Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom huge coronavirus vaccine is approved
Speaker 1: and on the move. Plus Abram says Democrats will win Georgia,
Speaker 1: Antifa attacks Trump marchers in DC, China's massive infiltration of
Speaker 1: UK firms by the CCP, and don't call Joe Biden doctor.
Speaker 1: This is the Bus Sexon Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake America, Bring here a great America again.
Speaker 1: The Buck Sexon Show begins the CIA analysts. Remember he's
Speaker 1: a great guy. No welcome, friends to the Buck Saxon Show.
Speaker 1: We have good news today. I know it's tough to
Speaker 1: allow yourself even to believe it at this point. We've
Speaker 1: been through so much bad news recently, the countries in
Speaker 1: the grip of this pandemic. We have more cases, more
Speaker 1: debts in a day, in a month than we've ever
Speaker 1: had before. And we also have an election result that
Speaker 1: continues to be outrageous and frustrating and rage inducing a
Speaker 1: result so far at least, and I know the Electoral
Speaker 1: College is meeting today. So there's a lot that we
Speaker 1: have to just grit our teeth for. But there is
Speaker 1: this vaccine that is out there, and it is on
Speaker 1: the move, and we should all be very very pleased
Speaker 1: about this, excited about this. It will be the beginning
Speaker 1: of the end of at least this wave of tyranny.
Speaker 1: I don't want to overstate this. There are a lot
Speaker 1: of people who see what has happened to this country,
Speaker 1: who see how easily cowed the US population is, and
Speaker 1: they think that this can be replicated, that this can
Speaker 1: be copied for other issues, other policy areas and concerns.
Speaker 1: They're not going to give up. In fact, they view
Speaker 1: this as the playbook going forward on a whole host
Speaker 1: of issues. But let's just at least look at the
Speaker 1: vaccine right now. I still remember in February being on
Speaker 1: the Bill Marshaw on HBO and being sneered at his
Speaker 1: stat laughed at because they said, Trump is saying that
Speaker 1: the vaccine is going to be delivered in record speed.
Speaker 1: And I said, well, they are planning to deliver it
Speaker 1: in record speed. That is the planet. Oh, you're so ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Trump will never do it. Well it wasn't just then
Speaker 1: and there. We've seen countless other examples of people, especially
Speaker 1: when you get back into April, May and June time period,
Speaker 1: or they were laughing at Trump for suggesting that operation
Speaker 1: Warp Speed. They thought the name was ridiculous. He'd never
Speaker 1: be able to pull this off. He's not good enough,
Speaker 1: he's not smart enough, and gosh darnat people don't like him.
Speaker 1: That's what they were saying. I mean, that was the whole,
Speaker 1: the whole laugh line. They had fact checkers, even they
Speaker 1: had fact checkers who jumped in on this one. To
Speaker 1: NBC News fact check from May fifteenth, coronavirus vaccine could
Speaker 1: come this year, Trump says. Experts say he needs a
Speaker 1: quote miracle to be right. Well, it looks like Trump
Speaker 1: delivered a miracle because vaccines are going into people's arms
Speaker 1: in this country today. Less than one year research to vile,
Speaker 1: research to vaccination. They're actually doing it. They're getting it done,
Speaker 1: and there's a lot of credit the administration should get
Speaker 1: for this, but there's not really a focus on it.
Speaker 1: Of course, they don't really care to have anybody really
Speaker 1: come forward from the administration and say, hey, all of
Speaker 1: our critics were wrong. That's not good. The media is
Speaker 1: not going to spend any time on that. By their
Speaker 1: own admission, this is a miracle. That's what they told
Speaker 1: us by their own admission, this is a miracle, and
Speaker 1: so then we have to ask what does it mean
Speaker 1: going forward? What is the reality of this? Now there's
Speaker 1: a tremendously complicated system here to get this vaccine out.
Speaker 1: I read I read about it over the weekend, and
Speaker 1: it's pretty incredible. I mean, this was written in the
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal. The journey starts in a factory just
Speaker 1: outside Saint Louis, where Fiser scientists make the raw materials
Speaker 1: though the backbone of vaccine. Those materials move on to
Speaker 1: and over Massachusetts, where researchers turn them into mr n,
Speaker 1: a molecular couriers that deliver genetic instructions to the body.
Speaker 1: The mr NA is dispatched to Michigan, where machines the
Speaker 1: size of single car garages envelop them with lipid nanoparticles,
Speaker 1: microscopic vessels used to deliver genetic material into the body.
Speaker 1: Making doses takes about a week, and batches sit for
Speaker 1: about two weeks before being shipped. The vaccine is transported
Speaker 1: in glass vials strong enough to withstand transit and these
Speaker 1: subarctic temperatures in which the liquid must be stored. Trays
Speaker 1: carrying one hundred ninety five vials are packed with dry
Speaker 1: ice and suitcases or suitcase like boxes weighing eighty pounds.
Speaker 1: Those vaccines eventually are diluted with enough saline solution to
Speaker 1: make nine hundred and seventy five doses. So this is
Speaker 1: a complicated process, and this is the most ambitious vaccination
Speaker 1: effort the world has ever seen. This is remarkable. It
Speaker 1: is a tremendous scientific achievement. And I think that it's
Speaker 1: a shame that we have such a focus on other
Speaker 1: things right now, and there's so much partisanship that there
Speaker 1: isn't any willingness in the media to credit and administration,
Speaker 1: even if they believe it is now the outgoing administration.
Speaker 1: Even though the Electoral College is meeting today and it
Speaker 1: has certified will certify Joe Biden in these states as
Speaker 1: the winner. The fact is that the Trump team did
Speaker 1: pull off something of a miracle, and it had nothing
Speaker 1: but doubters and challengers and haters all along the way.
Speaker 1: That's what was really going on here in the media.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about now, I mean, all the fact checks
Speaker 1: all they'll never get this done. They're lying about this.
Speaker 1: So this is a victory that we should all celebrate.
Speaker 1: But I know it's hard to be in any kind
Speaker 1: of a celebratory mood because of what's going on in
Speaker 1: the country. And this is going to take This is
Speaker 1: going to take time. In a sense, this is like
Speaker 1: the invasion at Normanity. This is the D Day landing
Speaker 1: of our fight against this vaccine. Remember after D Day,
Speaker 1: there was still a lot of fighting left to do,
Speaker 1: and there's a lot of people that lost their lives.
Speaker 1: That's where we are right now. We've got our feet
Speaker 1: on the shore at Omaha Beach. We got our feet
Speaker 1: ready to go here. But this is going to take
Speaker 1: ninety days before we really feel a massive effect from this.
Speaker 1: Maybe sixty days, but something along, something along those lines.
Speaker 1: And I think everybody should be prepared for a very
Speaker 1: challenging December and January. We all know that. But along
Speaker 1: with this vaccination process, which I just I know it's
Speaker 1: about so much here and it's not really it shouldn't
Speaker 1: be a political issue. But the Trump team deserves an
Speaker 1: enormous wave of thanks. You know, the people that hate
Speaker 1: science so much, right, that's what they always say. Trump
Speaker 1: and his advisors they don't believe the science. Well somehow
Speaker 1: they have helped bring it to being a scientific miracle
Speaker 1: through operation warp speed of getting this vaccine out to people.
Speaker 1: But while we're distributing this and trying to get our
Speaker 1: lives back, trying to get our society back, we should
Speaker 1: understand that there are those who believe that these lockdowns
Speaker 1: and these restrictions on us should continue long after the
Speaker 1: vaccine reaches a critical massive distribution. Now this is our
Speaker 1: new normal going forward, that it's completely necessary, not even acceptable,
Speaker 1: it is necessary to have all of these lockdowns despite
Speaker 1: all the data you could point to to show that
Speaker 1: lockdowns are certainly insufficient on their own, and many would
Speaker 1: even challenge whether they are beneficial when you look at
Speaker 1: the costs versus the actual benefits of it. Bill Gates, who,
Speaker 1: I don't know why we have to listen to this
Speaker 1: guy outside of how to build a microprocessor, I really don't,
Speaker 1: but we do because because he's really Really rich people
Speaker 1: and really famous people are treated like they know things
Speaker 1: in this country. They're treated like their experts and whatever
Speaker 1: they feel like talking about, which is a shame because
Speaker 1: they're not. But Bill Gates, who is worth I don't know,
Speaker 1: over one hundred billion dollars, some absolutely astronomical and crazy
Speaker 1: number he wants everyone to know that their bars, their
Speaker 1: restaurants should be closed down play too well. Certainly, mask
Speaker 1: wearing has essentially no downside. They're not expensive. Bars and
Speaker 1: restaurants in most of the country will be closed as
Speaker 1: we go into this way, and I think sadly that's appropriate,
Speaker 1: depending on how severe it is. The decision about schools
Speaker 1: is much more complicated because they're you know, the benefits
Speaker 1: are pretty high. The amount of transmission is not the
Speaker 1: same as in restaurants are so you know, trade offs
Speaker 1: will have to be made. But this the next four
Speaker 1: to six months, really call on us to do our
Speaker 1: best because we can see that this will end and
Speaker 1: you don't want, you know, somebody you love to be
Speaker 1: the last to die of coronavirus. Notice that he won't
Speaker 1: tell you what the data really says about schools. Schools
Speaker 1: are complicated. That's the only concession that Bill Gates will make.
Speaker 1: Your school closers are They're not complicated. School closers are dumb.
Speaker 1: They're not supported by the science. It's absolutely not worth
Speaker 1: it to close down schools, and everybody who was advocating
Speaker 1: for that at any point during this pandemic was wrong.
Speaker 1: They were wrong. There's not a debate on this. They
Speaker 1: were wrong. We have the data, We've run the experiment,
Speaker 1: we have the numbers. Why won't he say that? Why
Speaker 1: is this guy so obsessed with controlling so many people?
Speaker 1: And also his comment about masks, I completely reject. Masks
Speaker 1: are limiting your ability to breathe freely, whether you want
Speaker 1: them or not. I'll put that aside for a second.
Speaker 1: Let's not pretend that it's no big deal. It's very annoying.
Speaker 1: It's a restriction of your most basic freedom, the right
Speaker 1: to breathe free fresh air, more basic than anything even
Speaker 1: written the Constitution. Are you allowed to breathe? Kind of
Speaker 1: you breathe the way we say you breathe uncomfortably through
Speaker 1: what we tell you have to breathe through. This is moronic. Oh,
Speaker 1: there's no cost associated with this whatsoever. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is a totalitarianism that goes beyond even the kind of
Speaker 1: stuff you see in North Korea. You you're not allowed
Speaker 1: to breathe the way you want to breathe. Why is that? Oh,
Speaker 1: because it's so effective at preventing That's why we have
Speaker 1: all these mask mandates all across the country, and cities
Speaker 1: and states and what exactly is it done to flatten
Speaker 1: the curve? I ask you that, what has it done
Speaker 1: to flatten the curve? Nothing? They won't admit that. They
Speaker 1: won't say that. They just pretend that we can't. This
Speaker 1: is all the emperor's new clothes, friends, it's the Emperor's
Speaker 1: new mask. You're not allowed to look at what's going
Speaker 1: on and say, well, maybe it works, maybe it doesn't.
Speaker 1: You know how well it works. Whatever we can get
Speaker 1: into all that doesn't. Does a government mandate mean anything? No,
Speaker 1: it does not. It does not help. Look at all
Speaker 1: the charts, look at all the graphs. I know, I'm
Speaker 1: like a treated like a lunatic on this by the mainstream,
Speaker 1: But they're wrong. I was right about schools. They were
Speaker 1: wrong about schools. Do you think they admit that. Do
Speaker 1: you think it makes any of them think, well, maybe
Speaker 1: maybe we've exaggerated the intelligence of Saint Fauci here, and
Speaker 1: maybe we should rethink some of these policies. They will
Speaker 1: not do that. And I'm here to tell you that
Speaker 1: while the vaccine is good news and it is getting
Speaker 1: distributed to that certainly is cause for celebration, or at
Speaker 1: least it's encouraging, right, I mean, maybe we're not in
Speaker 1: a celebratory move, but it is encouraging. The Bill Gates
Speaker 1: is the globalists, the long downers, the authoritarians, the left.
Speaker 1: They want this to continue for I've been saying until
Speaker 1: next fall, but pretty much for another year. They want
Speaker 1: another year of you complying doing whatever they say. They
Speaker 1: want another year of this play one. When do you
Speaker 1: think life will fully return to what we thought of
Speaker 1: as normal back in January? No masks, no social distancing,
Speaker 1: no other protective measures necessary. Certainly by the summer will
Speaker 1: be way closer to normal than we are now. But
Speaker 1: even through early twenty twenty two, unless we help other
Speaker 1: countries get rid of this disease and we get high
Speaker 1: vaccination rates in our country, the risk of reintroduction will
Speaker 1: be there. And of course the global economy will be
Speaker 1: slowed down, which hurts America economically in a pretty dramatic way.
Speaker 1: So we'll have starting in the summer, about nine months
Speaker 1: or a few things like big public gatherings will still
Speaker 1: be restricted. But you know, we can see now that
Speaker 1: somewhere between twelve to eighteen months and we have a chance,
Speaker 1: if we manage it well, to get back to normal.
Speaker 1: Why do we have to manage it well to get
Speaker 1: back to normal. I just want to know what he thinks.
Speaker 1: What the logic is there. We're going to get everyone
Speaker 1: vaccinated and then they're going to be at herd immunity.
Speaker 1: That's what's going to happen, or manage it. Oh so
Speaker 1: if we don't manage it well, we never get back
Speaker 1: to normal. You'll notice they hold this out there. There
Speaker 1: is this thought they have. Maybe we keep this in
Speaker 1: the back pocket. Maybe we use this whenever we want
Speaker 1: to get people to bend the knee. Oh, COVID could
Speaker 1: come back. Oh it's in forward country. Sorry, lockdowns here,
Speaker 1: your business shutdown here, do what we say. There is
Speaker 1: a mass psychological conditioning here that you are a surf,
Speaker 1: that you do what the state tells you to do,
Speaker 1: and it will continue until you tell them no, will
Speaker 1: not comply. And we have not reached enough of that
Speaker 1: mentality in this country yet. And it's a sad thing.
Speaker 1: It's a sad thing. I usually think we were a
Speaker 1: free people that valued our liberty. Only some of us
Speaker 1: are a lot of us just want to be safe
Speaker 1: and warm and fed, and nothing else matters to them.
Speaker 1: You're in the freedom. This is the Buck Sex and
Speaker 1: Show podcast. If I wasn't president, according to almost everybody,
Speaker 1: even the enemy, if I wasn't president, you wouldn't have
Speaker 1: a vaccine for five years. Okay. I pushed the FDA
Speaker 1: and companies and everybody else involved, like nobody's ever been
Speaker 1: pushed before, and now you have it rolling out, and frankly,
Speaker 1: they could have done it last week. They could have
Speaker 1: even done it a week sooner, and they heard from me.
Speaker 1: But this has been a great, a really medical mirror,
Speaker 1: and they call it a medical miracle, and it's going
Speaker 1: to have a tremendous impact ninety five percent effect. If
Speaker 1: we have Moderner coming out next week, very soon, we
Speaker 1: have Johnson and Johnson one shot vaccine coming out, all
Speaker 1: great company effective, a medical miracle. Are you seeing a
Speaker 1: lot of news coverage of all that encouraging stuff right now? No,
Speaker 1: you're not, are you. It's almost like they don't want
Speaker 1: to talk about it. They'll talk about the vaccine, but
Speaker 1: they won't talk about the administration's role in helping the
Speaker 1: vaccine get out there. So you have this ICU nurse
Speaker 1: in New York who is among the very first to
Speaker 1: get the Fizer shot, right, that's what everyone. That's that's
Speaker 1: what they're talking about. I don't see anything about Operation
Speaker 1: Warp Speed. I don't see anything about the Trump administration's
Speaker 1: unprecedented program to get this thing out there. And let
Speaker 1: me also say that the politics around who gets the
Speaker 1: vaccine and when are going to start to get very
Speaker 1: nasty here right now, there's a novelty to all this.
Speaker 1: Right now, there's a sense of, oh my gosh, look
Speaker 1: the vaccine. Give it three or four weeks, and some
Speaker 1: people are going to be walking around feeling just fine.
Speaker 1: Some people are gonna walking around with no problem because
Speaker 1: they know they're almost certain to be protected from a
Speaker 1: possible exposure to COVID nineteen. And a lot of other
Speaker 1: people will be walking around saying when more likely actually
Speaker 1: stuck at home by themselves, saying when do I get
Speaker 1: this thing? And you can already hear there are a
Speaker 1: lot of people that are clamoring to put this out
Speaker 1: there along along social justice lines. They say that some
Speaker 1: groups are disperately affected by this, so they want them
Speaker 1: to get it first by age. That certainly makes sense
Speaker 1: based on all of the data, But there are plenty
Speaker 1: of people who you'd look at you'd say, well, it's
Speaker 1: more about individual living condition or uncrowded area in urban area.
Speaker 1: It should not be about superficial characteristics that have nothing
Speaker 1: to do with your actual will risk of getting COVID
Speaker 1: and having a severe case of it. The politics around
Speaker 1: that are going to get very, very tricky here in
Speaker 1: the weeks ahead, because there are people who are going
Speaker 1: to get COVID next in the next sixty days who
Speaker 1: don't make it, who would have made it if they've
Speaker 1: gotten a vaccine. And as that dawns on more and
Speaker 1: more people, you can imagine it's going to become even
Speaker 1: more intense. And let's just hope the supply chains and
Speaker 1: everything hold up and that there's no big problems with
Speaker 1: the distribution of this vaccine. Thanks for listening to The
Speaker 1: Bus Sesson Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcasts,
Speaker 1: the iHeart Radio app, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: I just want to deal in fact, because there is
Speaker 1: so much speculation out there and there is zero evidence
Speaker 1: that Hunter Biden or Joe Biden in anything wrong here.
Speaker 1: We should note again you and I said this in
Speaker 1: the air many times, there is no evidence that Joe
Speaker 1: Biden was involved in any wrong doing. Of course, I
Speaker 1: want to note that there is no evidence that Joe
Speaker 1: Biden or Hunter Biden has done anything wrong. I just
Speaker 1: want to reiterate, let's be clear for the viewers. There
Speaker 1: is no evidence Biden did anything wrong. Well, again, because
Speaker 1: it's important, there is no I repeat no, there is
Speaker 1: no evidence that either Biden did anything illegal. There has
Speaker 1: been no evidence, there was no evidence. There's no evidence.
Speaker 1: There is no evidence there, it's not an iota of
Speaker 1: evidence anything wrong. There's really no evidence that Joe Biden
Speaker 1: did anything wrong. If nobody's every accused that, I mean,
Speaker 1: there's no evidence whatsoever that Joe Biden did anything wrong.
Speaker 1: Got that Joe Biden did nothing wrong. Hunter Biden did
Speaker 1: nothing wrong. Right, they're delusional and they're a bunch of liars.
Speaker 1: But what a what a symphony of frauds. Wasn't that amazing.
Speaker 1: Here's a story today on foxnews dot com. New emails
Speaker 1: appear to show Hunter Biden failed to report four hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars in income from a shady Ukrainian firm. There's
Speaker 1: no I didn't he did anything wrong, no evidence he
Speaker 1: did it anything wrong. Hunter Biden is the most pure
Speaker 1: and decent man imaginable. Yeah, the guy that got the
Speaker 1: stripper pregnant, pretended he wasn't the dad afterwards, and he
Speaker 1: got kicked out of the Navy for doing coke or
Speaker 1: meth or whatever. It was. Great guy, great guy. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden, he's you can take Hunters word to the bank.
Speaker 1: Really trust really trustworthy, fellow. The media is disgusting. The
Speaker 1: media is a disgrace. You know it. I know it,
Speaker 1: and I think it's important that we all understand that
Speaker 1: they're not going to change. In fact, they're just going
Speaker 1: to become more aggressive under a Biden presidency. They're going
Speaker 1: to stifle this sent They're not going to try to
Speaker 1: win the argument anymore. They're going to prevent you from
Speaker 1: being able to make an argument. They're gonna try to
Speaker 1: shut down people like me who will beat them in
Speaker 1: the argument. They won't allow it. That's going to be
Speaker 1: the game. It's it's not oh, may the best, may
Speaker 1: the best pundit or news channel or show or whatever win.
Speaker 1: It's going to be no, No, we're on air. You're
Speaker 1: not because the people that control the plugs and the
Speaker 1: switches and the you know, the internet and the cable channels,
Speaker 1: they're not letting you on that's the game they plan
Speaker 1: on playing, full on censorship. They talked about state media
Speaker 1: against Trump. They're a bunch of morons. There's no state
Speaker 1: media when ninety five percent of the media opposes the
Speaker 1: sitting president. But notice that they in a sense, and
Speaker 1: I know this is not comforting to hear, but they
Speaker 1: were successful in their lives. They were successful in what
Speaker 1: they were trying to achieve here, preventing us from figuring
Speaker 1: out what really happened, at least in time for the election.
Speaker 1: That's what mattered. It was all about when this would break.
Speaker 1: It was all about who and who would find out
Speaker 1: about this? At what point would they find out about this? Right?
Speaker 1: And Hunter Biden was able to count on the media
Speaker 1: to give him the kind of the kind of unbelievable,
Speaker 1: unbelievable protection from the mainstream media that you could only
Speaker 1: expect if you're a Democrat. That's really important to their movement.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you didn't report four hundred thousand dollars
Speaker 1: an income, I mean, that's that's the kind of thing
Speaker 1: that even the irs under a Democrat administration would normally
Speaker 1: pay attention to. But does anyone really believe does anyone
Speaker 1: really think that Hunter Biden would face any will face
Speaker 1: any consequences under a Biden administration for this whatsoever. No,
Speaker 1: of course not. The people who have been lecturing you
Speaker 1: for four years about norms and decency and democracy, about
Speaker 1: the rule of law are the same people who lied
Speaker 1: about Russia collusion from the beginning of the Trump presidency,
Speaker 1: used it as a weapon against Trump and all of
Speaker 1: his advisors and family members and everyone around him, and
Speaker 1: now are going to completely lock down with nothing but
Speaker 1: partisan intent, locked down anything the dj is looking at
Speaker 1: about Hunter Biden or anything else for that matter, that
Speaker 1: harms Democrat interests. That's their plan, That's what they're going
Speaker 1: to do. I mean, the suppression of the Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: media story is something that well, we should never forget.
Speaker 1: In the same way that the attacks on Brett Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: The attacks on Brett Kavanaugh were a moment of clarity
Speaker 1: about who the Democrats really are that they would lie
Speaker 1: about somebody. There was such a lack of decency and
Speaker 1: honor and integrity at the very top of the Democrat
Speaker 1: Party that they would say the things they said and
Speaker 1: present the things they did against Brett Kavanaugh, a good
Speaker 1: man who had done nothing wrong. Not only was he
Speaker 1: not a bad guy. He was a good guy, and
Speaker 1: they tried to ruin him. They tried to ruin him.
Speaker 1: No remorse about a Kamala was one of them. Don't
Speaker 1: ever forget that. I mean, she's ruthless, utterly ruthless, a
Speaker 1: Disgrace's a mediocrity who's playing the system, using identity politics,
Speaker 1: using the Democrat power structure. I don't mean the Democrat
Speaker 1: as in our democracy or whatever. I mean the Democrat Party.
Speaker 1: Kamal is very ruthless. Indeed, but what we saw with Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: now you should view what's gone on here with the
Speaker 1: media as a Kavanaugh like moment. They will, in the
Speaker 1: weeks before a presidential election straight up lie to your
Speaker 1: faces without a moment's hesitation. They will lie right to
Speaker 1: your face about an issue of major national news concern.
Speaker 1: And afterwards, when they're exposed as frauds and liars for that,
Speaker 1: they think of themselves as heroes because their purpose is
Speaker 1: not to inform you. Their purpose is to influence you
Speaker 1: for the benefit of a political party, the Democrat Party.
Speaker 1: That is what they are doing. Now it's not enough
Speaker 1: to just point this out. We have to be very
Speaker 1: clear that there are there are fights ahead, and I have,
Speaker 1: you know, substantial concerns about where all this stuff is going.
Speaker 1: All right, here is here is Stacy Abrams. This Georgia
Speaker 1: election is weeks away. And remember the last two weeks
Speaker 1: of December. For a lot of people, including journos, the
Speaker 1: last two weeks of December, there's not going to be
Speaker 1: a whole lot of focus on anything in the news cycle.
Speaker 1: No one's really going to pay much attention. And then
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, you're going to come back. A
Speaker 1: lot of people come back from vacation. There's going to
Speaker 1: be a Georgia Senate runoff for two seats. Right, Georgia
Speaker 1: is having this runoff, two seats at play, and you
Speaker 1: got Warnock, Leffler, Perdue Assoff. Which names are going to
Speaker 1: come out victorious of this thing? Stacy Abrams, the make
Speaker 1: believe governor of Georgia. It is out there rallying her
Speaker 1: side and she's speaking with a lot of confidence about
Speaker 1: this place. Sixteen Democrats are prepared to win this election
Speaker 1: because this is the first runoff where we have the
Speaker 1: level of investment and engagement that it takes to win
Speaker 1: a runoff. We know from the numbers that we're in
Speaker 1: a good place. One point two million absentee ballots have
Speaker 1: been requested thus far, and just to put that into context,
Speaker 1: one point three million or requested for all of the
Speaker 1: general election. And of that one point two million, eighty
Speaker 1: five thousand of those applications are from voters who did
Speaker 1: not vote in the general election, and they are disproportionately
Speaker 1: between the ages of eighteen and twenty nine, and disproportionately
Speaker 1: people of color. With that signals is that there's an
Speaker 1: enthusiasm for John Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, and its signals
Speaker 1: that we understand that we make need to make a
Speaker 1: plan to vote and deliver this election. Look, millions of
Speaker 1: you are understandably furious about where we are right now
Speaker 1: in the presidential election. I understand that it all feels wrong.
Speaker 1: Electoral College is meeting today to certify a result that
Speaker 1: you think, in your soul, you know is just unfair.
Speaker 1: It's wrong. The Democrats changed the election rules in bad faith.
Speaker 1: There are hundreds of sworn affidavits alleging fraud. And there's
Speaker 1: this seething rage that we should all have that the
Speaker 1: media openly and aggressively stifled information about Hunter Biden. So
Speaker 1: Joe could win. Yes, the media rigged the game, but
Speaker 1: the game is not over. And I don't just mean
Speaker 1: in the presidential election. We've got to win in Georgia.
Speaker 1: I've actually got a piece up on bucksexton dot com
Speaker 1: on this that you should all check out. I wrote
Speaker 1: an editorial on it because I'm trying to make the
Speaker 1: case to you that it is not true that we
Speaker 1: are losing focus on the presidential fight and exposing fraud
Speaker 1: if we also give all due attention to winning these
Speaker 1: Georgia Senate seats. It has to happen, because what goes
Speaker 1: on if we lose this. If we lose and they
Speaker 1: have a Democrat majority in the Senate, well, first they'll
Speaker 1: eliminate the Filibus or then they'll move for expanded amnesty
Speaker 1: for illegal aliens. You know, they already have a surge
Speaker 1: at the border going on right now. Why do you
Speaker 1: think that is people who are focused on this issue,
Speaker 1: who want to get into the country and stay here illegally.
Speaker 1: They know you're probably never going to have a better time.
Speaker 1: There's never going to be a better option for you
Speaker 1: to come into the country illegally, and right before a
Speaker 1: Bide administration, that's going to be pushing for amnesty, because
Speaker 1: even if you're not covered by that amnesty, do you
Speaker 1: think there'll be any real will to do deportations. No,
Speaker 1: if you can get here, you'll be able to stay here.
Speaker 1: So they move for eventually be legalization for everyone the
Speaker 1: US illegally, they'll add to that statehood for DC in
Speaker 1: Puerto Rico. Some Supreme Court packing could also happen. All
Speaker 1: it feels like they don't need it these days. Look
Speaker 1: at the Texas decision. Texas brought suit, many states joined
Speaker 1: with Texas shot down by the Supreme Court. Trump is
Speaker 1: out there tweeting about how no judge has the courage. Right,
Speaker 1: that's what he's saying, No judge has the courage. What
Speaker 1: did I tell you all along? And I don't like
Speaker 1: saying things that I know are going to be frustrated
Speaker 1: to hear, but I have to tell you the truth.
Speaker 1: I have to tell you what I know is coming
Speaker 1: judges all along, I had said, who's going to be
Speaker 1: the judge who wants to be attacked by the Democrats
Speaker 1: and the left for even giving an opening for this
Speaker 1: to be overturned because of all the fraud. I just
Speaker 1: don't think they have the courage That's not me saying
Speaker 1: I don't care that they don't have the courage. That's
Speaker 1: me saying, this is the reality that we face. And
Speaker 1: that's what Trump is saying about these judges, include supposedly
Speaker 1: conservative justices. They're saying, nah, we can't, we can't touch
Speaker 1: this thing. Sorry, can't get involved. So we absolutely absolutely
Speaker 1: need to focus in on this Georgia election and do
Speaker 1: everything that we possibly can to make sure that the
Speaker 1: Senate is in Republican control going into a Biden administration,
Speaker 1: because right now it would it would take something of
Speaker 1: a legal miracle to prevent the Biden administration from happening.
Speaker 1: We all, we all need to know that. That's that's
Speaker 1: where this is heading. Not saying it's over, but I'm
Speaker 1: saying it's not looking good. We're down two touchdowns and
Speaker 1: there's you know, a minute thirty left. That's where that's
Speaker 1: where the situation is. And I'm gonna say this to you.
Speaker 1: And even who tells you otherwise right now is not
Speaker 1: being straight with you. They're not being honest with you.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a lot of telling people what they
Speaker 1: want to hear right now, and I don't want to
Speaker 1: be a part of that. And have our I taken
Speaker 1: off the ball in Georgia because some people are squabbling
Speaker 1: for whatever remnants of the Trump movement they can sort
Speaker 1: of gather up for themselves in their eyes. I think
Speaker 1: that's the play. There are people now who are doubling
Speaker 1: and tripling down and how oh, don't worry. You know
Speaker 1: the plan and we're gonna win. And there was a
Speaker 1: there was a chance, there was a time we were
Speaker 1: having that fight. And yes, we see it through to
Speaker 1: the end. But anyone is telling you that it's looking
Speaker 1: good right now is lying to you. They're lying to
Speaker 1: you right and putting too many people on air who
Speaker 1: are going to tell you that on their air, on
Speaker 1: their show. There's also a dishonesty in that, right. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I could bring endless amounts of people. Look, I think
Speaker 1: Sean Parnell's legal challenge in Pennsylvania it is legitimate. I
Speaker 1: think he's right, and I think he's got a shot.
Speaker 1: That's why I put Sean on the air. But if
Speaker 1: you're asking me how I think this is going to
Speaker 1: go for the election overall, meaning whether or not this
Speaker 1: thing is pretty much over and done with. We're close,
Speaker 1: and people get get mad at me that's fine. I
Speaker 1: don't know why they're mad at me. I was saying
Speaker 1: fight all along. I was saying, this is where we
Speaker 1: need to be, dig in, do everything we can. But
Speaker 1: at some point, you know, sometimes you fight and do
Speaker 1: you give it everything again and you still don't end
Speaker 1: up getting the result. That would be justice. That's life.
Speaker 1: That's where we are. So I just rather you hear
Speaker 1: that at this point from me than have me pretend
Speaker 1: like everything's fine, which I would not do. And then
Speaker 1: in January, when Biden's a week out from being sworn in,
Speaker 1: say yeah, you know, I guess, I guess maybe it
Speaker 1: is going to happen. You know, we should prepare now
Speaker 1: for that possibility. Doesn't mean that we give up, but
Speaker 1: it means we are being smart and strategic, and part
Speaker 1: of that means winning in Georgia. All right. The response
Speaker 1: to losing Paris to the Germans, if you're the Allies,
Speaker 1: is not to say, let's hand them London. And that's
Speaker 1: what giving them Georgia would be right now, a disaster.
Speaker 1: So we continue the fight and we understand where we
Speaker 1: are in this process. You're in the freedom mind. This
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sexton Show podcast, y'all, got a twelve check,
Speaker 1: Wall Street got four trillion in access to liquid funds,
Speaker 1: and and that to me, just structurally, Will I'm concerned.
Speaker 1: What keeps me up at night is that it was
Speaker 1: short term relief that was really important and really necessary,
Speaker 1: but that the help for working people and everyday people,
Speaker 1: as we know, drives up super fast. But what we
Speaker 1: gave away, what we gave away to Wall Street was
Speaker 1: so large and so structural that frankly like, that's why
Speaker 1: Republicans I think have not been have been, you know,
Speaker 1: not as and why Mitch McConnell has not been in
Speaker 1: a rush. Mitch McConnell has been in a rush. This
Speaker 1: is complete rewriting of history from AOC who is an idiot,
Speaker 1: but a dangerous and powerful little propagandist for the ignorant left. No,
Speaker 1: Mitch is the one who has been pushing for COVID relief.
Speaker 1: Pelosi blocked it. They can try to rewrite the history
Speaker 1: as much as they want. It won't change what actually
Speaker 1: happened here. Pelosi blocked it. Said no, we want more.
Speaker 1: He brings up Wall Street. This is something we have
Speaker 1: got to change. We have got to We've got to
Speaker 1: get the public to understand this. Wall Street is dominated
Speaker 1: by Democrats, by Lib Democrats. The Wall Street banks, Goldman
Speaker 1: Sachs is practically a d NC pack in terms of
Speaker 1: the way that it spends money in elections. It through
Speaker 1: of all these big investment banks, because this is the game.
Speaker 1: The Amazons, the Goldman Sachs, the mega corporations, the global is,
Speaker 1: the internationalists. They are rich and getting richer, and government
Speaker 1: policy from big government action continues to benefit them. They
Speaker 1: like the anti competitive nature of all the endless regulation
Speaker 1: and the ability of government to come in and shut
Speaker 1: down their competitors. Look what's going on during COVID. Small
Speaker 1: business is just getting wiped out. But Wall Street is
Speaker 1: This is a myth. This is a fable that Wall
Speaker 1: Street is Republican. Wall Street is absolutely not. I live
Speaker 1: in New York City. I come from a family with
Speaker 1: a dad who worked on Wall Street for decades. I
Speaker 1: got brothers, I got friends that are Wall Street people
Speaker 1: worked in Wall Street. Wall Street is Democrats. Okay, not all,
Speaker 1: but it is a huge majority of the giving went
Speaker 1: to Joe Biden. So this is I just hate this
Speaker 1: because somehow the perception lingers and AOC will sit there
Speaker 1: when she's when she's trashing Wall Street. This is a
Speaker 1: way to avoid criticism of Democrat policy and people. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Wall Streets so bad. Oh, those rich fat cats, those
Speaker 1: are Democrats. Those are people on Wall Streets are writing
Speaker 1: checks to Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: and and you know the AOC types, even of a
Speaker 1: little less so they like more of the establishment Democrats,
Speaker 1: to be fair, but they're the ones writing chest to Democrats.
Speaker 1: I just I this drives me nuts because there's this
Speaker 1: is all media perceptions, all media propaganda. Wall Streets a
Speaker 1: bunch of rich, white male Republicans. That's what Wall Street
Speaker 1: is Wall Street. You go to any of these big
Speaker 1: banks now, they've got all the Diversity Days stuff going on,
Speaker 1: they're all about transgender rights, they've got super progressive HR policies,
Speaker 1: and they're giving their funneling money, funneling money to Democrats.
Speaker 1: Just check this is this is public record stuff. You
Speaker 1: don't even have to dig my word very good. Check online.
Speaker 1: You'll see who does Goldman Sachs give money to Democrats?
Speaker 1: People like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton? Who these these enormous banks.
Speaker 1: And in some ways it's ideological because you have these
Speaker 1: guilty conscience, rich libs who work on Wall Street and
Speaker 1: they think, oh, you know, I'm I'm getting paid all
Speaker 1: this money. What am I even really doing that's a productive,
Speaker 1: additive function for society? Or am I just in the
Speaker 1: extraction business? Extract from the system, position and extract, you know.
Speaker 1: So a way that they like to handle with that,
Speaker 1: A way they like to handle that is to give
Speaker 1: money to very progressive causes and very progressive candidates. It's
Speaker 1: it's like buying a form of social insurance. That's really
Speaker 1: what they're doing, buying a form of social insurance. You know.
Speaker 1: Now they can say, oh, well, I gave to Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: so hopefully no one is gonna, you know, mask up
Speaker 1: and don't worry about the fact that I'm in my
Speaker 1: ten million dollar house in the Hampton's because I gave
Speaker 1: money to Joe Biden. This is what they do. This
Speaker 1: is this is how they get away with this stuff.
Speaker 1: But they support the right candidate. They're just part of
Speaker 1: the system. They're just part of using and leveraging where
Speaker 1: they are in a system and pretending they care so
Speaker 1: much about the poor. These these Wall Street democrats, these
Speaker 1: fat cat hedge fund billionaires, they don't give a crap
Speaker 1: about the poor. I mean, yeah, they'll write a check
Speaker 1: a few times of years. They can go to a
Speaker 1: fancy gallow or something. There's a lot of that that
Speaker 1: goes on in New York City too, not not really
Speaker 1: so much anymore, but there was before COVID. But it's
Speaker 1: it's remarkable. This, this is a lie that will not die.
Speaker 1: Wall Street is dominated by Democrats. It is the ideology
Speaker 1: now of Wall Street. You know, it's all these big
Speaker 1: mega corporations or what is what's you know, pushing the
Speaker 1: stock market to all time highs. There's a tremendous amount
Speaker 1: of government policy and monetary policy that goes into how
Speaker 1: well all this stuff works or doesn't work. And they
Speaker 1: want to be at the levels of power so any
Speaker 1: and just this really it really bothers me because it's
Speaker 1: so easy. If an AOC will do this, you'll talk
Speaker 1: about this, and so many other Democrats will too. They
Speaker 1: act like the Democrats are the party of working people. Know,
Speaker 1: the Democrats are the party of people on welfare. That
Speaker 1: is true, Democrats always want to increase welfare benefits, but
Speaker 1: people who work for a living are increasingly represented by
Speaker 1: the Trump era Republican Party and everyone seeing it and
Speaker 1: that the numbers are bearing this out. You know, it's
Speaker 1: people that either benefited from the system and got a
Speaker 1: you know, a fancy four year degree somewhere and have
Speaker 1: gotten themselves into a into a place in our economy
Speaker 1: where they can work from home and they're all comfortable
Speaker 1: and fine. Yeah, they're Democrats and they want to you know,
Speaker 1: push more of a pittance, you know, they want to
Speaker 1: give a little bit more charity to people who aren't working,
Speaker 1: to people who need assistance. But stunning, what we see
Speaker 1: happening here really is the lie about this will not stop.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to The Bus Sesson Show podcasts. Remember
Speaker 1: to subscribe on Apple podcasts, the iHeart Radio app, or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. Well, first of all, Chris,
Speaker 1: the plan is alive and well, and there's no way,
Speaker 1: no way that we're gonna leave Washington without taking care
Speaker 1: of the emergency needs of our people. And that's all
Speaker 1: over our country and my stay to West Virginia too.
Speaker 1: They're all hurting everywhere. So they're telling us that they're
Speaker 1: going to get COVID relief out there. I don't know
Speaker 1: if that's going to happen, which is just a total
Speaker 1: failure on the part of our elected officials, Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker 1: the Democrats to the one who've been blocking it for months.
Speaker 1: But I mean, come on, now, you know we've got
Speaker 1: a inauguration day coming up here, You've got a new
Speaker 1: administration likely to be in charge very soon. Can we
Speaker 1: please please do what is necessary to help the American
Speaker 1: people right now during this pandemic and we just get
Speaker 1: something here out to people who have had their businesses
Speaker 1: shut down, who have been told that they have no
Speaker 1: choice in the matter, and now they can't pay their bills,
Speaker 1: and now they're perhaps either living on credit or they've
Speaker 1: they've run out of whatever the savings they've had, They've
Speaker 1: had to lay off employees. And this is because of
Speaker 1: government mandates. It's not because of the market. It's not
Speaker 1: because of a downturner. And this is the government saying,
Speaker 1: and I think unnecessarily, saying, your restaurant, your bar, cannot
Speaker 1: be open anymore. You know, isn't it remarkable we have
Speaker 1: all these restrictions that are put in place at different times,
Speaker 1: but then when cases go up, it's like we are
Speaker 1: the game all of a sudden is Okay, cases have
Speaker 1: gone up and all the stuff that we were doing
Speaker 1: was apparently not enough. Well, then how well could it
Speaker 1: possibly have been working. I never get an answer from
Speaker 1: anybody on this one. But if if we're masking and
Speaker 1: social distancing and limiting the number of people in these establishments,
Speaker 1: we're doing all those things, then case number in general,
Speaker 1: not even from that place or from that industry, goes up.
Speaker 1: They say, sorry, we gotta lock it down anyway. So
Speaker 1: is that an admission that all those other things don't
Speaker 1: really work? What does work mean? If it's a five
Speaker 1: percent reduction and transmission for all that crap, is it
Speaker 1: still worth it or is it more like a fifty
Speaker 1: percent reduction? They have no idea. We're making decisions all
Speaker 1: the time that they say are based on data. I mean,
Speaker 1: I can tell you this, if I had the opportunity
Speaker 1: to question doctor Fauci, If I got to sit in
Speaker 1: a senator's chair for a second, or sit as a
Speaker 1: member of Congress, and they just give me as their
Speaker 1: proxy let me question doctor Fauci, the whole thing would
Speaker 1: fall apart. You realize what a what a preposterous and
Speaker 1: absurd situation we're all in now At these people who
Speaker 1: keep saying that it's the data, and then you ask
Speaker 1: them you find out there's no data behind this. They
Speaker 1: have no idea. There's making up as they go along,
Speaker 1: a lot of it. I mean, yeah, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of cases and a lot of deaths right now, there's
Speaker 1: that data. But in terms of the transmission risk, in
Speaker 1: terms of the reduction you get from these different choices,
Speaker 1: absolutely not. I have no no idea. Now now we
Speaker 1: have to talk about a little bit more of this,
Speaker 1: the legal challenges to the election. I don't want to
Speaker 1: avoid this. First of all. I I don't understand how
Speaker 1: anyone could see this as anything other than the system
Speaker 1: operating all within the guidelines, the rules, the constitutional, constitutional
Speaker 1: limitations and demands. Here, everything is proceeding exactly on schedule.
Speaker 1: There's nothing the Trump team or anyone in favor of
Speaker 1: Trump has done that is a break in the rules.
Speaker 1: There's no abuse in power here. They're saying that they
Speaker 1: have legal theories that go into a very complicated, very
Speaker 1: They go to a very complicated, very difficult year here
Speaker 1: in what's gone on with the law, and they're bringing
Speaker 1: these challenges and for some reason, Republicans like Chris Christie
Speaker 1: seem to be out there getting ahead of all this,
Speaker 1: as if we need to hear from them right now,
Speaker 1: as if they have to be a smug and dismissive
Speaker 1: about all of this. I mean, here he is play nine.
Speaker 1: This is why I think the Republican Party will move
Speaker 1: on and move on briskly after the inauguration, because there's
Speaker 1: a lot of good things to move on from. You know,
Speaker 1: picked up fourteenth seats in the House appears, I think,
Speaker 1: totally lose one seat in the Senate ultimately and keep control.
Speaker 1: Flip to state legislatures, flip the only governorship that was
Speaker 1: flipped on election night. Except for the very top of
Speaker 1: the ticket. The Republican Party had a great night on
Speaker 1: election night. Now a Sadia, I was disappointed that the
Speaker 1: president lost, and I understand the disappointment the party amongst
Speaker 1: some people for losing that election, but we need to
Speaker 1: face the facts. Elections have consequences, and in the same way,
Speaker 1: Democrats were horribly disappointed by Donald Trump's victory four years
Speaker 1: ago over Hillary Clinton in what was actually a closer
Speaker 1: election than this one from a popular vote perspective, in
Speaker 1: the same margin from an electoral college perspective, Republicans now
Speaker 1: need to say thank you, mister president, for your service,
Speaker 1: thank you for the good things you did while you're
Speaker 1: in office that we agree with, and we now need
Speaker 1: to move on. What does that mean? Why do we
Speaker 1: have to say those things? Chris Christie doesn't Chris Christie
Speaker 1: doesn't have some insight into the election process or these
Speaker 1: legal challenges that the rest of us don't. So far,
Speaker 1: they haven't worked. I mean, we can all observe the reality.
Speaker 1: We can all see what's happening. So far, Juliani's team
Speaker 1: has not been able to get any victories. That's that
Speaker 1: is true. That is I'm these are facts, you know,
Speaker 1: And we're not going to become CNN here on the right.
Speaker 1: We're not going to live in a delusion and lie
Speaker 1: to people for ratings or for anything else. But there's
Speaker 1: also some time left here. There are these legal challenges
Speaker 1: that are continuing. Let's see what happens if they're all
Speaker 1: so silly, if they're also irrelevant or baseless. Fine, people
Speaker 1: bring lawsuits and they get shot down all the time.
Speaker 1: The courts, in a sense are are you know, a
Speaker 1: purification system for legal ideas. Now, they don't always get
Speaker 1: it right either, which we have to also keep in mind.
Speaker 1: But so you bring it forward, you say this is
Speaker 1: our legal theory, and if it is incorrect or if
Speaker 1: it doesn't work, then you you go beyond that, you
Speaker 1: move beyond it. That's where we are. We will accept
Speaker 1: the results of this election if in fact, we get
Speaker 1: through every everything that we've got and the result is
Speaker 1: the result. There's no there is no alternative that people
Speaker 1: that are people that are out there are saying that
Speaker 1: we're going to come up with some you know, Texas
Speaker 1: is going to become its own state or something else.
Speaker 1: They're just appealing to emotion, and I think at some
Speaker 1: levels it becomes disrespectful of conservatives, conservative audiences and the
Speaker 1: people that are on our side politically to tell them
Speaker 1: what you know is because there's a lot of that
Speaker 1: going on right now. People are saying what they know
Speaker 1: isn't true, but they know that the audience wants to hear,
Speaker 1: and they hope that that that feeling will just translate
Speaker 1: later on when the when the people that are saying
Speaker 1: things right now that maybe aren't not going to Chris
Speaker 1: Christy length of making fun of the lassage andything that
Speaker 1: that that's absurd, But I really believe that I have
Speaker 1: an obligation to tell you that. You know, our challenge
Speaker 1: so far has not gone well. Our legal challenge just
Speaker 1: have not gone well for this election. Do I think
Speaker 1: Do I know that there were irregularities and cheating this election? Absolutely?
Speaker 1: Do I know that this stinks to high heaven and
Speaker 1: it's it's just a disgrace and it feels like this
Speaker 1: whole thing was just wrong. Yes, But do I also
Speaker 1: know that there's no alternative system that we have in
Speaker 1: place to do something other than what we're doing right now,
Speaker 1: and that at the end of it we may actually lose. Yes. Yes,
Speaker 1: And I've known this for a while now, and I've
Speaker 1: tried to stay back. You know, people who got mad
Speaker 1: at me because I say, ah, well, you know, I
Speaker 1: think I said on Sarah Carter's podcast a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks ago, we got about a five or five to
Speaker 1: ten percent chance of really turning this thing around and
Speaker 1: sending it to the States or having a different again
Speaker 1: legal process where that could occur. And I got a
Speaker 1: lot of heat for that. That was just honest, and
Speaker 1: I was right. I mean, if you're doing the odds,
Speaker 1: if you look at this, you look at the number
Speaker 1: of legal cases, the number of states, the margin of victory.
Speaker 1: It's a long shot. And even the people involved in
Speaker 1: the legal challenge, I'll tell you, they'll they'll, they'll, they'll
Speaker 1: tell you it's a long shot behind closed doors. So
Speaker 1: you know. Now, now it's a question of how we
Speaker 1: process this and how we get ready for the fight
Speaker 1: going forward as this makes its way, as this continues
Speaker 1: on to the final stages here, I mean, otherwise, someone
Speaker 1: tell me what they really think the alternative is going
Speaker 1: to be. There's not going to be a secession movement.
Speaker 1: It's not going to happen. There's not going to be
Speaker 1: a rejection of our entire process. We're not going to
Speaker 1: all move to you know, Polynesia. Okay, it's not going
Speaker 1: to happen. So let's look at what is happening, and
Speaker 1: let's fight these cheaters and scoundrels and statists and authoritarians
Speaker 1: together with everything we've got. Let's win in Georgia. Don't
Speaker 1: need to be you know, snide about I mean, this
Speaker 1: is the CLI clip I actually meant to play. Here's
Speaker 1: Chris Christy just being kind of asked you about this
Speaker 1: whole thing. Plate ten, Well, listen, the legal theory put
Speaker 1: forward by his legal team and by the President is
Speaker 1: an absurdity. And the reason why the Supreme Court didn't
Speaker 1: taken is because it's an absurd idea to think that
Speaker 1: any state or any number of states, no matter how
Speaker 1: good they are, can challenge in other state's right to
Speaker 1: run the election as they see fit. And also, there's
Speaker 1: no evidence, as I've been saying since election night, show
Speaker 1: us the evidence. And what's gotten even worse, though, Martha,
Speaker 1: I think, is the attacks by the President on good, hardworking,
Speaker 1: decent Republican governors. Good hardworking, decent Republican governors. Look, there's
Speaker 1: no need to say that the legal theory is absurd.
Speaker 1: There's a need to track down everything we're doing here,
Speaker 1: look at everything that's going on, and come to a
Speaker 1: final determination about where we are and what we can do.
Speaker 1: At this stage, it's I'm I'm as as upset about
Speaker 1: this as anybody else. It's it's a kick in the face,
Speaker 1: and we're again. I think that the Champarnell case, maybe
Speaker 1: maybe that is the legal miracle that sets all this right,
Speaker 1: or at least gets that going. Maybe we can finally
Speaker 1: prove in a way that a court will uphold that
Speaker 1: dominion voting systems are problematic or are too easy to
Speaker 1: be messed with. But in the meantime, let's all just
Speaker 1: band together. We know what we're fighting for, we know
Speaker 1: what our team's all about, and we will we will
Speaker 1: get through this. We will get through this, and we
Speaker 1: will get to bigger victories in the future. It's going
Speaker 1: to happen. Keep the faith you're in the Freedom Hunt.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sex and Show podcast. Indoor dining
Speaker 1: in n y See shut down. It's likely to happen
Speaker 1: in other places across the country as well. I've got
Speaker 1: my friend Joe Barelli, who is a city councilman here
Speaker 1: in New York City and a rare Republican on the
Speaker 1: New York City Council, joining us to talk about how
Speaker 1: this is going. Joe, great to have you on. Always
Speaker 1: good to be here. I was looking right now, my friend.
Speaker 1: I mean, I saw of the weekend these outdoor structures
Speaker 1: that they've built in New York City. I know they
Speaker 1: have them in other places too. Are the outdoor but
Speaker 1: kind of indoor structure is gonna still be able to operate,
Speaker 1: But normal interior restaurant dining is shutdown? Is that the
Speaker 1: way this works, Yeah, which makes sense. So the outdoor, indoor, inside, outside,
Speaker 1: you can still do that, with the exception of the
Speaker 1: Northeastern that's going to blow in here over the next
Speaker 1: few days, so even that'll be out the window for
Speaker 1: these poor people who are struggling with small business restaurants
Speaker 1: in New York City. But you are a history guy,
Speaker 1: and if we played a little trivia right now, I
Speaker 1: would ask you to look back in all your knowledge
Speaker 1: to find one example of a president or governor or
Speaker 1: mayor who said we're going to enact a policy which
Speaker 1: is financially harmful to his own or her own citizens,
Speaker 1: and then simultaneously tout statistics that prove that policy will
Speaker 1: be ineffective at any rate. And that's what we had
Speaker 1: on Friday with Governor Cuomo. He said, we're shutting down dining.
Speaker 1: At the same time he told us the statistics show
Speaker 1: dining is not causing nearly any COVID around New York
Speaker 1: State or New York City. That's amazing to me because
Speaker 1: when we look at this now, the data seems to
Speaker 1: suggest that the transmission is mostly happening in homes. But
Speaker 1: are they not able to figure out well, if it's
Speaker 1: not really happening in restaurants and dining, and most of
Speaker 1: the spread as aggregate numbers goes in the home. Where
Speaker 1: is the initials spread to the you know, the let's
Speaker 1: say head of household or whoever brings it into the home.
Speaker 1: Do you know what I mean? Yeah? I mean I
Speaker 1: think this contact tracing idea has been flawed from from
Speaker 1: the very beginning. I mean, this was the reason given
Speaker 1: that as why we couldn't open up restaurants and dining
Speaker 1: and gyms, etc. In the first place. And then when
Speaker 1: we finally get the data, we're not really learning all
Speaker 1: that much. In fact, we're learning very little. Right. If
Speaker 1: there was some data to indicate that, you know, twenty
Speaker 1: five thirty forty percent of cases we're coming from restaurants,
Speaker 1: we could probably act on that. We could probably all
Speaker 1: agree that maybe we do have to take some measures
Speaker 1: and make some considerations. But we're just not the fact
Speaker 1: that we're just saying seventy something percent are coming from
Speaker 1: the home where people can do whatever they want, and
Speaker 1: then leaving it up to God to do the rest.
Speaker 1: It's unfair how that translates into well, we might have
Speaker 1: to have another shutdown of restaurant dining gyms, etc. Where
Speaker 1: are we on gyms at NYC, because that is one
Speaker 1: If they shut down the gyms, I don't know, man,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be out there protesting in the northeaster or
Speaker 1: in the streets, because to me, that just means everyone
Speaker 1: is more depressed, less healthy. And they've had almost no
Speaker 1: spread in Jim's too, which might be a shock to people.
Speaker 1: But it's funny you asked, I was about to flex
Speaker 1: for you in my athletic wear today. So Jims were
Speaker 1: allowed to reopen on Monday. They were closed the week prior,
Speaker 1: and now the Mayor and governor, though announced that New
Speaker 1: York City might have to go to a complete lockdown
Speaker 1: soon so that those would once again be closed. So
Speaker 1: if you're following along and you get the impression that
Speaker 1: I really couldn't even tell you whether jim will be
Speaker 1: open in another week or two, it's because even I,
Speaker 1: as an elected official in New York City, can not
Speaker 1: even fathom whether Jim's will be opened a week from today,
Speaker 1: but they're open today. Who are the people that are
Speaker 1: supposed to be the experts that are making these decisions,
Speaker 1: or rather that are that are pushing these decisions? You know,
Speaker 1: the advisors at the local level, because I feel like
Speaker 1: they've gotten a lot wrong. Joe. No, it's it's the governor.
Speaker 1: It's the governor, and it's politics. It's it's not necessarily
Speaker 1: the health people. They're just the rubber stamps. Look, I mean,
Speaker 1: we have indoor dining clothes now in Manhattan. Manhattan has
Speaker 1: a positivity rate of two point five percent. The statewide
Speaker 1: positivity rate is five percent, meaning that the rate in
Speaker 1: Manhattan is half that of everywhere else in the state,
Speaker 1: meaning it's double as good. To mince the numbers, and
Speaker 1: yet Manhattan will have closed indoor dining, but Chemung County
Speaker 1: in upstate New York will allow indoor dining where coronavirus
Speaker 1: is at least according to their data. Running more rampant, Joe,
Speaker 1: what's gonna happen? We all got about a minute. But
Speaker 1: what's going to happen to small businesses in this city
Speaker 1: is is there going to be some bailout program for them? No?
Speaker 1: I mean the governor could tomorrow authorize a deferment, or
Speaker 1: an elimination of the state's quarterly income tax payments that
Speaker 1: businesses are required to remit. And that amounts to you know,
Speaker 1: just eight percent of what their register would be over
Speaker 1: the past three months. But that that that's a grant,
Speaker 1: I mean treated as a grant. Give these people back
Speaker 1: their money them hold on to it and let them
Speaker 1: pay their employees, let them pay the rent, whatever they
Speaker 1: got to do, so that hopefully in quarters one, two, three,
Speaker 1: and four of twenty twenty one, they're still in business
Speaker 1: to keep paying the taxes. I'm worried that a lot
Speaker 1: of my favorite places and that are you know, a
Speaker 1: big reason why people live in New York City is
Speaker 1: because of that. You know, the bar where you met
Speaker 1: your fiance, the restaurant where you celebrated your first promotion.
Speaker 1: You know, you choose. It's such a part of our
Speaker 1: culture and our life here. I think I think they're
Speaker 1: just going to be decimated. I think it's going to
Speaker 1: be a blood bath for these small businesses. And that's
Speaker 1: just it's it's really sad. But well, we'll keep the faith. Joe,
Speaker 1: hopefully we got better days ahead. Joe Barelli of the
Speaker 1: New York City Council. Joe, thanks for joining me and
Speaker 1: I always good to talk to you YouTube. Thank you
Speaker 1: thanks for listening to The Bus Sesson Show podcasts. Remember
Speaker 1: to subscribe on Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. There's a case to be name
Speaker 1: that this will actually strengthen Trump and his base. And
Speaker 1: here's why. At least for now, the president has had
Speaker 1: some constraints on him as president. He can't do things
Speaker 1: that are totally off the charts. There are still people
Speaker 1: and lawyers around him who tell him, you can't do that, sir,
Speaker 1: you can't fire this guy. You shouldn't do that when
Speaker 1: he leaves. And if he's right about creating his own
Speaker 1: media empire and a digital platform and declaring simultaneously that
Speaker 1: he's the candidate in twenty twenty four, what you now
Speaker 1: have is a totally unchecked actor all over the media
Speaker 1: with seventy million votes of people who will will follow
Speaker 1: him and you know, one hundred million or whatever he's
Speaker 1: got on Twitter following him. He becomes unchecked and his
Speaker 1: people in the eyes of his base, he becomes the hero,
Speaker 1: the wrong hero who must be avenged. You know this,
Speaker 1: this outrage must be avenged. He's our guy. And so
Speaker 1: add to it the qan on folks who have been
Speaker 1: elected to Congress, right, and you can see a recipe
Speaker 1: where this doesn't go way, this lenacy becomes embedded in
Speaker 1: our society and our culture. There you have a Russia
Speaker 1: collusion truther who was a former senior FBI guy. I
Speaker 1: think he was the deputy assistant or something. I mean,
Speaker 1: he was some ord you know, deputy director. I don't know,
Speaker 1: as some senior FBI title. Who knows he was a
Speaker 1: senior guy at the FBI, who's telling you that you
Speaker 1: need to be on guard, you need to be careful
Speaker 1: because there could be this whole narrative out there of
Speaker 1: a stolen election and that Trump, even if he's not president,
Speaker 1: will be dangerous. And you know, I think that they're
Speaker 1: forgetting that we all went through. We all went through
Speaker 1: three years a four years rather of Russia collusion, lies
Speaker 1: and attacks and smears, And yeah, yeah, they're gonna have
Speaker 1: a really tough time dealing with a Donald Trump if
Speaker 1: he's not president. They're gonna have a difficult time fighting
Speaker 1: through the way that Trump and his movement will be
Speaker 1: able to be a problem for their narrative. But beyond that,
Speaker 1: I also note that we're all supposed to be so worried.
Speaker 1: We were worried he wasn't going to accept the lass.
Speaker 1: Now you got this, this guy's moron figure you'd see.
Speaker 1: I mean, he goes in MSNBC. The guy's a complete jackass.
Speaker 1: It really, the FBI and the CIA brands are irrevocably
Speaker 1: or irrevocably sorry, but the FBI and CI brands are
Speaker 1: deeply damaged as a result of what's going on here,
Speaker 1: damaged beyond repair. I think, and I'm somebody who you know,
Speaker 1: i'd like to think the CIA is well regarded. It's
Speaker 1: it's really not anymore because of these senior officials from
Speaker 1: these agencies who go out and act like partisan morons.
Speaker 1: But you know, there was violence this weekend. This guy's
Speaker 1: so worried about what's gonna happen. Violence this weekend, more
Speaker 1: Biden voters, Democrats, Antifa attacking Trump supporters in DC. It's
Speaker 1: not covered in the media. It doesn't even get a mention.
Speaker 1: The lunacy of the left that's going on in Seattle
Speaker 1: right now and in Portland and and DC over the weekend,
Speaker 1: and they don't even think of it as a news story.
Speaker 1: I mean, they really are like the Soviet media. You know,
Speaker 1: they're Pravda circa nineteen fifty eight or something. I mean
Speaker 1: it's appalling what they're willing to lie about and cover up.
Speaker 1: You're in the Freedom Hunt. This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show podcast. How does China influence our politics? We heard
Speaker 1: so much about Russian influence the election in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: It was greatly exaggerated, as you know, by the media
Speaker 1: because they used it as a weapon against Trump. But
Speaker 1: now we're starting to wake up to the reality of pervasive, widespread,
Speaker 1: and incredibly powerful Chinese Communist Party influence operations, and they're
Speaker 1: following our politics closely and trying to direct political outcomes
Speaker 1: in this country. I've got someone joining now who could
Speaker 1: speak very much to this issue. Stephen Yates is with
Speaker 1: us now. He is the principle of DC International Advisory
Speaker 1: and he's formerly Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President
Speaker 1: Dick Cheney and the Bush administration. Steve great to have you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Buckets one will to join you. And Steve
Speaker 1: is also a Mandarin speaker, so he's been handling this
Speaker 1: issue and looking at it for a very long time. Stephen,
Speaker 1: how does China and walk us through this? I mean,
Speaker 1: give us a kind of overview brief of what we're
Speaker 1: seeing now and how China in recent years has tried
Speaker 1: to influence American politics. Well, Buck, I'll give a quick
Speaker 1: version of it. This is something that's been going on
Speaker 1: a long time. It's escalated, it's become more sophisticated, and
Speaker 1: it's been technologized, and all the weapons are at the
Speaker 1: hands of the Communist Party of China at this point.
Speaker 1: But if people might remember, but it seems ancient history
Speaker 1: that there are influence operations that hit the public in
Speaker 1: the nineteen nineties, there are fundraising scandals that came up
Speaker 1: during the Clinton administration. Congress had a full, full scale
Speaker 1: national security report done under the leadership of Chris Cox that,
Speaker 1: among other things, gave warning things about this. But the
Speaker 1: Chinese used to use access to their markets as leverage
Speaker 1: to try to get more favorable policies from Americas. So
Speaker 1: the old argument was China's developing country. We give them
Speaker 1: a break here and there and treat them like a
Speaker 1: developing country, sort of like a kid at the kid's table,
Speaker 1: but with the potential to come to the big tables.
Speaker 1: Let's give them a break and go ahead and give
Speaker 1: them special access, and they'll grow into their role of
Speaker 1: being a responsible partner of ours. Over time, they've gone
Speaker 1: from just giving money to campaigns, which got them in
Speaker 1: trouble in the nineteen nineties. So then they found out, well,
Speaker 1: what if we work with churches and chambers of commerce,
Speaker 1: in other words, let's influence the influencers. And it got
Speaker 1: from corporate boardrooms to evangelical associations, a Catholic church itself,
Speaker 1: other kinds of civic organizations, whether it's sister cities. They
Speaker 1: just spanded this this this outreach effort, and they completely
Speaker 1: co opted a lot of our major universities. So universities
Speaker 1: are businesses. I think that they should be treated more
Speaker 1: like businesses if education is only a small fraction of
Speaker 1: their revenue and business model. And what they've done is
Speaker 1: they make it so that foreign exchange students, research programs
Speaker 1: are completely dependent on the good graces of the Communist
Speaker 1: Party of China to have all of this money that
Speaker 1: they that they live on. So they become too big
Speaker 1: to fail in a way that you can't criticize China.
Speaker 1: We can't question government policy towards China, or they'll pull
Speaker 1: the red carpet out from under our feed. So that
Speaker 1: that's been growing over decades. What's much much more pronounced
Speaker 1: now is their role in big tech, big entertainment, big sports,
Speaker 1: all other elements of the culture War. They seem to
Speaker 1: have snuck in and taken a monopoly control over just
Speaker 1: in recent years. Speaking at Steve Yates, he is the
Speaker 1: CEO of DC International Advisory and a former senior national
Speaker 1: security official under the Bush administration. Steven tell us about
Speaker 1: you mentioned the big tech influence, and we're already seeing
Speaker 1: a lot of problems on the right from American big
Speaker 1: tech companies involved in censorship. How does China try to
Speaker 1: leverage big tech to direct American politics or get involved
Speaker 1: in our political conversations. Well, in some ways it's too
Speaker 1: easy for them. If you want the greatest freedom free
Speaker 1: zone to test facial recognition, artificial intelligence, ways to monitor
Speaker 1: and control and influence people, China is the greatest sort
Speaker 1: of experimental farm you could go to to try to
Speaker 1: figure out how applied technology you can be used to
Speaker 1: manipulate and control people. So, if you're in the business
Speaker 1: of doing that in advertising, you might have a perverse
Speaker 1: interest in trying to cooperate with China. But the Chinese
Speaker 1: have all kinds of tentacles back in they can do
Speaker 1: it by direct investment. They can do it by way
Speaker 1: of engineers that are exceedingly well trained but willing to
Speaker 1: work at a slightly lower rate. And even if we
Speaker 1: just look at recent controversies about who are the fact
Speaker 1: checkers in big tech today that are determining that a
Speaker 1: warning label needs to go onto the at real Donald
Speaker 1: Trump account, in many cases those are farmed out to
Speaker 1: Chinese fact checker farms. And so this is they're tied
Speaker 1: in in so many different ways that people wouldn't even
Speaker 1: think about it. You're telling me, you're telling me that
Speaker 1: some of the some of the fact checking of American
Speaker 1: because I've been fact checking, I mean I've I've personally
Speaker 1: been subjected to this in the last few weeks, some
Speaker 1: of the fact check and accompanying censorship that's happening in
Speaker 1: America around American tech companies, preventing Americans from sharing ideas.
Speaker 1: We're being fact checked by Chinese, by Chinese people in
Speaker 1: Chinese artificial intelligence. It's been outsourced. I mean, the scale
Speaker 1: of the operation to try to monitor the amount of
Speaker 1: traffic as we would say, say Twitter, that's bigger than
Speaker 1: most American companies can really reasonably do. And plus we're
Speaker 1: talking about international traffic. Think can bounce all over the
Speaker 1: place and still be about the American election or political process.
Speaker 1: And so the Chinese Communist Party and they're they're they're
Speaker 1: invested outfits. They make themselves available to help out, you know,
Speaker 1: when needed on things like this. But very very very
Speaker 1: very plausibly, you or anyone else that has a sizable
Speaker 1: audience has been fact checked by someone who's not even
Speaker 1: an American. Oh my gosh, almost makes me think that
Speaker 1: it'd be better to have your LIB MS NBC watchers.
Speaker 1: At least at least they feel like there might be
Speaker 1: some eventual accountability for what they're doing. But if you're
Speaker 1: talking about outsourcing the stuff to China, Yance, you could
Speaker 1: cross paths with them, Yeah, exactly. At least I could
Speaker 1: find out what the outfit is and maybe try to
Speaker 1: get some redress or Speaking of Steve Yates, he is
Speaker 1: the CEO of DC International Advisor. He's a China policy expert.
Speaker 1: Steve tell everyone listening this about the role that the
Speaker 1: relationship and role that China has to the US agricultural
Speaker 1: industry and how they've tried to leverage that in recent years.
Speaker 1: And you have some particular knowledge of this as a
Speaker 1: guy who ran for lieutenant governor in Idaho. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: one of the more famous examples on the presidential level
Speaker 1: has been the influence they tried to exert in Iowa.
Speaker 1: And so there has been a former governor of Iowa
Speaker 1: that was the President Trump's ambassador to China, Branstead. And
Speaker 1: so the Chinese would would offer up access to their
Speaker 1: consumers for all of our wonderful farm products. And if
Speaker 1: they took kind of a controlling share of say korn
Speaker 1: in one state, or wheat in another, or hay in
Speaker 1: other places, they can have tremendous political impact by saying whoa, whoa,
Speaker 1: don't talk about going to Taiwan, or don't support your
Speaker 1: elected members on these tough on China policies, or I'm
Speaker 1: so sorry, we might not be able to buy the
Speaker 1: next billion dollars worth of your product for the coming season.
Speaker 1: So sorry. So they've been able to exercise that influence
Speaker 1: for me personally in a state of Idaho, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of exports that go to China, but it's people
Speaker 1: who then associate with the Chinese or use the China
Speaker 1: angle that can attack you. And so since I have
Speaker 1: a name in Chinese and people have known me through
Speaker 1: the media in Chinese language. A whole bunch of fake
Speaker 1: accounts can start sending criticisms, making fake videos, and they
Speaker 1: get picked up in the American press, and they don't know,
Speaker 1: you know, we don't have sufficient fact checkers in some
Speaker 1: part of rural America, and they don't know what's going on.
Speaker 1: They say, I'm an agent of China, And anyone who's
Speaker 1: ever known me from the nineteen nineties until now, there
Speaker 1: probably isn't anyone who has a longer record of being
Speaker 1: a pain in the backside of the Communist Party than
Speaker 1: I have. But it just takes a few fake accounts
Speaker 1: and build a fake audience, and that Twitter farm goes,
Speaker 1: and the Facebook farm goes, and it looks like there's
Speaker 1: hundreds of people that don't like this mister Yates from
Speaker 1: Idaho because he's tough on China. Stephen, what should we
Speaker 1: do about this? Do you think that there's a recognition
Speaker 1: of how important powerful and nefarious Chinese influence is Chinese
Speaker 1: Communist Party influences in the United States that there is
Speaker 1: enough willingness to do something. And if that is the case,
Speaker 1: and I'm emphasizing if what should be done well, I
Speaker 1: think the single most potent force we have in America
Speaker 1: right now is the Trump movement. It's something that can
Speaker 1: earn coverage, it can influence people who are active in
Speaker 1: multiple states, and that's what it's going to take. It's
Speaker 1: going to take things in state legislatures in addition to
Speaker 1: Congress and the federal government. People have to forget that
Speaker 1: the federal government isn't going to be our savior. We're
Speaker 1: gonna have to save ourselves from the ground up. And
Speaker 1: they're gonna have to put pressure on universities. They're gonna
Speaker 1: have to put pressure on the patterns of trade that
Speaker 1: our states engage in. And that's going to be much
Speaker 1: much more effective than trying to wait for a federal response.
Speaker 1: But recognizing that free trip that those college kids got
Speaker 1: to go to China, it's going to come with some strings.
Speaker 1: That that great welcome that you've got to promise to
Speaker 1: buy all these crops, this group of visitors that was
Speaker 1: going to prop up your resort or your hotel or
Speaker 1: something like that, that can be taken away as easily
Speaker 1: as as it's given, and it's going to come with
Speaker 1: strings attached. I think Secretary of Pompeio has been in
Speaker 1: a store Secretary of State in this regard the most
Speaker 1: candid in terms of talking to the world but also
Speaker 1: talking to Americans about what the nature and scope of
Speaker 1: this challenge has been. And we're just at the very
Speaker 1: beginning of having that real conversation. And it seems like nothing,
Speaker 1: but in my thirty years of working on this topic,
Speaker 1: this is the first we've even made headway and having
Speaker 1: that more honest conversation. It just needs to continue. Our
Speaker 1: allies are getting hit by the Chinese. Two the Brits,
Speaker 1: the Australians have had some ugly political attacks on them
Speaker 1: by the Chinese, and so more of the world is
Speaker 1: coming around to this isn't Donald Trump the person versus
Speaker 1: big bad China. This is China declaring war on civilization
Speaker 1: as we know it, freedom as we've known it. And
Speaker 1: sadly they've got enablers in our own polity and we've
Speaker 1: got to get wise. And I think this election experience
Speaker 1: has awakened more Americans to roll this boulder forward in
Speaker 1: the right way. I hope. Before we let you go,
Speaker 1: the story that broke about all these Chinese Communist Party
Speaker 1: members based on this leaked list, it was named and
Speaker 1: particularly UK major international United Kingdom base. You know British companies, Steve,
Speaker 1: what did you make of that? I mean it was
Speaker 1: I think of a company, you know, Rolls Royce. We
Speaker 1: think of these British companies that people all all know
Speaker 1: off the top of their head they've hired and in
Speaker 1: some cases put in pretty sensitive positions, not just Chinese workers,
Speaker 1: which the different thing members active members of the Chinese
Speaker 1: Communist Party. Yeah, so these the target of corporate leaders
Speaker 1: and influencers has been something that a lot of nefarious
Speaker 1: players around the world have gone to, and the Chinese
Speaker 1: have made a big, big play for that. And the
Speaker 1: corporate boards and corporate leadership that allows these people in
Speaker 1: either are really really ignorant to let these people into
Speaker 1: the barn, or they're in on the joke, and what
Speaker 1: they're trying to do is to buy access to the
Speaker 1: ever elusive billion plus Chinese market by allowing these folks
Speaker 1: into board rooms and influential positions. What happens most of
Speaker 1: the time, though, is technology and talent and other gets
Speaker 1: stolen away from them and a competitor rises up in
Speaker 1: China and they need to learn this sad lesson. But
Speaker 1: this has happened in many corporations, in many political organizations.
Speaker 1: The UK story could easily be replicated in a lot
Speaker 1: of America. We know that members of the Senate and
Speaker 1: House Intelligence communities have been personally compromised by staffers being
Speaker 1: on their roles for many years, and an FBI briefing
Speaker 1: ends that tenure. But the damage is done. That's been
Speaker 1: done in corporations, have been done in Congress, It's been
Speaker 1: done in campaigns, and everyone needs to get wiser about
Speaker 1: how to vet this. Stephen Yates, CEO of DC International Advisory,
Speaker 1: you can follow him on Twitter. Steve, great to have you, Matt,
Speaker 1: thanks so much, my pleasure to take care Buck. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to the Bus Sesson Show podcast. Remember to
Speaker 1: subscribe on Apple podcasts, the iHeart Radio app four, wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. Is there a doctor in the
Speaker 1: White House? Not if you need an m D. This
Speaker 1: was written by this guy, Joseph Epstein, and the subheading
Speaker 1: if this is an editor in the Wall Street Journal,
Speaker 1: Jill Biden should think about dropping the honorific, which feels
Speaker 1: fraudulent even comic. Let me just be very clear, it
Speaker 1: is fraudulent and comic. It's absurd. Now one is a
Speaker 1: fraudulent I mean the notion that we should have to
Speaker 1: call this person who got a PhD at fifty five
Speaker 1: because she was apparently bored and you know, wanted to
Speaker 1: get more street cred or something. Got a PhD at
Speaker 1: fifty five in some kind of you know, educational field,
Speaker 1: and we're all supposed refer to as doctor. Now, well,
Speaker 1: let me be very clear. This is a custom thing,
Speaker 1: this is a cultural thing. There's no legal issue here, right,
Speaker 1: Call whatever you want. So I don't really understand what
Speaker 1: they think the big deal is here, and I want
Speaker 1: to be very clear that when I look at this,
Speaker 1: I see that there are people making a big deal
Speaker 1: is now. I said back in August, doctor Jill Biden
Speaker 1: shouldn't be called doctor. This isn't a partisan statement. It's
Speaker 1: about reality. That was back in August. So they wrote
Speaker 1: this piece of the walls through journal a few months after.
Speaker 1: I was already coming out there saying this because I
Speaker 1: think it's very obvious. The whole thing is absurd. But
Speaker 1: you see, they hate. You're not allowed to mock. You
Speaker 1: are not allowed to mock people in power when they're Democrats.
Speaker 1: You can't do that. You're not allowed to poke fun
Speaker 1: at them. They shut that down because it takes away
Speaker 1: from the power and the perception of power that they're
Speaker 1: trying to build for them. So you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: Jill Biden is not a doctor. And here's what this guy,
Speaker 1: this guy writes, Madam first Lady missus Biden, Jill kiddo,
Speaker 1: now that people got mad about the kiddo thing, A
Speaker 1: bit of advice on what may seem like a small
Speaker 1: but I think is not an important matter. Any chance
Speaker 1: you might drop the doctor before your name, Doctor Jill
Speaker 1: Biden sounds and feels fraudulent, not to say, a touch comic.
Speaker 1: Your degree is I believe an e an ed d.
Speaker 1: Or a Doctor of Education earned at the University of
Speaker 1: Delaware through a dissertation with the unpromising title student retention
Speaker 1: at the community college level, meeting students' needs. A wise
Speaker 1: man once said that no one should call himself doctor
Speaker 1: unless he has delivered a child. Think about a doctor, Jill,
Speaker 1: and forthwith drop the doc. I taught at Northwestern University
Speaker 1: for thirty years without a doctorate or any advanced degree.
Speaker 1: I have only a BA in absentia from the University
Speaker 1: of Chicago in absentia because I took my final examination
Speaker 1: on a pool table at headquarters company ford Hood, Texas,
Speaker 1: while serving in the Peacetime Army in the late nineteen fifties.
Speaker 1: I do have an honorary doctorate, though I have yet
Speaker 1: to report to the president of the school that awarded it.
Speaker 1: I was fired the year after I received it. Not
Speaker 1: I hope for allowing my honorary doctorate. That's right. So friends,
Speaker 1: this is pretty straightforward. And I remember some of you
Speaker 1: wrote any disagree with me on this, that's fine. I
Speaker 1: think it's weird, and if you if we can argue
Speaker 1: about this, there's certainly argument to be had on both sides.
Speaker 1: I think it's weird to insist, because she clearly does.
Speaker 1: Because there are tons of people out there without doctorates.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, with doctorates who don't want to be called
Speaker 1: the doctor. There lots and lots and lots of them.
Speaker 1: I've always thought this was a little strange. I never
Speaker 1: liked that. I had a We call them headmasters at
Speaker 1: my grammar school, my primary school, so that's that's what
Speaker 1: we had to call our principal, a headmaster, and we
Speaker 1: had to call him doctor, and he was he wasn't
Speaker 1: a doctor. You know we had some kind of a
Speaker 1: doctorate in the humanities or whatever. And I know that
Speaker 1: there's some there's some long standing tradition here of people
Speaker 1: that are getting a the PhD came before the MD
Speaker 1: or whatever. I don't care. We've we've evolved in our
Speaker 1: conversation about this. A doctor is a person who is
Speaker 1: a doctor, right, and I think that that's in it's
Speaker 1: it's delivered as an honorific it's delivered as a term
Speaker 1: of respect. I do not have any respect for Jill
Speaker 1: Biden's PhD in community college retention. I give zero, you
Speaker 1: know what's about that? And so I'm not going to
Speaker 1: walk around and be told that I have to. I
Speaker 1: have to say this a better You know this is
Speaker 1: if I insisted that Democrats call me Buck the radio
Speaker 1: genius Sexton, they would have a right to say, no,
Speaker 1: we're not actually going to do that. We're not actually
Speaker 1: going to refer to him as the radio genius and say, well,
Speaker 1: but why not, you know it, why not just be
Speaker 1: polite and call him what he likes to be called.
Speaker 1: They won't do that. So I I know I had
Speaker 1: a grandfather who had an honorary doctorate from Notre Dame
Speaker 1: no One. We never called him doctor. He wasn't a doctor.
Speaker 1: So I think that this is this is just one
Speaker 1: of these things that shouldn't have been such a big deal.
Speaker 1: But the Libs and the machinery of Biden worship, that's
Speaker 1: all kicking into gear. It's amazing. Oh this is sexist.
Speaker 1: They say it's not sexist. Oh what they think that
Speaker 1: if we were supposed to call him doctor Joe Biden
Speaker 1: because of his PhD in education and in community college
Speaker 1: retention or whatever, that we wouldn't make fun of him
Speaker 1: for that. That's absurd. I mean, their point is absurd.
Speaker 1: It's not it's not real. I would, of course make
Speaker 1: fun of Joe Biden for that. I'd make fun of
Speaker 1: anyone for that, and I think we have a right
Speaker 1: to do that. But you'll you'll notice there's a particular
Speaker 1: sensitivity around Biden and his wife and the First family
Speaker 1: and all this stuff because they don't want people to
Speaker 1: start to realize how how silly this whole thing is.
Speaker 1: That Joe Biden is a third tier mediocrity in every sense,
Speaker 1: and they just figured that this is a guy we
Speaker 1: could make president. They didn't spend enough time thinking about
Speaker 1: should we make him president. They just figured out we can,
Speaker 1: we can fool enough people with the media and with
Speaker 1: social media allied together in a pandemic year, we could
Speaker 1: we could get this guy to be president. And they're
Speaker 1: all going to try to pretend like this is really
Speaker 1: impressive and he's some great guy. Joe Biden's a clown
Speaker 1: and it's a little it is. It's pretentious that her wife,
Speaker 1: that his wife rather goes around demanding to be called
Speaker 1: doctor doctor Joe Biden. I'm sorry it is pretentious because
Speaker 1: clearly demands it, because we know about it, right, This
Speaker 1: isn't like it just is. It's not It's one thing
Speaker 1: in the classroom on campus. I'm talking about it in
Speaker 1: like general, in life, in general. You know, I think
Speaker 1: Dick Cheney's wife has a has a doctorate. No one
Speaker 1: calls her doctor Cheney like missus Cheney. There's tons of examples.
Speaker 1: The Wall Street Journal do its credit, Uh fired back
Speaker 1: on this one because social media over the weekend. Oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, how how dare you not referred to as
Speaker 1: doctor Jill Biden. I just want to know it. Has
Speaker 1: anyone who ever wrote a dissertation for a PhD program
Speaker 1: at the University of Delaware. I'm just gonna ask this question.
Speaker 1: Do you think I've ever not gotten it? Do you
Speaker 1: think the University of Delaware has every been like, yeah,
Speaker 1: you're you're in their PhD program and you finished a doctorate,
Speaker 1: but you know it just wasn't really good, so we're
Speaker 1: not going to give you your PhD. I'm just guessing.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I have to I wonder if the
Speaker 1: state is even available. I'm guessing the answer though, is
Speaker 1: that you know, you show up, you write the thing,
Speaker 1: you get the doctorate. So what exactly is impressive about this?
Speaker 1: In what way am I supposed to care about? No,
Speaker 1: of course not. Do do you think that? Do you
Speaker 1: think that if the roles were reversed, if this was
Speaker 1: a Republican's wife, the Democrats would be leaping to her defense. No.
Speaker 1: In fact, there was no talk about the sexism of
Speaker 1: attacking Milanni all the time. There was no talk about
Speaker 1: the xenophobia of attacking her accent, making fun of her
Speaker 1: a woman who speaks five She's a highly successful international
Speaker 1: model who speaks five languages. But they would they love
Speaker 1: making jokes about her, mocking her. Do you think they
Speaker 1: made you think they made jokes about this. Would they
Speaker 1: make jokes about this if it was a Republican. No,
Speaker 1: they would if it was a Republican, Not if it's
Speaker 1: a Democrat. So oh, there's a little bit more here.
Speaker 1: I want to read more from this guy's piece. The
Speaker 1: PhD may have once held prestige, but that has been
Speaker 1: diminished by the erosion of seriousness and the relaxation of
Speaker 1: standards in university education generally, at any rate, outside the sciences,
Speaker 1: getting a doctorate was then an arduous proceeding. One had
Speaker 1: to pass examinations in two foreign languages, one of them
Speaker 1: Greek or Latin, defend one's thesis, and take an oral
Speaker 1: examination on general knowledge in one's field. At Columbia University
Speaker 1: of an earlier day, a secretary sat outside the room
Speaker 1: where these examinations were administered, a pitcher of water and
Speaker 1: a glass on her desk. The water and glass were
Speaker 1: there for the candidates who fainted a far cry. This
Speaker 1: is from the few doctoral examinations I sat in on
Speaker 1: during my teaching days, where candidates and teachers addressed one
Speaker 1: another by first name, and the general atmosphere you're more
Speaker 1: resembled a coffee clatch. Doctor Jill I note you acquired
Speaker 1: your ed as recently as fifteen years ago or at
Speaker 1: age fifty five, long after the terror had departed. The
Speaker 1: prestige of honorary doctorates has declined even further. Such degrees
Speaker 1: were once given exclusively to scholars, statements, statesmen, artists, and scientists.
Speaker 1: Then rich men entered the list, usually the hope they
Speaker 1: would donate money to the schools that had granted than
Speaker 1: their honorary degrees. My friends, my late friends. Saul Linowitz,
Speaker 1: then chairman of Xerox, told me he had sixty three
Speaker 1: honorary doctorates. Famoush television journalists who passed themselves off as intelligent,
Speaker 1: followed entertainers who didn't bother feigning intelligence were next. At Northwestern,
Speaker 1: recent honorary degree recipients and commencement speakers have included Stephen
Speaker 1: Colbert and Seth Myers. I sent a complaining email to
Speaker 1: the schools president about the low quality of such men,
Speaker 1: of men, sorry, of such men as academic honorand's, with
Speaker 1: the result that the following year the commencement speaker and
Speaker 1: honorand was Billy Jean King, who, with the graduating members
Speaker 1: of the schools women's tennis team, hit tennis balls out
Speaker 1: to the audience of graduating students and parents who had
Speaker 1: aid seventy thousand dollars a year for their university education,
Speaker 1: or perhaps I should say for their credential. Political correctness
Speaker 1: has put paid to has put paid to any true
Speaker 1: honor and honorary doctorate may once have possessed. If you're
Speaker 1: ever looking for a similar assimile to denote rarity, try
Speaker 1: rarer than a contemporary university honorary degree list not containing
Speaker 1: an African American woman. Then there are all those honorary
Speaker 1: degrees bestowed on Bill Cosby, Charlie Rose, and others, owing
Speaker 1: to their proven or alleged sexual predations, have to have
Speaker 1: had to be rescinded. Between the honorary degrees given to billionaires,
Speaker 1: the falsely intelligent entertainers, and the politically correct. Just about
Speaker 1: all honor has been drained from honorary doctorates, as your
Speaker 1: ed D or E ed d or, I don't know
Speaker 1: how you even say this educational doctorate, Madame first Lady,
Speaker 1: hard owned, though hard earned though it may have been,
Speaker 1: Please consider stowing it at least in public, at least
Speaker 1: for now. Forget the small thrill of being doctor Jill
Speaker 1: and settled for the larger thrill of living for the
Speaker 1: next four years and the best public housing the world has.
Speaker 1: As first Lady Jill Biden. Yeah, completely agree with this piece,
Speaker 1: which made out surprise any of you. I think it's
Speaker 1: completely correct. I think he's spot on. I think Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is you know. I think that she's a little
Speaker 1: high falutin here, and I agree, and I think we
Speaker 1: are allowed to make fun of this. I'm sorry. I
Speaker 1: am not simply not going to bend the knee on
Speaker 1: this one because they say so. No interest, no interest whatsoever.
Speaker 1: So that's what I would say. That's where I am
Speaker 1: on this one. Not calling her doctor Jill, don't call
Speaker 1: her Jill Biden the first lady. You can call her
Speaker 1: first Lady, that's fine, or Joe Biden. That's her name.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden can hem and hall about this as much
Speaker 1: as he wants, but really the more it's just get
Speaker 1: ready for a lot of the of the usual tactics
Speaker 1: you've seen in the past. They're gonna call this person,
Speaker 1: They're gonna call this person weeb. It is in the
Speaker 1: role that is pointing out what's so obvious to all
Speaker 1: of us sexist get ready for everything is going to
Speaker 1: be sexist and racist. Again. That's that's the future we're
Speaker 1: now heading toward in a Democrat bid administration. Whenever they
Speaker 1: don't like something, it's sexist, it's racist. They're not going
Speaker 1: to be arguing on the merits. They're not going to
Speaker 1: allow for differences of opinion on things that whenever they
Speaker 1: can get away with it, which is gonna be a lot,
Speaker 1: they're gonna raise this as an issue. They're gonna be
Speaker 1: telling people that this is the way it has to be.
Speaker 1: And I'm sorry, I refuse, I refuse. We gotta come
Speaker 1: up with something. They already used hashtag resist. We gotta
Speaker 1: come up with a hashtag, you know, go blank off libs,
Speaker 1: something like that. You're in the Freedom Hunt. This is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Interesting story today at a
Speaker 1: time when I know the Attorney General has come in
Speaker 1: for a lot of criticism from Trump's supporters. Interesting story
Speaker 1: not getting a whole lot of attention here, but a
Speaker 1: little bit. Special Counsel Durham is expanding his team examining
Speaker 1: the origins of the Russia collusion problem. Let me tell
Speaker 1: you what could end up happening here, friends. Well, first, first,
Speaker 1: I'll give you the update the story. Fox News has
Speaker 1: learned that Durham, the USE attorney for Connecticut who bar
Speaker 1: appointed in October a special councils adding prosecutors to his team.
Speaker 1: It's unclear who they are, but Fox News a supporter
Speaker 1: that Jeff j Jeff Jensen, the US attorney for the
Speaker 1: Eastern District of Missouri, staff by the Justice Department in
Speaker 1: February or review the case of former aut security advisor
Speaker 1: Michael Flynn, was helping the Drum's investigation. So this is
Speaker 1: it is interesting that the Durham would be expanding his
Speaker 1: team at this phase now he's a special counsel. Makes
Speaker 1: it a lot harder, makes it a lot harder for
Speaker 1: anyone to just shut this down in a Biden administration.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying it's impossible, but it makes it more complicated,
Speaker 1: it makes it more politically costly. And here's what I
Speaker 1: see happening. If they shut it down, We've already established
Speaker 1: because they said this under Trump, if they shut down
Speaker 1: they told us that if Trump shut down the special
Speaker 1: Collusion I'm sorry, Special Council probe in a Russia collusion,
Speaker 1: if they shut that down, they would impeach him. Just
Speaker 1: for shutting it down. We might be able to take
Speaker 1: the House back in two years. And depending on what
Speaker 1: this Durham probe finds, wouldn't it be fair play, wouldn't
Speaker 1: it be justice? Dare I say if Durham gets the
Speaker 1: goods on Biden and members of the members of the
Speaker 1: Obama administration, I mean, who knows what he's really going
Speaker 1: to find here, right, but people from the Obama administration
Speaker 1: who could be back in the Biden administration and Biden
Speaker 1: were to shut down the Durham probe or even try to,
Speaker 1: maybe it's time for a little Democrat impeachment process and
Speaker 1: maybe we'll see how they like it. You know, this
Speaker 1: could happen. I know it's a ways out. But if
Speaker 1: we do have a full accounting of Russia collusion, we
Speaker 1: we'll see if the Democrats are a bunch of corrupt
Speaker 1: deep state liars and their disgrace, and that the Obama
Speaker 1: administration that Joe Biden was a part of at a
Speaker 1: very high level was also a complete and utter disgrace.
Speaker 1: So don't give up entirely on this. I said Durham
Speaker 1: wasn't going to get it done before the election. I
Speaker 1: didn't realize that there was going to be a special
Speaker 1: counsel appointed after the election, or that he would be
Speaker 1: appointed as a special counsel, and this could this could
Speaker 1: change things quite a bit. This, this could be very
Speaker 1: very relevant going forward, because friends, the Russia collusion stuff
Speaker 1: was was was atrocious, and we know enough now to
Speaker 1: know that everything we've said about how bad they were
Speaker 1: and how awful and egregious their actions were, we were
Speaker 1: telling the truth. We were correct, and they were lying
Speaker 1: about this stuff. So Durham being able to find out
Speaker 1: more here and get to the point where he's able
Speaker 1: to hold people accountable, I think that could really make
Speaker 1: a big difference down the line, not right now, but
Speaker 1: down the line were this is a long fight. Friends,
Speaker 1: don't don't feel dejected. Don't feel like you know all
Speaker 1: is lost right now, because I understand there's a tough
Speaker 1: week with the Electoral Electoral College today and this is
Speaker 1: not an easy time. But we still have a lot
Speaker 1: of fights ahead and the Democrats are going to have
Speaker 1: their handsful, and I hope this Durham probe makes things
Speaker 1: a whole lot more challenging for them, that's for sure.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bus Show podcasts. Remember to
Speaker 1: subscribe on Apple podcast at the iHeartRadio app or wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. Hey, Team Buck, it's time for
Speaker 1: roll call Facebook dot com, slash Buck Sex and make
Speaker 1: sure you check it on bucksx and dot com. I'm
Speaker 1: an editorial up today about the need to fight to
Speaker 1: the end in Georgia and where I think we should be,
Speaker 1: where our what our mindset should be right now with
Speaker 1: all this so um Facebook dot com, Slashbuck sexon or
Speaker 1: Team Buck at iHeartMedia dot com and there we have it.
Speaker 1: You can also send us messages on a Instagram Direct
Speaker 1: messages on Instagram Buck Sex and I'm on Instagram and
Speaker 1: let's get to it. Gina, Hi again, Buck. A few
Speaker 1: days ago you mentioned our governor Polis and his wife
Speaker 1: both had COVID. I need to correct on one point
Speaker 1: of your story. He actually has a husband. Our media
Speaker 1: pushed very hard to elect him as the first gay
Speaker 1: governor in history. He's also very wealthy and refused to
Speaker 1: live in the governor's mansion as he wanted to stay
Speaker 1: in his family compound in Boulder. In Polis, the left
Speaker 1: has not only scored big with identity politics, but also
Speaker 1: as an elitist as well. He is truly insufferable, and
Speaker 1: his edicts have ravaged our economy to what may be
Speaker 1: a point of no return. Anyway, I just wanted to
Speaker 1: point it out. Although I agonize over correcting you, I
Speaker 1: always hang on your every word shield side. Well, Gina,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. And yeah, I did not know that,
Speaker 1: so I think I must have read partner or something,
Speaker 1: and I just my mind went to wife. But apparently
Speaker 1: he's married married to a man. I did not know that,
Speaker 1: So thank you for the correct My understanding is that
Speaker 1: he's not a good governor. But I know our large
Speaker 1: Colorado based audience will write in and tell me more
Speaker 1: about why he is not a particularly good governor. It's
Speaker 1: a shame. Colorado's pretty pretty blue. I mean, there's there's
Speaker 1: definitely some red in it, but it's people think of
Speaker 1: it now is lost to the loss of the Libs,
Speaker 1: which is a shame. I never really spend any time
Speaker 1: in Colorado. I'd like to get out there, Evan hey Buck.
Speaker 1: On top of all the various undermining of the vaccine,
Speaker 1: I think one of the most dangerous things the media
Speaker 1: is doing is villainizing those who aren't following the media's
Speaker 1: demands and precautions. My mother caught COVID at the beginning
Speaker 1: of November while wearing a mask, and she was mortified
Speaker 1: and embarrassed to tell anyone. She was afraid that if
Speaker 1: she told people, they would think she was being reckless
Speaker 1: and lock and looked down on her. She wanted to
Speaker 1: continue on her life as best she could not tell anyone,
Speaker 1: which which would then continue to spread. I convinced her
Speaker 1: to stay home and safe and thank she's all better now.
Speaker 1: But the media is making those who contract COVID nineteen
Speaker 1: feel guilty as if they've done something wrong. This isn't
Speaker 1: helping contain it, it's helping too secretly spread it. Yeah, Evan,
Speaker 1: I mean this. You're right about there being this weird
Speaker 1: COVID shaming that goes on where especially if your thought
Speaker 1: of as somebody who's conservative, it's like you got COVID
Speaker 1: because of what you've done, or you deserve it. Most
Speaker 1: of the people that are getting COVID across the country
Speaker 1: are mask wearing lockdown advocates, because that's most of the
Speaker 1: people across the country period. There's absolutely zero correlation. There's
Speaker 1: zero evidence whatsoever to suggest that the people who are
Speaker 1: getting sick are are getting sick because they've made some
Speaker 1: kind of a personal choice, or they're being your response
Speaker 1: or anything like that at all. But whenever a Republican
Speaker 1: gets it, as you've seen, whether it's Trump or Chris
Speaker 1: Christi or any Republican gets COVID nineteen, it's it's that
Speaker 1: person's fault. But when a Democrat gets it, Northam and
Speaker 1: Virginia got it. You know, Polis, the governor Colorado, got
Speaker 1: every lots of down. I think Wolf the governor of Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: I think that he's had COVID. Whenever they get it,
Speaker 1: it's just, oh, man, what a contagious virus. Yeah, really tough,
Speaker 1: really tough to keep yourself healthy. But when Republican gets it, it's, oh,
Speaker 1: you weren't masking enough. Well, it's just not true. I
Speaker 1: wonder you know, the UK is going into even more
Speaker 1: extreme lockdown right now, so at least we know it's
Speaker 1: not Trump's fault. There, it's not Trump's fault that the
Speaker 1: UK is going London, I should say, sorry, London's going
Speaker 1: into an even tougher tier of lockdown. Down. I mean,
Speaker 1: we're apparently not allowed to notice that increased lockdown measures
Speaker 1: work so well. They seem to always result in further
Speaker 1: lockdown measures. That's how good the lockdowns are. Let's go
Speaker 1: into phase two, and then we always end up going
Speaker 1: into phase three, and then you know when we sit
Speaker 1: there for a while. At point are we allowed to
Speaker 1: notice this without being kicked off of social media? Without
Speaker 1: being told that it's reckless to point any of this out.
Speaker 1: I just want to know, you know, when is it
Speaker 1: okay to say, yeah, it turns out that maybe the
Speaker 1: stuff is not working as planned. Jim Hey bucket Mark.
Speaker 1: I'm a medical laboratory scientist in Michigan. Just listen to
Speaker 1: Thursday's show when he talked about the flu cases this year.
Speaker 1: I can give you the reason why flu cases are
Speaker 1: so low. It's an easy answer. We aren't testing for it.
Speaker 1: My lab, which is in a hospital, usually starts testing
Speaker 1: for it in mid November and runs hundreds of tests
Speaker 1: a week in a normal year. As of today, December eleven,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, we have yet to run our first test.
Speaker 1: Hope that helps answer your question. She'll tie. I keep
Speaker 1: fighting the good fight, fellow patriots. Jim, thank you so much. Yes,
Speaker 1: that that certainly does answer. That's very very helpful, and
Speaker 1: I want to know things like that. But then what
Speaker 1: I also would want to know is how could they
Speaker 1: tell is there any reason that someone could not have
Speaker 1: COVID and the flu at the same time. Is there
Speaker 1: any reason, because you know, especially as we hear that
Speaker 1: that the flu you could have for you know, rather
Speaker 1: the COVID you could have for a few weeks, a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks at least, and you know, are there
Speaker 1: people who are coming back positive on Now? When I
Speaker 1: say have it, I don't necessarily mean having an acting
Speaker 1: and infection. But could Here's what I want to know,
Speaker 1: And I'm asking a question because I don't know. But
Speaker 1: if we think this thing through it maybe maybe Jim
Speaker 1: can write in and tell me this as well as
Speaker 1: many other medical experts who I know listen to this show.
Speaker 1: We've got some world class doctors to listen to the show.
Speaker 1: It's great. I mean, Team Buck. Is this repository of
Speaker 1: incredible knowledge? Would it be possible that you get a
Speaker 1: positive PCR back on a patient who has symptoms that
Speaker 1: could be symptoms that are being called covid? I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: positive PCR with symptoms that could either be COVID or
Speaker 1: the flu, and we don't test for the flu, and
Speaker 1: we assume the person dying is dying from COVID when
Speaker 1: they're actually dying from a flu infection, but they're positive
Speaker 1: on the COVID test because the PCR is picking up
Speaker 1: in earlier infection. Is that possible. It's not possible that
Speaker 1: the flu is gone that we know. So if we're
Speaker 1: not testing for it, well, then that means that there
Speaker 1: are people who have it and aren't dying from it,
Speaker 1: because that happens every year in this country who are
Speaker 1: not being marked as flu deaths. That has to be
Speaker 1: That just logically follows, right, So we need to look
Speaker 1: a little bit more at this and understand these numbers better,
Speaker 1: because if there's just no testing for flu going on
Speaker 1: nationwide right now, because there's all this focus on COVID testing,
Speaker 1: it seems to me like a near certainty we must
Speaker 1: then be counting some flu deaths as COVID deaths. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying, I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, but there
Speaker 1: must be some overlap, and I wonder if it's a
Speaker 1: substantial overlap. I would wager I would bet that it
Speaker 1: probably is. But Jim, thanks again so much for writing. Again,
Speaker 1: Jay writes in Buck I'm sick of all the secession talk.
Speaker 1: Secession is easy, It's the coward's way. I have long
Speaker 1: complained about conservatives moving from liberal states to more conservative states.
Speaker 1: This action poses several problems. For one, it abandons all
Speaker 1: of the freedom loving Americans in blue states who for
Speaker 1: multiple reasons can't move. But even more, it makes those
Speaker 1: states even more liberal as conservatives leave, and the more
Speaker 1: liberal a place becomes, the more psycho left it becomes.
Speaker 1: I'm originally from California, and I moved to Colorado ten
Speaker 1: years ago for work and a change of scenery, not
Speaker 1: for politics. California hasn't always been so crazy left. Even
Speaker 1: just fifteen years ago, it wasn't so bad. There were
Speaker 1: bad areas, but there were enough conservatives to keep the
Speaker 1: crazy in check. Most of those I know who moves
Speaker 1: said they were simply tired of fighting. And that's the problem.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to say it, but conservatives and Republicans are
Speaker 1: getting lazy. Liberals win because they fight for what they believe.
Speaker 1: They take the effort we don't, and it's evident in
Speaker 1: our politics. We need to stand now to preserve the Union,
Speaker 1: not break it up. Don't take the easy way. Well, Jay,
Speaker 1: there's not going to be a secession And anyone who
Speaker 1: wants to get bad at me for saying that, can
Speaker 1: you know, we can come up with some kind of
Speaker 1: a bet and we'll see who's right. There's not going
Speaker 1: to be a secession movement. Okay. Republicans actually did very
Speaker 1: well in this last election, with the exception of Trump
Speaker 1: at the top of the ticket. That's it. It is true.
Speaker 1: Republicans did very well in state houses, governorships. Looks like
Speaker 1: we're hopefully and that's why I have such a focus
Speaker 1: on Georgia now hopefully going to retain control of the Senate.
Speaker 1: And you know, if you have Senate control, you might
Speaker 1: have a very kind of ineffective and mediocre at best
Speaker 1: first two years of a Biden presidency. And then I
Speaker 1: do think they're going to try to I think they're
Speaker 1: going to try to hand it off the Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: I think that that is the plan. I think that's
Speaker 1: understood at some level. Maybe they don't hand it off
Speaker 1: in the first two years, maybe it's in year three
Speaker 1: or four. I don't know, but I think they are
Speaker 1: going to try to hand it off. And I would
Speaker 1: just say now that there are a lot of people
Speaker 1: who are who are very upset and they understand they
Speaker 1: see this as being a big threat to our country
Speaker 1: and they are angry but the election. I share those feelings,
Speaker 1: but I, unlike a lot of other people out there,
Speaker 1: I am not going to exploit the feelings of conservatives
Speaker 1: across the country for my own ends by trying to
Speaker 1: drive more audience. I mean, there's there's one there's one
Speaker 1: channel right now that's doing a lot of this where
Speaker 1: they're telling people we're gonna win, We're gonna win, don't worry,
Speaker 1: We're still gonna win. And it's it's not Fox. There's
Speaker 1: one channel where they're doing this, and I think that
Speaker 1: they're doing a disservice to people, but it's it's really
Speaker 1: just opportunism. I don't view this as principle. I don't
Speaker 1: view this as principle at this point. Right it was,
Speaker 1: it's up to the up to a certain phase. You know,
Speaker 1: you fight and you try to encourage the fight as
Speaker 1: much as you can. But beyond that, I think there
Speaker 1: are people who are exploiting our anger, our frustration. Are
Speaker 1: are knowing in our core that this election was shady,
Speaker 1: that there was fraud. People are exploiting this for their
Speaker 1: own purposes right now, and I don't like that. I
Speaker 1: cannot abide by that, and I won't do that. So
Speaker 1: those who are doing it right now because they're hoping
Speaker 1: to be in the good graces of the movement, so
Speaker 1: to speak, I think it's I think it's wrong. You're
Speaker 1: in the freedom Hud. This is the Buck Sex and
Speaker 1: Show podcast. All right, more roll call coming to us here.
Speaker 1: Z We've had ZV reading before. It's a fun name
Speaker 1: to say, Z rights. Hey, Buck. I'm no law expert,
Speaker 1: but I think the real problem is that the attorney
Speaker 1: general from Texas didn't request a reasonable remedy. If the
Speaker 1: accusations are correct, what can be done to fix it?
Speaker 1: At this point? Do the legitimate ballots still have integrity?
Speaker 1: Can they be isolated from the illegitimate ones? I doubt
Speaker 1: anything can now be rolled back or corrected. Let me
Speaker 1: start with this, as I know you wrote in with
Speaker 1: more than this, but no, I mean the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: ruling was that they didn't have standing. That essentially, a
Speaker 1: state cannot say we don't like what this other state
Speaker 1: did in their election practice and that we think that
Speaker 1: they allowed fraud. So we want you to invalidate that
Speaker 1: other states election. That essentially, they're not going to give
Speaker 1: some states the ability to try to veto the election
Speaker 1: processes and other states because it is left up to
Speaker 1: states to determine how their elections go. Right, That's the
Speaker 1: basic version. I think of what happened in the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: and look, it's it was. It was always going to
Speaker 1: be a long shot because I remember, one of the
Speaker 1: problems we keep running up against here is that we
Speaker 1: know we know that the safeguards were removed. That's proven,
Speaker 1: and we know that there were a lot of irregular
Speaker 1: and sloppy and seemingly fraudulent procedures, but we because of
Speaker 1: the way it was set up, it's very hard to
Speaker 1: prove it right. So it's it's a situation where we
Speaker 1: know that they removed the ways that we'd be able
Speaker 1: to check on things, and now after the fact, we're
Speaker 1: trying to do those checks. Because it's I'm trying to
Speaker 1: think of a way to say this intelligently. Because it
Speaker 1: was easy for fraud to be committed here and for
Speaker 1: them to get away with it. That's not the same
Speaker 1: thing as being able to prove in accord. Here is
Speaker 1: the fraud being done right. What we're able to do
Speaker 1: is show that there was definitely opportunity for fraud, and
Speaker 1: that based on things like you know, what has been
Speaker 1: true about elections in previous years, it certainly looks like
Speaker 1: there was substantial fraud costing Trump the election, right the
Speaker 1: you know, for a perfect example is Georgia. I'd make
Speaker 1: some hard and fast cases and Georgia, there is no
Speaker 1: reasonable way to prove that two or three percent of
Speaker 1: mail in ballots in the last Georgia election were rejected
Speaker 1: and point zero three in this election were rejected. It's
Speaker 1: unreasonable to believe that you had one hundred one hundred
Speaker 1: times better voter practices this time around, especially with the
Speaker 1: expansion of mail in balloting across Georgia in the way
Speaker 1: that it happened. But we got to prove that there
Speaker 1: was actual that there was nefarious action going on. We
Speaker 1: have to prove it in a court. Right. Knowing something
Speaker 1: in your gut is not the same thing as being
Speaker 1: able to prove it in a court, and that's always
Speaker 1: been the challenge here. And then even beyond the proving
Speaker 1: in an accurt you have to have a judge who's
Speaker 1: willing to look at whatever evidence you have. I mean,
Speaker 1: judges are looking at these affidavits. I believe these people
Speaker 1: who are sending in or signing these affidavits, But the
Speaker 1: judge is going to effectively say it's your word against theirs,
Speaker 1: not gonna overturn an election on that. That's the problem.
Speaker 1: This is what I've seen all along, is what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: And I know people don't want to hear this. They
Speaker 1: keep saying, Oh, don't worry, you know, unleash the kraken.
Speaker 1: The Kraken's not gonna cut it, folks. It's not happening.
Speaker 1: And it makes me mad. I'm furious about it. But
Speaker 1: that's where we are. That's where we are now. We
Speaker 1: should be thinking about what we can do based on
Speaker 1: where we are today, how we fight now going forward? Anyways?
Speaker 1: V Rights. Can the Supreme Court force Congress to vote
Speaker 1: for the president, with the Senate then choosing the vice president?
Speaker 1: So we would so we will have a Harris Trump administration,
Speaker 1: assuming Republicans retain their majority. Would this be a better outcome?
Speaker 1: I can see why Scotus backed out of this one.
Speaker 1: Can the Supreme Court force Congress to vote for the
Speaker 1: president with the Senate then choosing the Vice President as Z.
Speaker 1: That's not gonna I mean again, that's it's interesting. It's
Speaker 1: an interesting question. It's not going to happen. Andy writes, Hey,
Speaker 1: Buck and Mark, with all the craziest going on, we
Speaker 1: can either get angry and lash out. We can turn
Speaker 1: to God. I chose the latter. I stopped listening to
Speaker 1: a lot of my political podcast during work, but I
Speaker 1: still listen to the Buck Sexton Show, and for the
Speaker 1: last twenty minutes of my day, I started reading the Bible.
Speaker 1: I have to say every time I read, I actually
Speaker 1: start to feel better. I get a good feeling about life.
Speaker 1: We would all turn back to our creator and stop
Speaker 1: denying he exists. I think the world would be in
Speaker 1: a much better place for me. It works. I know
Speaker 1: it can't be alone. God bless Buck, Mark, have a
Speaker 1: great Christmas in Hanakah. Andy, Thanks so much. I'm with
Speaker 1: you on that. You know now we've got to look
Speaker 1: inward a bit. We look inward to God and also
Speaker 1: turn to each other. We are in this together. We
Speaker 1: will continue this fight. We know that we have right
Speaker 1: on our side, and we will not give up until tomorrow. Friends,
Speaker 1: Shields High