Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. A story about mail
Speaker 1: in ballot frau that you need to know. An assessment
Speaker 1: on foreign threats to the twenty twenty election delayed by
Speaker 1: the intelligence community. Hunter Biden asked the Chinese oligarch for
Speaker 1: ten million dollars, and will there be COVID mutations? Buck Sexton,
Speaker 1: coding the news and disseminating information is actionable intelligence. Make
Speaker 1: no mistake America great American again. This is the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. Former CIA analysts. I can speak to three
Speaker 1: hours without a phone call. Try doing that sometimes. One
Speaker 1: of the laws that have to be confirmed and I
Speaker 1: think reaffirmed our state laws, so it's not in our purview,
Speaker 1: but the state law are set, and then we have
Speaker 1: federal elections. So what we've heard about what happened in Wisconsin,
Speaker 1: what happened in Nevada, I think is absolutely true and
Speaker 1: we have to prevent it from happening again. I think
Speaker 1: state legislators, legislatures will need to reaffirm that election law
Speaker 1: can only be changed by a state legislature. So I
Speaker 1: think there's a lot of work to be done. While
Speaker 1: we will not dictate it to the states, I think
Speaker 1: we should have hearings going into the next year, hearing
Speaker 1: from state legislatures and what they're going to do to
Speaker 1: make sure election law is upheld, not changed by people
Speaker 1: who are not legislators. And we do have an interest
Speaker 1: in that. I don't want it to be federalized. Many
Speaker 1: on the other side of the aisle would just soon
Speaker 1: federalize it and mail everybody a ballot and we'll have
Speaker 1: this universal corruption throughout the land. But what I think
Speaker 1: we need to do is keep it at the state level.
Speaker 1: But we can't just say it didn't happen. We can't
Speaker 1: just say, oh, four thousand people voted in Nevada that
Speaker 1: we're non citizens and we're just going to ignore it.
Speaker 1: We're going to sweep it under the rugs. So the
Speaker 1: courts have decided the facts. The courts have not decided
Speaker 1: the facts. The courts never looked at the facts. The
Speaker 1: courts don't like elections since they stayed out of it
Speaker 1: by finding an excuse, standing or otherwise to stay out
Speaker 1: of it. But the fraud happened, The election in many
Speaker 1: ways was stolen, and the only way it'll be fixed
Speaker 1: is by in the future reinforcing the laws. The fraud
Speaker 1: happened welcome to the buck Sex and show everybody. I
Speaker 1: wanted to do a deep dive with you today into
Speaker 1: what we know so far and make sure that we
Speaker 1: separate out the difference between getting justice in the process
Speaker 1: and having the process continue to hold and go on
Speaker 1: as it stands, it's not the same thing. A process
Speaker 1: does not guarantee a good result. Our electoral process not
Speaker 1: only does not guarantee a good result from the perspective
Speaker 1: of candidates, but also from the perspective of whether or
Speaker 1: not it was a free and fair election. That's what
Speaker 1: we are seeing. There are not the safeguards that you
Speaker 1: would think are in place, because so many of them
Speaker 1: were removed by Democrats intentionally. They pushed aside so many
Speaker 1: things that would be there specifically. And they do this
Speaker 1: all the time. They don't like voter id they don't.
Speaker 1: They always fight any effort to make it harder to
Speaker 1: commit fraud. And so what Rand Paul is saying here,
Speaker 1: and he said this during the hearing. I read it
Speaker 1: the entire transcript of this Senate hearing yesterday, and what
Speaker 1: Rand Paul is saying is absolutely true. There was fraud,
Speaker 1: and no one can prove that there was not. The
Speaker 1: fraud that is even specifically being alleged. The courts are
Speaker 1: just saying, look, not our deal, not our situation. We're
Speaker 1: not getting involved. They have decided to just leave this
Speaker 1: to the process. They're not going to change it. And
Speaker 1: that's what I've been telling I've seen this coming all along.
Speaker 1: But that's a far cry from saying that there was
Speaker 1: nothing that actually was fraudulent about this election, which I
Speaker 1: know you're going to be told, and they're going to
Speaker 1: tell you that a lot. And the people who spent
Speaker 1: four years lying about Russia collusion as a means of
Speaker 1: undermining our democracy, undermining the twenty sixteen election, now they're
Speaker 1: going to pretend like they've been honest characters in this
Speaker 1: whole drama, and they weren't. There were frauds. They were
Speaker 1: abject frauds. But that's something that we have to continue
Speaker 1: to push to get the answers about what are the
Speaker 1: specifics of the fraud. I read through you know, Ron Johnson,
Speaker 1: Senator Johnson had some pretty fiery moments during that hearing.
Speaker 1: I looked at all the different questions and you had
Speaker 1: Ken Starr there, you had you had Krebs, the fired
Speaker 1: election security guy. His writ his mandate really was just
Speaker 1: about foreign interference in the election. Then he's saying that
Speaker 1: it was great in terms of preventing that, But he
Speaker 1: has no answers about did people double vote in Nevada?
Speaker 1: Did people who were legal aliens vote in Nevada? Did
Speaker 1: people who voted too late in Pennsylvania? Should their votes
Speaker 1: be discounted? There are all these very legitimate questions, But
Speaker 1: I mean, let's just start with this. How many dead
Speaker 1: people voted in the election. If someone tells you the
Speaker 1: answer is zero, they're lying to you. How many people
Speaker 1: double voted in the election. If someone says there were zero,
Speaker 1: they're lying to you. How many legal aliens voted in
Speaker 1: the election, and so on and so forth. It's not
Speaker 1: that this stuff has been disproven. It's that we don't
Speaker 1: have a platform. We don't have an avenue for getting
Speaker 1: this to a place in the process where anything can
Speaker 1: be done about it, because judges will not toss out
Speaker 1: large quantities of ballots. Democrats flooded the zone. They made
Speaker 1: it so that this election was a free for all.
Speaker 1: They knew what they were doing when they did it,
Speaker 1: and we're dealing with the result. That's all I've been
Speaker 1: telling you. I'm as certain as you are that there
Speaker 1: was fraud, and I think there was substantial enough for
Speaker 1: aud that it did cost Trump a few of these states.
Speaker 1: But we've been unable to prove it in the process,
Speaker 1: and that's not going to change because the judges won't
Speaker 1: take it up. They say there's no standing, they say
Speaker 1: they know there's some procedural reason why they can't do this.
Speaker 1: And so what I've been trying to tell you is
Speaker 1: to prepare yourself for that reality. I'm not saying don't push,
Speaker 1: don't bring the legal challenges. I've supported them every step
Speaker 1: of the way. But I have seen what is going
Speaker 1: on here. I understand how bureaucracies function and how they
Speaker 1: can choose to not function when they want to, when
Speaker 1: it's in their interest. And that's why don't ever let
Speaker 1: them tell you, because they will there was no fraud.
Speaker 1: That's gas lighting, that's a lie. And don't ever let
Speaker 1: them tell you that mail in balloting is not somehow
Speaker 1: an enormous open invitation for more fraud than or otherwise
Speaker 1: being an election. I want to tell you a little story,
Speaker 1: one that some of you may know. I'll take you
Speaker 1: back to the northeastern United States, traveling from New York
Speaker 1: to Baltimore. In eighteen sixty four, President of Abraham Lincoln
Speaker 1: is running for reelection. It's toward the end of the vicious, bloody,
Speaker 1: very high casualty Civil War, and as a fellow named
Speaker 1: Orville Wood, who is tasked with making sure that this
Speaker 1: newly instituted system in a number of states like New York,
Speaker 1: of mail in ballots for soldiers from the front lines
Speaker 1: would be executed properly. Now may not surprise you to
Speaker 1: know that what all was said and done, over seventy
Speaker 1: percent of soldiers were voted or voting for Abraham Lincoln
Speaker 1: in his National Union Party, and that there was plenty
Speaker 1: of reason to understand why, given all that they had sacrificed,
Speaker 1: all they had fought for, that Lincoln was going to
Speaker 1: be the recipient of those votes in ants of the
Speaker 1: actual counting. So what did the opposition do here? Well,
Speaker 1: you had this guy, Orville Wood, who was just a
Speaker 1: merchant from northeastern New York State. He was a supporter
Speaker 1: of Abraham Lincoln, and he was supposed to visit the
Speaker 1: troops from his hometown to see how things were going
Speaker 1: with this mail in voting. And everyone knew that the
Speaker 1: result of this eighteen sixty four election was going to
Speaker 1: have a profound impact on the outcome, the final outcome
Speaker 1: of the war. Lincoln wanted to continue until absolute victory.
Speaker 1: But the anti war Democrats. Yes, that's right, the Democrat
Speaker 1: I know. Is it amazing you look back in our history,
Speaker 1: so much villainy falls at the feet of the Democrat Party.
Speaker 1: But the anti war Democrats, they were called copperheads at
Speaker 1: the time. They were looking for some kind of a
Speaker 1: way to get a negotiated peace with the Confederacy. And
Speaker 1: they also of course opposed the abolition movement in its entirety.
Speaker 1: So this is another way of saying they're the bad
Speaker 1: guys in this tale. So the troops from New York
Speaker 1: were able to vote from the front lines mail in,
Speaker 1: and sure enough, when this fellow mister Orville Wood gets
Speaker 1: to Fort McHenry in Baltimore, he's visiting the ninety first
Speaker 1: New York Regiment. There's an army captain who says something
Speaker 1: about quote, checker playing with soldiers ballots. Checker playing with
Speaker 1: soldiers ballots? What's going on? What is that all about?
Speaker 1: And then Wood goes to visit wounded man at Newton
Speaker 1: University Hospital, and then he hears more about this, and
Speaker 1: he keeps hearing soldiers say that something funky's going on
Speaker 1: with these mail in ballots. Sure enough, he went all
Speaker 1: the way to the office of Moses Ferry in Baltimore.
Speaker 1: Ferry was chosen by New York Governor Horatio Seymour to
Speaker 1: oversee this process again for enlisted soldiers on the front
Speaker 1: line fighting a terrible war, and their voice needed to
Speaker 1: be heard for the republic right. Their voice was an
Speaker 1: essential part of this electoral process. And Wood enters this
Speaker 1: guy Ferri's office, and he pretends that he's a George
Speaker 1: McClellan supporter, and sure enough, he is brought in on
Speaker 1: the scheme. There's a guy sitting across the room signing
Speaker 1: ballots from names that had been brought from Wood's hometown.
Speaker 1: In fact, would ask them if he could deliver these
Speaker 1: fraudulent ballots. That's right, they had a fake ballot operation
Speaker 1: going on, just signing the names of soldiers on the
Speaker 1: front lines who were not actually at all involved in
Speaker 1: casting their ballots. And so he got involved in this process,
Speaker 1: this mister Wood. And it was during this convert it
Speaker 1: was during this process that he found out that there
Speaker 1: are about twenty co conspiracers a co conspirators who are
Speaker 1: working not just in Baltimore but also in DC, all
Speaker 1: delivering votes for McClellan. And sure enough he found out
Speaker 1: that they were passing names of acting enlistment, active enlisted men,
Speaker 1: the wounded, dead soldiers, officers who never existed, just straight
Speaker 1: up old school ballot fraud, all based in mail and ballots.
Speaker 1: So they were just filling this out and going to
Speaker 1: these going to these obvious lengths if you were around them,
Speaker 1: because it was already rumored what was going on here
Speaker 1: that they were trying to make sure that they delivered
Speaker 1: a state, they delivered the election for Lincoln's opponent, and
Speaker 1: so they also were people who opposed the abolition movement.
Speaker 1: This was critical. If Lincoln had lost reelection, it would
Speaker 1: have changed the trajectory of the country. You have these
Speaker 1: men who are involved in this mail in balloting scheme
Speaker 1: for Democrats, and they're sending back crates of fake ballots
Speaker 1: to be counted in this election and would call the
Speaker 1: authorities went to call on them. Obviously there were no
Speaker 1: phones and shirt off On the morning of October twenty seventh,
Speaker 1: eighteen sixty four, two weeks before the election, there was
Speaker 1: a military commission held and the men confess to this
Speaker 1: scheme and they were initially sentenced to life in prison.
Speaker 1: This was taken very seriously to be involved in ballot
Speaker 1: fraud in a time of war, life in prison, and Lincoln,
Speaker 1: before he was shot, was a supporter of that sentence,
Speaker 1: to give you an idea of how much he thought
Speaker 1: this was a grave offense. So the people who tell
Speaker 1: you that there's no election fraud are either historical ignoramacies
Speaker 1: or their liars. This is just one of many instances
Speaker 1: of election fraud that have happened in this country. But
Speaker 1: this one specifically used mail in ballots. This one looked
Speaker 1: at a process that really hasn't changed all that much.
Speaker 1: And the moment that you allow people to do this,
Speaker 1: and you separate the chain of custody, you disaggregate the
Speaker 1: showing up in front of people with observers, people recognize
Speaker 1: that it's a lot easier to cheat. And so what
Speaker 1: did the Democrats do in eighteen sixty four to try
Speaker 1: to end the abolition movement and defeat Abraham Lincoln towards
Speaker 1: the end of the Civil War. They cheated with mail
Speaker 1: in ballots. Yeah, but don't worry. The Democrats of today
Speaker 1: are here to tell you that they would never do
Speaker 1: such a thing and that there's no such thing as
Speaker 1: cheating in an election. They are liars, they are frauds,
Speaker 1: and we will not let this pass. You're in the
Speaker 1: freedom hunt. This is the Buck Sex and Show podcast.
Speaker 1: I think it would be healthy for the country, Lou
Speaker 1: if we had a debate on January sixth about all this,
Speaker 1: because the mainstream press certainly hasn't covered these hearings in
Speaker 1: these states where there's been such concerns about how the
Speaker 1: election was done. So let's let this, let's let it
Speaker 1: play out, and let's have a real debate on January
Speaker 1: six I think that when you have, Lou, when you
Speaker 1: have over a third of the electorate think this election
Speaker 1: was stolen, that is not a healthy situation for your country.
Speaker 1: And yet the left says, oh, you gotta stop now.
Speaker 1: You can't have a debate, you can't keep the president
Speaker 1: campus to always legal options. We shouldn't even have a
Speaker 1: debate on the floor on January sixth. That is just wrong.
Speaker 1: It is wrong, and it also is about showing that
Speaker 1: we haven't forgotten what happened for the last four years
Speaker 1: is about reminding the Democrats that the fraud that they
Speaker 1: perpetrated against the president with the Russia collusion hoax will
Speaker 1: not go unpunished. It really is stunning. It's amazing. Now
Speaker 1: they pretend like we don't remember anything, We didn't suffer
Speaker 1: through all the nonsense, all the idiocy of the Russia hoax,
Speaker 1: of Russia Gate. They talk about the need to protect
Speaker 1: our sacred democracy. They called the president a traitor, they
Speaker 1: had a special counsel looking at him and his family.
Speaker 1: They lied about FBI investigations. They used the surveillance apparatus
Speaker 1: of the intelligence community against a presidential campaign. This is
Speaker 1: the kind of thing that does happen in pseudo democratic
Speaker 1: dictatorships all over the world. That's what happens. The security
Speaker 1: apparatus is used to crush the opposition. And Trump wasn't
Speaker 1: just the opposition to Hillary Clinton. He was the opposition
Speaker 1: to the political elites and the establishment. So they circle
Speaker 1: the wagons. They did everything they could to destroy him,
Speaker 1: and they still weren't successful the first time around. So
Speaker 1: when they do the second time around, come up with
Speaker 1: a way to change all the rules of the game,
Speaker 1: which they did, that is a fact in an election year,
Speaker 1: in ways that they knew would benefit them. Why would
Speaker 1: it benefit them? Why all of a sudden just always
Speaker 1: assume that when there are fewer rules for an election,
Speaker 1: it benefits Democrats because Republicans don't like convenience. Republican voters
Speaker 1: can't use the mail. No, I think we all understand
Speaker 1: that Democrats do fraud when it comes to elections. This
Speaker 1: is their province, this is their expertise. And as long
Speaker 1: as there's no voter id as long as there because
Speaker 1: who shouldn't be voting? Convicted felons for example, who do
Speaker 1: they vote for? If they can Democrats? Ten to one?
Speaker 1: Legal aliens shouldn't be voting. Who do they vote for? Democrats?
Speaker 1: So if you eliminate all the safeguards, if you get
Speaker 1: rid of all the guard rails, what do you have?
Speaker 1: A free for all that's going to, at the end
Speaker 1: of the day benefit benefit the Democratic Party. And that's
Speaker 1: what happened. So make no mistake about it. I'm not
Speaker 1: telling you Joe Biden won the election fair and square.
Speaker 1: I'm telling you that they managed to abuse and manipulate
Speaker 1: the process in such a way we cannot use the
Speaker 1: process to get a just result. It's not the same
Speaker 1: thing as saying, yeah, well, you know, Joe did a
Speaker 1: great job. Of course not, but it's a recognition of
Speaker 1: where we are. If you don't have judges who're willing
Speaker 1: to take this up, if you don't have the courage
Speaker 1: at that level of this process, then it's never gonna
Speaker 1: it's never gonna work. And we have seen nothing that
Speaker 1: would lead any of us to believe that that's going
Speaker 1: to change anytime soon. So that's why I'm trying to say,
Speaker 1: we still need to fight for the answers here. I
Speaker 1: read through that transcript, yes or There's so many questions,
Speaker 1: did or did not? Three thousand or so people who
Speaker 1: are illegal aliens? Did they vote in Nevada or did
Speaker 1: they not? We should be able to get a definitive
Speaker 1: answer on that. The courts won't take it up, though,
Speaker 1: and the people looking into it don't have law enforcement authority,
Speaker 1: they don't have subpoena power. Did or did not? Did
Speaker 1: they or didn't they have people who were dead voting.
Speaker 1: My friend Sean Parnell says that when he had in Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: they did a canvas of nursing homes. They found a
Speaker 1: few thousand ballots. It all looked like they had the
Speaker 1: same signature, the same handwriting. Is that is that a lie?
Speaker 1: He wouldn't lie. So what's going on? Ah, that's right.
Speaker 1: The process does not have fast enough answers and remedies
Speaker 1: for this, and that is what we are continuing to
Speaker 1: deal with. Thanks for listening to the bus Stson Show podcasts.
Speaker 1: Remember to subscribe on Apple podcast, the iHeartRadio app or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. How far integrated into the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian economy did Hunter Biden get one of us? On
Speaker 1: the border Borisma? Somebody wants to look at this time
Speaker 1: on the border Barisma. Somebody needs to look at his
Speaker 1: business dealings regarded to China to see if any crimps
Speaker 1: were committed. But may yeah, I think, to just see
Speaker 1: what kind of conflicts, if any, the Biden administration may have.
Speaker 1: Absolutely falling on a special council to look at all
Speaker 1: things Hunter Biden, to see if he presents a conflict
Speaker 1: for the Biden administration regarding his business dealings in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: which is overrun with Russian agents and any activity have
Speaker 1: of the Chinese government. A special counsel to look into
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden. I think it's a good idea. I also
Speaker 1: wish that Attorney General Barr hadn't been unfairly maligned by
Speaker 1: so many on the right and attacked by the President
Speaker 1: when he should he should have been I'm just going
Speaker 1: to tell you it was not was not a fair
Speaker 1: assessment that was going on here. The President's very upset
Speaker 1: about the election. I understand that. I share that that sentiment,
Speaker 1: but it's not Bill Barr's fault. It's just not And
Speaker 1: you would want a competent Attorney general in the role
Speaker 1: right now who understands what the deep state and the
Speaker 1: Democrats have tried to do in the past, to be
Speaker 1: in a position to appoint a special Council. But I
Speaker 1: don't think it's going to happen now. It should, though,
Speaker 1: remember this, everything that was done to Republicans by the
Speaker 1: Democrats as part of hashtag resist, we should revisit upon
Speaker 1: them now. We could call it Operation Reciprocity, like the
Speaker 1: Clear and Present Danger CIA operation from the movie Clear
Speaker 1: and Present Danger, which, as you know, I like to
Speaker 1: reference on this show because I've seen in a million
Speaker 1: times Operation reciprocity. We do to them what they do
Speaker 1: to us, isn't that necessary. Isn't that central to our system?
Speaker 1: If we have equal justice under the law, doesn't that
Speaker 1: equal justice have to mean that Democrats are subject to
Speaker 1: the same kinds of investigations and the same aggressive checks
Speaker 1: and balances that Republicans were during the four years of
Speaker 1: Trump's Trump's term. I certainly think so. And in fact,
Speaker 1: if you look at why a special council exists, the
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden case, in many ways even more so than
Speaker 1: Russia collusional, though there are Obama administration figures that will
Speaker 1: be in a Biden White House, But it's really for
Speaker 1: exactly this kind of a circumstance where you have the
Speaker 1: son of a president under federal investigation. That is why
Speaker 1: you'd have a special counsel to insulate that legal effort
Speaker 1: from the pressures that come directly from the commander in chief.
Speaker 1: So there's a great This is a great example of
Speaker 1: when you should have a special counsel, and I call
Speaker 1: it for one right away. I'm glad to see that
Speaker 1: there are others who are now saying, yeah, special counsel. Nice.
Speaker 1: Some of us think faster than others on this stuff.
Speaker 1: Do I think one will happen? Though? Now, why is
Speaker 1: that there is still a kind of virtue signaling that
Speaker 1: exists on the right. There are still a desire to
Speaker 1: seem like at the most opportune moment. Some people who
Speaker 1: are Republicans, who are in prominent positions, they want to
Speaker 1: be the one to seem like they're above it all.
Speaker 1: This is kind of the Romney approach or the Romney
Speaker 1: also is just very bitter about Trump, and we know that,
Speaker 1: you know, he's actually an egomaniac and that Trump offends him,
Speaker 1: and so that's why he voted to have the President
Speaker 1: of the United States removed from office the way that
Speaker 1: he did. But there are Republicans out there who want
Speaker 1: to say, no, no, we don't do that, we don't
Speaker 1: play rough like that. And that's still very widespread. And
Speaker 1: some of them are prominent senators, some of them are
Speaker 1: political consultants that get to go on Fox News every
Speaker 1: five minutes. They still think that we aspire to make
Speaker 1: the Democrats at the end of the day, to make
Speaker 1: the Democrats like us in the way that we conduct
Speaker 1: ourselves in these political battles. Democrats don't give don't give
Speaker 1: a squat about what any of you or what I
Speaker 1: think about their conduct during Trump that's been very clear.
Speaker 1: They don't apologize, they don't ever say that they went
Speaker 1: a little overboard. They only are upset about one thing,
Speaker 1: and that is that they were not ultimately successful in
Speaker 1: destroying the Trump presidency. And that is it. That is it.
Speaker 1: But they are very happy that they feel they were
Speaker 1: able to stack the deck for this election in a
Speaker 1: way that benefited them, and that made the frauds so
Speaker 1: easy and so made it so easy and so amorphous
Speaker 1: at the same time. Right, it can happen in so
Speaker 1: many different states, a few thousand here, a few thousand there.
Speaker 1: How do you track all this stuff down? That it
Speaker 1: was bound to be an enormous benefit for them, and
Speaker 1: it was and it was. But should we have a
Speaker 1: special counsel to look into Hunter Biden? Yes, we absolutely should.
Speaker 1: I mean, this guy was saying back for his make
Speaker 1: Believe what c nohawk holdings, everything that Tony Bobolynski said
Speaker 1: on Tucker Carlson's show in that long interview that I'm
Speaker 1: sure many of you saw everything that was said was
Speaker 1: true that Bobolynsky said. That guy clearly just spoke up
Speaker 1: because he's like, this is appalling. The Bidens are corrupt
Speaker 1: and we're seeing more and more that China is our
Speaker 1: primary national security and economic concern, no question. I mean
Speaker 1: it's by far by Miles and Miles and the Democrats
Speaker 1: spent four years with this Russia hysteria that came at
Speaker 1: a cost, not only a cost to the administration, to
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, but also the cost of making sure
Speaker 1: that we didn't as a people, as a country, pay
Speaker 1: nearly enough attention to the threat from the Chinese Communist Party,
Speaker 1: and we are paying for that. That was a mistake,
Speaker 1: that was an error, and that's why when Hunter Biden,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, these individuals are going to be able to
Speaker 1: now direct foreign policy of the United States. I mean
Speaker 1: Hunter not officially, but you know he can always talk
Speaker 1: to his dad. And that was the whole hook. That
Speaker 1: was the point. Hunter was selling access to his power,
Speaker 1: full and connected dead. That's why he's asking a Chinese oligarch,
Speaker 1: according to emails that have been released, for ten million dollars.
Speaker 1: I can tell you ten million dollars is a lot
Speaker 1: of money. Ten million dollars is something that you know,
Speaker 1: you usually got to do a considerable amount to get
Speaker 1: that kind of cash. You know, this isn't fifty thousand
Speaker 1: dollars under a table for some local city councilman or something.
Speaker 1: This is this is real money, and we're supposed to
Speaker 1: pretend that this didn't mean anything. Why would we believe
Speaker 1: that the Democrats were so willing to corrupt the Justice Department,
Speaker 1: to have FBI agents lie, to have senior DJ officials
Speaker 1: cover up, to have James Comey go forward and bail
Speaker 1: out Hillary Clinton by saying that no honest prosecutor would
Speaker 1: bring charges against her for clear violations of federal statute.
Speaker 1: Why would we think that? Now, oh, when a Biden president,
Speaker 1: and see has the problem of a son who not
Speaker 1: only was It's not just that Hunter Biden was doing
Speaker 1: corrupt stuff, it's that he was leveraging his dad, his
Speaker 1: relationship with his dad, and bringing his dad into it.
Speaker 1: And his dad is looking like he's going to be
Speaker 1: president friends, he is now officially the president elect. That
Speaker 1: is a fact. I know, I don't like saying it
Speaker 1: out loud, but it is a fact. And you have
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden knowing this whole time that he'll get a pass.
Speaker 1: This is the great double standard. Democrats are so emotionalized
Speaker 1: about their politics. They view it as so intrinsic to
Speaker 1: their very being. They're so certain that they are good people,
Speaker 1: that they're the better people out there, that if they
Speaker 1: have to break rules, if they have to dispense with principles,
Speaker 1: at the first moment of any any problem for them,
Speaker 1: they it's all it's all for the greater good, you see,
Speaker 1: it's for the collective good. And they're just simply fine
Speaker 1: with that. They have no problem with that. I do,
Speaker 1: and I think that we need to understand it. It's
Speaker 1: gonna get ugly now, and we have to make it
Speaker 1: ugly because otherwise there's no way that they will ever
Speaker 1: think twice about doing what they did to President Trump.
Speaker 1: We have not achieved justice for what Democrats did the
Speaker 1: first four years the last four years of Donald Trump's presidency,
Speaker 1: not even close. And unless we understand what this game
Speaker 1: is really all about now and how they're playing it,
Speaker 1: and meet them on the battlefield the way they meet us,
Speaker 1: we're just going to keep losing. We're going to keep losing.
Speaker 1: I say, no, you're in the freedom hunt. This is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Did China seek to influence
Speaker 1: this last election? It's a very important, very straightforward question.
Speaker 1: Did the CCP did our chief global rival and likely
Speaker 1: future all out enemy, the Chinese Communist Party, did they
Speaker 1: actually have a hand in what happened? Now? I remember
Speaker 1: when Russia buying a pittance worth of Facebook ads was
Speaker 1: considered an urgent national security crisis, and that that meant
Speaker 1: that we couldn't really trust the results of the twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen election because a couple of troll farmers in Russia
Speaker 1: put some stuff up about hashtag lock her up on Facebook.
Speaker 1: Remember that that was Russia interfered in the election. Russia interfered,
Speaker 1: That's what they told us. Well, did China interfere in
Speaker 1: this election? And what does that mean about what our
Speaker 1: response should be if China did interfere as Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: even the legitimate victor, even based on the process as
Speaker 1: riddled with errors and fraud as we've already seen as
Speaker 1: it was, right, do we add this on top of
Speaker 1: all of that, We're gonna treat this guy like it's legitimate,
Speaker 1: even though we have even more problems with the integrity
Speaker 1: and authenticity of this election process. So the Intelligence communities
Speaker 1: classified Assessment on Foreign Threats to the election this year
Speaker 1: was supposed to be released tomorrow, and now they're saying
Speaker 1: it is delayed. Why would it be delayed. Well, let's
Speaker 1: get into this for a moment. Quote this afternoon. This
Speaker 1: was from yesterday. The DNI was notified by career intelligence
Speaker 1: officials that the intelligence community will not meet the December
Speaker 1: eighteenth guidelines set by Executive Order and Congress to submit
Speaker 1: the ICs classified Assessment on Foreign Threats to the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty election. According to Amanda Shock, Assistant DNI for Strategic Communications,
Speaker 1: the IC has received relevant reporting since the election, and
Speaker 1: a number of agencies have not finished coordinating on the product.
Speaker 1: The DNI is committed to providing this report to our
Speaker 1: customers expeditiously. Now I'm somebody who was involved in these
Speaker 1: kind of assessments at the CIA. I used to write
Speaker 1: assessments like this, part of them about things going on
Speaker 1: in the Middle East. So I know this process very well.
Speaker 1: And you know what the problem is here, I can
Speaker 1: tell you. And I don't have any specific knowledge of
Speaker 1: this process of the classified and what's being said behind
Speaker 1: closed doors, but I know how the bureaucracy works, and
Speaker 1: I know how the various parties involved your fight over there.
Speaker 1: They call it their equities right there, their interests in
Speaker 1: this and here's what's going on. There are people who
Speaker 1: are very pro Biden, who are jubilant, and most of
Speaker 1: the senior ranks of the especially we're talking about the
Speaker 1: analytic condre, which I was a part of, which is,
Speaker 1: you know, the nerd society in the intelligence community. Most
Speaker 1: of the analytic cadre are Democrats. I'd say seventy seventy
Speaker 1: to eighty percent are Democrats. That's just a guess. But again,
Speaker 1: I spent a lot of time around these people I know,
Speaker 1: and most of them are overjoyed that they think Joe
Speaker 1: Biden has this thing in the bag. It's all over.
Speaker 1: He's the next president of the United States, and they're
Speaker 1: gonna do everything they can to try and protect this guy.
Speaker 1: They're gonna do everything everything they can to make sure
Speaker 1: that there's not even a dissenting opinion in this intelligence
Speaker 1: community assessment that could be used because it will make
Speaker 1: its way to the press. And there's also there are
Speaker 1: there's the unclassified version of this, which is what everyone's
Speaker 1: talking about now. It's supposed to be they're supposed to
Speaker 1: be released, right, so there's a classified assessment of it,
Speaker 1: and then usually they'll do it an unclassified executive summary
Speaker 1: that'll make its way out, though that takes longer. That
Speaker 1: takes more time. But why would they be so worried
Speaker 1: about this? Shouldn't they just the usual standard for the IC.
Speaker 1: The usual standard when I was in was that if
Speaker 1: there were really strong dissenting opinions, you include them in
Speaker 1: the reports, that you have a full spectrum analogy of
Speaker 1: what's going on. And when this doesn't happen, the intelligence
Speaker 1: community often has horrifically flawed analysis that's completely wrong. So
Speaker 1: the issue here is most likely that they don't want
Speaker 1: There are people who probably think that they're up for
Speaker 1: maybe a big promotion or a much better deal for
Speaker 1: themselves in a Biden administration, and they don't want to
Speaker 1: be a part of anything. And also for ideological reasons,
Speaker 1: they want to make sure that there's nothing that could
Speaker 1: harm good old blue collar Joe. Because even if China
Speaker 1: didn't influence the election in a way that was determinative,
Speaker 1: even if China didn't do enough, well, we remember from
Speaker 1: Russia Collusion that no sane, intelligent human being thought that
Speaker 1: some Russian Facebook ads changed the course of the twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen election. But there was some Russian influence operation online
Speaker 1: their fare or we can't ever know. Sorry, Trump's invalid.
Speaker 1: That was their take. And some of the smarter people
Speaker 1: who are Democrat deep staters inside the IC, they're seeing
Speaker 1: this and they realize, WHOA, we got a problem here,
Speaker 1: because if it comes out, if it makes its way
Speaker 1: to Congress, and then there's an unclassified version of this
Speaker 1: that gets released, they declassify portions of the executive summary
Speaker 1: and release it. And it turns out that China tried
Speaker 1: to help Joe Biden after his son was asking a
Speaker 1: Chinese oligarch, which is basically a Chinese Communist Party businessman.
Speaker 1: You can't be a wealthy Chinese businessman without the Chinese
Speaker 1: Communist Party calling the shots for you, asking for millions
Speaker 1: and millions of dollars that guy. Yeah, not a surprise
Speaker 1: that they that Joe Biden would be the choice of
Speaker 1: the CCP, is it? But they don't want people to know.
Speaker 1: They don't want people to be able to draw upon
Speaker 1: this and to hold the Democrats to hold Joe Biden
Speaker 1: to the same standard that Donald Trump was held to.
Speaker 1: In fact, this would be even a very different standard
Speaker 1: because at least this is real. At least this is
Speaker 1: a country that has the kind of influence to project
Speaker 1: itself onto our politics and change an election. China targeted
Speaker 1: sanctions against states with the whole trade war and agricultural
Speaker 1: issues meant to hurt Republicans. China actively works to the
Speaker 1: benefit of the DNC. We know this. They would much
Speaker 1: rather have complacent DNC elite establishment figures who all want
Speaker 1: to be on the board of Facebook or they all
Speaker 1: want to be getting some consulting agreement from Google. Those
Speaker 1: are the people that they want in government doing their
Speaker 1: bidding right, because they are going to be able to say, hey,
Speaker 1: do you want access to our Chinese market? Do you
Speaker 1: want to get rich or you want to be principled.
Speaker 1: That's what the Chinese Communist Party presents to Democrats and
Speaker 1: to some Republicans, and they fall for it too. Do
Speaker 1: you want to get rich or do you want to
Speaker 1: be principled? In stand up for America, Donald Trump said,
Speaker 1: you know what, go blank yourself China. We're gonna do
Speaker 1: this the right way. You think that a Biden administration
Speaker 1: is going to do that. You think you think that's
Speaker 1: gonna happen. Of course not. This is an enormous win.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you right now. I mean I think I
Speaker 1: think China's financial prospects for the next few years look
Speaker 1: very strong because Biden's a whimp and he's gonna get
Speaker 1: rolled by them, and it's in his interest to do so.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to The Bus Sesson Show podcast. Remember
Speaker 1: to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. Let's talk about the threat from
Speaker 1: China with someone who knows it well. He's a Mandarin speaker,
Speaker 1: he's a former naval intelligence officer. He is a host
Speaker 1: at One America News and I'm buddy of mine, Jack
Speaker 1: possobic Aka posts so in the mix here Jack, great
Speaker 1: to have you Seesia, how Bogyo and my thoughts, my
Speaker 1: thoughts exactly to be here today. Yeah, So tell me this.
Speaker 1: What do you think is the slowdown for this? I mean,
Speaker 1: this would be a big thing. This would be a
Speaker 1: bombshell if we have an intelligence community assessment that says
Speaker 1: that China worked in this election to influence on behalf
Speaker 1: of Joe Biden. We got Joe Biden's son and emails
Speaker 1: asking a Chinese Communist Party connected businessman for you know,
Speaker 1: a wire of ten million dollars and I'm pretty sure
Speaker 1: the rules that have been established, Jacker, if there is
Speaker 1: foreign interference, we need get a special counsel, and maybe
Speaker 1: the election is just not legitimate. That's what happened for
Speaker 1: four years. Yeah, it's really amazing what's going on. So
Speaker 1: to give people the backstory on this, the d and
Speaker 1: I report is due to be on the President's desk
Speaker 1: by tomorrow, by Friday the eighteenth. This is set by
Speaker 1: executive order. You know, this isn't one of those reports. Oh,
Speaker 1: we'll get it done when we get it done. No,
Speaker 1: no, no no, no. This is set by executive order for
Speaker 1: the Intel agencies writ large, which comes under that sort
Speaker 1: of capstone of the DNI as an intelligence community assessment,
Speaker 1: to be on his desk forty five days after the election.
Speaker 1: And by the way, this was something that when the
Speaker 1: President signed it, this had bipartisan support. Obviously, we want
Speaker 1: to know if any foreign government is interfering in our elections.
Speaker 1: This was certainly shoved down the throats of every conservative,
Speaker 1: every Trump supporter for four years straight regarding Russia. But
Speaker 1: now suddenly we've got this guy Chris Krebs who's going
Speaker 1: out and testifying and saying, oh no, there was no
Speaker 1: there was no interference whatsoever, most secure freest and ferris
Speaker 1: we've ever had. Right. Well, now it turns out and
Speaker 1: I was getting this information reporting it out yesterday afternoon,
Speaker 1: pretty early before the DNI made their announcement that there's
Speaker 1: a huge dust up going on. It's really kind of
Speaker 1: turned into a massive battle at the highest levels of
Speaker 1: our see literally the highest levels the DNI over whether
Speaker 1: or not to include assessments regarding Chinese interference. And what's
Speaker 1: really interesting, and I know, you know how to read
Speaker 1: between the tea leaves on official statements from the IC
Speaker 1: as well that they actually mentioned in the DNI's report. Now,
Speaker 1: what I had said in my reporting for One American
Speaker 1: News was that there was continuing intelligence, continuing raw intelligence
Speaker 1: coming in regarding Chinese operations. What the DNI said was
Speaker 1: there was new relevant information that was received after the election. Now,
Speaker 1: reading the tea leaves a little bit. The intel community
Speaker 1: doesn't usually find out about stuff like that that big
Speaker 1: by the you know, long after the fact, forty five
Speaker 1: days after the fact. What most likely is going on
Speaker 1: here is that one of the sixteen agencies you probably
Speaker 1: know which one that was had the information and didn't
Speaker 1: share it with the others, and now they're upset about it,
Speaker 1: and so you're getting into this sort of I'm not
Speaker 1: sure what if I can say that on air, sort
Speaker 1: of a match of sorts regarding who, you know, who
Speaker 1: gets to actually cover this situation, who gets to work
Speaker 1: that problems, to work these targets. And now D and
Speaker 1: I Radcliffe is saying, look, you guys have an issue.
Speaker 1: Analytic trade craft which we all we all learn, right,
Speaker 1: Analytic tradecraft would say that when there's disputing assessments, you
Speaker 1: include them both, Yeah, and you include the reasons for
Speaker 1: why and you and you set that out. That's basic
Speaker 1: one oh one level stuff. But for some reason, one
Speaker 1: agency is saying, no, you shouldn't include any assessment even
Speaker 1: though there is raw intelligence. Yeah, and Jack, as as you,
Speaker 1: I'm sure recall it's hard for outsiders to understand you
Speaker 1: from the You come at this from the naval intelligence side.
Speaker 1: I come in from the CIA perspective. How intense and
Speaker 1: how how much these bureaucratic turf battles can get deeply personal.
Speaker 1: I've seen adults in conference rooms with you know, draped
Speaker 1: with American flags and all kinds of regalia of the
Speaker 1: of the federal government where people were cursing and screaming
Speaker 1: in each other's faces over over things like this, over
Speaker 1: what's included in an analytic assessments, over those on the
Speaker 1: in the outside world. This becomes incredibly heated and contentious.
Speaker 1: So that's one part of it, and that's it's it's
Speaker 1: what you alluded to before. It's who gets control of
Speaker 1: this issue going forward and the resources and the White
Speaker 1: House attention that would come with that. But I also
Speaker 1: have to think, and we're speaking to Jack Pisovic, former
Speaker 1: former naval intelligence officer and one American news host, I
Speaker 1: also think that when we look at this, there's probably
Speaker 1: some elements and it might even be the majority of
Speaker 1: this where there are some people who are very pro Biden,
Speaker 1: who are senior up in the ranks at I don't
Speaker 1: know which agency I could I could take a couple
Speaker 1: of guesses who think, Okay, we got an incoming Biden administration,
Speaker 1: we got to protect as much as we can this
Speaker 1: team of adults that's coming in from the back. The
Speaker 1: backlash and the blowback of any China that becomes a
Speaker 1: big problem for the Democrats. Any China issue of influence
Speaker 1: the election makes Joe Biden an even bigger target for
Speaker 1: the stuff that we're already seeing with Hunter Biden everything else.
Speaker 1: So I think they may be covering for him. That's
Speaker 1: exactly right. And we saw this as well when intelligence
Speaker 1: became politicized during an election in twenty twelve, when the
Speaker 1: Benghazi situation happened, and you sought the intel agencies for
Speaker 1: at least for a time right when it mattered, they
Speaker 1: were doing everything they could to defend Barack Obama to
Speaker 1: make sure that their assessments were in line with, oh,
Speaker 1: this cover story about a YouTube video rather than a
Speaker 1: terrorist attack, until after the election when the truth just
Speaker 1: exploded all over the place and everybody knew what happened.
Speaker 1: And we've found out, of course that they all knew
Speaker 1: at the time what happened because it was obvious. Right,
Speaker 1: that's a similar situation to what you're seeing now. Is
Speaker 1: because they're also looking at making sure that they're in
Speaker 1: good standing it with what they perceived to be the
Speaker 1: incoming administration. They want to make sure that they maintain
Speaker 1: that relationship. And they're all also people there who are
Speaker 1: looking at it from a perspective of keep in mind,
Speaker 1: and a lot of people have to know this that
Speaker 1: there's different stripes of and different you know, sort of
Speaker 1: factions within the IC. But you do have your cold
Speaker 1: warrior types who for them, Russia will always be the
Speaker 1: great bear. They are always America's eternal enemy, and everything
Speaker 1: you know that the IC does has to be geared
Speaker 1: towards Russia. But then you also have a younger type,
Speaker 1: and I think these is like the Pete buddhaj Edge
Speaker 1: types of of IC officers, who he himself was a
Speaker 1: reserve intelligence officer, that they get their mindset from CNN,
Speaker 1: Washington Post, New York Times and then they go into
Speaker 1: the IC and so that that mindset, that framing of
Speaker 1: everything that's going on in the world starts with some
Speaker 1: pretty some pretty far left right. It used to be
Speaker 1: kind of centrist, but now they're a little bit more
Speaker 1: far left in terms of their perspective, in terms of
Speaker 1: their coverage, so they already have an outsize view of
Speaker 1: Russia being a threat versus China, who we know, of
Speaker 1: course has way more money, has way more resources. They
Speaker 1: have the wou MoU fifty cent army of Chinese bots
Speaker 1: that was influencing US social media networks in the run
Speaker 1: up to COVID nineteen and after the COVID nineteen pandemic
Speaker 1: hit our shores, right, we know that China was using
Speaker 1: these operations. So it strikes me as ridiculous that the
Speaker 1: Intel community wouldn't have found any information about Chinese influence
Speaker 1: operations because we already know that they're here speaking of
Speaker 1: Jack Posomic, host of One America News, former naval intelligence officer,
Speaker 1: at Jack, what do you think the Chinese Communist Party
Speaker 1: is going to try to do in a Biden administration?
Speaker 1: Meaning what are their goals for the next four years.
Speaker 1: We could talk about their goals the next fifty years
Speaker 1: if we really want to be terrified, but let's talk
Speaker 1: about the next four years. Well, so they're going back
Speaker 1: to the same mode that America was in in terms
Speaker 1: of our relationship piece to be China under In the
Speaker 1: waiting days of the Obama administration, there was this phrase
Speaker 1: they used and it always shocked me, and I think
Speaker 1: it shocked a lot of people out in the world
Speaker 1: when they heard it, but not so much in here
Speaker 1: in Washington, d C. They talked about the managed decline
Speaker 1: of America. America is a declining power. America is on
Speaker 1: the road to give America a soft landing these are
Speaker 1: the types of phrases you would hear. And so the
Speaker 1: question that I always asked was when President Obama, or
Speaker 1: at times he would hear Joe Biden talk about this
Speaker 1: when he himself went to China, remember he was Obama's
Speaker 1: personal envoy to China, going around with Ji Jinping, going
Speaker 1: to Situan University, bringing a son on air force to
Speaker 1: These things all happened regardless of whether Twitter will let
Speaker 1: you talk him about them or not. And so they
Speaker 1: want America to be in that declining status, moving towards
Speaker 1: where at place, quite frankly, where the UK was after
Speaker 1: World War Two, when America was then on the rise.
Speaker 1: They want China to be in the driver's seat as
Speaker 1: the rise to a global maybe not a hegemony, but
Speaker 1: a global superpower in terms of where the United States
Speaker 1: used to be. Right, I always try to explain this people.
Speaker 1: It's not necessarily that China hates the United States. They
Speaker 1: don't have disdain for us. They actually, in many cases
Speaker 1: have a lot of respect for America's past achievements. That
Speaker 1: being said, they want to be where we are. A
Speaker 1: Chinese guy tell me once, I want to be in
Speaker 1: a position where I see Chinese families adopting American babies
Speaker 1: and not the other way around, and that, you know,
Speaker 1: and he didn't mean it in a negative way, didn't
Speaker 1: mean it as an insult. He just meant that's where
Speaker 1: he wanted. They want to be that, they want to
Speaker 1: be the global hegemon. There's no question about that. They're
Speaker 1: working toward that all the time. Jack. I also want
Speaker 1: to ask you about that the Hunter Biden situations, specifically
Speaker 1: because you and I were corresponding early on about this
Speaker 1: to make sure that you know, we were all lined
Speaker 1: up with what was really happening, and you know, you
Speaker 1: verified important things for me to make sure that we
Speaker 1: knew that that story was quite real when it was
Speaker 1: when it was breaking right before the election. Do you
Speaker 1: think it's fair to say that Hunter Biden is compromised
Speaker 1: by the Chinese Communist Party? I don't you know. When
Speaker 1: you're in the IC, you're taught to look for flags,
Speaker 1: compromise flags. You're taught to look for these these indicators, right,
Speaker 1: and you're supposed to stack them. We're all given this
Speaker 1: training about, uh, this person has four indicators, this person
Speaker 1: has five indicators. I've actually worked on which obviously can't
Speaker 1: get into but I've actually worked on some of those situations.
Speaker 1: I have some experience with some of those situations from
Speaker 1: from an operational perspective on how the CCP works. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, so when I saw that Eric Swalwell situation,
Speaker 1: it said, well, yeah, this is textbook. It didn't even
Speaker 1: shock me at all in the least times. I would
Speaker 1: be surprised if they weren't doing that, right, I would be.
Speaker 1: I was the only surprised that leaked publicly the way
Speaker 1: it did. Hunter Biden is quite possibly the most compromised
Speaker 1: person that we've ever had being this close to the
Speaker 1: White House. And I'm not saying that based on you know,
Speaker 1: my opinion, right, I'm saying that based on the emails,
Speaker 1: the reports. The money is ties to these private equity
Speaker 1: firms that he still has stakes in. Right. They say,
Speaker 1: well he's off the board, and so okay, he took
Speaker 1: his title off, That doesn't mean he doesn't still have
Speaker 1: a stake in the firm, right. That's what matters. The money.
Speaker 1: And just from a perspective, you know, we know that
Speaker 1: China uses what they call yellow operations, So yellow involves
Speaker 1: anything that's intimate. Hunter Biden's a guy where and I remember,
Speaker 1: I've had access to this hard drive. He filmed all
Speaker 1: sorts of things and just strange videos, even when it
Speaker 1: was just himself, very strange videos that this guy was filming.
Speaker 1: And to think that the Chinese don't have other videos
Speaker 1: of him as well as these videos that we've seen, is,
Speaker 1: you know, be ridiculous to think that they don't have
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff. So, yeah, you do have a
Speaker 1: situation here where very clearly this is someone who's compromised
Speaker 1: financially and compromised personally. And so with Joe Biden, it's
Speaker 1: really strange that he's taken this absolutist perspective. Right he
Speaker 1: told us at the debate. Memory go back to what
Speaker 1: he said to the American people, my son has not
Speaker 1: taken a cent from China. These there were no transactions.
Speaker 1: It was a smear. And now it's well, these transactions
Speaker 1: were looked to and nobody said there was anything any
Speaker 1: problem with it. And then the latest is that Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden's come out and said my father had no information
Speaker 1: about the right. It's just it's just a cascade of
Speaker 1: changing lies like the Hilary email situation, by the way, right, right,
Speaker 1: it's crazy, exactly right, And so you need to be
Speaker 1: upfront with the American people. It's as simple as that.
Speaker 1: Be upfront with the American people. And if there's something
Speaker 1: to happen that was wrong, be a man, be an adult.
Speaker 1: And I say this to Joe Biden, this is your son,
Speaker 1: all right, this is your son. It's time to step
Speaker 1: up and be the role model that Quite frankly, it
Speaker 1: looks like he never had. Jack Besobic one American news network. Jack,
Speaker 1: great to have you, my friend. Take care, Thanks so much.
Speaker 1: You're in the Freedom Hunt. This is the Buck Sex
Speaker 1: and Show podcast. It's gonna be tight in Georgia, everybody.
Speaker 1: You need to keep hearing it. I know we've got
Speaker 1: stations down in Georgia. So there are people who are
Speaker 1: registered in the state of Georgia who are listening to
Speaker 1: this show right now. And this is going to be
Speaker 1: a very close election for both of those Senate runoff
Speaker 1: seats right now. The Democrats are playing a pretty clear game,
Speaker 1: or maybe in a sense, we know what their game is,
Speaker 1: but they're making it muddled, right. They're trying to avoid
Speaker 1: us understanding what's really happening here. And here's the situation.
Speaker 1: The Democrats are hoping that We're going to become a
Speaker 1: little bit complacent, overconfident that people who are understandably furious
Speaker 1: about the presidential election in Georgia aren't going to turn out.
Speaker 1: That would be disastrous. Not only is there the Senate balance,
Speaker 1: which is the biggest single issue in play here, but
Speaker 1: these candidates have been Warnock and ass Off these would
Speaker 1: be really problematic left wing legislators. These are not moderates.
Speaker 1: You know. This isn't like a Susan Collins kind of
Speaker 1: a situation on the Democrat side. These are leftists who
Speaker 1: are running. So it's not even just a function of
Speaker 1: the balance of power, which of course is the primary issue.
Speaker 1: But you got guys like John Assof. I mean, this
Speaker 1: guy is a he's a trust fund baby, the classic
Speaker 1: limousine lib who wants to push the more radical left
Speaker 1: policies of the Democrats onto the nation if he gets
Speaker 1: into the United States Senate play clip twelve. I think
Speaker 1: that the GOP attacks at this point are in garden
Speaker 1: variety fearmongering, race baiting. Look, they've been lengthening my nose
Speaker 1: in their ads to remind everybody, but I'm a Jew.
Speaker 1: They've been running racist tax against Reverend Warnock, and what's
Speaker 1: emerging in Georgia is the New South. You've got the
Speaker 1: young Jewish son of an immigrant, mentored by John Lewis,
Speaker 1: running alongside a black preacher who holds Doctor King's pulpit
Speaker 1: at Evanezer Church. And we're traveling the state right now.
Speaker 1: You see this bus behind me talking about health, jobs
Speaker 1: and justice. So the GOP can run their playbook, which
Speaker 1: is fear and division. We're talking about what we're gonna
Speaker 1: do for working people at a moment of crisis here
Speaker 1: in Georgia. Yeah, calling them racist and anti submitted. This
Speaker 1: is what you're going to get from us Off and
Speaker 1: of course you're gonna hear similar stuff from from Warnock too.
Speaker 1: Never mind the fact that Warnock is being entirely protected
Speaker 1: by the media establishment. I mean, they will do anything
Speaker 1: to make sure that we don't know that that not
Speaker 1: enough Georgians know that this is a guy who said
Speaker 1: you can't serve the militarian serve God. At the same
Speaker 1: time that this is an individual who is not in
Speaker 1: the political mainstream us Off and Warnock, but they are
Speaker 1: that the Democrats right now are full of a kind
Speaker 1: of a kind of hubrist They feel like they've got
Speaker 1: the momentum, and they understand that we face a very
Speaker 1: very different country for the next four years. If the
Speaker 1: Democrats have a majority in the Senate, that that is
Speaker 1: going to be problematic, that is going to be a
Speaker 1: serious challenge for us going forward. So for all of
Speaker 1: Team Buck George out there, and I know we've got
Speaker 1: a lot of listeners. We've got people all around the
Speaker 1: Savannah area, I know who listened to the show, and
Speaker 1: we've got people in the suburbs of Atlanta, and we've
Speaker 1: got various stations out there in Georgia. You please your vote.
Speaker 1: I mean this election, this could be a Senate election
Speaker 1: that comes down to hundreds of votes. It's one percent
Speaker 1: in the polls that I'm seeing right now, and it's
Speaker 1: probably going to be even tighter than that. Norm Coleman
Speaker 1: got his seats stolen from him by Al Frankin by
Speaker 1: a margin of literally hundreds of votes. We have thousands
Speaker 1: of people that listen to this show in Georgia alone,
Speaker 1: and perhaps tens of thousands, and I would really like
Speaker 1: it if all of you listening in the state of
Speaker 1: Georgia right now would please go vote and tell your
Speaker 1: conservative Republican friends, family, you know, Bob the mail guy,
Speaker 1: Susie the coffee shop owner, you know whoever. Say you
Speaker 1: gotta get out there and vote. You've got to spread
Speaker 1: the word. If we go into the middle of January,
Speaker 1: if we go into a Biden inauguration with the Democrats
Speaker 1: picking off these two Senate seats, we are in for
Speaker 1: a rough ride, friends, and it's not too late. We
Speaker 1: can stop it. So let's do that. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the buses and show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on
Speaker 1: Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: It's Harsani time, everybody. Our friend David Harsani from National
Speaker 1: Review in the mix now with all the biggest, most
Speaker 1: important stories of a week, at least the ones that
Speaker 1: he most wants to talk to us about. David, great
Speaker 1: to have you back. Always a pleasure of thank you.
Speaker 1: So I had to laugh. This week we had Steve Schmidt,
Speaker 1: who I am. I am not shy about criticizing for
Speaker 1: his absurd commentary on the show on a regular basis.
Speaker 1: I do think maybe offers up I don't know if
Speaker 1: he is the dumbest political commentator, but offers up some
Speaker 1: of the dumbest political commentary you could find anywhere, and
Speaker 1: has been doing this for the amusement of Democrats for years.
Speaker 1: A former Republican GOP strategist or whatever. Now it comes
Speaker 1: out that he and other people from the Lincoln Project
Speaker 1: are Democrats. I mean, they're formerly joining the Democrat Party.
Speaker 1: I remember what I was saying, that these people are
Speaker 1: called Democrats two years ago or three years ago, you know, whatever,
Speaker 1: me even before they had the Lincoln Project and they
Speaker 1: were saying, oh, no, they're the real Conservatives. Turns out
Speaker 1: not so much. David now and Steve Schmidt is especially
Speaker 1: no shit. But you know, the things he says are
Speaker 1: especially dishonest and miss you know, misleading and nasty. But
Speaker 1: he's not very bright guy, and he's always I mean,
Speaker 1: once you start going after senators like Collins in Maine
Speaker 1: or other moderate Republicans, you're no longer anti Trump. You're
Speaker 1: just a Democrat, which was always my problem with the
Speaker 1: Lincoln Project. You want to you want to go out
Speaker 1: there and campaign for Democrats, that's fine, But if you
Speaker 1: want to be on CNN and other stations pretending you're
Speaker 1: a Republican who is just so hurt by the mean
Speaker 1: things that Donald Trump says, you're misleading the public, right,
Speaker 1: and it's a scam and a con and that's of
Speaker 1: course what those guys are running over there. So I
Speaker 1: don't really understand why he couldn't. It's weird that he
Speaker 1: had to tell everyone he's going to be a Democrat
Speaker 1: when he could have just continued that con. I guess
Speaker 1: that because they had such a little effect on the election,
Speaker 1: they're going to try something new. I don't know, but
Speaker 1: but yeah, I mean it's such a joke. It seems
Speaker 1: to me like there's gonna be a whole lot of
Speaker 1: former conservative or whatever they call themselves, you know, GOP
Speaker 1: strategists at CNN and MSNBC who only had they've only
Speaker 1: got two options become Democrats or no longer be on
Speaker 1: TV and pushing this nonsense. Because I mean, if you're
Speaker 1: looking for overrepresentation of a set of political beliefs, the
Speaker 1: people who claim to be so much the real Republicans
Speaker 1: during the Trump presidency, who are on TV all the time,
Speaker 1: you had Nicole Wallace from the Bush administration, Steve Schmidt.
Speaker 1: I mean, I can't even think of all the off
Speaker 1: the top of my head right now. But yet all
Speaker 1: these former so called former Republicans who I mean, oh,
Speaker 1: what's his name of Rick Wilson? These people were so GOP.
Speaker 1: So what happens now? I mean, I get the con
Speaker 1: can't continue kenn It No, It's like there's always going
Speaker 1: to be an industry of former Republicans who just can't
Speaker 1: take it. This is not something new. It's gone back.
Speaker 1: You know, it was happening during the Bush years as well,
Speaker 1: people who just simply could not you know, where has
Speaker 1: the Republican Party gone. It's terrible. Four years from now
Speaker 1: people are going to be saying, you know, at least
Speaker 1: Trump did X and Y. You know, this is even worse.
Speaker 1: It's always the way. These guys were especially terrible because
Speaker 1: they didn't only attack Trump and I'm fine with going
Speaker 1: after politicians. They mocked conservatives, They mocked conservative beliefs, and
Speaker 1: but they do it under under the title of a
Speaker 1: former Republican, you know, the real conservatives. And that's what
Speaker 1: just annoys me so much because it's no longer an
Speaker 1: ideological argument. It's just about personalities. And these people are
Speaker 1: just on TV so that they can make liberals feel
Speaker 1: good about themselves as they sort of mean conservatives, and
Speaker 1: it's it's Also the problem with that is that you
Speaker 1: have networks that are putting these folks up for that
Speaker 1: very reason. They don't want to have real debates. They
Speaker 1: want to have How many conservatives are really on CNN?
Speaker 1: Let's say, I mean, I don't really want none. Now
Speaker 1: the answer is none. It doesn't exist anymore. But go ahead.
Speaker 1: I know that I don't want to insult you know.
Speaker 1: I know that we both no se cup right, I
Speaker 1: think we both worked with her at the same time.
Speaker 1: But she's you know, she's out there ripping the Second Amendment,
Speaker 1: you know, saying you know, she's just basically just a
Speaker 1: liberal who still calls herself, I guess a conservative, and
Speaker 1: that's just misleading. I just think we deserve, or reviewers
Speaker 1: deserve a better debate, or maybe we don't deserve it.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but that, you know, it's still design.
Speaker 1: I feel like there's no debate allowed at these places anymore.
Speaker 1: In fact, I think there are very few places in
Speaker 1: the media in general where there's any effort to allow
Speaker 1: a real airing of ideas, and I think it's because
Speaker 1: a lot of it is driven by audiences. I mean,
Speaker 1: I will say that it's true, it's very true on
Speaker 1: the left. It's even a little bit true on the right.
Speaker 1: You know, you'll have if there's an exchange of ideas
Speaker 1: that doesn't result in someone saying, you know, in someone
Speaker 1: effectively clearly trouncing and sort of belittling the other person.
Speaker 1: You know a lot of people who are just disinterested
Speaker 1: in that now. I mean, they don't even really want
Speaker 1: to hear the exchange. Not everybody, but that that's very common.
Speaker 1: And I think that's what the media ecosystems that exist
Speaker 1: right now have done. And it's a shame, and it's
Speaker 1: it's it's much more pervasive on the left and it
Speaker 1: is on the right, but I do see it in
Speaker 1: both places, and and I feel like we understand the
Speaker 1: real crux of a lot of these arguments, as as
Speaker 1: the American people less than we otherwise would because everyone's
Speaker 1: just kind of protecting their brand now. No one, no
Speaker 1: one actually wants to get into it. I think that's right.
Speaker 1: And you see people threatening to cancel their New York
Speaker 1: Times headlines when you know someone writes i'm sorry. There
Speaker 1: are subscriptions when someone writes a headline they don't like
Speaker 1: or covers a story they don't like, and obviously. You know,
Speaker 1: I get a lot of mail about you know, National
Speaker 1: Review as this writer or that writer, like it's hard
Speaker 1: for people to understand that you can have more than
Speaker 1: one opinion, or when people attack a publication, they say,
Speaker 1: you know, the National Review says this, or the National
Speaker 1: Review says that when it's a columnist. It happened at
Speaker 1: the Federalists as well. You know, hard for people to
Speaker 1: understand that that you're going to have a lot of
Speaker 1: different opinions and debate, which I think is healthy. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I think you're right. It's a lot of I just
Speaker 1: think a lot of audiences just no longer want to
Speaker 1: hear it anymore. And I hate to say, and I
Speaker 1: this will sound biased, but conservatives probably are that way
Speaker 1: because they're so sick of these big institutions being so
Speaker 1: biased that they don't want to. In their view, they're like,
Speaker 1: we don't need this debate here when we constantly hear
Speaker 1: it elsewhere. So I get that part of it, but
Speaker 1: I agree, and I also think conservatives are so sick
Speaker 1: of the fake version of these debates that I mean,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's kind of like the West Wing effect,
Speaker 1: you know from the TV show by Aaron's working the
Speaker 1: West wing. It's like, oh, like the Democrats if I
Speaker 1: have all these snappy comebacks and are just so wonderful
Speaker 1: and like good looking and smart, and the Republicans always
Speaker 1: like I just I just love Jesus and I hate women,
Speaker 1: And you know, it's like that's that's what's what you
Speaker 1: get on the West wing, as though those are all Republicans, right,
Speaker 1: They're just they're a bunch of Bible thumping, anti women,
Speaker 1: kind of maybe racist, and all the arguments kind of
Speaker 1: boiled down to that. You're like, oh, okay, I guess
Speaker 1: that's the way it really is. Sometimes they see the
Speaker 1: light right it comes over to the right side and
Speaker 1: they see it. Yeah, and then they have some really
Speaker 1: some really sort of sacharin violin music in the background
Speaker 1: as the conservative you know, they play the clarinets in
Speaker 1: the background as a conservative goes, wow, you're right. I
Speaker 1: never really thought of it that way. You know, find
Speaker 1: they find their heart and their humanity and vote with
Speaker 1: It's a funny thing. It's just a little off topics.
Speaker 1: When people tell you to stop being partisan, they just
Speaker 1: mean stopping republican. It's never, you know, the other way
Speaker 1: that they mean it stop being a partisan and just
Speaker 1: embrace gun right gun restrictions or stopping a partisan and
Speaker 1: do this and that. Yeah, I mean it's again it's
Speaker 1: we hit this quite often, but it's just it's sort
Speaker 1: of an institutional problem now and I'm not sure what
Speaker 1: can be done about it. Went with these fake Republics like, no,
Speaker 1: you know, I used to work with Tom Nichols. It's
Speaker 1: a fine guy, I guess, you know, and all that,
Speaker 1: but he's never really been a conservative. You know, there's
Speaker 1: no what views of his are actually a conservative? I
Speaker 1: don't know. And yet he's on there pretending to be
Speaker 1: this uh you know, firstwhile Republican who who has you
Speaker 1: seen the light and is fighting against evil with it
Speaker 1: in his own party. But he's never been a conservative.
Speaker 1: So it's just dishonest. We're speaking of David Harsani of
Speaker 1: National Review, and David speaking of the lack of honesty
Speaker 1: in public conversations. I gotta say this, so so, Pete
Speaker 1: Buddha Judge is now supposed to be the incoming Biden
Speaker 1: administration Transportation secretary, and some of the articles, some of
Speaker 1: this stuff on this have honestly been hilarious already. Pete
Speaker 1: here's from NPR. Pete Buddha, Judge, president elect Biden's pick
Speaker 1: for Transportation secretary, said quote he has a personal love
Speaker 1: of transportation, recounting train trips on Amtrak while in college,
Speaker 1: and said he proposed to his new husband chasing in
Speaker 1: an airport terminal. Oh well, no, I mean this, this
Speaker 1: is a step away from I'm not a doctor, but
Speaker 1: I stayed at a Marriott Expressed last night or whatever
Speaker 1: a holiday and express whatever it is. And look, this
Speaker 1: is the media is actually doing this. Pete Buddha Judge
Speaker 1: like trains in college, so he should be the transportation secretary.
Speaker 1: It's amazing when you compare it to like what happened
Speaker 1: with Betsy Davas or you know, any any anyone actually
Speaker 1: in the Trump administration. Pete, Pete actually mayor Pete. It's
Speaker 1: like a thermonuclear cliche generator. You know. He says stuff
Speaker 1: like and I'm making this up, but it's probably pretty close,
Speaker 1: you know, like, uh, we don't build roads, the roads
Speaker 1: build us. You know that kind of thing. And he's
Speaker 1: perfect for for the job where where a little is
Speaker 1: done and it doesn't really matter. So I mean, I
Speaker 1: met ray La Hood when he was Obama's transprotect Transportation secretary,
Speaker 1: and he was one of the most ridiculous people I've
Speaker 1: ever met in person, and I would let him run
Speaker 1: anything either. So I think this is a pretty good
Speaker 1: spot for me. Yeah. I guess you're going to see
Speaker 1: a lot more of this though, And I remember when
Speaker 1: say what you will about is foreign policy in action.
Speaker 1: But the CEO of Exxon Mobile, which until recently was
Speaker 1: the largest and wealthiest corporation in the world, I mean,
Speaker 1: the most valuable I should say corporation in the world,
Speaker 1: Rex Tillerson had that job, and when they were going
Speaker 1: to make him Secretary of State, they acted like Trump
Speaker 1: had picked some some like inebriated fool off the beach
Speaker 1: somewhere that he thought was funny. To me, it's just
Speaker 1: there's no that the media has so little in terms
Speaker 1: of standards and principles they apply now, you know, political journalism.
Speaker 1: If we want to be more specific about it, David,
Speaker 1: then you just feel like they don't care anymore. They
Speaker 1: don't know. I mean, how is this possible, the double
Speaker 1: standards to be this blatant? Well, I mean, well, I
Speaker 1: don't know about that part, but I do know that
Speaker 1: it's fun when you think about how they would talk
Speaker 1: about Trump as this person was completely unprepared for the job.
Speaker 1: But yet Obama, who literally I cannot tell you what
Speaker 1: he did other than run for president essentially for about
Speaker 1: eight years before he became president. I don't even know
Speaker 1: what he did before then. I know he's a community organizer.
Speaker 1: I don't even know what that means. He never ran anything,
Speaker 1: but he's treated as someone who is like incredibly proficient
Speaker 1: and everything and knowledgeable and ready to run a giant
Speaker 1: or biggest organization in the world essentially, where where Donald
Speaker 1: Trump actually has ran pretty big businesses et cetera. But
Speaker 1: so there's always gonna be this double standard, and may
Speaker 1: or Peace just far part of it. And I gotta
Speaker 1: ask you because I didn't get a chance to talk
Speaker 1: to you about this sooner. But you know, bet, I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not Betti Us, the wife of Jill Biden. Sorry
Speaker 1: I was blanking on an a for second, Jill Biden,
Speaker 1: where do you come down on the doctor the doctor
Speaker 1: Biden controversy. I've noted on numerous occas that the only
Speaker 1: people I call doctor people can prescribe me morphine and
Speaker 1: doctor Ja those are the two I've been persuaded to
Speaker 1: maybe do I'm not doctor, doctor Ja. I've been persuaded
Speaker 1: to maybe called doctor Dre a doctor. But Kyle Smithew
Speaker 1: writes at the National Review, wrote a scathing column and
Speaker 1: read her dissertation, which is just complete garbage. I would
Speaker 1: say that I don't call people doctors who aren't medical doctors.
Speaker 1: I find it pretentious. I think it creates against the
Speaker 1: egalitarianism of American life for someone to demand that you
Speaker 1: call them by their credentials. And I think it's kind
Speaker 1: of laughable considering what she's a doctor, in no offense
Speaker 1: to others who have been lucky enough to be able
Speaker 1: to go to school long enough to get that degree.
Speaker 1: David Harsani of National Review check out his latest at
Speaker 1: National Review dot com. David, always a pleasure. Thank you,
Speaker 1: you're in the Freedom Hunt. This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show podcast. I've also had a personal love of transportation
Speaker 1: ever since childhood. More than once, as a college student,
Speaker 1: I would convince a friend to travel nearly a thousand
Speaker 1: miles back to Indiana with me on Amtrak. Though I
Speaker 1: know that in this administration I will at best aspire
Speaker 1: to be the second biggest train enthusiast around. I spent
Speaker 1: a spring break in graduate school aboard a cargo ship
Speaker 1: studying there. Travel, in my mind, is synonymous with growth,
Speaker 1: with adventure, even love, so much so that I proposed
Speaker 1: to my husband Chaston in an airport terminal. What does
Speaker 1: that avenue of being transportation secretary? Exactly? That doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: I mean it matters. But the media is, Oh, it's amazing,
Speaker 1: it's great, you know, modern modern romance in an airport, airport,
Speaker 1: whatever lounge or wherever he proposed, proposed to his husband.
Speaker 1: You know they oh, they all love the story. They
Speaker 1: love the whole thing. It's going to be quite an
Speaker 1: amazing feat to watch the transformation of the national media
Speaker 1: from being viciously psychotically opposed to the current administration to
Speaker 1: transforming and becoming an administration pom pomp squad. Right, they're
Speaker 1: gonna love. The national media is gonna love everything. They're
Speaker 1: gonna you know, two four to six s eight, Who
Speaker 1: do we appreciate Biden. It's gonna be it's gonna be
Speaker 1: tough to sit through. It's gonna be tough to deal with.
Speaker 1: But that's what the good news is. You can come
Speaker 1: here at least I'll tell you the truth about old
Speaker 1: man Joe, and what a joke, what an unbelievable farce.
Speaker 1: This whole thing is, this guy is gonna be president.
Speaker 1: But I guess the good news is that you two
Speaker 1: can be like a D minus student with with rock
Speaker 1: bottom credentials in every aspect of your of your formative years. Uh,
Speaker 1: and you two can be president of the United States.
Speaker 1: I don't know, you know anyone anyone can be president?
Speaker 1: All right, we get that from Joe Biden, and the
Speaker 1: media is going to find ways to try to convince
Speaker 1: you that this is just great and it's fantastic, and
Speaker 1: they're going to be straight up activists. They're going to
Speaker 1: be effectively. It will be as though they are receiving
Speaker 1: paychecks from the White House directly. Kaylee McKinney, the outgoing
Speaker 1: White House Press Secretary, knows this. Play nine. I asked
Speaker 1: reporter after reporter after reporter along the campaign trail, why
Speaker 1: aren't you covering this? I said, you have a laptop.
Speaker 1: You now have a firsthand witness, and Tony Bobo Lenski
Speaker 1: literally the business partner of Hunter Biden, and you have
Speaker 1: a campaign and Joe Biden, who will not deny the
Speaker 1: facts of this case. Remarkably, if they're not true, all
Speaker 1: Joe Biden has to do is come out and say
Speaker 1: this is not true, this is falsesss defamatory. As President
Speaker 1: Trump did with Russia Gate, which was a hoax, none
Speaker 1: of that happened. They did not deny it, and the
Speaker 1: press didn't cover it. It was the biggest act of
Speaker 1: journalistic malpractice in four years since the Russia hoax that
Speaker 1: they propelled in twenty sixteen. Journalism has to get to
Speaker 1: a higher standing place in this country. The American people
Speaker 1: deserve better. They don't deserve censorship, and the reporters of
Speaker 1: today need to take a look in the mirror because
Speaker 1: they don't deserve to call themselves or reporters at this point.
Speaker 1: They are, in fact, activists. Sounds like something I'd say
Speaker 1: here on this show. In fact, I have said they're
Speaker 1: they're not journalists, they're activists, I think about a million times.
Speaker 1: And it's true. But it's also not going to change.
Speaker 1: Doesn't mean we shouldn't point it out, doesn't mean we
Speaker 1: shouldn't try to hold them to account. But remember it's
Speaker 1: not viewed as a shortcoming among journalists to be an activist.
Speaker 1: You'll be promoted, you'll become more famous, you become richer.
Speaker 1: These are all good things for people rights. That's the
Speaker 1: way they view it. So the incentives are all aligned
Speaker 1: for the continuation, the perpetuation of this insanity. Just understand
Speaker 1: that thanks for listening to The bus Essence Show podcasts.
Speaker 1: Remember to subscribe on Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. We're still battling COVID, and
Speaker 1: there are still people out there who want to try
Speaker 1: to blame President Trump for all of it. They view
Speaker 1: this somehow is all Trump's fault. Somehow, the COVID pandemic
Speaker 1: has shown us the full extent of Trump't derangement syndrome.
Speaker 1: Not only is Trump to blame for it, he should
Speaker 1: even be criminally prosecuted for it. It doesn't seem to
Speaker 1: make any sense to a normal person, does it. But
Speaker 1: over at NBC News, you can get on TV if
Speaker 1: you're willing to say that the president is effectively a
Speaker 1: mass murderer responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. And
Speaker 1: I'm not exaggerating. This has aired on national TV news
Speaker 1: programs Play three. I mean, the two worst presidents of
Speaker 1: the last hundred years are the last two Republican presidents,
Speaker 1: the current one, Donald Trump and George W. Bush, which
Speaker 1: speaks volumes about the modern Republican Party. And also when
Speaker 1: you compare Trump and Bush, Push killed hundreds of thousands
Speaker 1: of people abroad, you know, brown and black people in
Speaker 1: far away countries that we don't care about. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: kill hundreds of thousand people, are presided over the deaths
Speaker 1: of hundreds of thousand people preventable death here at home
Speaker 1: in the United States of America. And that for me,
Speaker 1: you know, you talk about morally abominable, it's sociopathic. You
Speaker 1: mentioned earlier in the show. The four words that will
Speaker 1: be the epitaph is we want more infections, We want
Speaker 1: more infected. What about who cares? In those emails that
Speaker 1: jumped out at me, this guy Paul Alexander writes, if
Speaker 1: we have more cases, more people infected, more more positive tests,
Speaker 1: who cares? And you take who cares? You add it
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump's it is what it is. You add
Speaker 1: it to Jared Kushner's that's their problem when people in
Speaker 1: New York are dying. This is sociopathic. This is not
Speaker 1: just morally abomniable and I think people should be held
Speaker 1: to account. I think they should be prosecuted. The people
Speaker 1: behind these preventable deaths should be prosecuted when they leave
Speaker 1: office on January twenty prosecuted for what what? What's the
Speaker 1: crime exactly? And an eersolized respiratory virus that can kill
Speaker 1: people kills less than one percent of the people who
Speaker 1: get it, but it can kill people, And you're going
Speaker 1: to prosecute people for what exactly? And how do we
Speaker 1: factor into this this moronic rant? I mean, you need
Speaker 1: to hear that this was on NBC. Okay, this is
Speaker 1: NBC News. Maybe it was MSNBC, but NBC owns MSNBC.
Speaker 1: It's all the same thing as a national cable news channel.
Speaker 1: And you say, well, why would anyone say anything that insane?
Speaker 1: I mean, you just think this through. Is Donald Trump
Speaker 1: responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths that have occurred
Speaker 1: in Europe? Is Donald Trump responsible for all the deaths
Speaker 1: from COVID nineteen in China? In South America and countries
Speaker 1: like Argentina and Brazil which have had a very tough
Speaker 1: time with COVID nineteen in Mexico. I just want to
Speaker 1: know what really is the moral guideline that's in place here.
Speaker 1: Can can we establish that, can we understand where all
Speaker 1: this really is? Doesn't seem doesn't seem like it doesn't
Speaker 1: seem like they're willing to let us know. They just
Speaker 1: want to use this as a as a weapon to
Speaker 1: attack Donald Trump, and that is what they continue to do.
Speaker 1: And there are some on the on the on the
Speaker 1: right who have really sort of given into this, and
Speaker 1: I think they've realized that that it's just so much easier,
Speaker 1: it's so much, so much more palatable to go along
Speaker 1: with this consensus that, oh, we know what the right
Speaker 1: thing is to do. It's just those big, bad, mean
Speaker 1: Republicans won't do it. Really, so, we know the right
Speaker 1: thing to do, but we won't we we won't do
Speaker 1: it because of Trump. That's what they really think, that's
Speaker 1: what they really believe. I mean, even Chris Christie, it
Speaker 1: seems convinced that he took his mask off for a
Speaker 1: second and that's when he got sick. He has absolutely
Speaker 1: no idea how or when he got sick, none whatsoever.
Speaker 1: I can assure you of that, he has no idea.
Speaker 1: This is a sub microscopic virus that is transmitted freely
Speaker 1: in the air. I just read a study yesterday that
Speaker 1: says that people in a narrow hallway might be able
Speaker 1: to be infected by aerosolized particles up the sixteen feet
Speaker 1: behind the person that was on the Daily Mail, based
Speaker 1: on a study that was just released, a pure reviewed
Speaker 1: scientific study. Sixteen feet, all that six feet. You know
Speaker 1: that Tom Cruise went on that crazy ram we won't
Speaker 1: play it for you here screaming, and everybody on his
Speaker 1: movie said, because two people were close to each other
Speaker 1: at a computer treating, you know, dehumanizing people, screaming at them,
Speaker 1: he'll be fired. No paycheck for you. You're out of here,
Speaker 1: a little psycho. That guy's a nut job. But Chris
Speaker 1: Christie is also in this whole. Oh you know, it's
Speaker 1: it's my faults. He doesn't know, He doesn't know if
Speaker 1: when he took off his mask is when he got infected.
Speaker 1: There's no way for him to know. But he wants
Speaker 1: to be part of this newer, less crazy Republican moment here.
Speaker 1: That's what some of these you know, the Rubio Christie
Speaker 1: Romney GOP, they're trying to bring this thing back. And
Speaker 1: I don't think it's going to happen. But I can
Speaker 1: see what they're doing. Play clip eight. This message isn't
Speaker 1: for everyone, It's for all those people who refuse to
Speaker 1: wear a mask, you know, Lion isolation and ICU. For
Speaker 1: seven days, I thought about how wrong I was to
Speaker 1: remove my mask at the White House. Today, I think
Speaker 1: about how wrong it is to let mask wearing divide us,
Speaker 1: especially as we now know you're twice as likely to
Speaker 1: get COVID nineteen if you don't wear a mask, because
Speaker 1: if you don't do the right thing, we could all
Speaker 1: end up on the wrong side of history. Please wear
Speaker 1: a mask. We're wearing masks. Checkass. We're wearing masks. We've
Speaker 1: been wearing them for months. You have to wear them
Speaker 1: in most places in this country where there is dense population,
Speaker 1: you have no choice wearing them all the time. California
Speaker 1: is wearing them, New York's wearing them. Cases are skyrocketing.
Speaker 1: So what exactly is the message here? Wear masks more?
Speaker 1: We're already doing it. Double up on the mask, where's
Speaker 1: your N ninety five masks? Put on a face shield
Speaker 1: two and maybe a kerchief around the N ninety five
Speaker 1: and maybe a medical you know, cotton mask. On top
Speaker 1: of all that, I mean, at what point do they
Speaker 1: realize something is up here and it's not our lack
Speaker 1: of compliance. That is not what is driving these up.
Speaker 1: That is a completely unreasonable just it's a nonsensical view
Speaker 1: of this. But they don't want to admit that maybe
Speaker 1: what they've been telling us is us not true. If
Speaker 1: masking works to reduce the spread of COVID nineteen by
Speaker 1: five percent or ten percent, it's it's it's just extending
Speaker 1: and you remember reducing the spread. It's just a duration issue.
Speaker 1: So what are really the chances that they're saving anyone
Speaker 1: from getting infected? Would get infected anyway you're reducing get
Speaker 1: five or ten percent a month, let's say, Is that
Speaker 1: is that worth all this irritation, all the stuff that
Speaker 1: we're going through right now, the lack of freedom. It's
Speaker 1: all about compliance. Do what you're told. Chris Christie's like
Speaker 1: I took my mask off at the White House. He
Speaker 1: doesn't know he could have gotten infected a thousand different
Speaker 1: ways that day. He is no idea. But now he
Speaker 1: gets Now he gets to pat on the head from
Speaker 1: the New York Times. Now he gets to be treated
Speaker 1: like he's one of the good people, you know, And
Speaker 1: now they want you to know, don't worry. We won't
Speaker 1: punish you for your lack of mask wearing. We won't
Speaker 1: actually throw you in prison because we can't actually scientifically
Speaker 1: prove this is a good idea, but we insist that
Speaker 1: it is. This is common with telling you that place seventeen,
Speaker 1: he has said a hundred day mask mandate. Other than that,
Speaker 1: what specifically will this administration do to turn this pandemic round? Yeah,
Speaker 1: and the hundred days of the mask he's urging like
Speaker 1: there's no punishment, they don't have to, but he is saying,
Speaker 1: as a leader, please everybody work with me here for
Speaker 1: the first hundred days. Let's everybody just wear a mask
Speaker 1: and see the outcomes there, because of course the scientists
Speaker 1: and the public health officials tell us they'll be really
Speaker 1: great outcomes if everyone does wear a mask when they're
Speaker 1: in public. It is about getting through the pandemic around
Speaker 1: making sure that everyone has access to the vaccine and
Speaker 1: that they take it. And how do you go about
Speaker 1: doing that when you know there's so much mistrust, especially
Speaker 1: in the community of color. And that means about listening
Speaker 1: to the people. It means about remembering history and why
Speaker 1: people feel the way they do, and then also reminding folks,
Speaker 1: this vaccine is just about one thing, and one thing
Speaker 1: only saving lives, and the vaccine is about saving lives.
Speaker 1: You'll notice that our rejection of science that those of
Speaker 1: us who have problems with the mask mandates a lot
Speaker 1: of us at least who feel that way, don't have
Speaker 1: a problem with the vaccine. I think the vaccine is
Speaker 1: based on solid data. I think the vaccine should be
Speaker 1: should be something that people choose to take. And I
Speaker 1: think that there are going to be people. We are
Speaker 1: already seen a little bit of this. There's going to
Speaker 1: be adverse reactions. There is a risk. There's always a
Speaker 1: risk to a vaccine. There's no question about that. No
Speaker 1: matter what the vaccine is, there's always some risk to it.
Speaker 1: I think that on the whole, most of them are
Speaker 1: are very you know, not necessarily a flu vaccine for
Speaker 1: a lot of people, but you know, the MMR vaccines,
Speaker 1: and I think that this has been an enormous benefit
Speaker 1: to public health and has made us all live longer,
Speaker 1: happier lives. So I'm very pro vaccine in general, and
Speaker 1: I'm very pro this vaccine, and I think it will
Speaker 1: save a lot of lives. We'll help a lot of people.
Speaker 1: But notice that, so it's not just that there's some luddite,
Speaker 1: anti progress, anti science mentality that's pushing this. It's someone
Speaker 1: explained to me why we have these rules in place,
Speaker 1: and when the cases are low, it's, oh, look, we
Speaker 1: know how to handle this. The rules are so helpful.
Speaker 1: And then when the cases are high, with the same
Speaker 1: rules in place, they go, well, you're just not obeying enough. No,
Speaker 1: that's not I'm here in New York City and they
Speaker 1: have had everyone you see outside, even not even just
Speaker 1: to indoors, of course, but everyone you see outside now
Speaker 1: has a mask on. You knowin five percent, if this
Speaker 1: was really effective at stopping transmission in public places and
Speaker 1: you have ninety percent compliance, wouldn't wouldn't our case load
Speaker 1: just fall off of a cliff because of this. Wouldn't
Speaker 1: it be just a tiny, tiny number of people getting sick. No,
Speaker 1: but that's not what is happening, and they won't even
Speaker 1: think about why that is. Maybe it's because yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: you're let's say you're in a virus cloud in a
Speaker 1: room with someone and you're wearing that mask. You're being
Speaker 1: really good, but you know, you touch something and then you,
Speaker 1: and then you touch your nose or you touch something,
Speaker 1: or then you touch your mouth. Guess what you're still getting.
Speaker 1: And people say, oh, well, then just don't do those things.
Speaker 1: Do you know how many times you touch your face
Speaker 1: every every fifteen minutes or so. It's an astonishingly high
Speaker 1: number and everyone does it. But Kamala also when she's
Speaker 1: asked about people like Avinusom who are big proponents of
Speaker 1: all these rules, and then they don't themselves follow the rules.
Speaker 1: If it were really about saving lives, wouldn't they be
Speaker 1: more about compliance. I'll tell you this. For example, I'm
Speaker 1: very strict with myself and with others about firearms safety,
Speaker 1: having seen and been on the range a few times
Speaker 1: when people have had a fire or safety lapse and
Speaker 1: how life threatening that can be. You know someone who
Speaker 1: oh it jammed. Oh, they turn around and they point
Speaker 1: the gun at somebody thinking, oh, no, it's jam You
Speaker 1: know I mean that that's do you see that happen
Speaker 1: once or twice and you realize firearm safety? So I
Speaker 1: practice what I preach, right, I say that everybody that
Speaker 1: I'm with and myself, we have to be held to
Speaker 1: a zero mistake standard when it comes to all guns
Speaker 1: are always loaded, keep your finger off the trigger until
Speaker 1: you've made an affirmative decision to shoot. Know what your
Speaker 1: target is, what is around it, and know what is
Speaker 1: behind it. Right, I mean, these are things that you
Speaker 1: you train yourself to think about because you're in a
Speaker 1: zero mistakes and you live by them, and you expect
Speaker 1: others to live by them. Right yet, and that's because
Speaker 1: lives are at stake. A mistake on the firearms range
Speaker 1: can cause so on their life. If lives are at
Speaker 1: stake with COVID nineteen, and the people pushing these policies
Speaker 1: really believe that, why do they keep violating the very
Speaker 1: policies that they claim are saving lives? Why is that anyone?
Speaker 1: They don't have any ideas on that one. Maybe it's
Speaker 1: because they don't really believe the things that they're saying.
Speaker 1: Here's Kamala Harris when I asked about Gavin Newsom, who
Speaker 1: clearly violates the guidelines he enforces at catastrophic costs on
Speaker 1: everybody else. Play eighteen leaders on both sides when it
Speaker 1: comes to the pandemic, they will put down strict guidelines
Speaker 1: and even your colleague in California, the strict guideline but
Speaker 1: yet they don't follow through. What kind of message does
Speaker 1: that sin to the American public? I think we all
Speaker 1: have to understand that right now, this is a moment
Speaker 1: for everyone to sacrifice, and if we're going to get
Speaker 1: through this together as a country, then we all have
Speaker 1: to do it. Yeah, it's not an answer. You know why.
Speaker 1: It's not an answer. You know why you won't answer
Speaker 1: because there is no good answer other than they don't
Speaker 1: really believe the things that they're saying. They expect you
Speaker 1: to comply. They have no interest in complying themselves. Why
Speaker 1: is that. You can certainly come up with it yourself.
Speaker 1: Certainly understandable why they feel that way. We all know.
Speaker 1: The hypocrisy is very clear. It's very obvious. And yet
Speaker 1: they tell you shut up anyway, do what you're told,
Speaker 1: wear that mask. It's not going to stop until we
Speaker 1: make it stop. You're in the freedom This is the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show podcast. Well, you know, I do think
Speaker 1: that we need new leadership in the Democratic Party. I
Speaker 1: think one of the things that I have struggled with,
Speaker 1: I think that a lot of people struggle with, is
Speaker 1: the internal dynamics of the House has made it such
Speaker 1: that there's very little option for succession if you will,
Speaker 1: you know, and I think that one could just I
Speaker 1: think it's easy for someone to say, oh, well, you know,
Speaker 1: why don't you run, But the house is extraordinarily complex,
Speaker 1: and I'm not ready. It can't be me. I know
Speaker 1: that I couldn't do that job. And so even conservative
Speaker 1: members of the party who think Nancy Pelosi is far
Speaker 1: too liberal for them don't necessarily have any viable alternatives,
Speaker 1: which is why whenever there's a challenge, it kind of collapses.
Speaker 1: And that is I think the result of just many
Speaker 1: years of power being concentrated in leadership with a lack
Speaker 1: of you know, real grooming of the next generation of leadership. Wow,
Speaker 1: what I had to blame. What she said is kind
Speaker 1: of true. So this is listen to anc go oh okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: Actually Nancy Pelosi has made sure that there are no successor.
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi reminds me a lot of actually of people
Speaker 1: in media, in the news media in particular, who want
Speaker 1: to pretend that they're they want to pretend they're the
Speaker 1: only one who can do a job that a lot
Speaker 1: of other people can do, but they want to make
Speaker 1: sure there's nobody else right behind them that could take
Speaker 1: over the platform. So there's certain people that they'll allow
Speaker 1: to do things, but there are others that they want
Speaker 1: to sort of keep away because that everyone realize, Oh,
Speaker 1: this person's younger, better, and a whole lot cheaper at
Speaker 1: this job. And Nancy Pelosi, it is time for her
Speaker 1: to go. She's not going, it's not going gonna be
Speaker 1: Speaker of the House again. It's pretty remarkable when you
Speaker 1: think about it, and they're really I mean, who among
Speaker 1: the Democrats could take over that job? And forget about
Speaker 1: whether you liked I'm just saying who would even be
Speaker 1: able to at least AOC is self aware enough to
Speaker 1: know she has nowhere near the institute knowledge to be
Speaker 1: effective in that role. And it's it's clear that there
Speaker 1: is no effort to bring up other people within the
Speaker 1: Democratic You know, Pelosi, she rules that thing with an
Speaker 1: iron fist and an airmez scarf, and that's how she
Speaker 1: does it. Are they going to get this deal done
Speaker 1: where they get COVID or leaf to people though, I'm
Speaker 1: you know, I'm just gonna say it. If Republicans can't
Speaker 1: get this thing done, I worry about their fortunes in Georgia.
Speaker 1: And there need to be direct payments. People need cash
Speaker 1: on the barrel right now. People need money, who have
Speaker 1: lost their jobs because the pandemic. They need help. The
Speaker 1: GOP has has got to step up here and make
Speaker 1: sure that's a part of this. I'm increasingly seeing this.
Speaker 1: If we lose Georgia, it looks like it's going to
Speaker 1: be because we deserve to lose Georgia because we're not
Speaker 1: doing the things we need to do to win the
Speaker 1: Senate seats. And you know, there's been a lot of
Speaker 1: distraction right now and not enough of the focus that's
Speaker 1: necessary to get it done there. And I'm just I'm
Speaker 1: pleading with all of Team Buck Georgia to get out
Speaker 1: there and do everything they can for those two Senate seats.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bus Seston Show podcasts. Remember
Speaker 1: to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. Like Soft Butter on Warm Toast.
Speaker 1: Time to spread some freedom coast to coast. It's time
Speaker 1: for roll. Call Facebook dot com, Slash buck Sexton or
Speaker 1: Team Buck at Iheartsmedia dot com if you want to
Speaker 1: send us an email, and also please do check out
Speaker 1: buck Sexton dot com. We've got stories going up there,
Speaker 1: and it is good times, good times all around Brewster. Mark,
Speaker 1: you realize it is almost Friday. I'm very excited for Friday.
Speaker 1: Do you realize that on Friday you actually go on
Speaker 1: vacation for quite a while. Yes, I will not see
Speaker 1: you for fifteen days. Well, I guess I haven't seen
Speaker 1: you since March technically, but you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: I will not speak to you for fifteen days. It's
Speaker 1: gonna be very sad for you. Is missus Mark going
Speaker 1: to be able to She gonna be able to take
Speaker 1: care of you? I think we'll be okay. She is
Speaker 1: also on vacation, so this would be the most time
Speaker 1: we spent together in a long time. Oh, that's very nice.
Speaker 1: Do you guys have anything funny? Have anything fun going on? No,
Speaker 1: We're gonna watch a lot of movies, cook some stuff. Now,
Speaker 1: just enjoy as much as we can being together while
Speaker 1: doing absolutely nothing and not actually going anywhere. What is
Speaker 1: the top of the producer Mark movie list? Well? I
Speaker 1: actually said to my wife yesterday that maybe maybe on Christmas,
Speaker 1: maybe around the time. There's two holiday movies I would
Speaker 1: like to watch this year, Elf and Home Alone. I
Speaker 1: just have the itch to watch these two classics. No
Speaker 1: Princess and I watched Home Alone last weekend, in which
Speaker 1: I've seen a million times, but it's still great. You've
Speaker 1: seen them both a million times, but they're still amazing
Speaker 1: in classics. So yeah, so you've seen Elf many times.
Speaker 1: Of course, there there may be a there may be
Speaker 1: a best. Um. I think that you could argue that
Speaker 1: those are two of the top five. Oh yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: I think that that's I think Elf might be one
Speaker 1: of the top Christmas movies of all time, Like it's
Speaker 1: in the running for number one, is what I'm saying. Granted,
Speaker 1: I'm not a big Christmas movie aficionado, just I don't
Speaker 1: celebrate the holiday, but I know a lot of other
Speaker 1: people who do, who really love Elf. And I mean,
Speaker 1: I know you guys didn't do you guys didn't do
Speaker 1: that thing. Um, you didn't do that thing where you
Speaker 1: like did the tree anyway just for like fun sake.
Speaker 1: Oh no, No, My wife's parents would never love that.
Speaker 1: And I think my grandmother would roll over in her
Speaker 1: grave if I ever put a tree up in my house. Yeah, Okay,
Speaker 1: there we go. So no trees. You got to hank Hanneka. Sorry, hanaka,
Speaker 1: candles off. Did you see the video of Smokey Robinson. No,
Speaker 1: what happened? You've got to watch it. Go just search
Speaker 1: Smokey Robinson on Twitter. Maybe we can get the clip
Speaker 1: for you tomorrow. But he was doing a cameo. Do
Speaker 1: you know what those are? Yeah, So he's doing a
Speaker 1: cameo and he is wishing somebody a happy hanaka. That's
Speaker 1: what the person wrote. So he goes and I would
Speaker 1: like to wish you a happy chinooka. I don't know
Speaker 1: what that is, but happy chinooka. It is one of
Speaker 1: the funniest videos I ever seeing. You have to watch.
Speaker 1: I just want to be very clear. I think Team
Speaker 1: buck All wishes you a happy chinooka, as do. I
Speaker 1: thank you, and I have no idea what that is,
Speaker 1: but thank you. Um, and I remember, you know I
Speaker 1: got one of my so I I went to bar
Speaker 1: Mitts was growing up because I grew up here in
Speaker 1: New York City. Um, and my first girlfriend was Jewish
Speaker 1: or she was half Jewish, but I think who's raised Jewish?
Speaker 1: And I saw went too bar Mitzvuzz and Bob Mitzvu's.
Speaker 1: But I also remember there was a real breakout moment
Speaker 1: where Adam Sandler had the Honakah song, and it like
Speaker 1: really created a fest There was a festive song about
Speaker 1: honecka all of a sudden. Yeah, I mean there are
Speaker 1: there are other songs, but that's the most popular Honecks
Speaker 1: song by far. Yeah, that that's what I mean that.
Speaker 1: I think that is TiO what people think. If you
Speaker 1: ask somebody who's not particularly religious, who's Jewish, if you
Speaker 1: ask them what is the ultimate Honikah song, I feel
Speaker 1: like they may say, well, of course it's the Adam
Speaker 1: Sandler Hanaka source. Nobody says Dradel, Dradl, Dradel anymore, it's
Speaker 1: all about Adam Sandler. Yeah, Adam Sandler man, that guy.
Speaker 1: That guy had quite a run, doesn't really do I mean,
Speaker 1: oh no, he did that uncut Gems movie, which basically
Speaker 1: gave me like harp palpitations. But yeah, I mean that
Speaker 1: was a great movie, even though you didn't like it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but his stuff in the nineties early two thousands amazing.
Speaker 1: I think my brothers and I probably watched Happy gol
Speaker 1: Moore together at least a dozen times, So that's fair.
Speaker 1: The price is wrong. Um so yeah, anyway, we got
Speaker 1: all we got all the good, good things all around,
Speaker 1: and folks, just so you kind of have some sense
Speaker 1: of where we're heading here, I'm gonna be with you
Speaker 1: Monday Tuesday next week. The Godfather Michael Palic will be
Speaker 1: taking over Wednesday, which is that Christmas Eve Day. That
Speaker 1: is twenty third of December. Okay, so that's the twenty third,
Speaker 1: So then so the twenty third and uh and then
Speaker 1: and then he will be with you the Monday, Tuesday,
Speaker 1: Wednesday of the week after Christmas, and then right we
Speaker 1: are off. Yeah, so we're so we're on the holidays.
Speaker 1: We'll have best of shows. If you want to listen
Speaker 1: to something, we'll have best of shows posted so it'll
Speaker 1: be really good content that you might not have might
Speaker 1: not have remembered or heard or anything like that, so
Speaker 1: you can definitely check those out. And we're planning other
Speaker 1: a lot of other fun things. So I'll be with
Speaker 1: you guys Monday and Tuesday of next week, and then
Speaker 1: the Godfather takes over next Wednesday. Producer Mark will be
Speaker 1: gone the following week. I turned thirty nine, it's my
Speaker 1: birthday week. I will be off that week. Godfather will
Speaker 1: be in Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and then we'll have a
Speaker 1: best of show Thursday Friday for New Year's Eve. So
Speaker 1: and the Godfather is great and he's going to do
Speaker 1: a very solid job as he always does, taking over
Speaker 1: the Freedom hud. So that's that's and then January third
Speaker 1: we come back and it's all systems go. You can
Speaker 1: come back January third. I'll be in on the fourth. Oh,
Speaker 1: the fourth, right, the third would be Sunday, which would
Speaker 1: be that would be a bit of a surprise. I
Speaker 1: don't think the Affiliates would air the show. Um well,
Speaker 1: there would be no way for them too, because we're
Speaker 1: not on on Sundays, so that would be kind of
Speaker 1: a strange deal, it says when everyone to know that
Speaker 1: that's the Plants. I'll be with you pretty here for
Speaker 1: at least a couple of days next week here. But
Speaker 1: this is really the only time of the year that
Speaker 1: I that I take any vacation, you know, that's the
Speaker 1: only time of the year when I actually take vacation.
Speaker 1: So I'm and then producer Mark and a Grab be
Speaker 1: hanging out all the time. So that's how it's gonna go. Yeah,
Speaker 1: basically January fourth on, we'll be here. There you go,
Speaker 1: because we don't really we don't. We don't like we
Speaker 1: don't like other vacations. Oh, I like vacation, but the
Speaker 1: pandemic is made us not be able to take much. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's true too, can't really do very much. All righty,
Speaker 1: let's get into the roll call. Jason kicks us off here. Buck.
Speaker 1: I'm a nurse on a COVID only unit, where I've
Speaker 1: been since the start. Like another listener commented, we haven't
Speaker 1: been testing for flu. In normal times, anyone who comes
Speaker 1: in contact with a provider and has respiratory symptoms is
Speaker 1: tested for flu, but that was largely replaced by COVID tests.
Speaker 1: I assume this was mostly due to the very limited
Speaker 1: supply of test kits. The same test kit is used
Speaker 1: for both covid and flu. I have had one patient
Speaker 1: that was both covid and flu positive, but for several months,
Speaker 1: patients were only tested for flu if it was important
Speaker 1: to the differential diagnosis and treatment plan. Numbers for flu
Speaker 1: might start to tick up going forward, starting a few
Speaker 1: weeks ago, COVID testing is now often part of a
Speaker 1: panel using one test skit that includes covid, flu and
Speaker 1: other common respiratory viruses. Jason, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: the expert analysis here on this. And first, so it
Speaker 1: is possible to have covid and flu simultaneously. So that's
Speaker 1: because I had asked about that, or at least to
Speaker 1: be positive for both covid and flu. And I'm looking
Speaker 1: at the data, and the data is saying right now
Speaker 1: they're basically, i mean, almost no flu deaths so far
Speaker 1: in the United States in this country, which is just
Speaker 1: not possible. So something is going on. I'm not I'm
Speaker 1: not being conspiratorial. I'm just saying something is going on,
Speaker 1: and we should figure out what that is. And you know,
Speaker 1: what if someone dies from respiratory symbtom Let's say someone's
Speaker 1: positive for flu and covid and they die because of
Speaker 1: the respiratory symptoms that are very similar for both of those,
Speaker 1: what did they die from? I mean, I just I
Speaker 1: think that we should understand that we have we're developing
Speaker 1: rules and and looking into this, right so, you know,
Speaker 1: something's going on here, something's happening that we're not being
Speaker 1: told or we haven't figured out yet. And and the test,
Speaker 1: the way that all these tests go on, I want
Speaker 1: to know. I mean, if PCR tests really are picking
Speaker 1: up old or effectively virus that's not at a clinically
Speaker 1: infectious or at a level of clinical infection. That means
Speaker 1: we're getting a lot of false positives around the country too.
Speaker 1: Now I know there's high hospitalizations and deaths too. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that the testing is driving this whole moment
Speaker 1: of fear, but are we doing a lot of testing
Speaker 1: that is finding COVID that's not actually there. I think
Speaker 1: we should know that. I think that's important. John writes, Hello,
Speaker 1: Team Buck, I got a question for you regarding the
Speaker 1: vaccine and how it's going to play out. I'm currently
Speaker 1: a student in university here in New York, and I'm
Speaker 1: wondering if they're going to try to force you to
Speaker 1: have the vaccine to return to campus. What do you
Speaker 1: think is going to happen as the vaccine becomes more
Speaker 1: widely distributed. What do you think the process will look
Speaker 1: like for the average person to get vaccine? And thank
Speaker 1: you for the shows. I enjoyed to appreciate the radio
Speaker 1: and TV show every day. I wish you and everyone
Speaker 1: a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year. John. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I look, I'll say this, Um, I think that it's
Speaker 1: gonna I think it is going to be required for
Speaker 1: people to get the vaccine to go back to certain
Speaker 1: schools and university settings. I think they're gonna say you
Speaker 1: have to because they already do that for other for
Speaker 1: other situations. You know, I think you have to get
Speaker 1: the measles vaccine before you go to school in some places.
Speaker 1: I have to check what the different rules and regulations are,
Speaker 1: but um, yes, so that's going to be a part
Speaker 1: of this. And I think that for the average person
Speaker 1: to get vaccinated, you're probably gonna have online sign up
Speaker 1: for different providers in your area, and you're gonna have
Speaker 1: a very specific time because they have to thaw the
Speaker 1: vaccine from the minus nineties celsius temperature that it's at.
Speaker 1: You've got to thaw the vaccine and then they have
Speaker 1: to give it to you at a very specific you know,
Speaker 1: in a very specific order. I think that if you're
Speaker 1: basically a low risk, healthy person, you'll be be able
Speaker 1: to get this vaccine by signing up online for an
Speaker 1: appointment that a provider near you, probably in May or June.
Speaker 1: That's my that's my best estimate from everything that I've read.
Speaker 1: That's what it sounds like, which means that we're making
Speaker 1: it through this entire You're going to go through this
Speaker 1: entire respiratory, you know, respiratory illness season, at risk of
Speaker 1: contracting COVID, just if you have not already had it.
Speaker 1: That's that's what we are actually facing here. So yeah,
Speaker 1: that's where that's where this is. And I'm so glad
Speaker 1: you enjoy the radio show and you watch the TV
Speaker 1: show on the First. You can always download the First
Speaker 1: TV app and watch my show. There. I lead into
Speaker 1: Bill O'Reilly. We got Jesse Kelly, Dana Lash, great people
Speaker 1: at the first Scott Buck today around four thirty pm
Speaker 1: on k y kN in Salem, Oregon. I heard you
Speaker 1: close out just prior to a commercial with a statement,
Speaker 1: We're not going to go back to sitting on listening
Speaker 1: to Milton Friedman. It would be my opinion, listening to
Speaker 1: Milton Freedman is exactly what we should be doing. It
Speaker 1: hurt me to use his name as some buy word.
Speaker 1: I wish he was here to defend capitalism. No one
Speaker 1: else is love you love your show, but respect the
Speaker 1: Milton Scott. I grew up reading Milton and listening to Milton.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that any I'm not saying that Milton
Speaker 1: Friedman doesn't doesn't have tremendous value. And I was I was,
Speaker 1: Scott maya culpa. I was flippant about it. I was
Speaker 1: flipping about it, and and I shouldn't have been. So let
Speaker 1: me go back and and say more of what I
Speaker 1: was trying to say, or more of what I meant
Speaker 1: to say, and not make a flip in comment about
Speaker 1: about Milton Friedman. It's just that we need to deal
Speaker 1: with the political fights and the consequences of decisions with
Speaker 1: the world as it is presented to us now. And
Speaker 1: I think that there's this conservatism, especially in the early
Speaker 1: two thousands, sort of had this had this nostalgia for
Speaker 1: for Reaganism. And yes, the principles and the ideas of
Speaker 1: Reaganism can carry through, but we have to understand we
Speaker 1: are in a period of different challenges and deal with
Speaker 1: the world as it is today, not harken back to
Speaker 1: the conservatism of you know, yesteryear, the conservatism of a
Speaker 1: different era and expect that to somehow be the answer
Speaker 1: to all of our problems today. I hope that's a better,
Speaker 1: better example. But Scott, I I agree with you. I
Speaker 1: shouldn't have said, you know, Milden Free I should have,
Speaker 1: you know, said like the Weekly Standard or something. You know,
Speaker 1: it's just some conservative publication instead of an individual that
Speaker 1: does not really have all that much value in the
Speaker 1: current context. Well, the Weekly Standard shutdown, so that clearly
Speaker 1: doesn't have much value. You're in the freedom Hunt. This
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sex and Show podcast, finishing off roll
Speaker 1: call here on this uh snowy Thursday. Well, I guess
Speaker 1: it's not snowing anymore, but they're lost snow on the
Speaker 1: ground here in New York. Joe, I love your show. Well, Joe,
Speaker 1: the show loves you. Been a fan since I first
Speaker 1: heard you when you filled in for Rush. I am
Speaker 1: oss and a big fan of the shield type podcast.
Speaker 1: I listen to other historical podcasts, but they tend to
Speaker 1: be extremely long. You cover it so well and do
Speaker 1: it in a session I can sit through in one setting. Well, Joe,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. And yes, I plan and we're doing.
Speaker 1: We already have some tape. We're gonna be doing more,
Speaker 1: so Shield Tile will be more of a thing in
Speaker 1: the new year. And we also are going to be
Speaker 1: putting some history podcasts up on YouTube, so you can
Speaker 1: go subscribe YouTube dot com. Slash Buck Sexton we're putting
Speaker 1: a YouTube stuff up there. If some of you been
Speaker 1: asking what are we doing on YouTube right now? There's
Speaker 1: so many restrictions on political commentary that as we've tried
Speaker 1: to build a YouTube channel of our wonderful Team Buck audience,
Speaker 1: it's been very challenging because we keep getting throttled and demonetized,
Speaker 1: so they won't show our videos to anybody, and they
Speaker 1: won't let us make any money off the videos that
Speaker 1: people are seeing. And we're working through that now on
Speaker 1: YouTube to figure out, okay, well what can we do here.
Speaker 1: I'm also on Rumbull putting stuff up on Rumble, but
Speaker 1: you know, I want to use as many platforms as possible.
Speaker 1: My goal is to have my content reach as many
Speaker 1: conservatives and just as many people. I mean, I want,
Speaker 1: I want to convert libs if I can. I want
Speaker 1: my content because I believe in it. I believe in
Speaker 1: what I do and what I say to reach as
Speaker 1: many people as possible. So we've had some trouble with YouTube,
Speaker 1: as many others have as well, because well, it's engaged
Speaker 1: in conservative censorship. So that's why people like, well you
Speaker 1: have this big audience at radio, why do you have
Speaker 1: a huge you know, YouTube channel, because they won't let
Speaker 1: us build a YouTube channels. That's big. We keep getting
Speaker 1: shut down. Dan Right's uncle Buck. The election sham has
Speaker 1: splintered the Right into an extreme faction, the same way
Speaker 1: the Squad and the Bernie Bros. Have. Last week, Rush
Speaker 1: even mentioned Secession, which went viral. Extremes are moving in
Speaker 1: opposite directions and taking greater control of the narrative. I
Speaker 1: have no idea where this road leads, but one thing
Speaker 1: is for certain. I no longer recognize this country as
Speaker 1: the one I grew up in, and I'm not an
Speaker 1: old geezer. We're around the same age. Do you see
Speaker 1: this country in ten, twenty thirty years and beyond? Ps
Speaker 1: Prucer Mark, what are your thoughts on Stephen A. Cohen
Speaker 1: taking over the Mets? Producer Mark will let you go
Speaker 1: first on the Mets, just to make this quick other
Speaker 1: than meeting my wife, getting married, job stuff, all that
Speaker 1: best thing to happen in my life, in my life
Speaker 1: in ten years. There you go, there you go. I
Speaker 1: think I think Producer Mark has answered your question. Sums
Speaker 1: it up well? Right, Yeah, I think I think that
Speaker 1: covers it. And as for a worth think the country
Speaker 1: is going in ten twenty years, Dan, I am. I'm
Speaker 1: a happy warrior and a cautious optimist and where we
Speaker 1: keep fighting through and we're still in the greatest country
Speaker 1: in the history of the world, and it's worth fighting
Speaker 1: for every day. And even when we lose battles, we
Speaker 1: did the right thing by fighting for our principles and
Speaker 1: that's what we'll continue to do. And there's remember there's
Speaker 1: seventy seventy three million of us that voted for Donald
Speaker 1: Trump in this election. Okay, we're not alone, friends, We're
Speaker 1: not alone. I know right now there's a lot of frustration,
Speaker 1: but we will band together and we'll try to make
Speaker 1: this continue to be the best country in the history
Speaker 1: of the world, which is what we've got. It's pretty remarkable,
Speaker 1: what you think about it. There's a lot, even in
Speaker 1: this very tough time, there's a lot to be thankful
Speaker 1: for in life. And that's why I say, you know,
Speaker 1: after you listen to this show, let's kickback, relax, take
Speaker 1: a breath, and read a good history book, hang out
Speaker 1: with the dog. If you got one shield tie