory about Obama Gaate
Speaker 1: doesn't matter because no one is covering it and no
Speaker 1: one cares. So you see, they can cover the Russia
Speaker 1: collusion thing that turned out to be. And I think
Speaker 1: hoax is too light a word for what it is.
Speaker 1: It's a dangerous conspiracy to tried to undermine the transition
Speaker 1: and the legitimacy of a presidency. But then when we
Speaker 1: prove that it's it's, you know, this corrupt enterprise, we
Speaker 1: don't care because no one pays attention. Well, no one
Speaker 1: pays attention because you're not covering it. That's why no
Speaker 1: one's paying attention. So the media matters and how they
Speaker 1: cover things I think really matter. And this is a
Speaker 1: good example of why we're speaking to David Harsani, Senior
Speaker 1: International Review. He's got a great piece Obama Gate is
Speaker 1: not a conspiracy theory up on National Review dot com. Now, David,
Speaker 1: I want to I want to transition to something that
Speaker 1: i've I've sort of talked you about offline. I have
Speaker 1: tried to be slow because I do think and I
Speaker 1: was especially somebody here in New York and you know,
Speaker 1: I've got you know, relatives, they're in the high risk
Speaker 1: age group. And you know, in the early weeks of this, well,
Speaker 1: from the information we had, it looked like this was
Speaker 1: going to be It looked like it was going to
Speaker 1: be nineteen eighteen in a sense with the with the
Speaker 1: Spanish influenza, We're going to have a three to four
Speaker 1: percent fatality rate, which people thought talk about fifty million
Speaker 1: dead from the Spanish flu It was a five percent
Speaker 1: fatality rate. Actually mean, that's what it was, and that
Speaker 1: gets you to fifty million dead around the world at
Speaker 1: that time when they had a much smaller population to
Speaker 1: be much higher. Now it turns out it's much much
Speaker 1: less than that, and so you would think that there'd
Speaker 1: be a ratcheting down of concern and also an elevation
Speaker 1: of the economic concerns. This is just a way of saying,
Speaker 1: I'm now at the point where I think that most
Speaker 1: of the opposition to reopen and to individual and economic
Speaker 1: freedoms has become political. It's actually not fear based. Where
Speaker 1: are you on the spectrum and what's changing your mind
Speaker 1: one way or the other about this? Well, look when
Speaker 1: you see folks writing pieces about how, you know, Republican
Speaker 1: governors want to kill their population, but then they conveniently
Speaker 1: leave out Colorado or places in California, you know, mayors,
Speaker 1: things like that, and just focus on Georgia or someplace,
Speaker 1: you know, some red place, And obviously they're just using this,
Speaker 1: you know, for politics. And I think that I don't
Speaker 1: think it was a hoax that this was coming and
Speaker 1: people were legitimately scared, and they legitimately tried to close
Speaker 1: down and flatten the curve and all that stuff. I
Speaker 1: think it was legitimate. But I think since then a
Speaker 1: lot of partisans believe that they need to keep the
Speaker 1: economy closed until November to win the election. And that's
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, I think there are a bunch
Speaker 1: of people like that. And because of how partisan everything is,
Speaker 1: you know, you can't really have a debate about economic
Speaker 1: trade offs and the trade offs and lives and all
Speaker 1: of a sudden if you you know, if one person
Speaker 1: is dying, we can't open it up. It's such an
Speaker 1: inane position to take that we don't take for any
Speaker 1: other thing we do in life. It's like, I wonder, though,
Speaker 1: like as you mentioned, individual freedom, like what number of
Speaker 1: deaths allows and powers of governor to just buy fiat
Speaker 1: make make decrees without government proper government channels. Because sixty
Speaker 1: thousand people dive the flu, I'm not saying this is
Speaker 1: like the flu, but why wouldn't they be able to
Speaker 1: save those lives as well in the same exact way.
Speaker 1: In fact, if there's twenty thousand dead, why why do
Speaker 1: you want them to die? It's the argument doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1: It's too wide open. So um, here's my position is that, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm against any kind of course of effort
Speaker 1: by government to tell people how to act and to
Speaker 1: limit their movement. I personally pretty much follow all the
Speaker 1: roles because I'm kind of a coward. But um, for
Speaker 1: other reasons as well. But I just don't see why
Speaker 1: the Maryland governor where I live can tell me that
Speaker 1: I can't go shopping. So but see, here's here's here's
Speaker 1: the point. And I appreciate that you admit that you're
Speaker 1: taking you know, you're taking those personal precautions and so
Speaker 1: you're not telling But you know, I think people that
Speaker 1: are advocating and I would assume you're finding yourself in
Speaker 1: this group too. It's that if you want to continue
Speaker 1: to take individual precautions for yourself, No one's saying don't
Speaker 1: do that. What people like me are opposed to is
Speaker 1: you know someone recently, I just saw this today on
Speaker 1: social media. A couple of guys like got together, some
Speaker 1: bikers got together to have some drinks somewhere or something,
Speaker 1: and twenty police cars show up and are like, you
Speaker 1: better break or we're going to rescue because you're breaking
Speaker 1: our COVID ordinance. That's a problem. I I mean not
Speaker 1: to get too into it, but you know, I have
Speaker 1: someone in my family as them, you know, compromise or
Speaker 1: I want to keep them away from this or even
Speaker 1: the flu or anything like that, you know, so I
Speaker 1: do my best to do that. That's a personal decision.
Speaker 1: There's a zero reason why the parks here are closed. Right,
Speaker 1: There's zero reason why a beach should be closed. There's
Speaker 1: zero reason why the government should be able to tell
Speaker 1: a bunch of bikers not to get together and have
Speaker 1: a Beer's just know what constitution doesn't say except if
Speaker 1: things are you know, some people are dying from a virus. Well,
Speaker 1: I think I take it serious. Yeah, well, ultimately, ultimately
Speaker 1: I also view this as if the government can say
Speaker 1: your actions could theoretically have a negative health consequence. Er
Speaker 1: I mean when I mean your actions, you are normal
Speaker 1: day to day actions, just you being a human being
Speaker 1: who's going about your life, can have negative consequences for
Speaker 1: somebody else. And they can tell you that, you know,
Speaker 1: you can't open your business. How far are we from
Speaker 1: China where they say no, you cannot leave your home,
Speaker 1: you cannot leave, you cannot go outside, and if you do,
Speaker 1: we will either find you or imprison you. Don't. I
Speaker 1: don't see how there's a where's the where's the check
Speaker 1: on that authority? I don't see where it is. I
Speaker 1: think they could declare that and some people say okay. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think some people would say okay, But I think
Speaker 1: it's also important to remember that in general, I stay
Speaker 1: home despite the rules. You know that the governor telling
Speaker 1: me I have to, I don't do it because of that.
Speaker 1: I think most Americans would act in ways that are responsible,
Speaker 1: you know, considering the information they have, without government telling
Speaker 1: them to do it. And I think that's what happened
Speaker 1: initially in Florida and other places. People locked down because
Speaker 1: you know, they took it seriously. But as I'm sure
Speaker 1: you've mentioned many times, you know, this was about flattening
Speaker 1: the curve, and we've done that clearly, so I don't understand,
Speaker 1: you know, the argument changed while we've been locked down,
Speaker 1: and we should be allowed to be upset by that
Speaker 1: by them. We should be allowed to note that and say,
Speaker 1: hold on a second. Yeah, the point was we didn't
Speaker 1: want to overwhelm hospitals is a very decent point to make,
Speaker 1: and New York really suffered and there was a potential
Speaker 1: of that happening. But you have other places, your hospitals
Speaker 1: going out of business, en firing people because no one's
Speaker 1: showing up for the other ailments that they have. Obviously,
Speaker 1: there's been a spike in in people calling suicide lines
Speaker 1: things like that. There are other costs, but we're not
Speaker 1: allowed to talk about those things, and that makes me
Speaker 1: suspect that it's because there are underlying partisan reasons they
Speaker 1: don't want us to talk about it. David Arsani, everybody
Speaker 1: check them out at Nashville. I'm sorry, go ahead, David.
Speaker 1: I don't know if we're done. I don't want to team. No, no,
Speaker 1: you got we got another minute. Go ahead. I was
Speaker 1: just gonna say, I mean, I think that people protesting
Speaker 1: and stuff like that reflects well on American life and
Speaker 1: Americans in general that they don't just meekly listen to
Speaker 1: the state and you know, follow all those orders that
Speaker 1: are you know, to me, seem unconstitutional in some sense.
Speaker 1: But yeah, all right. David Arsani of Natural Review. David,
Speaker 1: always great to see you man. Thanks for your time
Speaker 1: any time. Thanks for having me. You're in the Freedom
Speaker 1: High This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Just when
Speaker 1: you thought CNN couldn't get any more ridiculous, they up
Speaker 1: their game and get more horrible. It's amazing what they're
Speaker 1: able to do. Really, It's like they sit around in
Speaker 1: a room thinking, how can we be a bigger fake
Speaker 1: news network and more awful in what we do? The
Speaker 1: decisions we make the coverage we have. CNN has decided
Speaker 1: that they are having an expert panel come together on coronavirus.
Speaker 1: And guess who they're including in their expert panel. Seventeen
Speaker 1: year old Greta Thunberg. That's right. Remember, how dare you
Speaker 1: remember Greta Thunberg. She is an expert in nothing, she
Speaker 1: is seventeen years old. But CNN, while they're lecturing everybody
Speaker 1: about science and expertise all the time, CNN is putting
Speaker 1: her on a televised panel of corona virus experts. These
Speaker 1: CNN morons are beyond parody. They really are. I can't
Speaker 1: even think of a effective ways to mock them anymore.
Speaker 1: They debase themselves so much more than I ever could.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to The bus Essence Show podcasts. Remember
Speaker 1: to subscribe on Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. Collectively, we already spent about in
Speaker 1: the process of spending about two point eight trillion dollars,
Speaker 1: we now have a debt the size of our economy.
Speaker 1: So I have said, and the President has said as well,
Speaker 1: that we need to take a pause here and take
Speaker 1: a looking what we've done. See what's working, see what isn't,
Speaker 1: and also begin to encourage the governors around the country
Speaker 1: who have the decision making ability to begin to open
Speaker 1: up the economy. Gotta stop spending money. That's a Mitch
Speaker 1: Mcconnought's a cocaine Mitch way of saying, look, we got
Speaker 1: we gotta take a breather here, guys. We can't just
Speaker 1: be throwing trillions out Even the US federal government can't
Speaker 1: just be thrown and trillions out the window like they're
Speaker 1: you know, candy corns or M and M's or something. So,
Speaker 1: by the way, producer Mark, what are the best of
Speaker 1: all eminem flavors that are out there? What is number one? Oh?
Speaker 1: That's tough. Um, definitely, I mean regular is the goat
Speaker 1: the greatest of all time. I do like the caramel
Speaker 1: and I saw some sort of fudge filled one recently
Speaker 1: I discovered recently for the holidays, I discovered hazelnut Eminem's,
Speaker 1: and let me tell you, they are fantastic. They weren't
Speaker 1: as good as I wanted them to me. I still
Speaker 1: like them. I wanted them to be filled with nutella. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but they weren't. I find peanut Eminem's very disappointing. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm not a big peanut. Peanut, butter and butter, amazing peanut.
Speaker 1: It's not worth it. It's not worth it. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm not into it, not having it. So Mitch McConnell saying,
Speaker 1: no more M and m's for you, America, or at
Speaker 1: least we got to stop throwing M and m's. We
Speaker 1: gotta stop doing this. We can't keep showering every problem
Speaker 1: with money when our is working at a fraction of
Speaker 1: its normal capacity. I mean, this would be bad to
Speaker 1: be spending at this level even if the economy was
Speaker 1: really good. But we're going way beyond, way beyond what
Speaker 1: anybody thought would be possible. And you know, we've now
Speaker 1: reached this point where it is deeply political. In this
Speaker 1: new Pelosi, Pelosi's pushing for a oh well, here she's
Speaker 1: telling us what she wants to do, which is to
Speaker 1: transform America. This has going back to the Obama idea
Speaker 1: and the progressive's idea for the last a hundred years.
Speaker 1: I'll just keep changing America as radically as you can
Speaker 1: and do whatever you got to do to get the
Speaker 1: power necessary for that process. Here's Pelosi is saying that,
Speaker 1: you know, this COVID nineteen situation, it's an opportunity play
Speaker 1: play nine. We must all take an extra moment to
Speaker 1: understand the numbers who are seeing, which show the most
Speaker 1: overwhelming in our lifetimes. These numbers require action that we've
Speaker 1: never had to take before. There are those who said,
Speaker 1: let's just pause. You have the families who are suffering,
Speaker 1: though that hunger doesn't take a pause. The rent doesn't
Speaker 1: take a pause, the bills don't take a pause. The
Speaker 1: hartship of losing a job or tragically losing a loved
Speaker 1: one doesn't take a pause. This is an historic challenge
Speaker 1: and therefore momentous opportunity for us to meet the needs
Speaker 1: of the American people to save their lives, their livelihoods
Speaker 1: at our democracy. Let's understand this, friends, We are in
Speaker 1: the early phase right now of what unless we stop,
Speaker 1: it will be the most massive momentous expansion of government
Speaker 1: at all levels that we have seen in this country
Speaker 1: in a hundred years, and it may in fact be
Speaker 1: the most massive expansion of the government that has ever happened.
Speaker 1: It certainly is the biggest expansion of the debt based
Speaker 1: on numbers, and even if you were to even if
Speaker 1: you were to look to control it, for you know,
Speaker 1: the value of the dollar then versus the value of
Speaker 1: the dollar now still even if you were to adjust
Speaker 1: it would be We've never seen anything like this. I mean,
Speaker 1: the Democrats. This is the biggest opportunity that they have
Speaker 1: had in my lifetime to transform the American government into
Speaker 1: being the mega state that they that they ideologically and
Speaker 1: really emotionally and at some levels spiritually are attached to.
Speaker 1: That's what's happening right now, and we have to see
Speaker 1: it for what it is, because otherwise we're just going
Speaker 1: to be in a position where we are engaged in
Speaker 1: what you could call and the financial markets people are
Speaker 1: for to repeat surprise. You're just gonna say, oh, wait
Speaker 1: a second, you mean that one? You here we are
Speaker 1: we were going forward and they're using this. We knew
Speaker 1: in the beginning, they said it was a crisis they
Speaker 1: were going to use as an opportunity. And now they're
Speaker 1: expanding the government and they're going to keep expanding government,
Speaker 1: and they're doing all the things that we would have assumed,
Speaker 1: if we had taken a step back, the left would
Speaker 1: do in a moment like this. Yes, that is exactly
Speaker 1: what is happening right now. But it's hard to see
Speaker 1: it in the moment because you want to believe that
Speaker 1: Democrats can put aside their part is in wishless, their
Speaker 1: part is in fantasy. Just while we're dealing with this problem.
Speaker 1: You want to believe that that's happening, But it's not.
Speaker 1: They are using this now for political purposes and their
Speaker 1: primary motivation in the policies that they're pushing, because they've
Speaker 1: bought into this false, this false narrative of if it
Speaker 1: saves just one life, just like they do with gun control,
Speaker 1: that is a recipe always for government absolutism. If my
Speaker 1: policy can save just one life, it morally overrides any
Speaker 1: objection you might have, any right you may have. There's
Speaker 1: no outer limit to this, there's no boundary for this,
Speaker 1: and they've established this. This is now the position. If
Speaker 1: more people will die from COVID nineteen, and who knows
Speaker 1: even over what horizon, I mean, maybe in the aggregate
Speaker 1: more people we won't die if we were to just
Speaker 1: open and just go about on normal lives. Because if
Speaker 1: we're going to her immunity right now, guess what that means.
Speaker 1: People are getting infected no matter what the government says
Speaker 1: or does and it just changes the speed, but it
Speaker 1: does not change the overall pool of the infected. If
Speaker 1: in fact that's now I'm not saying that's true, but
Speaker 1: increasingly it looks like that's He's still a lot of infection.
Speaker 1: Three hundred thousand infections a day under lockdown. That's the
Speaker 1: best guests they have right now. So every ten days,
Speaker 1: another three million people will have been infected in this
Speaker 1: country with COVID nineteen during lockdown. So what do we
Speaker 1: think we're really accomplishing here. It's a political motivation, not
Speaker 1: a health not an epidemiological motivation at its core. But
Speaker 1: they use this premise, this false premise of if a
Speaker 1: government policy can save just one life, you cannot object
Speaker 1: to it, in order to shut down all opposition. This
Speaker 1: is also why Pelosi is, she understands this, and that's
Speaker 1: why it's very hard to get through. It's very hard
Speaker 1: to push them. You know, if people that are writing
Speaker 1: into me on social media, oh, you want old people
Speaker 1: to die, the horrible things, it's a it's a total lie.
Speaker 1: These people are morons, but they're leftist, so they already
Speaker 1: believe an ideology that is godless, hateful and stupid. They've already,
Speaker 1: and there's no escape from that as long as they
Speaker 1: believe that ideology. That's what they think and that's who
Speaker 1: they are. But they use this to shut down any
Speaker 1: objection that we have to what they're trying to do.
Speaker 1: And you can already see it. I mean, Pelosi's pushing
Speaker 1: this three another three trillion dollars in spending. You know
Speaker 1: what they want to do. They want to extend the
Speaker 1: federal six hundred unemployment sweetener. Well, if they extend that
Speaker 1: to twenty twenty one, which is what Pelosi's bill looks
Speaker 1: to do. Right now that she's already unveiled this bill,
Speaker 1: you have effectively achieved a stell fifteen dollar plus minimum wage.
Speaker 1: You know, based on how much money people will be
Speaker 1: making into twenty twenty one. You're not going to get
Speaker 1: these workers back. And then Pelosi would just say, maybe
Speaker 1: we extend the employment benefits another six months and another
Speaker 1: six months. And the only way you get people to
Speaker 1: want to go off unemployment at that rate, given what
Speaker 1: the state benefits will be, and the government keeps, you know,
Speaker 1: refilling the coffer. Refilling the coffer is if you're going
Speaker 1: to offer somebody considerably more money. So now you're looking
Speaker 1: at it again. Fifteen dollars plus you might have small
Speaker 1: business owners will be faced with you either pay a
Speaker 1: twenty dollars minimum wage or people would rather be unemployment
Speaker 1: into twenty twenty one. This is real, folks, This is
Speaker 1: happening right now. This is what your government is doing
Speaker 1: in your name. It's a disaster. We have to rest
Speaker 1: control back. We knew. I knew, I said it to you,
Speaker 1: you said it to me. We knew that they would
Speaker 1: seize too much power and they would not relinquish it.
Speaker 1: They would use the emergency to take the power into
Speaker 1: their hands and then their greedy little fingers. The government
Speaker 1: would not release the authority that they have just taken
Speaker 1: it upon themselves to have in this crisis. We saw
Speaker 1: it coming and we didn't stop it. Now we have
Speaker 1: to push back, and it's going to be a fight.
Speaker 1: Government likes power, doesn't like to give it up at
Speaker 1: any level at any time. You're in the freedom hud.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Look, before the
Speaker 1: Me Too movement, women were not listened to whom we're
Speaker 1: telling what had happened to them. Since Me Too, women
Speaker 1: are listened to. Now. I've heard Joe Biden's explanation. I
Speaker 1: think it's sufficient. I think he will be a great candidate.
Speaker 1: I think he will be a great president, and I
Speaker 1: think he'll take us to help us take back the Senate. Ah,
Speaker 1: Chuck schumerway's in here with Before the Me too movement,
Speaker 1: women were not listened to. Now they are listened to.
Speaker 1: But I mean, we've heard enough about this terror read person.
Speaker 1: Let's move on. Oh man, he is he is always
Speaker 1: so predictable, consistent, at least in his sliminess. But let's
Speaker 1: talk about where the terror read allegations currently stand, and
Speaker 1: also the Biden candidacy overall and the politics of the moment.
Speaker 1: For that, we are joined by our friend Tiana Lowe.
Speaker 1: She is a commentary writer at The Washington Examiner and
Speaker 1: also a contributor to The First on Pluto TV. Tina,
Speaker 1: thanks so much, Hi back, thanks for having me so.
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer says, yeah, no, everyone's listened to now, but
Speaker 1: tera read's been listened to, and he believes Joe Biden. Well, so,
Speaker 1: how do we describe the standard now that Democrats are using?
Speaker 1: Is there a standard? They can they define what the
Speaker 1: standard is? I mean, the only discernible standard, right, now
Speaker 1: is whether or not you been d next to your name.
Speaker 1: Quite frankly, let's just let's just add short summarize the
Speaker 1: evidence differentiating Christine Bausi Ford and Tera Read. With Christine
Speaker 1: Bazzi Ford, you had every single person who she named
Speaker 1: it being at the party for this assault allegedly happened.
Speaker 1: They denied is such a party of her existed. The
Speaker 1: earliest corroboration we have of her telling anyone about this
Speaker 1: alleged assault is in twenty twelve when Capitall was back
Speaker 1: the news because he was on wrong these shortlist before
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. If you look at terror Read allegation,
Speaker 1: you have multiple people with a few cooperative problems, who
Speaker 1: say that she alleged that Biden had assaulted her at
Speaker 1: the time. But you have at least one person on
Speaker 1: the record, her name or Linda Lcast, who's willing to
Speaker 1: say that she said so two or three years after
Speaker 1: the fact, as well as an official document submitted by
Speaker 1: her husband in response to overstraining order in nineteen ninety six,
Speaker 1: So it's three years after the illegitisal claiming that Reed
Speaker 1: had undergone some traumatic harassment. At the very least, it's
Speaker 1: clear cut that red faced harassment from biting. The assault
Speaker 1: Thoughever has so much more corroboration than the Ford allegation
Speaker 1: ever did. And the fact that Democrats are simply they're
Speaker 1: even saying that they think that the evidence is insufficient,
Speaker 1: they're outrighteous saying that they just don't believe her. It's
Speaker 1: truly gross and it just goes to show how manipulative
Speaker 1: and nasty this specific strain of so called feminism is,
Speaker 1: and just more general point of who the Democrats put
Speaker 1: forward to lead the country. You know, they wanted to
Speaker 1: make the case that Donald Trump was super and put
Speaker 1: it put aside. We've all heard all the criticisms of
Speaker 1: Trump plenty in this regard and many others. But they
Speaker 1: wanted to make the case to us that Trump was
Speaker 1: deeply unethical, and they put forward Hillary Clinton. And then
Speaker 1: they made the case that along with also that Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: you know, the Billy Bush tapes and everything else. And
Speaker 1: now here they are they have another chance to put
Speaker 1: someone forward to a post Donald Trump, and they put
Speaker 1: up a guy who Joe Biden, who has corruption problems
Speaker 1: with Barisma and Ukraine and his son. Whether it's illegal
Speaker 1: or not, it still looks really gross. It's very obvious
Speaker 1: what happened. There has a credible allegation of sexual assault
Speaker 1: against him, and now it seems pretty clear the Democrats
Speaker 1: plan is to keep Joe Biden hidden away in the
Speaker 1: basement until election day, Tina, is that is that their
Speaker 1: best move given the realities of what we're seeing about
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, who's being tested in ways that he's never
Speaker 1: been tested before. I mean, the scare thing is that
Speaker 1: probably is their best move, just keeping him off the
Speaker 1: campaign trail. You know, I said at the outset that
Speaker 1: in the long run he would be best served by
Speaker 1: radical transparency and addressing the read allegation to start with. Honestly,
Speaker 1: the Barisma issue, the Hunter Biden stuff. I never thought
Speaker 1: that was going to stick. No one thinks that Joe
Speaker 1: Biden lacks any corruption. But he was supposed to be
Speaker 1: the personal decency candidate, whereas Trump ragged about grabbing women
Speaker 1: by the you know what, Biden was supposed to be
Speaker 1: the family man, the respectable man. That he didn't address
Speaker 1: this head on for over a month made it look
Speaker 1: like he has something to hide, and now that he's
Speaker 1: not opening up his University of Delaware archives, it still
Speaker 1: looks like he's something to hide. I don't know if
Speaker 1: he does. I don't know if Para Reid is telling
Speaker 1: the truth. But right now the evidence is quite disturbing,
Speaker 1: and he is not acting like someone who wants to
Speaker 1: be immediately exonerated. So what's his best bet? Right now?
Speaker 1: About one third of all voters tend to believe that
Speaker 1: Tara Reid is telling the truth, and that includes a
Speaker 1: fifth of old Democrats. But still, you know, a lot
Speaker 1: of these people are going to vote for Biden anyway,
Speaker 1: but you know that might not be great for them,
Speaker 1: but it does mean that Trump in a way is
Speaker 1: kind of inoculated from one of his biggest deficits, which
Speaker 1: is the character perception deficit. He no longer really is
Speaker 1: to worry about. Oh now he's running against this moral
Speaker 1: paragon with women, because quite frankly, I think that terror
Speaker 1: read allegation has tainted Biden's candidacy in a very serious way,
Speaker 1: especially among the suburban women who were crucial helping Democrats
Speaker 1: win the House in twenty eighteen. Yeah, and this is
Speaker 1: also coming amidst a whole lot of other stuff about
Speaker 1: Biden that is not in question. I mean, the photos
Speaker 1: of him sniffing people and kissing women's heads. And I mean,
Speaker 1: he definitely is a grabby, weird guy with women and
Speaker 1: has been for a long time. I don't think there's
Speaker 1: really any dispute about that. I was told by a
Speaker 1: Secret Service agent who was present about what had been
Speaker 1: written about Biden. I mean, I can ask you as
Speaker 1: a as a woman, if you were in the Secret
Speaker 1: Service and your protectee in this case, Joe Biden found
Speaker 1: it to be a normal routine to go old man Biden.
Speaker 1: By the way, I'm just saying, I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: I can't prevent people from visualizing because I got to
Speaker 1: describe a situation. But he would go swimming naked in
Speaker 1: front of not just the Secret Service details its detailies,
Speaker 1: but female Secret Service detailies. If that were my wife
Speaker 1: or my girlfriend, I wouldn't think that's okay, that's just
Speaker 1: a matter of record. Now, No, it's absolutely not. And
Speaker 1: again this is what I said last year when the
Speaker 1: initial Biden allegations, if we can really call them that,
Speaker 1: but you know, with the hair sniffing and the touching,
Speaker 1: we all know that's wrong. If we saw our grandparents
Speaker 1: to that, we would correct them. We would not let
Speaker 1: our dads, sneak random women's hair. But no, it is
Speaker 1: just a classic person in power. We just got away
Speaker 1: with all of it for so long. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: he's the he's the class. It's interesting because the Democrats,
Speaker 1: the woke leftist put forward the classic you know, the
Speaker 1: the the sort of stereotype really of the um, you know,
Speaker 1: power hungry, power mad white male who grabs it people
Speaker 1: and abuses his position specifically for you know, gratification with
Speaker 1: with the opposite sex. I mean that that's this guy.
Speaker 1: Is This guy's like the you know, looking like the
Speaker 1: Matt Lauer of the political world right now, and you know,
Speaker 1: there's really they're just gonna you do. I'm sure you
Speaker 1: saw the editorial in the New York Times, right I
Speaker 1: was like maybe a week or two ago where a
Speaker 1: woman was like, oh, I totally believe her. I'm voting
Speaker 1: for Biden anyway. Oh so now you're just gonna vote
Speaker 1: for a guy he's a sexual assault you know, I
Speaker 1: actually don't believe like the allegation against Trump and Bergdorf Goodman, Like,
Speaker 1: I just don't think that the evidence was on that
Speaker 1: woman's side. I forget her name now, the one who
Speaker 1: wrote the book and came forward. But to say that
Speaker 1: you believe it and you don't care, that's a whole
Speaker 1: other level that Democrats are hitting. Yeah no, I mean
Speaker 1: I seem to recall a big, huge hashtagging movement that
Speaker 1: he had to talk about how you know, rape is
Speaker 1: bad and we shouldn't reward sexual assailants with positions of power.
Speaker 1: I mean, it was a whole thing, but apparently that
Speaker 1: was a very long time ago, and apparently it was
Speaker 1: just to make sure that we could say Orange Man
Speaker 1: bad and pretend that we had a reckoning about Bill Clinton.
Speaker 1: But you know, apparently it's over down, So that's it's
Speaker 1: quite unfortunate. Why are you gonna have we gotta have
Speaker 1: you have a zoom throw down with some radical left
Speaker 1: wing feminists on this issue. That would be some really,
Speaker 1: that would be a good debate. There's never good debates anymore.
Speaker 1: It's everyone's just you know, preaching to the choir. Nobody
Speaker 1: will leave because this would be really interesting. Yeah no,
Speaker 1: And I think that someone who's been pretty fair and
Speaker 1: pretty sympathetic to not only Biden just but but specifically
Speaker 1: conservatives entertaining Biden's candidacy. But the Tea read thing, I mean,
Speaker 1: that's kind of the last strong. If you're going to
Speaker 1: vote against tax cuts and judges and an agenda that
Speaker 1: you like because you want to vote any referendum against
Speaker 1: Trump's character, you don't do it for the guy who's
Speaker 1: running away from a credible sexual a solilogy. Fair point,
Speaker 1: Tiana Low. Everybody check out her latest at the Washington
Speaker 1: Examiner dot com. Also look for her here as a
Speaker 1: contributor on the First Tianna. Thanks Tina, thanks so much.
Speaker 1: Thanks thanks for listening to the Bus Sesson Show podcast.
Speaker 1: Remember to subscribe on Apple Podcast, the iHeart Radio app,
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts. The show ain't over yet, folks.
Speaker 1: Keeping it real, It's time for roll call up, bad
Speaker 1: at Up. I haven't done that for a while. I
Speaker 1: thought producer Mark might miss it, so I wanted to
Speaker 1: bring back when I sing along with the roll call.
Speaker 1: One thing I will not thanks for the clarifications with
Speaker 1: no problem um. One thing I will tell you about
Speaker 1: having a dog that's your main companion. I do get
Speaker 1: to see this, no princess sometimes during the week, but
Speaker 1: not all the time. Those probably go nuts having to
Speaker 1: deal with me twenty four seven and close quarters like this. Oh,
Speaker 1: I guess that's called for some people. That's marriage, is it?
Speaker 1: You live together, that's the whole thing. But yeah, when
Speaker 1: you have a dog run you all the time. I
Speaker 1: find that you start you come up with new names
Speaker 1: for the dog, and then you also start singing stupid
Speaker 1: songs to the dog. And I wonder if at some
Speaker 1: point the dog is like, what what has happened to
Speaker 1: my human? You know they do have I'm telling you,
Speaker 1: this dog, this little French bulldog, has got at least
Speaker 1: the cognitive ability of like a like a two or
Speaker 1: a three year old human. I mean she she understands words,
Speaker 1: She knows her name when it said, I mean she
Speaker 1: can she There's there's thought process that goes into this.
Speaker 1: If I ever, you know, tell her no or naughty
Speaker 1: or something, she punishes me by staring into the corner
Speaker 1: and not wanting to hang out for a while. So
Speaker 1: you know, you learn things here, you did say a
Speaker 1: producer market know there's been a big surge. I just
Speaker 1: looked this up yesterday again. Um, this the one. You know,
Speaker 1: we look for those little silver linings as such as
Speaker 1: they exist in this current debak goal and you know,
Speaker 1: catastrophe as it plays out across the country. But a
Speaker 1: lot of shelters are have seen a huge increase in
Speaker 1: adoptions of dogs and cats, which makes sense. And a
Speaker 1: lot of people are fostering animals right now just because
Speaker 1: they're gonna be home now, but they won't be home
Speaker 1: in the future. Yeah, yeah, And so instead of animals
Speaker 1: being in cages, they're home with people and they're getting
Speaker 1: you know, better, better access to care and cuddles. All right,
Speaker 1: Kevin kicking us off in roll Call. Remember if you
Speaker 1: want to be a part of Roll Call, we always
Speaker 1: hope you do. We'd love to get some new voices
Speaker 1: in the mix too. First time, you know, you can
Speaker 1: put in the subject line instead of I love producer
Speaker 1: Mark or producer Mark, you're hilarious, which will usually be
Speaker 1: a good way to get yourself into Roll Call. You
Speaker 1: can also write in the subject you know, first time,
Speaker 1: first time roll Call. And then we'll try to make
Speaker 1: sure that people that have never gotten a chance to
Speaker 1: have their voice on the show will be on the show.
Speaker 1: So Teambucket, iHeartMedia dot com or Facebook dot com, slash
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton and like I said, some of you have
Speaker 1: found me on Instagram, which is great. It's just Buck Sexton.
Speaker 1: Just remember that if you send it a message, you
Speaker 1: got to say, you know, four roll, you know, roll call,
Speaker 1: and then your name and then you can write your message.
Speaker 1: Otherwise you know, it's it's you know, cat cat lover
Speaker 1: five two five nine or something sending me a message
Speaker 1: And I'm like, is this a person or is this
Speaker 1: some is this some Russian bott The election all right,
Speaker 1: Kevin Buck, The people elected Donald Trump. The Democrat coup failed.
Speaker 1: Now the DNC strategy has shifted to making we the
Speaker 1: people suffer until we throw him out? How far does
Speaker 1: this go? The left is evil wolves in sheep's clothing.
Speaker 1: Speaking of clothing, where's the buck sex in apparel line?
Speaker 1: I went to BUCKSX and dot com hoping to find
Speaker 1: a producer mark T shirt, but no joy shields eye. Um.
Speaker 1: We we're we are hoping to do that. We have
Speaker 1: a limited bandwidth because of all the content we currently do,
Speaker 1: and and that's just a big way of saying we
Speaker 1: need more staff. I mean, right now, it's we're we're
Speaker 1: already running on a on what you would consider for
Speaker 1: a nationally syndicated show with as many listeners as we have.
Speaker 1: We're at a skeleton crew every day so uh yeah,
Speaker 1: although I don't feel like a skeleton these days with
Speaker 1: all the mac and cheese I've been eating, and with
Speaker 1: the and with the big bowl of carbonara. That's no
Speaker 1: princess made for me from scratch, gluten free. I've been
Speaker 1: eating it for breakfast. I gotta tell your producing mark
Speaker 1: carbonar pasta for breakfast. It's got bacon in it makes
Speaker 1: perfect sense. Have you finally started heating it up? Yeah?
Speaker 1: She was like, she looked at me, and she's like,
Speaker 1: it's kind of savage. You know, you're eating it out
Speaker 1: of a giant metal bowl from the fridge. Cold is
Speaker 1: one word for it. I was gonna go with sad.
Speaker 1: I mean it was delicious. What do you mean sad?
Speaker 1: It tastes fantastic. I'm kidding me. Cold pasta is a
Speaker 1: great Oh, it's amazing. I get into it. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I did start heating it up. I'm a little more
Speaker 1: civilized now. But have you I will? What did you
Speaker 1: tell him? What is the favorite pasta? What's the number?
Speaker 1: What does your go to producer? Mark? Pasta? Mac and cheese? Okay,
Speaker 1: but like you're an Italian restaurant, you can't order mac
Speaker 1: and cheef. I mean you never know. I mean, I
Speaker 1: guess if I'm in an Italian place, Penny Allavadca. It's funny,
Speaker 1: said I was. Actually I watched a video on how
Speaker 1: to make that reason I want to I want to
Speaker 1: make it from scratch. Not that hard, not really that hard.
Speaker 1: So yeah, it's very easy when you go and get
Speaker 1: a jar of sauce from the grocery store and pour
Speaker 1: it over some buzta. Just you know, Producer Mark, we're
Speaker 1: gonna get you cooking. We're good to get you cooking.
Speaker 1: And Missus Mark, Missus Mark is gonna come home from
Speaker 1: from her work in the healthcare industry, and you're gonna
Speaker 1: have laid out like a beautiful from scratch Penney Alivadka feast,
Speaker 1: and you'll even have, you know, like a little guy
Speaker 1: playing the guitar like a lady in the tramp. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't think any of that's gonna happen. Considering she's
Speaker 1: a much better cook and she enjoys it. Well, then
Speaker 1: you're a lucky man. And there we have it. So
Speaker 1: I'm saying, if you want a surpriser for the birthday
Speaker 1: once Producer Mark's birthday, we gotta get this one. It
Speaker 1: was a month ago. Well, happy birthday from a month ago.
Speaker 1: You literally did a minute on wishing me a happy birthday.
Speaker 1: I do a lot of radio. Really have the memory
Speaker 1: of a fish. Sometimes it's all just just cram. Now
Speaker 1: I realized I did. I the whole thing. I can
Speaker 1: tell you like, oh yeah, my birthday is tomorrow, Buck,
Speaker 1: and you would have believed, Oh my god, I did.
Speaker 1: I have the cram so much information, and it's like
Speaker 1: I'm doing final exams every day and I got nothing.
Speaker 1: I got nothing left the snow Princess. Sometimes it is like,
Speaker 1: you know, you told me that story yesterday. I'm like,
Speaker 1: I don't know what stories I've told. I don't know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying. I just so much radio, all right,
Speaker 1: John Buck. I don't know how involved Obama was in
Speaker 1: the whole Russia conspiracy. I don't know how involved he
Speaker 1: was with Flynn, But at this point, no one can
Speaker 1: convince me he wasn't involved. I believe he was in
Speaker 1: the background, often possibly even calling some of the shots,
Speaker 1: but there would be more evidence leading back to the
Speaker 1: White House if he was hands on. But there is
Speaker 1: no way, especially with all that we know now, that
Speaker 1: he wasn't involved to some degree. John, Yeah, that's you
Speaker 1: and I. You and I agree on this one. There's
Speaker 1: no way that Obama wasn't at least aware of this
Speaker 1: and that this didn't set off enormous alarm bells and
Speaker 1: all kinds of red flags. You're gonna you're gonna have
Speaker 1: your people go after the incoming You would operate under
Speaker 1: a we can't share all the national security information that
Speaker 1: we have with the new national security apparatus of a
Speaker 1: duly elected president and his administration. That's that's stunning. That
Speaker 1: is coo like stuff. I mean, that's not the coup itself,
Speaker 1: but that's if you're preparing for a coup later, you
Speaker 1: would do that, or if you had been preparing for
Speaker 1: a coup before, you don't want him to find out.
Speaker 1: Soft coup using the law. But that's you know, using
Speaker 1: some variant of legal interpretation. Oh, you know, Trump colluded
Speaker 1: with Russia. He's a trader. He can't be the president.
Speaker 1: You know, let's go have the sergeant at Arms of
Speaker 1: Congress arrest I you know, whatever crazy dream the libs
Speaker 1: we're thinking they were gonna, or just have the Obama
Speaker 1: administration say sorry, we have to hold a new election.
Speaker 1: And who knows what they were really thinking. They sit
Speaker 1: around talking about Trump's not going to willingly leave office
Speaker 1: all the time. There's been no reason to believe that.
Speaker 1: They also said that he was a fascist for the
Speaker 1: first two years. And now here we are where you
Speaker 1: have a situation. You could not dream of a bigger
Speaker 1: opening for fascism in America than what we are seeing
Speaker 1: happen right now, where if you disagree with government policy,
Speaker 1: you're literally killing people. By wanting to go outside and
Speaker 1: live your life, you are literally killing people. That's what
Speaker 1: they're telling you. Biggest opening for fascism you could ever see.
Speaker 1: And Donald Trump is like, okay, let's work together. Let's
Speaker 1: give the states autonomy. What are the experts saying, let's
Speaker 1: inform the public, you know, let's get reopened, let's get
Speaker 1: people up and running on the economy. The opposite of
Speaker 1: a fascist approach. But do you think any of them
Speaker 1: apologize for that or say I was wrong. I shouldn't
Speaker 1: have said that about the president? Of course not. It's people.
Speaker 1: It's these lib journals that trash trash, I tell you,
Speaker 1: Oh wow, here we go, Scott rites, dear buck. I'm
Speaker 1: an essential rider in the share ride driver in the
Speaker 1: Denver metro area, and as happens, we sometimes hear how
Speaker 1: life is treating our customers well. First off, thanks to
Speaker 1: ninety three seven Freedom FM in Denver, one of our
Speaker 1: great stations we do. We are number one on our
Speaker 1: time slot there. We're doing so well. Thank you to
Speaker 1: team Buck in the Denver area for listening to the show.
Speaker 1: You guys are making Mark and Me look good to
Speaker 1: our bosses all the time, So thank you for tuning
Speaker 1: in and making this a such a hit show in
Speaker 1: that area. I picked a man up and when I
Speaker 1: asked him how life was for him during the lockdown,
Speaker 1: he proceeded to recount his recent financial status. He said
Speaker 1: he got laid off from his restaurant job, but received
Speaker 1: his tax refund and his stimulus check, so he was
Speaker 1: feeling pretty secure. He started receiving unemployment, which was more
Speaker 1: per week than he was making while working at the restaurant.
Speaker 1: Just when he thought life was good, it got even better.
Speaker 1: His old employer called and asked him to come back
Speaker 1: to work and said that he would receive back pay,
Speaker 1: but he had to say he had been working all
Speaker 1: long if anyone asked, oh, and they were going to
Speaker 1: pay him for forty hours, but he only had to
Speaker 1: work twenty At that point. With a nice raise, he
Speaker 1: was making more than his unemployment compensation, and he was
Speaker 1: happy to be contributing to society again. He was happier
Speaker 1: still this week when his boss told him that not
Speaker 1: enough of his former workmates wanted to come back to work,
Speaker 1: so they had to give him another big raise. To
Speaker 1: his credit, the young man said he's making more money
Speaker 1: than he ever has in his life, but he didn't
Speaker 1: feel great about it. Shield's high, Scott. This is working
Speaker 1: the system. This is what's going to happen. People are
Speaker 1: going to work the system, big companies, individuals, you know
Speaker 1: that everyone just feels like the federal governments now that
Speaker 1: the piggy bank has been broken open, how many coins
Speaker 1: are you going to get for yourself? That's the attitude.
Speaker 1: It's a free for all. You're going to see a
Speaker 1: lot of this. And as far as the Democrats are concerned,
Speaker 1: as long as their constituencies are getting paid off, and
Speaker 1: as long as this is enlarging government, increasing the debt
Speaker 1: and making they're you know, effectively making the government's authority
Speaker 1: feel like it's permanent in this regard that they can
Speaker 1: just create what would be a universal basic income. I mean,
Speaker 1: if we can do this for six months or a year,
Speaker 1: giving people money to stay home, why can't we give
Speaker 1: people anyone who stays all money. Why not just give
Speaker 1: everyone direct payments? Fifteen thousand dollars a month, fifteen hundred
Speaker 1: dollars a month. We're running up so many trillions of
Speaker 1: dollars in dead and it's all going to the corporations,
Speaker 1: they say, So, what is the response to this? Yeah,
Speaker 1: Michael hey Buck, I have two questions related to Governor
Speaker 1: Cuomo labeling the WU flu as being caused by a
Speaker 1: European virus. One, when the President refers to the virus
Speaker 1: as a Chinese virus he has labeled as racist, So
Speaker 1: wouldn't be labeling that European also be considered racist? I'll
Speaker 1: answer that first. No, because it's not possible to be
Speaker 1: racist against Europeans, the left would say, or at least
Speaker 1: not possibly racist against white Europeans. There is no such
Speaker 1: thing as anti white racism, the left says, And there's
Speaker 1: no such thing as anti white European racism. The left
Speaker 1: also holds to that. Yeah, that's what they believe. So
Speaker 1: what is animus against people for white skin called we
Speaker 1: don't really have a word for it. They don't believe
Speaker 1: that it can even even happen, which inherently means they
Speaker 1: must think that animus against people for being white. The
Speaker 1: left has to believe if you just logically work this
Speaker 1: problem through that animus that any person has, including really
Speaker 1: a sort of self animus, right, the people that have
Speaker 1: white killed. But anyone who has a problem with somebody
Speaker 1: else because of their white skin, or thinks less of them,
Speaker 1: or thinks that they have benefited from society in ways
Speaker 1: that they can't. That belief against white people has to
Speaker 1: be inherently justified by bye history, by current systemic oppression,
Speaker 1: and raise whatever it is. But they don't believe that
Speaker 1: it's possible. And I'm serious, this is a belief on
Speaker 1: the left. They don't think it is possible to have
Speaker 1: anti white racism. That's not possible. Now that gets tested
Speaker 1: sometimes in the courts when you have attacks on individuals
Speaker 1: who are or white because they're white, and is that
Speaker 1: a hate crime? Can that be a hate crime? The
Speaker 1: answer is yes, although authorities are usually very slow to
Speaker 1: charge that one. All right, Number two, since it is
Speaker 1: racist to mention the source of the virus or a pandemic.
Speaker 1: Can we celebrate Columbus Day this year, especially since the
Speaker 1: greatest minds of the fifteenth century had no idea how
Speaker 1: viruses and bacteria were transmitted and how they not bad
Speaker 1: vapors cause disease. Only hoping we can regain some sanity
Speaker 1: and our discussions masks high. Um, since it is racist, Oh,
Speaker 1: because Columbus brought the explores you kind of mark, You're right,
Speaker 1: this was a little bit of a couple of leaps here, right.
Speaker 1: So it's because Columbus and the Europeans brought brought you know,
Speaker 1: virus and flew and other things into the New World,
Speaker 1: which decimated the native population here. We're not allowed to
Speaker 1: talk about that because it's racist kind of for them, right, Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean you're the history guy, so I would just
Speaker 1: say yeah, but that's that's what he's trying to say,
Speaker 1: I believe. So, yes, yeah, a little bit, Michael, I
Speaker 1: see what you're saying. Creative, A little bit of a stretch,
Speaker 1: A little bit of a stretch. Um. You know, Columbus
Speaker 1: Day in Italian on behalf of the Spaniards. But you
Speaker 1: know that's uh, I actually you know I'm not I'm
Speaker 1: not too far. I can. I can get to Columbus
Speaker 1: Circle pretty easily. And I think it's gonna tell you
Speaker 1: one day, they're gonna pull that statue down. They're gonna manage.
Speaker 1: I don't mean they're gonna actual just destroy it, although
Speaker 1: they might do that too, but they're gonna get rid
Speaker 1: of it, and they're gonna want to rename the circle
Speaker 1: Columbus is marked for is marked for history book extinction.
Speaker 1: They're they're going to find a way. You're in the
Speaker 1: freedom hunt. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. More
Speaker 1: roll Call rolling through here. Um. TJ writes Buck, there's
Speaker 1: no doubt that Flynn should be further vindicated. Do you
Speaker 1: think Trump may be holding that vindication to campaign on
Speaker 1: I e. Trump speaking, if re elected, I will appoint
Speaker 1: wrongly accused and set up by the administration Obama administration
Speaker 1: General Flynn to such and such a position. Just a thought, Um,
Speaker 1: I mean, TJ. I can't. I can't tell you that
Speaker 1: that won't happen, but I think that's pretty unlikely. I
Speaker 1: don't think that that's the case, although I will note
Speaker 1: that it feels like they've been very there's been a
Speaker 1: real slowness for the release of information that we should
Speaker 1: we should have here, you know that we should be
Speaker 1: we should have known. You know, That's what I think.
Speaker 1: You know, the release of classified stuff that should have
Speaker 1: been declassified and released the public should have been faster.
Speaker 1: Murtrump was going to put out the FISA applications declassify
Speaker 1: them a lot earlier than he did, and by the
Speaker 1: time they got out, I don't think they had the
Speaker 1: same impact they would have if we had known about
Speaker 1: it sooner, and the Democrats were able to run around
Speaker 1: and say they're crazy stuff for quite a while. We
Speaker 1: got another sea another from ninety three seven FM Denver,
Speaker 1: You know Freedom ninety three seven, Hey Buck, Hello from Denver.
Speaker 1: I just wanted to say that I find it funny
Speaker 1: that the Democrats refused to give any type of temporary
Speaker 1: tax cut and at the same time they want to
Speaker 1: give every American two thousand dollars a month through the election.
Speaker 1: Obviously something stinks here. They want everyone to know that
Speaker 1: they are giving you back your tax money for November
Speaker 1: election purposes. Just a thought, thank you for your voice
Speaker 1: shields high well, thank you, Greg. And Yeah, Democrats like
Speaker 1: to hand out goodies that are really just things they've
Speaker 1: taken from other people, and they pretend like this such
Speaker 1: they're so great and generous in the process. That's a
Speaker 1: common theme. Glynnette, Hey, bucking producer, Mark, My name is Glennette's.
Speaker 1: We've figured that one out. I've just been listening for
Speaker 1: a few months, but really enjoy the show. Well, thank
Speaker 1: you so much, Glennette. We appreciate you listening. It's refreshing
Speaker 1: to hear a conservative viewpoint, and it's the sea of
Speaker 1: liberal propaganda. I also laugh out loud every time I
Speaker 1: hear your Nancy Pelosi imitation. A little while back, Hey,
Speaker 1: how do you pay up? A C. S. Lewis quote?
Speaker 1: I have been reading his book Mere Christianity and thought
Speaker 1: this quote really describes the liberals at this point. It says,
Speaker 1: the most dangerous thing you can do is to take
Speaker 1: any one impulse of your own nature and set it
Speaker 1: up as a thing you ought to follow at all costs.
Speaker 1: There is not one of them which will not make
Speaker 1: us into devils if we set it up as an
Speaker 1: absolute guide. You might think love of humanity in general
Speaker 1: was safe, but it is not. If you leave out justice,
Speaker 1: you will find yourself breaking agreements and faking evidence in trials.
Speaker 1: For the sake of humanity and become in the end,
Speaker 1: a cruel and treacherous man. That's a really interesting quote.
Speaker 1: That's very good. Thank you so much for sharing that.
Speaker 1: Keep up the good work. Come to Colorado when you
Speaker 1: can escape New York. Shields high. Well, Glennette, I might
Speaker 1: have to move to Colorado then. Verse sounds lovely this
Speaker 1: time of year. We'll talk more about that another time. Team,
Speaker 1: it has been real, it has been fantastic. I'll be
Speaker 1: back with you tomorrow. As we do every day, keep
Speaker 1: yourself safe, keep yourself positive, Shields High.