Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunch. That much anticipated and
Speaker 1: long delayed study out of Denmark on masks is out
Speaker 1: with some surprising results at least to some more votes
Speaker 1: turning up for Trump in Georgia, Michigan. What's going on here?
Speaker 1: Plus the tech tyrants exposed once again and more insane
Speaker 1: Turkey Day Guideline buck Sexton decoding the news and disseminating
Speaker 1: information with actionable intelligence, Make no mistake a great American again.
Speaker 1: This is the buck Sexton Show. Plus CIA analysts can
Speaker 1: speak to three hours without a phone call. Try doing
Speaker 1: that sometimes. No Welcome friends to the buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Great to have you here with me. As always, I
Speaker 1: know we're going to dive together into the latest over
Speaker 1: these election results that continue to make their way through
Speaker 1: the courts. We're going to spend time all that, but
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I gotta start with something else today. A
Speaker 1: study that has been waited, waited for by a lot
Speaker 1: of folks. It's been talked about, delayed for a few months,
Speaker 1: about whether or not wearing a mask wear a mask.
Speaker 1: Cuomo says about whether or not wearing a mask is
Speaker 1: effective protection for the wearer. Now, we have to be
Speaker 1: very specific and how we talk about this and how
Speaker 1: we discussed this, because what they're going to do is
Speaker 1: look for any lack of precision. What the mask mandate
Speaker 1: maniacs will do is say, oh, but did you see
Speaker 1: the the point two fives that that's not what it says.
Speaker 1: You said that it doesn't protect, and it does protect,
Speaker 1: it protects by Okay. So I'm gonna try to be
Speaker 1: as precise as possible because I read every word of
Speaker 1: this Danish study and there's much broader themes here, friends,
Speaker 1: than even just whether or not these mask mandates are
Speaker 1: good public health policy. And I understand that there are
Speaker 1: a lot of people all over the world, but particularly
Speaker 1: here in the United States, a lot of people who
Speaker 1: think they are really, really smart, and everybody else who
Speaker 1: questions them is so so dumb, not even that they're wrong,
Speaker 1: but that they're too stupid. They're contemptible in their ignorance,
Speaker 1: So they're not even worth engaging on these issues. That's
Speaker 1: the attitude. And they're going to have a heck of
Speaker 1: a time explaining what's going on here, because now we
Speaker 1: actually have some data masks prevent people from transmitting the
Speaker 1: coronavirus to others. According to scientists in this New York
Speaker 1: Times right up of the piece. But a new trial
Speaker 1: failed to document protection from the virus among the wearers.
Speaker 1: Now let's look at this exactly Like I said, this
Speaker 1: is important and this goes to much even bigger themes
Speaker 1: than coronavirus restrictions. So that's why I find this so important.
Speaker 1: This is such a lesson, such a cautionary tale. But
Speaker 1: you have researchers in Denmark that they reported it in
Speaker 1: Annals of Science I believe is the journal that it
Speaker 1: was published in. So this is peer review. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: Annals of Internal Medicine, pardon me, Annals of Internal Medicine.
Speaker 1: And this is peer reviewed. And this is involving three
Speaker 1: thousand and thirty participants randomly assigned to wear masks two
Speaker 1: nine ninety four assigned to the control group. This is
Speaker 1: act schuel science. Look at results based upon with a
Speaker 1: control group, based upon an experiment, show the data and
Speaker 1: use the scientific method, and then come to a conclusion.
Speaker 1: And then understand that this can be tried again and
Speaker 1: again and replicated. See if we get the same results.
Speaker 1: Try to control for all variables. This is science, the
Speaker 1: same way the vaccine. The amazing vaccines that are just
Speaker 1: on the precipice of approval, and that we're pushed along, yes,
Speaker 1: by absolutely brilliant scientists, people that can do stuff that
Speaker 1: you and I would not be able to do with
Speaker 1: you all the money in the world. Right, these guys
Speaker 1: have real and gals have real expertise and knowledge. They've
Speaker 1: made these vaccines and they hopefully will bring about this.
Speaker 1: It's not just a pandemic from COVID, but there's also
Speaker 1: on top of that, a pandemic of fear, anxiety, government overreach.
Speaker 1: So much has come along with this, as I've been
Speaker 1: saying would be the case. But they did this the
Speaker 1: right way. They did a real experiment. Why haven't we
Speaker 1: seen more of these? By the way, didn't you ask
Speaker 1: that question? We're making enormously consequential public policy decisions. We're
Speaker 1: inflicting upon people the constant psychological and physical irritation and
Speaker 1: trauma of wearing a mask outside, wearing a mask on
Speaker 1: the treadwill wearing a mask indoors now in your own
Speaker 1: a home. That's the latest guidance in Pennsylvania. Cases going
Speaker 1: up all over the country. Mask wearing higher rates of
Speaker 1: adoption than ever before in this country. You're not supposed
Speaker 1: to ask any questions about this, do it or else?
Speaker 1: Is now the attitude? Okay, well, let's look at what
Speaker 1: the actual science tells us. Listen to the scientists. They say, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: I read this entire study. Doesn't really take all that long.
Speaker 1: Actually it's pretty easy read. And you can see it
Speaker 1: online and if you will, post a link to it
Speaker 1: at bucksexton dot com and it's linked in some of
Speaker 1: my tweets which are also posted there. So go to
Speaker 1: Bucksexton dot com and here's what it tells you. And
Speaker 1: I think it's very important that mask wearing. According to
Speaker 1: the data. Here's how the New York Times quotes it.
Speaker 1: The study did not contradict growing evidence at mask can
Speaker 1: prevent transmission of the virus from wear to others. But
Speaker 1: the conclusion is at odds with the view that masks
Speaker 1: also protect the wearers, which was a position just endorsed
Speaker 1: last week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Okay,
Speaker 1: they're trying to be very gentle with their audience. Oh no,
Speaker 1: it's still true that a mask protects you, as in
Speaker 1: from me. But my wearing of a mask, if I'd
Speaker 1: go into a room with a mask on. Okay, according
Speaker 1: to this study, and there is a person who is
Speaker 1: COVID infectious in that room, they can prove no benefit
Speaker 1: whatsoever for my wearing of the mask as a protection
Speaker 1: for me. None. And the way that they did this study,
Speaker 1: so that everybody's very clear, is they had, like I said,
Speaker 1: a few thousand participants on each side, and the people
Speaker 1: that were told to wear a mask, the participants wearing
Speaker 1: a mask, forty two participants recommended mask wearing got COVID,
Speaker 1: fifty three without mask wearing got COVID. So it's one
Speaker 1: point eight percent versus two point one percent difference, which
Speaker 1: is statistically for the purposes of this experiment completely insignificant,
Speaker 1: means nothing effectively, you can tell no difference whatsoever. So
Speaker 1: you have thousands of people told wear a mask every day.
Speaker 1: Now I know what they're going to say, Buck, but
Speaker 1: their mask usage wasn't perfect, right, or some of them
Speaker 1: did it all the time. That it's sometimes okay, But
Speaker 1: if masks were really effective, with about three thousand people
Speaker 1: who are at least sometimes wearing masks, and you've got
Speaker 1: about three thousand or so people who are never ever
Speaker 1: wearing masks, right, Like they're like, not, they're in the
Speaker 1: non mask group. Don't you think the difference should be
Speaker 1: more than Oh? What is it? Point three percent? Is
Speaker 1: that really what we're going for here? And keep in mind,
Speaker 1: no one even thinks that that's a hard and fast number.
Speaker 1: It's effectively zero. But even if if there was a
Speaker 1: point three percent reduction in COVID nineteen for a mask wearing,
Speaker 1: do you think it's worth it? Are you going to
Speaker 1: continue to wear a mask point three percent? What have
Speaker 1: I've been saying to you, Maybe it's five percent, maybe
Speaker 1: it's ten percent. I've been saying I think it might
Speaker 1: maybe does something. This says it does even less. Ah.
Speaker 1: Now we get to the chorus of people, I'm so smart.
Speaker 1: I read the study. You haven't read it. No, I've
Speaker 1: read it. I've read it several times. It's not hard
Speaker 1: to read. What they'll say is, ah, but this tells
Speaker 1: us you need even more mask wearing because it's not
Speaker 1: about you, it's about protecting people from you. And this
Speaker 1: is what the scientists all still agree on. That's what
Speaker 1: they'll tell you a little problem with that, though, First problem,
Speaker 1: where is the study that proves that? Where is the
Speaker 1: study that shows that I asked the question. I wanted it.
Speaker 1: I don't want to hear but ah, but dadah blah
Speaker 1: blah blah. You know, people just mumbling about all the
Speaker 1: smart people that say no, no, where is the show
Speaker 1: me the data, show me the evidence to prove that.
Speaker 1: Even bigger problem for that argument here, remember people, ultimately,
Speaker 1: at this point, you have people that have their reputations
Speaker 1: on the line for being super smart experts, and you
Speaker 1: also people who don't want to believe that they're sheep
Speaker 1: and been doing You know, look, I've been wearing a
Speaker 1: mask when I go into stores and stuff because I
Speaker 1: have no choice, right they make you otherwise, I can't
Speaker 1: buy groceries, I can't go anywhere in New York City.
Speaker 1: So you know this is a mandate, it's not a
Speaker 1: But there are people that are firm believers, and they
Speaker 1: really look down on other people even who question this.
Speaker 1: They look down on them that they think they are
Speaker 1: less than that they're dumb, they're reckless, And this was
Speaker 1: a huge part of the Trump is responsible for all
Speaker 1: the COVID Don't forget that too, because Trump wasn't a
Speaker 1: mask worshiper from day one, which not even fouc you was.
Speaker 1: We can get into that. But because people that support Trump,
Speaker 1: just generally, I think, have a more individualistic view of
Speaker 1: life and of what's important as an American and individual liberty,
Speaker 1: and they don't like being told by the government where
Speaker 1: this uncomfortable, annoying restriction on your face all the time,
Speaker 1: and forget about the separation and really the dehumanizing aspects
Speaker 1: of this. And you know, I've hated this all along.
Speaker 1: I've hated masks, all right, and now they tell us, oh,
Speaker 1: but it's about protecting other people from you, which is
Speaker 1: so interesting because, as even the New York Times had
Speaker 1: to point out, they had to beat us too it
Speaker 1: because otherwise it looks like they're trying to hide it.
Speaker 1: The CDC recently said masks are very effective at protecting
Speaker 1: you when you wear it, you wear a mask, it
Speaker 1: blocks the aerosols, it blocks the particles. That was what
Speaker 1: the CDC was saying a week ago. The Centers for
Speaker 1: Disease Control, now we have a study out that says
Speaker 1: that there's no way to prove that at all, and
Speaker 1: if anything, it looks like it is just a complete waste.
Speaker 1: People are going to point to and say, no, but
Speaker 1: that's not true. It says they could. And this is
Speaker 1: when they do the deep dive statistical analysis of what
Speaker 1: all the data means. It could reduce transmission buy up
Speaker 1: to forty percent. Yeah, the same study says it could
Speaker 1: also increase transmission to wear a mask because if people
Speaker 1: touching it sself up to twenty percent, so you got
Speaker 1: to maybe up to forty maybe up to twenty. That
Speaker 1: means they don't know. But well, let's focus on what
Speaker 1: we do know. Let's use our common sense. Let's not
Speaker 1: be shouted down and condescended to by the mask wearing
Speaker 1: chorus all the time. Here you had about three thousand
Speaker 1: people told to wear masks, given masks and they knew
Speaker 1: they were a part of a study about mask wearing,
Speaker 1: and three thousand other people who I'm sure, we're happy
Speaker 1: to sign up for this, and now we're not wearing
Speaker 1: a mask. About the same number of people got infected
Speaker 1: in both groups. Okay, Now they also will say, oh buck,
Speaker 1: but at that time in Denmark there wasn't a lot
Speaker 1: of mask you know, adopt mask wearing wasn't really that widespread.
Speaker 1: They can look at all the flaws and they can
Speaker 1: try to keep justifying their public policy as much as
Speaker 1: they want. The point here is that the evidence for
Speaker 1: a mask protecting you from the inhalation of Arasoli's COVID
Speaker 1: nineteen virus, the best study we have this year, shows
Speaker 1: that there is no benefit to you of wearing that mask.
Speaker 1: Now we have to move to the secondary question, or
Speaker 1: the next question, which is is there a benefit to
Speaker 1: other people if you wear a mask. We are told
Speaker 1: to take that on the advice. We're told to take
Speaker 1: that based on the expertise of the scientific consensus. And
Speaker 1: if you question it, you're a bad person, You're a moron.
Speaker 1: There's no there's no reflection, there's no humility in this
Speaker 1: conversation whatsoever from that art from that group. They pretend
Speaker 1: that this never have doesn't matter what the evidence has
Speaker 1: showed in this one. We're still right. We're just right
Speaker 1: in a different way. Sure. Why was the CDC wrong
Speaker 1: about masks as a protective mechanism for you from infection
Speaker 1: a week ago? And why was the CDC's initial guidance
Speaker 1: now nine months months ago? Why was their initial guidance
Speaker 1: that mask wearing is not a good policy and it
Speaker 1: is not effective at all? What has changed between now
Speaker 1: and then? Use your own common sense. Look at what
Speaker 1: is being proofd What have I said that it's not true?
Speaker 1: Find one thing. Everything I am telling you is a
Speaker 1: matter of either historical record or of the data, and
Speaker 1: of fact. But people don't want to believe that they
Speaker 1: have been fooled, that they are easily led by the consensus,
Speaker 1: and on this one, on this story, that masks are
Speaker 1: a protective shield for you from the virus in the
Speaker 1: air around you, from people using the people that have
Speaker 1: been saying that based on the science are wrong. They
Speaker 1: are wrong. Now they they can do a lot of
Speaker 1: dancing around. Oh but maybe it's inconclusive, and there's other things.
Speaker 1: Why do we think this Danish study was delayed for months?
Speaker 1: You don't think that there was a lot of wrangling
Speaker 1: around this to try to avoid releasing it. People don't
Speaker 1: like looking dumb, even if it's just And maybe they
Speaker 1: are right. Maybe that does protect from aerosolis virus that
Speaker 1: goes to somebody else, or if you wear the mask right,
Speaker 1: maybe it contains more of your very That's possible. I
Speaker 1: don't know, But I do know that the other thing
Speaker 1: they were telling us until last week, and that they
Speaker 1: would have made fun of you for bringing up in public.
Speaker 1: They were wrong about that based on what we know now.
Speaker 1: And here's the other part of it. We learn more
Speaker 1: in time. Science is about testing and re testing assumptions,
Speaker 1: data fact These are about what is true, and sometimes
Speaker 1: we think something's true, we find out that it's not.
Speaker 1: That's a part of being an intellectually honest and worthwhile entity.
Speaker 1: But you think the control freaks out there or even
Speaker 1: are are going to give that a moment's attention. Of
Speaker 1: course not. They were just wrong on this one, and
Speaker 1: you know what they're moving on to. We're right about
Speaker 1: the other thing. Shut up, wear your mask. Keep that
Speaker 1: one going until we see what the studies tell us
Speaker 1: about that. You're in the freedom This is the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show podcast. Well, I say I can't enforce the
Speaker 1: order because I think it's unconstitutional. And in order to
Speaker 1: explain why it's unconstitutional, I just have to take a
Speaker 1: second brand and explain what he can do constitution That
Speaker 1: Bill of Rights allows a balancing act for the safety
Speaker 1: of the society and limiting individual's liberty. So let me
Speaker 1: give it the easiest example. You can't yell fire in
Speaker 1: a crowded movie theater if there's not a fire and
Speaker 1: so the government can limit your First Amendment freedom of
Speaker 1: speech rights. But we under the case law and under
Speaker 1: the Constitution, the governor absolutely has a right to limit
Speaker 1: how many people can go to a bar or a restaurant.
Speaker 1: We're in face masks in public buildings and private businesses.
Speaker 1: He can also limit what time them must close. But
Speaker 1: under the Constitution the order is very vague and it's
Speaker 1: ten or less people is the most you can have
Speaker 1: in your private residence. Well, I don't think that the
Speaker 1: Constitution allows for the infringement of your own the number
Speaker 1: of people have in your own home. So I started
Speaker 1: that position. So he has authority to do a lot,
Speaker 1: but not to tell us as law enforcement, to go
Speaker 1: into people's house and count who's there. That's New York.
Speaker 1: New York's Fulton County Sheriff Richard Giardino on the just
Speaker 1: monstrously tyrannical and stupid Cuomo mandate about how many people
Speaker 1: are allowed in your home over Thanksgiving. You know, we
Speaker 1: can fight back about their pseudoscience, We can fight back
Speaker 1: about the lack of honesty around all these issues. And
Speaker 1: remember it was all part of getting everybody freaked out.
Speaker 1: And oh my god, Trump didn't do enough. We have
Speaker 1: to get rid of Trump and all this stuff. We
Speaker 1: can fight back against these things, or we can continue
Speaker 1: to be told how many people are in our homes
Speaker 1: for Thanksgiving. And don't think it just ends when the
Speaker 1: vaccine comes out. We're gonna have to have months and
Speaker 1: months and months of basically no new cases. If you
Speaker 1: allow the Democrats and the Biden, the Biden apparatus, and
Speaker 1: the people in the media to determine when it's safe
Speaker 1: for you to be, maybe maybe by next Christmas they'll
Speaker 1: stop telling you what to do. You want to waste
Speaker 1: all that time? Do you think that's very you think
Speaker 1: that's smart? This whole thing is out. It's outrageous telling
Speaker 1: you how many people are allowed on your private home
Speaker 1: because of an aerosolized virus. What do we think tyranny
Speaker 1: in America would look like if not this? Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to the buses and show podcasts. Remember to subscribe
Speaker 1: on Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. Do you think there will be any humility
Speaker 1: from the various public health experts who have been going
Speaker 1: on TV and have been claiming that anyone who even
Speaker 1: questions the constantly shifting medical consensus about how to do
Speaker 1: with COVID nineteen, and that's a fact. It has been
Speaker 1: constantly shifting. And they say, oh, it's because we have
Speaker 1: new data. And usually the new data is we can
Speaker 1: see that what they were telling us to do didn't work,
Speaker 1: so they tell us to do something else based on
Speaker 1: the data. But it's never an admission that the previous
Speaker 1: declarations they made were incorrect. Now that part of it
Speaker 1: does not get any attention whatsoever, that part of it
Speaker 1: doesn't really matter. No, it's all still about bashing Trump.
Speaker 1: It's Trump supporters fault. You see that COVID is still spreading.
Speaker 1: That's what the left wants you to believe. It's Trump
Speaker 1: supporters fault. That there have been huge spikes in European
Speaker 1: countries that have mass compliance numbers that are very high,
Speaker 1: that have gone through a series of different lockdowns. You see,
Speaker 1: it's just those evil Trumpsters that are behind this whole thing.
Speaker 1: It's really the Trump virus, that's what they want you
Speaker 1: to believe. It's not the China virus, the Trump virus.
Speaker 1: These people are insane. But they also believe that the
Speaker 1: president worked with the Russians distinal election from Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: They also think that that's true. So what can you
Speaker 1: say about that? But here's an example of the kind
Speaker 1: of derangement, derangement that you will see on television. This
Speaker 1: guy wanders into he's an emergency room physician. He's wandering
Speaker 1: into terrorism analysis, all kinds of stuff, all kinds of stuff.
Speaker 1: All would who's find uh you know a guy with
Speaker 1: an MD who's a huge lib and all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: the person's on TV telling everybody about who, who you
Speaker 1: should listen to, who you shouldn't do, the whole the
Speaker 1: whole thing. It's it's it's outrageous. Um. This guy's a leftist.
Speaker 1: By the way, this guy's an You go online, you
Speaker 1: check him out. He's a leftist. But this is what
Speaker 1: you get on CNN as a medical expert. Play whatever
Speaker 1: that is? Fourteen. No, they need to can him. Um.
Speaker 1: I mean, one of the things I can't wait for
Speaker 1: when when the inauguration happens, is that he'll be gone.
Speaker 1: He's a radiologists, which is great, has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with public health. He probably hasn't taken care of a
Speaker 1: patient in thirty some years. You know, he's a right
Speaker 1: wing ideologue who is going after my governor who's doing
Speaker 1: everything she can despite a hostile state legislature and Supreme
Speaker 1: Court and our state who has taken away powers. They're
Speaker 1: doing everything they can. We know, when the President tweeted
Speaker 1: liberate Michigan after that, we had a plot to kidnappin,
Speaker 1: murder Governor Whitmer and basically take down the whole state government.
Speaker 1: You know. So now he's tweeting rise up. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's not much difference between liberate and rise up and
Speaker 1: whatever he claims to say. These are these are called
Speaker 1: to arms for people in our state, one of the
Speaker 1: worst states for domestic terrorism. So you know, I'm grateful
Speaker 1: that Governor Whitmer has said, listen, she's not going to
Speaker 1: worry about her political fortunes, about reelection or about you know,
Speaker 1: any kind of attempts against her. She's going to do
Speaker 1: what's right and try to protect us. And she is
Speaker 1: so much here that is misleading, dumb, wrong. But you know,
Speaker 1: this guy just find a doctor somewhere. This guy's a
Speaker 1: doctor in Michigan. And so now we all have to
Speaker 1: believe everything that he says about everything, including terrorism. I've
Speaker 1: actually worked professionally in terrorism. This guy doesn't know what
Speaker 1: the hell he's talking about. But he's allowed to have
Speaker 1: his opinion, right now, that's fine. The whole thing about
Speaker 1: the terrorist plot against Governor Whitman, you know what they
Speaker 1: always leave out of that. Now, the same right wing
Speaker 1: pro Trump terrorists that they've they've rounded up and said,
Speaker 1: we're plotting all the stuff. First of all, their plots
Speaker 1: were absurd. They were never going to come to fruition.
Speaker 1: Nothing was ever really going to happen. This was what
Speaker 1: often this is what often occurs when you've got an informant,
Speaker 1: an FBI informant, placed among people who gets them talking,
Speaker 1: a lot of talking, a lot of idiocy, and yeah,
Speaker 1: they're bad people and I don't care if they're gonna
Speaker 1: end up getting in trouble here. But the point is
Speaker 1: that they weren't really, you know, at the actionable phase
Speaker 1: of any of this at all. And they also wanted
Speaker 1: to want One of them wanted to, as this is
Speaker 1: based on the FBI affidavit in the court, FBI scorn
Speaker 1: statement in the court, one of the plotters wanted to
Speaker 1: assassinate President Trump. So these are the pro Trump people
Speaker 1: that are also planning a lethal plot against the president.
Speaker 1: That's that's what they leave out of this because that
Speaker 1: didn't get out into the court record for about a week.
Speaker 1: But it was good for Governor Whitmer, who's a moron,
Speaker 1: to go around saying, oh, gosh, you know that President's
Speaker 1: mean people were all plotting all the mean stuff against me.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, so we heard all that. But they leave
Speaker 1: that out. That these people were psychopaths and they hated
Speaker 1: the president too, and the stuff they were talking about was,
Speaker 1: while violent and evil, also nowhere near actually ever happening.
Speaker 1: But nonetheless Sky's waxing philosophal But that and trying to
Speaker 1: tie Scott Atlas is inciting terrorism, which is what happens
Speaker 1: when you are opposed to lockdowns. If people were having
Speaker 1: a real conversation about this, if people were willing to
Speaker 1: look at what's true and what we've seen and what's real,
Speaker 1: they wouldn't have to resort to such disgraceful smears. Also,
Speaker 1: I mean putting down doctor Atlas for having a background
Speaker 1: in radiology. Radiology. Radiologists are mds. They die nos disease,
Speaker 1: including through using X rays and MRIs, and they are
Speaker 1: part of the medical profession. And he was a head
Speaker 1: of I think it was neuro radiology at Stanford Medical
Speaker 1: School for many years. So yeah, no, he doesn't know
Speaker 1: anything about public health though they guy doesn't know anything
Speaker 1: about the medical system at all. No, he's not on
Speaker 1: a par with a guy who's in er doc in
Speaker 1: some hospital in Michigan. Yeah, no, it has no idea.
Speaker 1: I mean, really, we're going to get into a credential battle.
Speaker 1: Let's be honest about what we're talking about. But even
Speaker 1: beyond that, they hate they hate doctor Atlas. And yet
Speaker 1: what is he saying that the ten person mandates on Thanksgiving?
Speaker 1: Or absurd? And people need to stop with this. It
Speaker 1: is absurd. And if you don't think it's absurd, you're
Speaker 1: a weak willed, weak minded person. And if you don't
Speaker 1: think it's absurd, you should just look at what's going
Speaker 1: on with the people who put these policies in place
Speaker 1: and then break them and know that they'll get away
Speaker 1: with it, I hope. But they're so concerned about public health.
Speaker 1: Somebody who tells you do what I say, or else
Speaker 1: people will die, and then does the thing that they
Speaker 1: tell you not to do or else people will die
Speaker 1: is an unserious hypocrite who clearly does not really believe
Speaker 1: that things they are telling you or they're actually a monster,
Speaker 1: but they don't really think you're going to kill people anymore.
Speaker 1: So that if you are out living your life and
Speaker 1: you know you could pass any number of diseases to
Speaker 1: somebody without knowing it. I mean, we can talk about
Speaker 1: the flu, but that I know that sets everybody off,
Speaker 1: That gets them all upset. But this is where we are, friends.
Speaker 1: The more information we have, the more we realize that
Speaker 1: the public health authorities in this country have just dramatically
Speaker 1: failed us. They have completely collapsed on us here. And
Speaker 1: I mean public health authorities. I'm not talking about doctors
Speaker 1: who are doing a job. I'm not talking about nurses
Speaker 1: who are doing a job, who are trying to provide
Speaker 1: care to people. That's great. I'm talking about those mds
Speaker 1: in our midst who are making national policy, who are
Speaker 1: harnessing the force of the federal, of the state, of
Speaker 1: local government, which ultimately means a willingness to take your
Speaker 1: stuff and lock you up if you don't agree. That's
Speaker 1: what government force is. The mds who have been pushing
Speaker 1: those decisions have been catastrophically wrong. We have not gotten
Speaker 1: the benefits that they have promised we would have and
Speaker 1: we have certainly had all of the downside. Plasz. Joy
Speaker 1: behar out there who says, you know, you know, doctor
Speaker 1: doctor Atlas, he's you know what he is, he's embarrassing
Speaker 1: play eleven well as the unofficial spokesperson for the social
Speaker 1: security crowd. Let me say to doctor Atlas, this is
Speaker 1: not my last thanksgiving, you embarrassing quack. He's a neuro
Speaker 1: He's a neuro radiologist. Joy, what does it happened to first?
Speaker 1: Do no harm? This guy is. He is a menace
Speaker 1: to society, this man. Of course, Trump picks him because
Speaker 1: he only picks the best people. But I mean, come on,
Speaker 1: you know, don't don't listen to a radiologist when it
Speaker 1: comes to a virus. Please, ladies and gentlemen out there,
Speaker 1: do not listen to this quack. He's a quack. He's
Speaker 1: a quack. Quack quack. Neuro radiologists you google it. They
Speaker 1: have further certification than just radiologists, and that they also
Speaker 1: treat abnormalities in the nervous system, spine, head and neck,
Speaker 1: and they can treat diseases by means of image guided surgery.
Speaker 1: So yeah, no, not really, not really a doctor, just
Speaker 1: a doctor who diagnoses neck, brain spine injuries and can
Speaker 1: do surgery to help fix that. Well, other than that,
Speaker 1: not really. I mean it's not like you know, this
Speaker 1: guy's like lower than a prediatrist on the medical food chain. Right,
Speaker 1: no offensive a dietris out there. I'm just saying, I
Speaker 1: know they get a lot of heat. This is nonsense.
Speaker 1: But listen to joy Biha. She knows it's not my
Speaker 1: last ex Giving. What he's saying is, if you're eighty
Speaker 1: six years old, are you not going to see your grandkids?
Speaker 1: Are you're not going to see your family this Thanksgiving
Speaker 1: because you're afraid of a virus that you probably won't
Speaker 1: catch by the numbers, and you might, But you also,
Speaker 1: in any given a year, could die from any number
Speaker 1: of things that you could catch from just living your life.
Speaker 1: Do you this is a question for people to answer themselves.
Speaker 1: Do you want to live your life or do you
Speaker 1: want to hide in fear? If you want to hide,
Speaker 1: that's fine, that's your right right that you have a
Speaker 1: right to do that. I there is no notice how
Speaker 1: there's no coercion from our side to force people to
Speaker 1: leave their homes, force people to go out into crowded places. No,
Speaker 1: But in the other direction. Of course, they have no
Speaker 1: problem with the utilization of state force to make you
Speaker 1: stay in your home, to make you avoid other people.
Speaker 1: This does get down to very basic philosophy about about
Speaker 1: the government and noticed that there's so little, so little
Speaker 1: emphasis put on the pain that they're causing people. Here.
Speaker 1: Oh you know, I know, she's supposed to be so
Speaker 1: nice and yah gosh, yeah, it's a lovely lady. Governor
Speaker 1: Wheatmer up in Michigan. Yo. Yeah, here she is talking
Speaker 1: about that small business. I'm just crushing the small businesses
Speaker 1: like a little bug under my boot. But you know,
Speaker 1: I feel bad for them. Play sixteen. The restaurant industry
Speaker 1: has really had a tough year because of COVID, because
Speaker 1: there's not been a national strategy, and we've seen COVID
Speaker 1: just explode across the country in waves. This is really
Speaker 1: driven by our epidemialogists and our public health experts that
Speaker 1: tell us it's inherently dangerous. With a kind of a
Speaker 1: community spread that we have all across Michigan and all
Speaker 1: across the Midwest and frankly all across the country. The
Speaker 1: inherently dangerous situations are when you are inside with people
Speaker 1: from a different household are many different households for a
Speaker 1: prolonged period of time with masks off. That's what happens
Speaker 1: in restaurants, and that's why it's really going to be
Speaker 1: critical that the Feds get their act together and give
Speaker 1: us some stimulus support for these small businesses, for these
Speaker 1: restaurant workers. I have incredible empathy for what they're struggling with,
Speaker 1: and yet we have to follow the epidemiology the public
Speaker 1: health experts and make decisions that combat the spread before
Speaker 1: our hospitals get overwhelmed and before we hit a thousand
Speaker 1: deaths a week in Michigan, because that's what the modeling
Speaker 1: is telling us where we're headed right now. But we're
Speaker 1: we're in masks and we've been social distancing. So why
Speaker 1: are the models telling them? You mean, the models that
Speaker 1: have been wrong always during this whole thing, the models
Speaker 1: that keep being wrong. We have to listen more about this.
Speaker 1: The government cannot protect you from an aerosolized virus that
Speaker 1: is at pandemic stage, that is already in you know,
Speaker 1: it's all over the place. You know, they do they
Speaker 1: write these news reports about how the Chinese government says
Speaker 1: they've found coronavirus on beefs and from halfway across the
Speaker 1: world that arrives in China. I mean, this is what
Speaker 1: we're dealing with. But the government says, just listen to us,
Speaker 1: just let us take away your constitutional rights and will
Speaker 1: protect you. It's a lie. They can't they can't do it,
Speaker 1: but they won't admit that. They won't admit that. I
Speaker 1: if people started to believe that there were limitations on
Speaker 1: what government could do to protect them, that would start
Speaker 1: to change their underlying political philosophy in ways that would
Speaker 1: not be helpful for Democrats, for status, for the left.
Speaker 1: But it's it's never. It's never that they were wrong.
Speaker 1: It's just that we didn't do it well enough. Oh,
Speaker 1: get ready for you know, I've been saying this, N
Speaker 1: ninety five masks. That's where it's really at. Okay, maybe
Speaker 1: the cloth masks weren't a good as good, but it's
Speaker 1: N ninety five masks. Or you gotta double up on
Speaker 1: the cloth masks, or do what they're doing in Pennsylvania now,
Speaker 1: or they have a state mandate that you have to
Speaker 1: wear a mask inside your own home, inside your own home,
Speaker 1: that's right. You know, you have one hundreds of thousands
Speaker 1: of people to die from heart disease. We could also
Speaker 1: have a mandate that you can only eat two thousand
Speaker 1: calories a day and have to do one hundred push
Speaker 1: ups before before you shower every morning. That would make
Speaker 1: people probably healthier in the aggregate, would save a lot
Speaker 1: of lives. Is that constitutional too? Under emergency health powers?
Speaker 1: You're in the freedom hud. This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show podcast. Well, there's no further visits come before the Senate,
Speaker 1: Astana Jorn under the previous order, following the remarks of
Speaker 1: Senator Brown, without objection President Center from Ohio, I'd start
Speaker 1: by asking the presiding officer to please wear a mask
Speaker 1: as he speaks and people below him or I can't
Speaker 1: tell you what to do, but I know that the behavior.
Speaker 1: I don't wear a mask when I'm speaking, like most senators,
Speaker 1: I'm most SATs. I don't need your instruction from I
Speaker 1: know you don't need my instruction, but I there clearly
Speaker 1: isn't much interest in this body in public health. We
Speaker 1: have a president who hasn't shown up at the Coronavirus
Speaker 1: Task Force meeting in months. We have a majority leader
Speaker 1: that calls us back here to vote on an unqualified
Speaker 1: nominee and at the same time to vote for judge
Speaker 1: after judge after judge, exposing all the people who can't
Speaker 1: say anything. I understand, the people in front of you
Speaker 1: and the presiding officer, and expose all the staff here,
Speaker 1: and the majority leader just doesn't seem to care. That's
Speaker 1: what mask shaming is really for making long political statements. Afterwards.
Speaker 1: That was Sharad Brown in the Senate. Someone's getting up
Speaker 1: to speak, No one's around them, no one's near them.
Speaker 1: But you know, can you wear a matt? Why aren't
Speaker 1: you wearing a mask? Ah? Yes? You notice how it
Speaker 1: turns people against each other so quickly too. It creates
Speaker 1: this immediate attention on the people that want this as
Speaker 1: a policy. They want ever to do it all you
Speaker 1: got to do it to protected. They forget that the
Speaker 1: chance of the person that they're mask shaming actually having
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen, just based on the numbers is less than
Speaker 1: one percent. So ninety nine out of one hundred people
Speaker 1: that you go around in you mask shame, You're you're
Speaker 1: actually telling a healthy person, why aren't you wearing a mask?
Speaker 1: And I understand this, this is why they want the policy.
Speaker 1: But if we're really just getting down to it in
Speaker 1: each individual incident. It's a little bit like walking around
Speaker 1: to somebody who you know is littering and acting like,
Speaker 1: you know, the world is going to run out of
Speaker 1: clean water and our oceans, all the sea life is
Speaker 1: going to die because you just dropped a gum wrapper
Speaker 1: on the street. Right, That's like, okay, well, i'll get
Speaker 1: I'll get it next time, but you know, maybe don't
Speaker 1: put this all on my shoulders. And at that time,
Speaker 1: not even really the case. You're saying it to somebody
Speaker 1: who didn't even necessarily literally you don't know, right, because
Speaker 1: if they're innocent, if they're healthy, it doesn't make any difference.
Speaker 1: This whole thing has gotten so absurd. But remember the
Speaker 1: moment that this became a Trump thing, then this became
Speaker 1: a Trump versus non Trump thing. All fair arguments and
Speaker 1: all data and everything else got pushed aside because this
Speaker 1: was this whole the response, the COVID pandemic, all weaponized
Speaker 1: to try and defeat Donald Trump in this election. And look,
Speaker 1: it may have ended up being successful. Friends, we have
Speaker 1: to deal with that reality. They may have been able
Speaker 1: to do it. And I know people say, oh buck,
Speaker 1: they didn't really vote on COVID. Now, the country's mood
Speaker 1: was changed, that the feeling of this place was changed,
Speaker 1: no question about it, as a result of COVID. And
Speaker 1: a huge amount of resources and time had to be
Speaker 1: spent by the Trump campaign trying to explain to people
Speaker 1: that they were doing everything that Joe Biden says he
Speaker 1: would do. They just don't go around making a big
Speaker 1: thing of how it's all democrats fault that we have COVID,
Speaker 1: which is what they say about Republicans. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the buses and show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on
Speaker 1: Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get your podcasts. Well,
Speaker 1: would you look at that? More ballots in the last
Speaker 1: forty eight hours, found ballots that had not been counted,
Speaker 1: No particularly good reason for that, just didn't get counted.
Speaker 1: More ballots that were not counted. And who wants to
Speaker 1: guess whether they go majority for Trump or by it
Speaker 1: an You want to take a guess? Ah, Yes, it
Speaker 1: turns out that they have found not one, but two
Speaker 1: batches of ballots in Fayette County and also in Floyd County, Georgia. Now,
Speaker 1: Georgia is a state where you've got about a what
Speaker 1: is it a fifteen thousand vote margin, something like that.
Speaker 1: So on Monday we found twenty six hundred new votes
Speaker 1: in Floyd County. And now they've also announced that there
Speaker 1: were two thousand, seven hundred and fifty five uncounted votes
Speaker 1: on a memory card in Fayette County. So over the
Speaker 1: course of two days, you got about five thousand uncounted
Speaker 1: ballots that just show up. In Georgia. Now, remember we're
Speaker 1: told it's over, be quiet, go home, nothing to see here.
Speaker 1: Trump lost. That's where we're told. But if you find,
Speaker 1: ever the course of two days, five thousand ballots that
Speaker 1: were just not included in the tallly at all, and
Speaker 1: at least in one of those two batches, they went
Speaker 1: two for one Trump. Okay, so two for one going
Speaker 1: to Trump. They've cut down the Biden lead to under
Speaker 1: thirteen thousand votes. Now in that state, I just want
Speaker 1: to know, at what point do we get to say, wow,
Speaker 1: we really do need to make sure that we cross
Speaker 1: all the t's and done all the eyes here. At
Speaker 1: what point is it obvious to anybody who's being honest
Speaker 1: that the only way forward here is to make sure
Speaker 1: that we do check for every legal ballot that we
Speaker 1: make sure that illegal ballots are not counted, and yet
Speaker 1: that we find and rectify irregularities, fraud, all of these things.
Speaker 1: We're talking about five thousand new votes found in a
Speaker 1: state with less than fifteen thousand for the marginal victory.
Speaker 1: Shouldn't that matter to everybody? Isn't that important? Is it
Speaker 1: surprising to anyone? I'm gonna ask you this, Is it
Speaker 1: surprising to anyone that we have a circumstance that we
Speaker 1: have a situation where we're finding okay, where we're finding ballots,
Speaker 1: and there are all these changes that were made this
Speaker 1: year to the way the election was going to be done.
Speaker 1: Of course, this is what's going to happen when you
Speaker 1: have last been a changes, all this additional mail in balloting,
Speaker 1: all these let's be real, let's be honest, all these
Speaker 1: games that Democrats were playing to try to shift the
Speaker 1: election playing field in their favor. Yes, there are going
Speaker 1: to be ballots that are found that don't count or
Speaker 1: that haven't been counted rather and that shouldn't count if
Speaker 1: they're illegally cast. So isn't this exactly what we should
Speaker 1: be expecting? But remember, if you have any questions about
Speaker 1: this election, at this point, if you just want the
Speaker 1: process to continue so that we make sure that we
Speaker 1: have certainty. You are a conspiracy theorist, You're a bad person,
Speaker 1: you're a trumper, and you're awful. That's what the dominant theme,
Speaker 1: the dominant narrative, certainly from the media and from the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party is. And to this, I just ask, well,
Speaker 1: how do they explain this in Georgia? How do they
Speaker 1: explain the five thousand votes that they had to fix
Speaker 1: with a glitch in Michigan? If every vote counts, then
Speaker 1: doesn't that mean we'd want to try to get every
Speaker 1: vote to be correct here, so illegal ballots not counted
Speaker 1: because that cancels out legal ones. I think this should
Speaker 1: be very straightforward, but we got a lot of challenges here. Friends.
Speaker 1: There's what we know and what we can prove. There's
Speaker 1: what looks fishy and what we'll be able to definitively
Speaker 1: show in a court of law and get a judge
Speaker 1: to take action on. There are many steps here, many
Speaker 1: phases that have to go a certain way for this
Speaker 1: election to be overturned in Trump's favor. And I've been
Speaker 1: telling you it's a long shot. It's a long shot.
Speaker 1: People who were saying otherwise. I don't think they're being
Speaker 1: honest with you. I think that there's a lot of Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm going to be the most magarific, I'm going to
Speaker 1: be the most pro Trump, even in these last weeks here,
Speaker 1: just to show everybody my devotion to the cause, even
Speaker 1: though I believe that this is going to go for
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. But I'm not going to tell anybody that.
Speaker 1: I'm here telling you I think Trump's chances are not
Speaker 1: good at this point. But that doesn't mean we don't fight.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean we don't figure out exactly what happened here.
Speaker 1: To the best of our ability. It's about this election
Speaker 1: and the next election. This is mean you also have
Speaker 1: in Nevada this allegation which came from Adam Laxalt. I
Speaker 1: think he's the GOP chief there play for what we
Speaker 1: are providing today in this lawsuit is that many of
Speaker 1: these votes were improperly cast. We are presenting today in
Speaker 1: our formal contest that there are north of fifteen thousand
Speaker 1: people who voted in Nevada and another state. We are
Speaker 1: presenting that people voted in people that had already done
Speaker 1: a change of address and left the state outside of
Speaker 1: thirty the thirty day requirement, their ballots were still cast.
Speaker 1: We are also presenting dead voters. Those are all verifiable
Speaker 1: allegations one way or the other. Shouldn't we know? Shouldn't
Speaker 1: we have a real understanding of what's true here and
Speaker 1: what's not. What's the argument against this? Oh, that Trump
Speaker 1: hasn't conceded soon enough, that Trump is a risk to
Speaker 1: our democracy. No, what we do know is that the
Speaker 1: left's answers, whenever we try to pose these questions, always
Speaker 1: revolve around a version of orange man bad. Trump is
Speaker 1: a unique threat. Trump is uniquely awful, and because of that,
Speaker 1: the Democrats say, he doesn't even really get to have
Speaker 1: his process. We don't get to have the president waits
Speaker 1: to see what actually happened. He's supposed to get ahead
Speaker 1: of it and say, you know what, you're right, I'm
Speaker 1: sorry I lost this election. He's not even allowed to
Speaker 1: get his due process. That's what they want you to
Speaker 1: that's their their position on all of this. Because he's
Speaker 1: the worst. That's why Don Lemon's out there, Don Lemon,
Speaker 1: monsieur Don Lemon. He is out there telling people that
Speaker 1: this is this is about what your grandkids think. Play
Speaker 1: ten it is all local, but imagine those local folks
Speaker 1: having the influence they had. They could have had a
Speaker 1: very big influence on a national election on who was
Speaker 1: president of the United States. I think that, you know,
Speaker 1: I heard some folks on your air talking about how
Speaker 1: how history is going to look back on this, and
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people are going to be
Speaker 1: embarrassed over time when they look back and say, how
Speaker 1: did I do that? How did I fall for that?
Speaker 1: What happened to me? What was I thinking in that time? Wrong?
Speaker 1: You may want to win, You may want to you know,
Speaker 1: whatever it is you have what do they call it
Speaker 1: liberal tears? You may want all of that, But your
Speaker 1: grandchildren and your kids will look back and say, oh,
Speaker 1: what did grandpa did? What dude? What did dadd what
Speaker 1: did bomb do in this moment, and realize that you
Speaker 1: were on the wrong side of history and that you
Speaker 1: possibly were teaching them the wrong thing. It'sn't that all.
Speaker 1: It's that ridiculous thinking about that. Yeah, your grandkids are
Speaker 1: really going to say, excuse me, granddaddy, where were you
Speaker 1: during the great recount fight of twenty twenty in those weeks?
Speaker 1: What side of the issue where you on? No that's
Speaker 1: not going to happen. Your grandkids will not care. Nobody
Speaker 1: will even remember this. In six months, we will remember
Speaker 1: who the president is and we may suffer the consequences
Speaker 1: if he's the if it's the wrong one, But no
Speaker 1: one's going to remember that. You said, yeah, can we
Speaker 1: just make sure every legal vot vote is counted. That's
Speaker 1: that's a very standard, very defensible. In fact, it's the
Speaker 1: only really defensible position here. But this is what they do.
Speaker 1: They create these narratives. It's a version of the journals
Speaker 1: always saying, you know, my five year old came to
Speaker 1: me and said, you know, dad, why you that Republicans
Speaker 1: don't understand the unique threat to our democracy posed by
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's erosion of norms. Now, you're five year old.
Speaker 1: Didn't say that, journal, but nice try right. They do
Speaker 1: that all the time. This was a thing that was
Speaker 1: really popular a couple of years ago. Blue check journals
Speaker 1: would lie about how their toddler was waxing philosophical about
Speaker 1: the unique threat to the Constitution posed by President Trump
Speaker 1: because Libs, for some reason, think that what comes out
Speaker 1: of the mouths of children when it comes to politics
Speaker 1: is really important and powerful. You know, if a kid
Speaker 1: says it, Well, then we really got to pay attention.
Speaker 1: Of course, this is absurd, but that's what they do.
Speaker 1: This is also why they made such a big thing
Speaker 1: of Greta Thunberg, who, at age sixteen was traveling the
Speaker 1: world lecturing people on climate change. Yes, that's right, I
Speaker 1: take advice about complicated multinational climate change treaties from a
Speaker 1: sixteen year old. Yes, that's an intel eligent move for
Speaker 1: an adult. Sure, that's that's really smart. But no, the libs,
Speaker 1: it's all about the emotions, the feelings that theatrics around
Speaker 1: all this, and that's what Don Lemon is appealing to here. Well,
Speaker 1: will your grandchildren say about this moment? Other grandchildren are
Speaker 1: gonna say, did you get me, you know, the latest
Speaker 1: video game that I want for Christmas? They're they're not
Speaker 1: gonna care about what you said. Here's and it's laughable.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's absurd to believe otherwise. But that's one
Speaker 1: way that they do this, and that's one way they
Speaker 1: try to convince you that you have no ground here
Speaker 1: whatsoever to stand and say that you want every vote
Speaker 1: to be counted. And if we're going to talk about
Speaker 1: embarrassment and people that have gone down the rabbit hole
Speaker 1: people that have believed things that are foolish. Has anyone
Speaker 1: at CNN have any of these journals apologized for their
Speaker 1: role in the Russia collusion hoax. Not one, None of
Speaker 1: them have. None of them have apologized. None of them
Speaker 1: feel any any sheepishness or any shame for running around
Speaker 1: for years with the ridiculous story that the President of
Speaker 1: the United States was a Russian asset who worked to
Speaker 1: steal the election from Hillary Clinton in twenty sixteen, many
Speaker 1: of them still believe that. Many of them still think
Speaker 1: there was Russian collusion, and that's how they avoid the embarrassment.
Speaker 1: I mean, what should be the deep intellectual embarrassment of
Speaker 1: falling for that. But now they're telling us, Oh, if
Speaker 1: you stand and fight now and want the final counts
Speaker 1: to be accurate, you're going to be embarrassed one day. No,
Speaker 1: I don't think I'll take advice from them on this.
Speaker 1: I also don't think I'll take advice from them on embarrassment,
Speaker 1: considering how often they accuse Trump and Republicans of more
Speaker 1: or less being Nazis. Here's CNN's Christian Mampu with them.
Speaker 1: Fanciest accent, you've ever heard on television in your life.
Speaker 1: Listen to me, because I'm so sophisticated, an international because
Speaker 1: of my accent that obviously comes from a very expensive
Speaker 1: boarding school in England. But I'm even more international than that.
Speaker 1: But here she is telling everybody, Yeah, you know, maybe
Speaker 1: I shouldn't have said that Trump is just just like
Speaker 1: the Nazis. At the top of my show, unci an
Speaker 1: International play nine and finally, tonight, a comment on my program.
Speaker 1: At the end of last week, I observed the eighty
Speaker 1: second anniversary of Crystal Nacht, as I often do. It
Speaker 1: is the event that began the horrors of the Holocaust.
Speaker 1: I also noted President Trump's attacks on history, facts, knowledge,
Speaker 1: and truth. I shouldn't have juxtaposed the two thoughts Hitler
Speaker 1: and his evil stand alone of course in history. I
Speaker 1: regret any pain my statement may have caused. My point
Speaker 1: was to say how democracy can potentially slip away, and
Speaker 1: how we must always zealously guard our democratic values. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so I compared Trump to Hitler, and I realize that
Speaker 1: that's deeply offensive to some people because it's the dumbest,
Speaker 1: most ridiculous comparison imaginable, and it undermines and underplays the
Speaker 1: true evil of the Holocaust. So let's just move on.
Speaker 1: There you go, CNN's perhaps best known globally anchor total imbecile.
Speaker 1: But doesn't matter. No one's even gonna remember it a week.
Speaker 1: But they want to lecture you and me and tell
Speaker 1: us to be worried about what our grandchildren will think.
Speaker 1: I don't care what the Libs think, that's for sure.
Speaker 1: You're in the freedom mine. This is the Buck Sex
Speaker 1: and Show podcast. Mister Dorsey, does voter fraud exist? All right?
Speaker 1: I don't know for certain. Are you an expert in
Speaker 1: voter fraud? No, I'm not. Well, why then, is Twitter
Speaker 1: right now putting purported warnings on virtually any statement about
Speaker 1: voter fraud. We're simply linking to a product conversation so
Speaker 1: that people have more information. No, no, you're not. You
Speaker 1: put up a page that says, quote, voter fraud of
Speaker 1: any kind is exceedingly rare in the United States. That's
Speaker 1: not linking to a broader conversation. That's taking a disputed
Speaker 1: policy position. And you're a publisher when you're doing that,
Speaker 1: you're entitled to take a policy position, but you don't
Speaker 1: get to pretend you're not a publisher. And get a
Speaker 1: special benefit under Section two thirty. As a result, Link
Speaker 1: is pointing to a product conversation with tweets from publishers
Speaker 1: and people all around the country. No, it's taking a position.
Speaker 1: You know, Ted Cruze understands what's going on here, and
Speaker 1: he's got them and they know this. I am big
Speaker 1: tech in this election, because you remember, it was really
Speaker 1: social pressure from their peers, from their friends and the
Speaker 1: people that they want to like them. At Facebook, at Twitter,
Speaker 1: at these organizations, they were insufficiently devoted to getting a
Speaker 1: Hillary elected by suppressing information and by stacking the deck
Speaker 1: in favor of Hillary against Donald Trump. So this time
Speaker 1: around they tried to find ways to rectify that, and
Speaker 1: the way they choose to rectify it is by challenging
Speaker 1: certain statements by showing that what the president says, even
Speaker 1: the president of the United States, this is disputed. They
Speaker 1: didn't do that for the Russia collusion hoax for four years.
Speaker 1: They haven't done it on any number of things. They
Speaker 1: definitely don't do it for you know, Faucian company. I
Speaker 1: wonder now are they going to censor people who say
Speaker 1: that the biggest study yet done tells you that mask
Speaker 1: wearing does not protect you from virus. That's what the
Speaker 1: study did say. It could not prove that, and that
Speaker 1: was what it's set out to prove as a study.
Speaker 1: Are they going to make Are they gonna mark that
Speaker 1: as sense of content that you know could lead people
Speaker 1: in the wrong direction? Friends, we've seen this now we
Speaker 1: understand what they're really doing. We understand what the game
Speaker 1: is that's being played, and we also see that the
Speaker 1: tech totalitarians don't even recognize what they're doing when it's exposed.
Speaker 1: When we see it, they don't really recognize it as wrong.
Speaker 1: It's just, oh, we'll have to figure out another way
Speaker 1: to do this suppression. Remember the Hunter Biden stories that
Speaker 1: the New York New York Post broke and then were
Speaker 1: blocked by Twitter and Facebook right before an election. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is an kind contribution. It was to the Joe
Speaker 1: Biden campaign by journalists so called, or by tech platform
Speaker 1: in this case. And here's what Dorsey says about the
Speaker 1: New York Post account being suspended Play six. When Twitter
Speaker 1: is editing and censoring and silencing the New York Post.
Speaker 1: The newspaper was a fourth highest circulation in the country
Speaker 1: and Politico one of the leading newspapers in the country.
Speaker 1: Is Twitter behaving as a publisher when it's deciding what
Speaker 1: stories reporters are allowed to write and publish and what
Speaker 1: stories they're not. No, and that account is not suspended
Speaker 1: if I allow follow up the hacked materials policy. Um,
Speaker 1: we realized that there was an error in that policy.
Speaker 1: And hold on. I'm literally looking at the tweet from
Speaker 1: Twitter that says your account has been locked. You're you're
Speaker 1: telling me that this is not us. That's a lock
Speaker 1: and can be unlocked when you to lead, I understand
Speaker 1: that you lock your account for posting true information. That's
Speaker 1: where we are with the tech gives. I remember when
Speaker 1: the libs said that this was a conspiracy a few
Speaker 1: years ago, there was any bias in big tech. They
Speaker 1: were all liars and idiots. Now it's all proven. But
Speaker 1: guess what Big tech doesn't want to change. Friends. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to The Bus Sesson Show podcasts. Remember to
Speaker 1: subscribe on Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. Some fiery moments yesterday on Capitol Hill
Speaker 1: as Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook was once again facing lawmakers,
Speaker 1: including a Senator Marsha Blackburne, who is with us now
Speaker 1: from the great state of Tennessee. Senator Blackburn, thanks so
Speaker 1: much for joining. I am thrilled to join you. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much. So, what was the single biggest moment
Speaker 1: that you saw that people should be aware of yesterday?
Speaker 1: During those those hearings, you know, they went on for
Speaker 1: quite some time. Most people didn't have time to watch
Speaker 1: at all. Are we at a point now where big
Speaker 1: Tech realizes, Senator, that some of their practices have to change.
Speaker 1: I think the biggest moment from yesterday was one that
Speaker 1: came through the collective of looking at this hearing book.
Speaker 1: You saw them pretty much admit that, yes, they are
Speaker 1: doing some blocking and throttling and censoring, but they think
Speaker 1: it's okay because they are getting into the business of publishing,
Speaker 1: which through their statements they admit that they are doing
Speaker 1: this because they're editorializing. Well, editorializing is creating content, and
Speaker 1: that is not where they are supposed to be. They
Speaker 1: are information services. They are to be the new town square.
Speaker 1: Town squares need a cop on the beat to make
Speaker 1: certain that you have the point the counterpoint, and it's
Speaker 1: done in the civil manner. And Senator, what would you
Speaker 1: like to see happen now, because one of the questions
Speaker 1: that keeps coming up after these hearings is what now
Speaker 1: we've seen, whether it's Jack Dorsey of Twitter, Mark Zuckerberg
Speaker 1: of Facebook, we see these tech CEOs now the CEO
Speaker 1: of Google. They'll go on Capitol Hill and they have
Speaker 1: these moments where we see exactly what you're saying, that
Speaker 1: they're blurring a line between platform and publisher. There's clear bias.
Speaker 1: They used to say there wasn't bias, it was just algorithms.
Speaker 1: Now we know that's not true. But it feels like
Speaker 1: not a lot changes. How can things change? Center? How
Speaker 1: would you like to see them change? When it comes
Speaker 1: to big tech. There are two pieces of legislation that
Speaker 1: I have authored that are moving through the process right now.
Speaker 1: One is in Commerce Committee and it is a privacy bill,
Speaker 1: and it is pretty much centered around legislation I started
Speaker 1: working on eight years ago. It's called the Browser Act.
Speaker 1: And what the Privacy Bill will do is to have
Speaker 1: one set of privacy standards and federal preemption that's for
Speaker 1: the entire Internet ecosystem. Then it's going to have one regulator,
Speaker 1: the FTC. It is going to put in the consumers
Speaker 1: hand the online user's hand the ability to opt in
Speaker 1: if they want to share data and information, and then
Speaker 1: to opt out on nonsensitive information things like tracking and
Speaker 1: so that way, it will change Big texts approach. It
Speaker 1: is going to change their business model, but it's a
Speaker 1: good change. It is in favor of the consumer. Now.
Speaker 1: The second bill moving through is one that does reform
Speaker 1: section to thirty. It is a good piece of legislation.
Speaker 1: It is called the Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Bill,
Speaker 1: and Senator Lindsay Graham and Senator Roger Wicker, the Chairman
Speaker 1: of Commerce and the Chairman of Judiciary, have joined me
Speaker 1: on that bill. It would be very specificous to who
Speaker 1: can use the libe ability protection in section to thirty.
Speaker 1: In flind they can use it. It would also eliminate
Speaker 1: this subjectiveness that big tech hides behind and says, well
Speaker 1: we have community standards, well, we have terms of service.
Speaker 1: And it would be very specific and the reasons that
Speaker 1: you have to exercise some kind of censorship, because it
Speaker 1: would spell out it has to be unlawful conduct, it
Speaker 1: has to cause incentivized terrorism, or lead to personal harm.
Speaker 1: Those would be the reasons for being able to censor something.
Speaker 1: That bill is scheduled for a markup in Judiciary Committee tomorrow.
Speaker 1: We're speaking of Senator Marsha Blackburne of Tennessee. Senator, what
Speaker 1: is the Democrat response? I mean, from your colleagues in
Speaker 1: the Senate, for example, with what you're talking about? Here
Speaker 1: are some of them on board? And for the ones
Speaker 1: who aren't, why would they object to what seemed like
Speaker 1: very common sense ways to address big tech censorship that
Speaker 1: we all know? Is there? Well? Money, money, money is
Speaker 1: the reason. And the majority of contributions that have been
Speaker 1: given by big tech employees and their CEOs have all
Speaker 1: gone to Democrats, and so the Democratic Party has been
Speaker 1: very hesitant to tackle these issues that consumers want to
Speaker 1: see addressed. So they're just looking to keep things exactly
Speaker 1: as they are. That's discouraging, but I think we are
Speaker 1: que serves them well, right, Well, we saw that obviously
Speaker 1: with the suppression efforts in the run up to the
Speaker 1: election and Twitter removing that or suppressing that story about
Speaker 1: a hunter Biden, and so it's all out there for
Speaker 1: everybody to see. Hopefully we'll be able to advance the
Speaker 1: legislation and the changes that you're talking about. But big
Speaker 1: tech is very powerful and they have a lot of sway,
Speaker 1: not just with money, but obviously also with perception and
Speaker 1: moving the national conversation in days that really the mainstream
Speaker 1: media I think is jealous of These days, Facebook and
Speaker 1: Twitter much more powerful. But Senator, I also want to
Speaker 1: ask you about the other big issue this week in
Speaker 1: the news going on now for a couple of weeks,
Speaker 1: these recounts lawsuits that continued battle over who really won
Speaker 1: based on legal ballots this last presidential election. You have
Speaker 1: some experience, not just running for US Senate and being
Speaker 1: in office, you have experienced working on election commissions. How
Speaker 1: concerned are you based on what you've heard so far
Speaker 1: about the legitimacy of the vote counts in some of
Speaker 1: these states that are contested still well, and I have
Speaker 1: no doubt if every legal vote was counted in every
Speaker 1: illegally cast ballot was thrown out, President Donald Trump would
Speaker 1: have four more years. What we have seen happen is
Speaker 1: some of these communities were not careful in mailing out
Speaker 1: the ballots. Basically, what they did was to mail one
Speaker 1: to everybody. It was like a publisher's clearing house, sweep
Speaker 1: steak's notice. Fill it out, send it in if you
Speaker 1: want to participate and that is not what is intended
Speaker 1: for our right to vote. And everybody got one. You
Speaker 1: know what. I have talked to people that got three
Speaker 1: and four at their home because they went to former residences.
Speaker 1: I talked to someone who lives in one of these
Speaker 1: Blue cities and they had been in their house eleven years.
Speaker 1: The previous owner, the only other person that had ever
Speaker 1: owned their home, died twelve years ago. That deceased individual
Speaker 1: who's been deceased twelve years received about in the mail.
Speaker 1: What you're going to see happen. This issue will pivot
Speaker 1: to the states, and these state legislatures are going to
Speaker 1: have to put some things in place that require these
Speaker 1: local election commissions to clean up their roles and to
Speaker 1: make certain that only individuals who are allowed to vote
Speaker 1: are getting about to vote. Now, that would be for
Speaker 1: the future, which is obviously very important. We all want
Speaker 1: to have faith in our future elections. But Senator, for
Speaker 1: this most recent election, just based on what you've seen
Speaker 1: and what you believe, some of the let's call them
Speaker 1: proven irregularities already have been and the possible fraud that
Speaker 1: still remains to be conclusively proven, is it too late?
Speaker 1: Did we essentially did the Democrats with these changes because
Speaker 1: of COVID in the way that we did voting will
Speaker 1: it be almost impossible to prove the kind of things
Speaker 1: you're talking about. The lawsuits are filed. There are some
Speaker 1: by the Trump campaign, there are some by individuals who
Speaker 1: witnessed irregularities, and they are gathering their information. They have
Speaker 1: from now until the time the Electoral College will meet,
Speaker 1: and prior to that, your states are going to be
Speaker 1: certifying these elections. I mean, look at the fact that
Speaker 1: Georgia found six thousand ballots that had not been counted,
Speaker 1: and out of that the majority of those ballots went
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump. It certainly seems like if they could
Speaker 1: find six thousand here and six thousand there, there's a
Speaker 1: lot more reason to dig into this and make sure
Speaker 1: that we got the right vote count in the end.
Speaker 1: Senator Marsha Blackburn, everybody of Tennessee. Senator, we really appreciate
Speaker 1: your time. Thanks for joining us today. Good to be
Speaker 1: with you. Thank you, bye bye. Now you're in the
Speaker 1: Freedom Mind. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. What
Speaker 1: do the Democrats think of the usage of big tech?
Speaker 1: We were just speaking about this before we had Senator
Speaker 1: Blackburn on let's talk about this. What do the Democrats
Speaker 1: think of it? They like it. You have to remember
Speaker 1: this isn't something that we've identified that both sides can
Speaker 1: agree is a problem. The problem is that now people
Speaker 1: understand what's going on because they much preferred the old way.
Speaker 1: The Democrats liked it when their news stories and their
Speaker 1: information would be shared freely all over the internet, and
Speaker 1: somehow Twitter and Facebook would decide that they wouldn't share
Speaker 1: conservative stuff where that they would throttle it or they
Speaker 1: would shadow bandit, and people didn't really know exactly what's
Speaker 1: going on. I can't even tell you how much on Parlor,
Speaker 1: for example, the Parlor app. And I've thought this was
Speaker 1: true for a long time. I mean, there are blue
Speaker 1: check journals that have pretty big followings on Twitter and
Speaker 1: nobody knows who the heck these people are, and nobody cares.
Speaker 1: But they've got hundreds of thousands of followers, and they've
Speaker 1: had them for a long time. And I remember I've
Speaker 1: been on Twitter now for what going on nine years,
Speaker 1: and it took a long time to build up the
Speaker 1: following that I have right now. On Parlor, I've been
Speaker 1: in Parlor for a matter of months. I've already got
Speaker 1: two hundred thousand followers more than that, I mean, and
Speaker 1: it just keeps going up and up and up, and
Speaker 1: everything I post on parlor just goes off like a
Speaker 1: rocket ship because people are, Oh, they're interacting with it,
Speaker 1: they want to share it, they want to I've had
Speaker 1: so many things on Twitter. I go, wait a second,
Speaker 1: this is not How is this not having more of
Speaker 1: a reach considering how it's reacted to by the people
Speaker 1: who do see it. The algorithms have been skewed against us.
Speaker 1: It's obvious. That's another reason why they hate the competitors
Speaker 1: that are popping up. Now, what way could you prove
Speaker 1: before that conservative content was being throught older shadow band?
Speaker 1: How would you be in a position to show that
Speaker 1: if the only platforms you could go to were controlled
Speaker 1: completely dominated by Libs, How, oh you couldn't. Now that's
Speaker 1: starting to change a little bit, and the Democrats are
Speaker 1: realizing that this was the sneaky advantage that they had had.
Speaker 1: We figured out after a while. It took us a
Speaker 1: long time. At the mainstream media is effectively a Democrat superpack.
Speaker 1: We know that people maybe fought that idea in the nineties,
Speaker 1: in the early two thousands. They would say, oh no,
Speaker 1: come on, journalism. Journalism, it's a real thing now. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you think that journos are unbiased, you just don't
Speaker 1: know what you're talking about. It's not a defensable position.
Speaker 1: It's laughable, it's silly. But big tech started to fill
Speaker 1: in that void for them. Big tech became the advantage
Speaker 1: that they had that they pretended they did not have. Right,
Speaker 1: Big tech became this thing that they would point to
Speaker 1: and they'd say, oh, well, this is just algorithms. It's
Speaker 1: not people making these decisions. It's not that there's something
Speaker 1: that we've done or we've decided, being the CEOs and
Speaker 1: the people behind the scenes at these tech companies. It's
Speaker 1: just the way it is. It's the computers doing it, basically,
Speaker 1: That's what they were saying. And think about how much
Speaker 1: that's helped things like grow, Like I mean, the Huffington
Speaker 1: Post is a trash heap. I mean, this is a
Speaker 1: garbage website, always has been, but had an enormous assistance
Speaker 1: from Facebook. You've seen some of these these liberal news
Speaker 1: outlets that have grown tremendously in their reach over time
Speaker 1: and become prominent and you know, brought in a lot
Speaker 1: of revenue, although they usually spend a lot of revenue
Speaker 1: off and more than they break in. And it's because
Speaker 1: they have free reign on Facebook. You know, somehow we've
Speaker 1: created a media ecosystem in this country, and it's not
Speaker 1: just news media, but a media ecosystem where the left
Speaker 1: can do whatever it wants, say whatever it wants, no consequences,
Speaker 1: gets maximum exposure on both the new and the established platforms,
Speaker 1: and can count on blue chip advertisers from large from
Speaker 1: major corporations, major companies to advertise with them, to stick
Speaker 1: by them. On the right, we have to worry about
Speaker 1: boycotts and there's the brand damage. Meanwhile, we represent half
Speaker 1: the country, but we have to deal with all these
Speaker 1: additional challenges and all this other bullcrap that's going on,
Speaker 1: and we still in the marketplace of ideas, crush those
Speaker 1: fools on a whole range of issues. But they have
Speaker 1: far more places to make the argument, and they have
Speaker 1: far more people who are wildly overpaid to do things
Speaker 1: that they're not even that good at. But they just
Speaker 1: have more slots. They have more places that are more
Speaker 1: easily monetized because of these built in advantages for the left.
Speaker 1: I mean this stuff. I understand some of this might
Speaker 1: sound a little bit like inside baseball to somebody works
Speaker 1: in media, but this stuff really matters. This is how
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, that clown, can even think about winning an
Speaker 1: election against Donald Trump because of these advantages that I'm
Speaker 1: telling you about. And it extends to other issues as well.
Speaker 1: It's not just on the presidential election. Here Senator Coons
Speaker 1: talking to Jack Dorsey about how there are other areas
Speaker 1: where he wants I mean, the Democrats want censorship in
Speaker 1: their favor. They think that Facebook and these other places
Speaker 1: there's a home court advantage that's supposed to that they're
Speaker 1: supposed to have all the time, and Senator Coons of
Speaker 1: Delaware is one of them. Play five. I just I
Speaker 1: cannot think of a greater harm than climate change, which
Speaker 1: is transforming literally our planet and causing harm to our
Speaker 1: entire world. I think we're experiencing significant harm as we speak.
Speaker 1: I recognize the pandemic and misinformation about COVID nineteen manipulated
Speaker 1: media also cause harm, but I'd urge you to reconsider
Speaker 1: that because helping to disseminate climate denialism, in my view,
Speaker 1: further facilitates and accelerates one of the greatest existential threats
Speaker 1: to our world. So sensor climate change questions, climate change
Speaker 1: opinions on your platform or because it's an existential threat.
Speaker 1: There is only one acceptable opinion on climate change, and
Speaker 1: it's whatever the heck they say it is, whatever the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party could census. Is on any issue, whatever the
Speaker 1: left and the statists decide. You'd say, well, hold on,
Speaker 1: what about if somebody says that climate emissions have to
Speaker 1: be reduced fifty percent in the next thirty years, but
Speaker 1: I say, no, we can get there to the same
Speaker 1: place and we reduce at twenty five percent because of
Speaker 1: the following technologies that are already getting cleaner. Are they
Speaker 1: going to censor that? The answers, yes. Under their logic,
Speaker 1: they have to censor that one approved opinion, just like
Speaker 1: we're in communist China. One approved opinion allowed, that's it.
Speaker 1: Other opinions shut down because they're an existential threat. Listen
Speaker 1: to these little totalitarians. Listen to the way they talk
Speaker 1: about these things. The free exchange of ideas, intellectual discourse,
Speaker 1: free inquiry. These are under assault by the Democrat establishment
Speaker 1: in America every single day, openly. Now, this is a
Speaker 1: fight for the most basic intellectual freedom and if we
Speaker 1: don't take up our side, we will lose. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to The Busson Show podcast. Remember to subscribe on
Speaker 1: Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Were the machines not tabulating the votes correctly? Was there
Speaker 1: a problem here with the vote count that has to
Speaker 1: do with the software, the company's involved, and other allegations
Speaker 1: out there? Who better to ask about this than somebody
Speaker 1: who gets to the bottom of things and has for
Speaker 1: a very long time. Sarah Carter, my friend joins us now.
Speaker 1: She's the host of the Sarah Carter Show. Sarah a
Speaker 1: Carter dot com for her latest investigative journalism. Sarah, thanks
Speaker 1: so much. Oh, thanks so much for having me on
Speaker 1: the Showbuck. It's so great talking to you, even though
Speaker 1: these are really trying times for a lot of AMA. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they are so, Sarah, What, from what you're seeing in
Speaker 1: your sources and what you've been able to on cover
Speaker 1: so far, what are the biggest concerns right now in
Speaker 1: you know, with regard to these vote counts. Well, I
Speaker 1: think there's a number of concerns. One, we've heard that
Speaker 1: there have been serious issues with allegedly with the software
Speaker 1: and the voting machines that were used in this election.
Speaker 1: That would be Dominion Voting Systems and Smart Madic. Smartmadock
Speaker 1: was the company that developed the software for everybody out
Speaker 1: there who's trying to figure out all of these new
Speaker 1: companies and words. So Smartmadic allegedly developed the original software
Speaker 1: that Dominion Voting Systems is connected to. Dominion Voting Systems
Speaker 1: is used in because forty percent of the American electorate
Speaker 1: used Dominion Voting Systems in this general election. That's twenty
Speaker 1: eight states, So that's a lot of right, that's a
Speaker 1: lot of people that we're using this system. Now we
Speaker 1: have Sidney Powell, awesome attorney, probably one of the best
Speaker 1: litigators in the country right now, obviously a big champion
Speaker 1: of President Donald Trump. Also defending Lieutenant General Michael Flynn.
Speaker 1: She has been in his case against the former Obama
Speaker 1: administration DJ Robert Muller trial. Now she's on this now
Speaker 1: she's focused on helping the president and helping the administration
Speaker 1: of what they believe and what they are alleging systemic
Speaker 1: fraud in the general election. Now that's Sydney Powell's argument.
Speaker 1: Jenna Ellis is on the team with her. Former mayor
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani is heading that team. He's also a very
Speaker 1: good friend of President Trump. Now, what they are saying
Speaker 1: is that this system is rigged in such a way
Speaker 1: that it is almost impossible to proof. Although they say
Speaker 1: they have proof and affidavits, it is almost impossible to
Speaker 1: prove fraud. Now. They are saying this because they have
Speaker 1: been speaking to sources. Some of these sources I have
Speaker 1: spoken to as well. I have seen and read the affidavits,
Speaker 1: And now those affidavits are public, and anybody could go
Speaker 1: out there and read the book and go to my
Speaker 1: website Seracarter dot com. You can see the story and
Speaker 1: what Sidney Pale and Jenna Ellis are saying. Look, we
Speaker 1: are battling for every legitimate vote, every legitimate vote. This
Speaker 1: is a huge problem. They say, we need to investigate this.
Speaker 1: I agree with them. There is one affidavit of an
Speaker 1: the name is actually removed for the protection of this person,
Speaker 1: somebody that was actually very close to former Venezuelan dictator
Speaker 1: Hugo Chavez. And you're probably thinking, like, what what does
Speaker 1: that have to do with us? You know, well, according
Speaker 1: to this affidavit. The Smartmatic software was developed in the
Speaker 1: early two thousands at the direction of Hugo Chavez in
Speaker 1: his election. He wanted to be able to develop software
Speaker 1: that would allow him to steal the election without anybody
Speaker 1: being the wiser. The person in this affidavit, and I
Speaker 1: have spoken to people directly connected to this person, and
Speaker 1: I've known about this for a little bit more than
Speaker 1: a week now. This person was directly connected to Hugo
Speaker 1: Chavis and in the room when Hugo Chavis asked for
Speaker 1: this software to be developed with those developers. According to him,
Speaker 1: it is the same software. There's an underlying, like mirroring
Speaker 1: image of this software that actually allows the opposing political
Speaker 1: party or the party that is aware of what's going on,
Speaker 1: to kind of watch the votes. At least that's what
Speaker 1: happened in Venezuela. There have been issues with this software
Speaker 1: with dominion voting software. Texas would not use it because
Speaker 1: they felt that there were too many problems with the
Speaker 1: software and they felt that it was hackable. Now we
Speaker 1: know there's a Princeton professor. It's out there on YouTube.
Speaker 1: He was on Fox News. He's an IT expert. He
Speaker 1: showed how he could hack Dominion software within seven minutes
Speaker 1: if he had access to the actual machine and he
Speaker 1: showed how to do it. Dominion is claiming that that
Speaker 1: these allegations are completely false and that their software is valid.
Speaker 1: So now there's a big battle in the courts, and
Speaker 1: that's going to be Sydney's another side of this election problem.
Speaker 1: And I'll, you know, I'll try to make it quick,
Speaker 1: but is what's happening in Georgia and what's happening in Michigan.
Speaker 1: In Michigan, there are a lot of claims right now,
Speaker 1: and the numbers are showing it that there were way
Speaker 1: more voters than people registered. How did they explain that?
Speaker 1: You can't? That's a big problem. In Georgia, what we're
Speaker 1: seeing is and I just actually got off the phone
Speaker 1: with some people in Georgia that were marching actually to
Speaker 1: the state capitol. They are chanting stop the steal. They're
Speaker 1: actually out there with Democratic congressman and Jones, who's a
Speaker 1: big Trump supporter, to the chagrin of all the Democrats,
Speaker 1: and they're heading to the Secretary of State to his office,
Speaker 1: demanding to speak with him because right now in Georgia,
Speaker 1: there have been thousands of votes certainly over three thousand
Speaker 1: votes that have been discovered that were never processed. So
Speaker 1: basically they found memory cards, you know, that were never
Speaker 1: uploaded to these machines dominion voting systems that were just
Speaker 1: sitting there. One of them had thousands of votes, like
Speaker 1: twenty seven hundred votes, so those would have been twenty
Speaker 1: seven hundred voters that were disenfranchised. And then they found
Speaker 1: it in another county, and then they founded in Walton County,
Speaker 1: And I could tell you I was talking to Marcy McCarthy.
Speaker 1: She was an observer actually in a Dacab County, Georgia.
Speaker 1: She was on the floor calling me all the time,
Speaker 1: telling me what was going on whenever she had a break,
Speaker 1: and it was very frustrating for her. She couldn't even
Speaker 1: see what they were doing. Those were the counters tabulating
Speaker 1: the votes. She felt like it was a big mess.
Speaker 1: She had told me. She's in a story that I
Speaker 1: posted on Sarah carter dot com tool meeting. Look, I've
Speaker 1: never been more frustrated in my life with an election
Speaker 1: than I've been with this one. It is so disheartening.
Speaker 1: So I think what we're seeing across the board, we
Speaker 1: saw what happened in Nevada. There's issues in Nevada. We
Speaker 1: saw what's happening now in Arizona, where Maricopa County Congressman
Speaker 1: Andy Biggs is kind of like, I don't know how
Speaker 1: this happened, but we want to recount in Maricopa County
Speaker 1: because everybody, everybody and their mother basically thought that Maricopa
Speaker 1: County would go to President Trump. Now that's not to
Speaker 1: see there was any vote a front at all. Maybe
Speaker 1: it did go to Joe Biden, we don't know of.
Speaker 1: Allegedly the first count it shows going to Biden by
Speaker 1: a small margin. But Congressman Biggs is calling, and he's
Speaker 1: head of the Freedom Caucus. He's calling for a recount there.
Speaker 1: He may not get that. So there's a lot of
Speaker 1: issues across the country book that people are looking at.
Speaker 1: It's very complicated because whether or not these end up
Speaker 1: in the courts, whether or not it's all provable, whether
Speaker 1: or not the state legislatures, you know, Republican state legislatures
Speaker 1: should be able to do something if they really believe
Speaker 1: that there was election fraud or that there were so
Speaker 1: many irregularities. It's up to the states too. They can
Speaker 1: stop this, whether they have the courage to do that
Speaker 1: or not. Who knows before they certify the votes. But
Speaker 1: that's the issue now, and that's kind of where everything stands.
Speaker 1: Speaking to Sarah Carter, investigative journalist, host of The Sarah
Speaker 1: Carter Show podcast, Sarah, just explain this part to me,
Speaker 1: if you would, the Sydney Powell allegation. I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: hearing about all this shady background for Smartmadoc and okay,
Speaker 1: but do we have any that a software is hackable
Speaker 1: is not the same thing as saying it was hacked.
Speaker 1: What is Powell alleging exactly that someone broke into the
Speaker 1: software or that someone had access to the tabulation and
Speaker 1: then new to call a halt and then to add
Speaker 1: votes in later. And this is where I think we
Speaker 1: need to have greater clarity. Oh, I totally agree with you.
Speaker 1: I think there absolutely needs to be greater clarity with this.
Speaker 1: There are allegations, and Sydney's brought this up and I
Speaker 1: have not seen proof of this, so I'm just laying
Speaker 1: it out there. But Sydney has been talking to sources,
Speaker 1: and there are a number of sources out there that have,
Speaker 1: I guess, expressed that there was fraud in connection with
Speaker 1: these voting machines. But as you have said, proving it
Speaker 1: is quite different than just making allegations. You and I
Speaker 1: both know you're an intelligence expert book, I've covered the
Speaker 1: intelligence community for some time. We understand that, you know,
Speaker 1: none of these machines are safe. That we are constantly
Speaker 1: in a battle with either enemy states or even within
Speaker 1: our own country to ensure the sanctity of I guess
Speaker 1: and integrity of our servers and our computer systems, and
Speaker 1: even our own privacy, you know, because we could get
Speaker 1: hacked by anyone. But I think like it's very difficult.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, these are huge companies, These are
Speaker 1: global companies. They have had issues in the in the past. Look,
Speaker 1: Smart Maddock in twenty eighteen was called out in the Philippines. Uh.
Speaker 1: They were not happy with the way the elections were
Speaker 1: handled in the Philippines. They didn't feel that dominion voting
Speaker 1: systems they that came out, which was connected to Smart Madock,
Speaker 1: was trustworthy. They felt that there was something wrong with
Speaker 1: the with the elections in the Philippines. Even in twenty
Speaker 1: ten before um and there were a lot of reporters
Speaker 1: actually calling people out on Smart about Smart matter. But
Speaker 1: remember this is a time where people are are so upset,
Speaker 1: where the nation is so divided, and I think the
Speaker 1: worst part of all of this is that, I mean, well,
Speaker 1: thankfully we have a peaceful, usually peaceful transitions of power,
Speaker 1: and that's what we hope for in a democracy and
Speaker 1: in our republic. But people are so divided now and
Speaker 1: so angry that I feel like when I talk to
Speaker 1: people about the election, especially Republicans, because remember, there were
Speaker 1: over seventy three million people that voted for President Trump,
Speaker 1: and that's a huge number of people. That's more than
Speaker 1: any Republican president has ever had in the past. Right,
Speaker 1: So there are people that are very frustrated and angry.
Speaker 1: They feel there was just no way in their minds, like,
Speaker 1: how could Joe Biden have won this election? No one
Speaker 1: even showed up to his rallies. We were out there
Speaker 1: in full force. How could there possibly be more voters
Speaker 1: in Michigan than are registered? And that needs to be investigated.
Speaker 1: What happened in Nevada? Why did they see more people
Speaker 1: that they're allegedly there? I mean, and Rick Cornell has
Speaker 1: brought this up, the former ambassador to Germany as well
Speaker 1: as DNI that in Nevada, they saw a number of
Speaker 1: votes where people were from out of state had voted
Speaker 1: in Nevada or had voted twice. So I think everybody's
Speaker 1: fighting for that, for that vote, for that legitimate vote.
Speaker 1: And you know, the American public, I think, and has
Speaker 1: faith in the system overall in general. But I think
Speaker 1: with what we've seen over the last four years, especially
Speaker 1: what we've seen with the weaponization of our intelligence agencies,
Speaker 1: with the weaponization of the FBI against this president and
Speaker 1: the Lincoln Project and all of these Republicans that hate
Speaker 1: President Trump. Right, a lot of people are doubting even
Speaker 1: this election. They're saying, you know what, this president was
Speaker 1: so hated by the establishment that it's absolutely possible that
Speaker 1: anything could have happened. And I really believe that because
Speaker 1: of that, because of the actions, and because of the
Speaker 1: lack of trust in our government institutions. Now that has
Speaker 1: just spilled over into the US election, and now you're
Speaker 1: just seeing the ramifications of that. People marching in the streets,
Speaker 1: people not believing in this election. And in a way,
Speaker 1: I'm a little bit afraid of where it's all going
Speaker 1: to go. Sarah. Before we let you get back to
Speaker 1: uncovering the truth, and we're speaking to Sarah Carter. Go
Speaker 1: to Sarah Acarter dot com for her latest investigative journalism. Sarah,
Speaker 1: how much faith can we put in Sydney Powell's allegations
Speaker 1: just based on what you know of her as a lawyer,
Speaker 1: and just wait, can we take this to the bank
Speaker 1: on her credibility? Yeah? Absolutely, Look, I've known Sidney Powell
Speaker 1: for years. She's brilliant, she's smart, she's a fighter, and
Speaker 1: I have never in my life ever spoken to Sydney
Speaker 1: or seen her work on something as vigorously or even
Speaker 1: with only a small bit of intent, you know, and
Speaker 1: not be telling the full truth about it. Sydney has
Speaker 1: the sources. Sydney knows what's going on here. Now she
Speaker 1: has to prove it right. And I know, based on
Speaker 1: the affidavits that she's already obtained, based on the information
Speaker 1: that she still hasn't made public, that I can take
Speaker 1: this to the bank. But remember, Buck, we've been writing
Speaker 1: around for how long now, since the election in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: for the Department of Justice to do anything about the
Speaker 1: weaponization of these bureaucracies, agencies that we put our trust
Speaker 1: in and that abused the system abused, the American voter abused.
Speaker 1: The president of the United States of America and his
Speaker 1: family and his friends and anyone that was around him
Speaker 1: did whatever they wanted, and no one has yet to
Speaker 1: pay the price. No one. So I think the issue
Speaker 1: for us as Americans is like we're waking up now,
Speaker 1: you know, the beast is rising, and people are saying,
Speaker 1: wait a minute, is there a two tiered system of justice?
Speaker 1: Does it even matter if we bring the proof? Would
Speaker 1: it even matter if we showed up with all of
Speaker 1: the ballots that we're not fed into the system? Would
Speaker 1: anyone even care? Because this is the problem that I have.
Speaker 1: There are people that hate President Trump so much, people
Speaker 1: that may have had integrity in the past, that if
Speaker 1: they had the chance to remove him, I think they
Speaker 1: would do anything and everything they could to do that,
Speaker 1: including breaking the law. I believe that we heard about that,
Speaker 1: they saw that happen, you know. So for me, I
Speaker 1: you know, I hope that she can prove it. I
Speaker 1: believe in her. I have faith in her. I know
Speaker 1: it's a little bit longer of an answer than you
Speaker 1: expect it, but but I wanted to make it clear.
Speaker 1: Sarah Carter, everybody, Sarah a Carter dot Com for her
Speaker 1: latest Follow her also on Twitter, and listen to her show,
Speaker 1: The Sarah Carter Show. Sarah, my friend. Always great to
Speaker 1: talk to you. Thanks so much. Oh, thanks so much
Speaker 1: for having me on Buck. You're in the Freedom. This
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sex and Show Podcast. Yeah. I think
Speaker 1: a lot of the guidelines you're seeing are Orwellian. Let
Speaker 1: me start by saying, the CDC has put out considerations
Speaker 1: as we prepare to go about Thanksgiving about socially distancing,
Speaker 1: wearing masks, doing what you can, and there's a whole list,
Speaker 1: a page of very good considerations, And in that they
Speaker 1: say we're not recommending a certain number of people, but
Speaker 1: we are giving considerations that you should put in place.
Speaker 1: And I think that's the American way. The American people
Speaker 1: know how to protect their health. We've dealt with COVID
Speaker 1: for many months. But it's Orwellian in a place like
Speaker 1: organ to say if you in numbers more than six,
Speaker 1: we might come to your house and arrest you when
Speaker 1: you get thirty days of jail time. That's not the
Speaker 1: American way. We don't lose our freedom in this country.
Speaker 1: We make responsible health decisions as individuals. Amen to that,
Speaker 1: going to arrest you, they say in Oregon, they're gonna
Speaker 1: arrest you, or at least they can, and I hope
Speaker 1: they don't do what they say they have the power
Speaker 1: to do. Is not the way we function in a
Speaker 1: free society. That's not what the constitutionally guarantee liberty is
Speaker 1: by being an American. And yet that's where we are.
Speaker 1: People are okay with this. There's police power now that's
Speaker 1: going to be used to prevent you from gathering with
Speaker 1: your family because of the very small possibility that you
Speaker 1: may transmit a virus for which there is a very
Speaker 1: small possibility that you will die. Oh okay. Explain to
Speaker 1: me again how this won't be abused in the future.
Speaker 1: Explain to me again, how we aren't a society that's
Speaker 1: increasingly being conditioned to just shut up. Do we're told
Speaker 1: by the experts and the elites, no matter how often
Speaker 1: they're wrong, no matter how much they violate the Bill
Speaker 1: of Rights, doesn't matter. Right, do what you're told, peasant?
Speaker 1: When do we say it's enough? When have we all
Speaker 1: had enough? I'm already there. Who's with me? Who wants
Speaker 1: to start something else? Who wants to push a movement
Speaker 1: here to nullify these unconstitutional insanities. Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: The Busson Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcast,
Speaker 1: at the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Team Buck, it's time for roll. Call Facebook dot com,
Speaker 1: slashbuck sexon or Team Buck at iHeartMedia dot com. Don't
Speaker 1: forget it. Check in at buck Sexton dot com for
Speaker 1: all of the latest and greatest on our site there
Speaker 1: and please bookmark it. Check in on it. It's a
Speaker 1: place you can listen to the podcast of the show.
Speaker 1: It's also a place where we're posting new stories. I'll
Speaker 1: be posting editorials I have been, I won't be posting more.
Speaker 1: So please do make that a part of your daily routine.
Speaker 1: So we want to check it in on our buddy
Speaker 1: producer Mark. Hey, producer, Mark, How you doing good? How
Speaker 1: are you Buck? I don't like that it's thirty something
Speaker 1: agrees in New York. I didn't sign up for this.
Speaker 1: That's why I just stay indoors. Temperature is always the
Speaker 1: same in here. Probably a good move, but you know,
Speaker 1: if you move to Pennsylvania, I know you're in New Jersey.
Speaker 1: Move to Pennsylvania. You got a mask up indoors now too,
Speaker 1: in my own apartment. Yeah, if anyone else is there,
Speaker 1: that's the rule. No, thank you. Yeah, that's not happening.
Speaker 1: That's right, that's not happening. See, they're just gonna keep
Speaker 1: pushing until we say blank off. We should get one
Speaker 1: of those little beet buttons so I can just go
Speaker 1: beep whatever I want to say, something that I'm allowed
Speaker 1: to say, we bleep it. I can always just edit
Speaker 1: it in. That's true too. But I'm just saying we go,
Speaker 1: we got we got bleeps, we got things I gotta say.
Speaker 1: I'm just hoping New Jersey doesn't mess up indoor dining
Speaker 1: before my anniversary. Oh you going Italian? No, we're going
Speaker 1: to like a some trendy place. My wife wanted to go. Hey,
Speaker 1: you know, she's the wife. She wants to romance romantic, Fine,
Speaker 1: whatever you want. Yeah. I mean you don't really strike
Speaker 1: me as generally a scented candles guy, but you gotta
Speaker 1: make the lady happy. I actually do like scented candles. Really,
Speaker 1: what's wrong with them? I don't know, nothing wrong with
Speaker 1: your house spelling? Nice? Hey okay, hey, hey, you know
Speaker 1: producer Mark full of surprises for everybody good to know.
Speaker 1: So all right, now, let's see what the folks think
Speaker 1: of and the roll call here, let's get into some
Speaker 1: of this. Ralph Hey Bugger producer Mark input on the
Speaker 1: student loan section of the November sixteenth show. I have
Speaker 1: a teaching degree through student loans. I've made three hundred
Speaker 1: dollars a month plus in monthly payments for fifteen years
Speaker 1: and have only paid ten thousand dollars toward the principle,
Speaker 1: which is forty nine thousand, five hundred dollars. I had
Speaker 1: to go to college to get a sufficient job to
Speaker 1: raise my family. The current interest rate is five point
Speaker 1: seven five percent, which ensures the loan will never be
Speaker 1: paid off of my lifetime. I'm sixty five now, I'm
Speaker 1: not a liberal and feel I have a worthwhile degree
Speaker 1: in a field that pays very little. The loan structure
Speaker 1: needs to change to a bank loan format so loans
Speaker 1: can be paid off in a timely manner. Otherwise, the
Speaker 1: student loan system is another unlimited income source for the FEDS.
Speaker 1: Shield tie, I signed not a privilege eighteen year old kid, Ralph. Look,
Speaker 1: I sympathize which with your situation, my friend, and these
Speaker 1: loans they are. They're non dischargeable, so that I have
Speaker 1: to remember they're non dischargeable and anyone can get them
Speaker 1: regardless of credit history or ability to pay. So in
Speaker 1: that sense, they're not normal loans. I mean when you
Speaker 1: go to get a loan for a house, they want
Speaker 1: to see income, they want to see bank statements, they
Speaker 1: want to see you know, your job, they want to
Speaker 1: see all these things because they're taking a risk. You
Speaker 1: don't want to do this. But if you take out
Speaker 1: a mortgage for a home and then you can't pay it,
Speaker 1: you can walk away from that. You know, you could
Speaker 1: mail in the keys to the bank and say here
Speaker 1: you go. Now that'll ruin your credit for at least
Speaker 1: ten years and it's not a good thing, and they'll
Speaker 1: send collections after you and ever. But you can discharge
Speaker 1: it in bankruptcy usually. I mean, I don't know that
Speaker 1: much about this, but I do know that it is
Speaker 1: possible to walk away from a house and then the
Speaker 1: bank is stuck with a home that they have to sell.
Speaker 1: And you know that that's how this goes. But there's
Speaker 1: a risk factor into this for you and for the bank.
Speaker 1: With student loans, it's okay, we're gonna give this to you.
Speaker 1: We're gonna give you this this amount of money for
Speaker 1: your loans, and this is the rate you're gonna pay
Speaker 1: it back, and you can never get out of this.
Speaker 1: It's really it's effectively impossible. I mean, I've heard of
Speaker 1: some stories of getting out of it, but it's basically impossible. Well,
Speaker 1: that's not the way that the mark it's supposed, that's
Speaker 1: not the market working. This is this is government policy
Speaker 1: enacted through a loan program. So, Ralph, I I sympathize
Speaker 1: with you getting a you know, a teaching degree through
Speaker 1: student loans. I mean, if the government really is going
Speaker 1: to do what it's doing right now, what they should
Speaker 1: say is if you go into certain public sector or
Speaker 1: public interest work, there'll be a government forgiveness of your loans.
Speaker 1: But then what you have is effectively the taxpayer subsidizing
Speaker 1: certain degrees. And Ralph, I'd be very curious, maybe you
Speaker 1: want to write and tell us. And I asked this
Speaker 1: question all honesty, could you have done your teaching job
Speaker 1: without getting an advanced degree? You know, I'm just I'm
Speaker 1: just wondering, could you have done your teaching job that
Speaker 1: I'm assuming you've got a master's here although I'm trying
Speaker 1: to most public schools do require a master's at least eventually,
Speaker 1: right right, That's okay, so exactly my point here. So
Speaker 1: if you need a master's to teach, do you really
Speaker 1: that's a a certific cation requirement. But I'm asking you, Ralph,
Speaker 1: do you think that you could have been a great
Speaker 1: teacher without that masters? Because that's the way to really
Speaker 1: rethink it. And I'm not saying this is on you.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying the system. Why do public schools require this?
Speaker 1: Isn't a bachelor's degree enough to teach kids, especially if
Speaker 1: you're gonna if you're gonna specialize in a subject. And
Speaker 1: so that's what I mean. I think there's a lot there.
Speaker 1: Brian Rights just on an article saying that regular and
Speaker 1: double stuff oreos that are gluten free will be here
Speaker 1: come January. Thoughts, great show is always gentlemen shields high Well, Brian,
Speaker 1: that's good news and bad news. Good news in that
Speaker 1: oreos are delicious, bad news in that I'm trying to
Speaker 1: fit into my suits again and it's coming along slowly
Speaker 1: here and double stuff oreos are not going to help
Speaker 1: in that process. Pucer Mark Favorite Cookies M Favorite package chookie.
Speaker 1: Absolutely out of the chocolate cream. Oreos the best. Yeah,
Speaker 1: what are the uh do you remember a cookie's called
Speaker 1: the hydros or something like that. Do you remember that
Speaker 1: from a long no idea? What that is? They're like
Speaker 1: the rip off oreos, you know, they're like the fakey oreos,
Speaker 1: you know, the newman zones. Oreos like the healthy It's
Speaker 1: it's like an off brand. It's like the off brand Oreos.
Speaker 1: They're not as good. Yeah, and oreos. I used to
Speaker 1: eat them because I used to be a gluten eater
Speaker 1: for first thirty years of my life. And oreos are delicious,
Speaker 1: I will say that. And if you the problem is
Speaker 1: if you dunk them in milk. They're so easy to
Speaker 1: consume that you can knock off a whole sleeve oreos
Speaker 1: and you're just like, oh, that wasn't that wasn't hard.
Speaker 1: I don't even want to know how many calories are
Speaker 1: gonna sleeve of oreos. I don't even need to need
Speaker 1: the milk. I can just knock off a sleeve of orios.
Speaker 1: That's why I don't keep them in the house. Yeah No,
Speaker 1: And they'd be dangerous for me to have around. Oreos.
Speaker 1: I'll just I'll just h it's very the gluten free
Speaker 1: orios that are coming out. I gotta there has to
Speaker 1: be a treat that I see at people's houses for
Speaker 1: parties or something, and then I'll have one or two
Speaker 1: and that's it, all right, But who's buying gluten free
Speaker 1: oreos for a party? People that that Buck is coming
Speaker 1: to their house Producer Mark, Yeah, but then they're gonna
Speaker 1: be like, hey, Buck, take the rest of this because
Speaker 1: we're not going to eat them. That is true. I
Speaker 1: do end up getting sent home with the gluten free
Speaker 1: products that people buy to be kind to me when
Speaker 1: they know him coming to their house, and then I
Speaker 1: eat them and you know, crackers and all that stuff. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's the life. What can I tell you? Friends, Don
Speaker 1: bucking Mark, regular listener of your program since March. Mark,
Speaker 1: you do a great job. I have read Gates of
Speaker 1: fire Buck upon your recommendation, and found it a very
Speaker 1: inspiring story. I think that US freedom lovers of today
Speaker 1: should adopt the Spartan's attitude to fight the rampant corruption
Speaker 1: in our federal government. Now. I appreciate every time I
Speaker 1: hear you say shields high, Don. I am not a
Speaker 1: big novel readery. Really. I'm a history guy and a
Speaker 1: nonfiction guy for books, but I just I thought Gates
Speaker 1: of Fire was fantastic. It's a Stephen Pressman novel, historical fiction,
Speaker 1: and it's amazing. It's just really well written. It's just
Speaker 1: it's great and there's so much in and it's so
Speaker 1: rich the way he does it. So I'm glad you
Speaker 1: enjoyed Gates of Fire. Highly highly recommended. I think you'll
Speaker 1: Anyone else who hasn't read it, I will really enjoy it.
Speaker 1: And thank you for listening. Great to have a new,
Speaker 1: relatively new listener to the show. Joseph buck Obama says,
Speaker 1: we would not expect the kind of behavior from children
Speaker 1: if they lost that Trump is displaying. No, the behavior
Speaker 1: we wouldn't expect is the kind of crying, kicking, and
Speaker 1: screaming that the Democrats displayed when they lost the twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen elections. It bothers me how much they ignore their
Speaker 1: own actions and they act high and mighty as they
Speaker 1: condemn people who have behaved far more maturely than they
Speaker 1: ever did or have. Yeah, Joseph, I mean that's a
Speaker 1: big part of I think the mentality right now that
Speaker 1: conservatives have around all of this is that we're being
Speaker 1: kind of lectured by the other side about decorum and
Speaker 1: how to act when they are the ones. They are
Speaker 1: the ones that we're marching out in the streets screaming
Speaker 1: my president and acting like lunatics and screaming at the sky.
Speaker 1: When Hillary lost in twenty sixteen and took it those
Speaker 1: many steps further into the Russia collusion hoax, took it
Speaker 1: those many steps further into pretending something happened that didn't
Speaker 1: just to make themselves feel better. The whole thing is
Speaker 1: honestly an outrage, but no accountability, no accountability in this whatsoever.
Speaker 1: They just they've gotten away. Look, they've gotten away with it.
Speaker 1: I wish I could say otherwise, but this is what
Speaker 1: they're doing. This is what they're up to. Pete. Is
Speaker 1: there a place to see a compilation of all these
Speaker 1: races across the country. How many mayors, governors, representative centers, etc.
Speaker 1: For the local the federal level won their Republican races,
Speaker 1: Democrat or other. Pete. I'm sure there is, but I
Speaker 1: don't know of one off hand. But there's lots of
Speaker 1: maps and data crunching, and you know, this is all
Speaker 1: over the all over the interwebs now, so you should
Speaker 1: be able to find it if you google it up.
Speaker 1: But if you find it great one, please send it
Speaker 1: into us and maybe we can share it here on
Speaker 1: the show, share it on bucksexon dot com. But yeah,
Speaker 1: that is one of the big outstanding questions here. How
Speaker 1: is it that Republicans did so well in the House.
Speaker 1: How is it the Republicans had such a strong showing
Speaker 1: in other ways but Joe Biden managed to beat Trump. Anyway,
Speaker 1: It's not that it's impossible, but it does raise some questions.
Speaker 1: It doesn't it doesn't prove fraud, but it does indicate
Speaker 1: that there's something funky. As I like to say, what
Speaker 1: is that funky smell? We don't know. Why don't we
Speaker 1: find out? Let's find out what the funky smell is? Right,
Speaker 1: Producer Mark, Yeah, you use a candle. Discussed this before,
Speaker 1: exactly cover up the funky smell with a scented candle.
Speaker 1: Do you have a favorite? Are you like a sage
Speaker 1: and and you know ce salt guy or something? What
Speaker 1: do you what do you go for? I mean, I
Speaker 1: was like a nice vanilla candle something like that. Now
Speaker 1: I'm just picturing Producer Mark and missus Mark's house in
Speaker 1: New Jersey, like Enya is always playing in the background,
Speaker 1: and you guys have you know, dim dim lights and
Speaker 1: uh and candles go. First of all, I don't own
Speaker 1: a house yet. Second of all, look, I mean what
Speaker 1: I didn't really candles were abnormal? No. I like candles.
Speaker 1: I like you will even talk about lighting candles in
Speaker 1: your own I'm a big fan. I'm a big fell
Speaker 1: I don't like the scented ones in much. I just
Speaker 1: like candles in general. I think that they're they're soothing.
Speaker 1: But you know, I'm just trying to get a sense
Speaker 1: of what it's like over at the Casa cosa day
Speaker 1: producer Mark. I forgot the one we had recently, but
Speaker 1: it smelled amazing. It wasn't vanilla. It was like some
Speaker 1: sort of pumpkin spiced cheesecake thing, like something like like
Speaker 1: dessert flavored. I mean, I would say we should start
Speaker 1: a candle called like Essence or Freedom Hut, but it
Speaker 1: would be this smell left over after you char grill
Speaker 1: a riby, after you've cooked bacon on the same pan
Speaker 1: that morning, mixed with a lot of coffee mugs that
Speaker 1: still have like a coffee ring around them because you
Speaker 1: haven't cleaned them yet. I don't know. I don't know
Speaker 1: if that's really what people need. You know, I can't
Speaker 1: imagine a lot of cleaning goes on in the freedom
Speaker 1: mund No, it's I need help sometimes. The good thing
Speaker 1: is when the snow Princess comes over for visits. I
Speaker 1: need this to not be like a hazmat suit only environment.
Speaker 1: So I basically termed my entire domicile into some form
Speaker 1: of of you know, content creation. Now. I mean I've
Speaker 1: got wires everywhere and cameras and lights and everything else.
Speaker 1: So I try to create little areas of calm. So
Speaker 1: that's where that's where the candles come in, you know,
Speaker 1: I create the little little corner. I do have a
Speaker 1: giant couch that we call old Gray, and it's way
Speaker 1: too big for the space, but I don't care because
Speaker 1: two people can comfortably not uncomfortably comfortably sleep on this
Speaker 1: thing at one time. It's an l shape, and I
Speaker 1: gotta say that thing is my salvation man. You know,
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, it'll just you just
Speaker 1: fall into it. It's this big, fluffy gray hug. It's amazing.
Speaker 1: It's like me and my recliner. Yeah, oh, you gotta
Speaker 1: is it lazy boy? I know something from like Raymond
Speaker 1: Flanningen or something. Yeah, it's nice. You gotta have your chair.
Speaker 1: Every every man's got to have that comfy chair. I
Speaker 1: do the show, you know. I do radio. For anybody
Speaker 1: who watches our videocast, if it, they'll see it. I
Speaker 1: do radio in a chair. This chair that I do
Speaker 1: it in is falling apart. I've had to tape parts
Speaker 1: of it back together and everything else. But something about
Speaker 1: this chair is so comfy, you know. And when you
Speaker 1: find that comfy chair, it's like that comfortable sweatshirt you've
Speaker 1: had for ten years that just feels better than all
Speaker 1: the other sweatshirts. You're in the Freedom Hunt. This is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show podcast, rolling on with Roll Call Brandy,
Speaker 1: because there are enough time for these lawsuits brought on
Speaker 1: by the Trump campaign to play out. What happens if
Speaker 1: December comes, the states have to make this election official
Speaker 1: and there's still litigation happening, Brandy. There are deadlines. There
Speaker 1: are deadlines for state certification, deadlines for electoral college. And
Speaker 1: we will have a president by We will have a
Speaker 1: president by an auguration day, that's for sure. The system
Speaker 1: is set up in that way, and if they can
Speaker 1: still be having they can still have lawsuits pending. But
Speaker 1: if the process continues, unless the judge is going to
Speaker 1: shut down things like the certification, we're gonna it moves along,
Speaker 1: I think, is the answer here. So we will have
Speaker 1: a president as of January twentieth. And there's a lot
Speaker 1: of ways this could go. But as I've been saying,
Speaker 1: do you prepare yourselves, friends, prepare yourselves for the very
Speaker 1: serious possibility that it is it is Biden who ends
Speaker 1: up as the president here. I'm not saying give up,
Speaker 1: and I'm just saying, psychologically, get ready for that. I
Speaker 1: don't want you to be, you know, caught unaware or
Speaker 1: not not that you really could be. At this point,
Speaker 1: we all know he's ahead in the electrocompet I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, prepare yourself for that psychologically, because we might
Speaker 1: we might be making that switch at some point and
Speaker 1: it's disappointing, but that's where we are. We operate here
Speaker 1: in the real world, right one of the one of
Speaker 1: the principle of this show. We operate in the world
Speaker 1: as it is, not as we wish it would be.
Speaker 1: Chris Hey buck Love, the show listen every day. Great job,
Speaker 1: thanks for keeping us posted with the news. Love the
Speaker 1: Hillary impersonation. You had to be rolling with the Hillary
Speaker 1: Halloween trick or treat. I hear you talking about the
Speaker 1: Democrat governors and mayors and how terrible they're handling the
Speaker 1: COVID deal, calling them out. Don't forget to rip on
Speaker 1: King Polis, our tyrannical governor in Colorado and his sidekick
Speaker 1: Michael Hancock, the terrible mayor of Denver who has ten
Speaker 1: cities all over and together they let the peaceful protesters
Speaker 1: spray paint the capitol. It's sad and disgusting. So give
Speaker 1: them hell, well, Chris, I'm giving them hell right now. Absolutely. Polis,
Speaker 1: the governor of California, California, the governor of California as
Speaker 1: a different governor. The governor of Colorado is doing a
Speaker 1: terrible job and we all know that. And it's a
Speaker 1: shame the Colorado has become this state that's blue, such
Speaker 1: a beautiful place, so much going for it. But that's
Speaker 1: the issue. Democrats. They leave the places they've ruined, as
Speaker 1: we know, and then they want to ruin other places
Speaker 1: with the same failed policies, the same bad ideas. So
Speaker 1: that's that's something that we have to find an antidote too.
Speaker 1: We have to find a way to push back against that.
Speaker 1: Otherwise we're gonna keep on running into the same problems,
Speaker 1: the same same nonsense. Friends, that's the show for today.
Speaker 1: Please pass the buck. Share the podcast with someone in
Speaker 1: your life. Be like, Hey, check out this guy Buck,
Speaker 1: and then just text it to him, email it to
Speaker 1: him until tomorrow. Shields hig