Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Twenty states are ready
Speaker 1: to reopen. Does hydroxy chloroquan work? A new study out
Speaker 1: the cast, some doubts will get in the latest with that,
Speaker 1: plus a mother arrested for letting her kids play in
Speaker 1: a park, The un is warning that famines are coming
Speaker 1: around the globe, what to do about the second wave
Speaker 1: of infection that could happen? And the war in election safeguards?
Speaker 1: Guess who's waging it? The left? That and more coming up.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake America. Here a great American again, The
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show begins. Analyst, he's a great guy. Now,
Speaker 1: twenty states, representing forty percent of the US population, have
Speaker 1: announced it. They are making plans and preparations to safely
Speaker 1: restart their economies in the very near future. So that's
Speaker 1: twenty states. It's about forty percent of our country. They're
Speaker 1: moving along pretty quickly. Three announced today, as you know,
Speaker 1: and they're going to be doing it safely. They're going
Speaker 1: to be doing it with tremendous passion. They want to
Speaker 1: get back to work. The country wants to get back
Speaker 1: to work. Welcome to the buck Sex and show everyone
Speaker 1: the President expressing the sentiment that so many of us
Speaker 1: have that we do want the country to get back
Speaker 1: to work. We all want to be able to get
Speaker 1: back to work. They're varying degrees we're able to continue
Speaker 1: or not, but we need America to be doing what
Speaker 1: we need to do. Once again, we have given weeks
Speaker 1: and weeks of our lives to this lockdown effort, a
Speaker 1: lockdown effort that still has i would say questionable, questionable
Speaker 1: data to support that the full lockdown was necessary. I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna say it was wrong. I'm just saying it's
Speaker 1: questionable and in some places, and if you look at
Speaker 1: it state by state, you see one part of the
Speaker 1: issue is that if you take it all as a
Speaker 1: national lockdown, yes or no, well, then you're gonna you're
Speaker 1: gonna edge closer toward well, I guess we have to
Speaker 1: be more cautious and go to the national lockdown. If
Speaker 1: you do the state by state, there are some states
Speaker 1: that quite clearly did not need to have a cessation
Speaker 1: of business like other states did. There's that's just at
Speaker 1: this point, I don't know how you can justify telling
Speaker 1: tens of millions of people in certain states that because
Speaker 1: there are there have been a few thousand infections that
Speaker 1: are established, and we got to talk more about the
Speaker 1: urology testing situation today. But a few thousand tests or
Speaker 1: five thousand, ten thousand, you're going to shut down all
Speaker 1: business and social social distancing. The mitigation measures that are
Speaker 1: in place, they seem to be they seem to be working,
Speaker 1: so that's been positive. But we can continue those. We
Speaker 1: can continue those even as we try to engage in
Speaker 1: more normal lives. You know, the debate here is still
Speaker 1: not go back to full on normal. No one thinks
Speaker 1: that we're gonna be able to flip the switch and
Speaker 1: everything's going to be the way that it was before
Speaker 1: all of this happened. But we're never going to get
Speaker 1: there if we wait for the risk to be zero.
Speaker 1: And I think that's the change in consciousness that's happened
Speaker 1: at this point. I think that's where people have finally
Speaker 1: started to see a shift in their thinking. Some of
Speaker 1: us have been worried about this all along. I mean,
Speaker 1: I've been concerned about this, trying to raise those concerns
Speaker 1: here on the show, and I just also think that
Speaker 1: the first person who yells across my at least six
Speaker 1: foot air barrier of virus safety to put on a
Speaker 1: mask or else they're going to call Mayor de Blasio's
Speaker 1: snitch line. Even though I'd be walking entirely alone except
Speaker 1: for talula, in open air on a generally empty street
Speaker 1: in NYC. They are going to find me very disagreeable
Speaker 1: to that little dictatorial impulse. They're going to find that
Speaker 1: I do not like that and do not respond well
Speaker 1: to it. And I know that there is now a
Speaker 1: statewide order in effect, but some of these statewide orders
Speaker 1: are of dubious constitutionality and legality. We have been accepting them,
Speaker 1: but if we chose to challenge them, the state would
Speaker 1: have a very hard time proving some of this is
Speaker 1: in fact within its remit in court. But they're doing
Speaker 1: it anyway. They're doing it anyway, and that's that's concerning you.
Speaker 1: For the past month. If you brought up any concerns
Speaker 1: about creeping state tyranny as I have, you've been told
Speaker 1: to shut up, you've been told you want Grandma to die,
Speaker 1: and you've been told to stay inside. Peasant Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: has Jenny's ice Cream to eat in front of her
Speaker 1: twenty five thousand dollar Viking fridge, well stocked by the servants.
Speaker 1: I would note Nancy Pelosi guarantees she has quote, they
Speaker 1: don't call them servants anymore. They call them staff. I
Speaker 1: did not grow up rich, but I grew up among,
Speaker 1: you know, in close proximity to the rich here in
Speaker 1: New York City, and I know that some of the
Speaker 1: proper terminology for the high falutin folks. It's not you
Speaker 1: don't call them servants, you call them staff, even if
Speaker 1: you make them wear one of those old time butler
Speaker 1: or made uniforms. Trust me, Nancy Pelosi's got a bunch
Speaker 1: of people maintaining the castle for her while she's telling
Speaker 1: the rest of us to stay locked indoors. But for
Speaker 1: the past month, if you brought any of this up,
Speaker 1: that you were treated terribly. And now we have mothers
Speaker 1: being dragged away in front of their children for the
Speaker 1: crime of getting fresh air in a playground and jogging
Speaker 1: on a beach is treated like a public menace. Many
Speaker 1: of us have been warning all along ye about just
Speaker 1: what is going to happen the moment the government has
Speaker 1: too much power, the moment that we start to say,
Speaker 1: the Bill of Rights no longer counts. You can tell
Speaker 1: us whether we have freedom of assembly, You can tell
Speaker 1: us whether we are freedom of speech, what we're allowed
Speaker 1: to say? This is very troubling, you know. One of
Speaker 1: the areas of the digital era, of the digital revolution
Speaker 1: in which we live, that I have always found to
Speaker 1: be a remarkable step forward true progress. I feel like
Speaker 1: progressives have ruined the word progress for many of us,
Speaker 1: but it is still a good word, still got usage.
Speaker 1: But one area of true progress has been the notion
Speaker 1: of the major social media platforms as free speech havens.
Speaker 1: Now we've all found out the hard way that's not
Speaker 1: really true. But how not true is it? YouTube ceo
Speaker 1: Susan producer Mark, how do we? I mean? This is
Speaker 1: a Polish one. I don't know if you know Polish
Speaker 1: better than me. Chickie sure, why not? Why do chickie,
Speaker 1: I'll go? Or why cheeky? That's a tough one anyway,
Speaker 1: the CEO of YouTube and pardon me, I should know
Speaker 1: her name, but you know, we're doing a show here
Speaker 1: and I didn't look this one up beforehand, so that's
Speaker 1: on me. But ce CEO Susan will call her had
Speaker 1: this to say, about what will be a remove now.
Speaker 1: We're all trying to find out more facts, have a conversation.
Speaker 1: All big study on hydroxy chloroquins come out and people
Speaker 1: are celebrating, Oh, more people are gonna die now because
Speaker 1: we don't have a drug that can actually help keep
Speaker 1: them alive. The journalists are all going see and they're
Speaker 1: secretly going yeah, because they're blaming it on Trump like psychopaths.
Speaker 1: I actually reached out and sent the study too, and
Speaker 1: I've had a conversation with an infectious disease specialist whom
Speaker 1: I know quite well, and I have a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of data from a professional analysis, I should say, from
Speaker 1: a professional based on that data that I will share
Speaker 1: with you today that you will not see from the
Speaker 1: mainstream media. But YouTube supposed to be a place where
Speaker 1: you can share your thoughts on matters of public policy. Right.
Speaker 1: This is Look, this is not hate speech. This is
Speaker 1: not you know, threatening anybody or causing violence or instigation
Speaker 1: of violence or anything like that. This is open public
Speaker 1: discussion what should we do about the pandemic. YouTube CEO
Speaker 1: Susan had this to say about what they'll pull down
Speaker 1: from that site. Play too. But then we also talk
Speaker 1: about removing information that is problematic. Of course, anything that
Speaker 1: is medically unsubstantiated to people saying like take vitamin c
Speaker 1: um you know, take tumoranic like those are all will
Speaker 1: cure you. Those are the examples of things that would
Speaker 1: be a violation of her policy. Anything that would go
Speaker 1: against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of
Speaker 1: her policy. And so remove is another really important part
Speaker 1: of our policy. Remove that's a that's a nice way
Speaker 1: of saying censorship. This is YouTube engaging in censorship on
Speaker 1: behalf of the who the who, who what what archamedies. No,
Speaker 1: the World Health Organization, that's the same organization that we
Speaker 1: know told the world in the middle of January, Oh,
Speaker 1: it turns out they didn't think there was any evidence
Speaker 1: of human to human transmission of this virus that is
Speaker 1: now largely shut down the world. The organization that has
Speaker 1: been doing China's bidding and that has been praising China
Speaker 1: in recent weeks for its response to this crisis. Yes,
Speaker 1: that organization. If you disagree with them, or if you
Speaker 1: tell people to what take more vitamin C or what
Speaker 1: goes against WHO recommendations, I would wonder or wearing a
Speaker 1: mask if you said you need to wear a mask
Speaker 1: a month ago, that would have been against the wa
Speaker 1: H mandate, it seems. And if you now don't wear
Speaker 1: a mask, you're against the man. And the mandate keeps changing.
Speaker 1: For those who actually understand history, the idea that consensus
Speaker 1: around ideas of medicine and around science consensus matters is
Speaker 1: is a very dangerous one. The facts matter, data matters.
Speaker 1: Consensus is often political. Consensus means nothing. If you're curious,
Speaker 1: you could go back and read about how there were outbreaks,
Speaker 1: outbreaks of cholera in Great Britain stretching into the middle
Speaker 1: of the nineteenth century, and at that point in time, London,
Speaker 1: you know, you're talking about eighteen sixties, eighteen seventies, eighteen eighties,
Speaker 1: London is really the intellectual and scientific center of the world.
Speaker 1: I mean, London was considered a more more sophisticated in
Speaker 1: those regards than anywhere else, perhaps even including the United States,
Speaker 1: and the overwhelming majority of doctors in London would have
Speaker 1: told you in the eighteen seventies and the eighteen eighties
Speaker 1: that the reason you would have gotten cholera, which is
Speaker 1: a very very dangerous bacteria that's water borne it actually
Speaker 1: comes from human human waste. That's how it has transferred.
Speaker 1: So human waste gets into the water and it spreads
Speaker 1: very very rapidly. In your fatality rate if you get
Speaker 1: it within twenty four hours is about forty percent. So
Speaker 1: it is a vicious disease and kills people very quickly.
Speaker 1: The theory was called the myasthma theory or miasmatic theory,
Speaker 1: and it was that there was a noxious form of
Speaker 1: bad air that gave you cholera. Now you might say
Speaker 1: about why are you bring this up, because that was
Speaker 1: the expert consensus and the most advanced and sophisticated medical
Speaker 1: community in the world at the time. Now that's not
Speaker 1: to say that there's no such thing as signed. You know,
Speaker 1: if I if I have a bad needo strap throat,
Speaker 1: I'm antbiotics. Right, I'm not saying that that science is
Speaker 1: in science. I'm merely saying that was their theory. They
Speaker 1: didn't have proof, but they tried to bludgeon other people
Speaker 1: with consensus, and consensus is not science. So for right
Speaker 1: now to hear people say, oh, well, whatever the World
Speaker 1: Health Organization says, does the World Health Organization get to
Speaker 1: weigh in on whether the virus came from a lab
Speaker 1: or came from the wet market in Wuhan. Are you
Speaker 1: allowed to go against that? I want to know where
Speaker 1: the censorship stops and starts with what the consensus on
Speaker 1: these issues may be. We have petty totalitarianism rising in
Speaker 1: states across the country where we just shouldn't see it.
Speaker 1: No one should be arresting a mom for wanting to
Speaker 1: be out in the air with their child. It's just stupid.
Speaker 1: We all know that it's wrong, and we should expect
Speaker 1: that any government official would know that. We're seeing that happen,
Speaker 1: and we're also seeing the shutdown of free and open
Speaker 1: discourse about an area where the models have been wrong,
Speaker 1: the experts have been wrong. We did not see this coming.
Speaker 1: They do not know how to treat this, They do
Speaker 1: not know how to cure this. But they want everyone
Speaker 1: to just shut up and stay inside. I think that's
Speaker 1: a big problem, my friends. I think we need to
Speaker 1: keep pushing for real answers. This does not mean we
Speaker 1: have an excuse to be reckless and disregard facts in data.
Speaker 1: It means let's really look at the facts and data
Speaker 1: and what people are going to just chime in with
Speaker 1: all the experts said, the consensus is, prove it to me.
Speaker 1: Do not try to silence me by waiving a fancy
Speaker 1: degree that someone else or some other group of people
Speaker 1: have when they won't be the ones making the argument
Speaker 1: about why I can't take a walk in a park
Speaker 1: without a mask on my face. You're in the freedom mind.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sex and Show podcast. We will
Speaker 1: continue to see mortality and death among our American citizens,
Speaker 1: particularly in the cities as they begin to move past peak,
Speaker 1: because death a lie, and so we really need to
Speaker 1: continue to unite and really, really really support our healthcare
Speaker 1: providers who are still on the front lines. They have
Speaker 1: been on the front lines now for weeks and weeks
Speaker 1: and weeks, and so no matter what city they have
Speaker 1: been in, they have not seen the relief that we've
Speaker 1: been able to talk about at the light at the
Speaker 1: end of the tunnel because of the delay in hospitalizations
Speaker 1: and deaths. To our healthcare providers, to our respiratory therapists,
Speaker 1: and to everyone in the labs, thank you for the
Speaker 1: work that you're doing to protect Americans and give us
Speaker 1: one of the lowest mortality rates in the entire world.
Speaker 1: A lot of important things out there and I wanted
Speaker 1: to make sure that I also always balance out my
Speaker 1: dispute is with the policy medical experts and the way
Speaker 1: they're influencing national policy, dictating on the national policy outside
Speaker 1: of their purview of expertise, and it is inherently therefore
Speaker 1: both in economic and political matter, and that's a separate
Speaker 1: issue from the doctor's nurses and everyone who who are
Speaker 1: just trying to keep alive, our friends, families, relatives, everybody,
Speaker 1: everybody out there right now who's dealing with this. So
Speaker 1: I always like to make sure that we establish that separation.
Speaker 1: You know, it is a brave thing to show up
Speaker 1: every day now as a nurse, as a doctor, as
Speaker 1: an EMT, and expose yourself to people who have high
Speaker 1: high levels of this virus, a virus we still really
Speaker 1: don't understand very well and have a lot that we
Speaker 1: have to learn about. I will talk about that hydroxy
Speaker 1: chloroquine study. I have some really worthwhile insights from a
Speaker 1: true expert for you on that. But I also just
Speaker 1: wanted to note that how often do you hear that
Speaker 1: America has the lowest you know, the America having the
Speaker 1: lowest fatality rate from everything that we can see so far,
Speaker 1: is largely we can't really establish a specific percentage, but
Speaker 1: largely a function of those healthcare workers. I do not
Speaker 1: think it is a function of our policy, because other
Speaker 1: countries had lockdown policies too. I mean, he'll never really
Speaker 1: be able to see true numbers on this, but I
Speaker 1: would note that there are there are other other ways,
Speaker 1: other other factors that you'd have to look at here.
Speaker 1: But our doctors are doing really, really good work with
Speaker 1: what they have. They have a very limited tool kit,
Speaker 1: which is tragic. You know, the ventilators. We've heard so
Speaker 1: much about ventilators. Your chance of coming off a ventilator,
Speaker 1: if you go on at least by all New York
Speaker 1: State data and we've had the most cases, is one
Speaker 1: in five. That's very it's disconcerting. Now one in five
Speaker 1: isn't you know, isn't one percent? But it's obviously not
Speaker 1: as high as we would want it to be. We
Speaker 1: need more weapons, we need more tools for our first responders. Also,
Speaker 1: I mentioned you the the myasthma theory actually comes from
Speaker 1: the ancient Greek word for pollution, which I think is
Speaker 1: just an interesting uh. You know, we have we have
Speaker 1: these terms, these medical terms that we still use today.
Speaker 1: I've mentioned you before that influenza comes from Italian sailors
Speaker 1: and I believe the fourteenth century talking about how they
Speaker 1: thought that the disease was the influence the stars. That's
Speaker 1: where influenza comes from. Okay, this is the term that
Speaker 1: we still use to this day. Malaria is a term
Speaker 1: from medieval Italian that means bad air, which people also
Speaker 1: thought it was the it was the bad air that
Speaker 1: made you sick. They didn't realize that it was a
Speaker 1: parasite that was transmitted through the bite of an infected mosquito,
Speaker 1: and that human beings were the were the you know,
Speaker 1: the hosts, and that the mosquitoes were the reservoir for this.
Speaker 1: So there's a lot that we still have to learn,
Speaker 1: a lot that we have to get into this fight now.
Speaker 1: I want to spend a little bit of time on
Speaker 1: because this has become so political, and I'm seeing already
Speaker 1: liberals who are saying that hydroxy chloroquin because this one
Speaker 1: study came out of France and like the studies, results
Speaker 1: are not good for those who want a better weapon
Speaker 1: against the disease, which I would think everybody would be
Speaker 1: in favor of. But there's some people that can't get
Speaker 1: out of their way on this one. But it's not
Speaker 1: it's not a definitive and it's not as clear as
Speaker 1: they say. And I've told you when there have been
Speaker 1: encouraging results about hydroxy chloroquine that are anecdotal. Well, I'm
Speaker 1: going to tell you about what aspects of this study
Speaker 1: that we've seen are not definitive and do require more study,
Speaker 1: more scientific rigor. And it's too too soon to tell
Speaker 1: is the real answer about hydroxy choricuin. But I want
Speaker 1: to tell you why because I don't think a lot
Speaker 1: of people are going to get this one right. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to the bus sets and show podcasts. Remember
Speaker 1: to subscribe on Apple podcasts, the iHeart Radio app, or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. You wanted to five quin.
Speaker 1: I'm wondering if if you're concerned this VA study showed
Speaker 1: that actually more people died that used the drug that didn't.
Speaker 1: And I'm wondering if if the Governor Cuomo brought you
Speaker 1: back any result. No, I'm discuss said, and I don't
Speaker 1: know of the report. Obviously, there have been some very
Speaker 1: good reports and perhaps this one's not a good report,
Speaker 1: but we'll be looking at it. We'll have a comment
Speaker 1: under there's some panel of experts at the NIH is
Speaker 1: actually now recommending against the use of hydroxychlorical in combination
Speaker 1: with zpac, which is something new. I'm always willing to
Speaker 1: take a look. Okay, Notice how all along here we
Speaker 1: have been told that this is somehow political, that the
Speaker 1: President trying trying in some way to encourage people. Encourage
Speaker 1: people by pointing out that there's some good information about
Speaker 1: a drug that Remember, this is not drinking some random
Speaker 1: substance in the hopes that's a miracle cure. This is
Speaker 1: a long decades long approved by the FDA drug that
Speaker 1: is really helpful for people with lupus, with rheumatoid arthwright is,
Speaker 1: and who don't want to get malaria, which I had
Speaker 1: to work with a guy once who had malaria, like
Speaker 1: who had to relapse a malaria. It can actually relapse too,
Speaker 1: I would note, it's ay at the parasite can come back.
Speaker 1: It's a it's a terrible as it was explaining to
Speaker 1: me when I was going over to Africa for the
Speaker 1: first time on assignment by the government to a place
Speaker 1: where malaria was everywhere, really bad. Malaria was everywhere. I
Speaker 1: was going to be but it's I was told, whatever
Speaker 1: the drug is, you got to take take it because
Speaker 1: you really don't want malaria. Okay, it's a nasty, nasty disease.
Speaker 1: I remember working with the guy who had the relapse
Speaker 1: and he was just, oh, he's in really bad shape.
Speaker 1: So we know that it works for other things. We
Speaker 1: know that it's safe enough to take that. Remember, there's
Speaker 1: always a balance when you take tailanol. And by the
Speaker 1: if you go speak to a certain doctors who are neurologists,
Speaker 1: I mean they'll tell you people that take a lot
Speaker 1: of talent all for headaches, very hard on your stomach.
Speaker 1: You really, you know, thailan al can mess you up,
Speaker 1: and better not just tilent all any of these NSAIDs
Speaker 1: that you take out there, there's just it's hard on
Speaker 1: your system, it's hard on your liver. You really don't
Speaker 1: want to be a heavy drinker and use those things.
Speaker 1: And this is all on the label, right, This is
Speaker 1: I'm not telling you anything that you don't know if
Speaker 1: you ever read the label of a of an ibuprofen
Speaker 1: or thailanol or any of the rest of it. Point
Speaker 1: here is that there's a trade off in the drugs
Speaker 1: and with this study on hydroxy chloroquine. We're being told, well,
Speaker 1: let me tell you what it actually says. Amilaria drug
Speaker 1: widely touted by President Donald Trump, this is for treating
Speaker 1: the new coronavirus, showed no benefit in a large analysis
Speaker 1: of its use in US veterans hospitals. There were more
Speaker 1: deaths among those given hydroxy chloroquin versus standard care. Researchers reported.
Speaker 1: The nationwide study was not a rigorous experiment, but with
Speaker 1: three hundred and sixty eight patients, it's the largest look
Speaker 1: so far of hydroxy chloroquin with or without. The antibiotic
Speaker 1: is zethromycin for COVID nineteen, which has killed more than
Speaker 1: one hundred and seventy one thousand people as of Tuesday. Okay,
Speaker 1: this is all in political right. That's a quote from
Speaker 1: this political article the study was posted, so is this.
Speaker 1: The study was posted online for researchers and has been
Speaker 1: submitted to the New England Journal of Medicine, but has
Speaker 1: not been reviewed by other scientists. Grants from the National
Speaker 1: Institutes of Health and the University of Virginia paid for
Speaker 1: the work. Okay, friends, this sounds really This sounds like
Speaker 1: you know, game over for hydroxychloroquinn. And I will just
Speaker 1: note it is appalling that there are people that seem
Speaker 1: to be eager to report this story and have a
Speaker 1: whole ha ha told you Trump was sharing this. Trump
Speaker 1: so bet this is about giving people who are on
Speaker 1: death store in a hospital with a with a very debilitating,
Speaker 1: painful and lethal disease, giving them a chance to beat it.
Speaker 1: I give you my word on my word of honor.
Speaker 1: If you know, Chuck Schumer was out there saying, hey, guys,
Speaker 1: I saw this drug study and it looks pretty good
Speaker 1: for COVID patients if they take the following. Let's hope
Speaker 1: it's true, which is all Trump has said. Trump didn't
Speaker 1: say it works. He's saying, let's hope. It's like I've
Speaker 1: seen some things. Let's hope. I promise you I'd say,
Speaker 1: I hope Chuck Schumer is right and that this study
Speaker 1: does prove. I mean, we all want we all want
Speaker 1: the same thing, or we should want the same thing here,
Speaker 1: which is more weapons for our healthcare providers to fight
Speaker 1: the invisible enemy of this virus and protect more people,
Speaker 1: protect more lives, save more people. But there's an an obvious,
Speaker 1: a visible glee with which some in the media report
Speaker 1: on this, and you do end up asking yourself, how
Speaker 1: deranged have they really become? When even under these circumstances,
Speaker 1: the most important thing to them is that Trump looks bad.
Speaker 1: There's no disappointment at this drug not necessarily working the
Speaker 1: way that we were hoping. No one said it was
Speaker 1: a cure. I should say, no one in the Trump
Speaker 1: administration said it was a cure. I don't know what
Speaker 1: everybody says, but the Trump administration was not misrepresenting this
Speaker 1: at all. But it's also not over friends. You'll see
Speaker 1: that whenever a study comes out like psurology tests, all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, ever becomes an expert in scientific experimentation,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, they'll be said, oh, there's no
Speaker 1: there's no control group. Oh there's no h you know,
Speaker 1: there's nothing, nothing that you can do to look at
Speaker 1: this that makes it prove anything, right, I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: there they tear apart studies that, remember, beating the virus
Speaker 1: has been conflated in a lot of journals and Democrats
Speaker 1: minds with coold for Trump. Therefore, Mumm a little conflicted
Speaker 1: about some aspects of this. You know, at a little
Speaker 1: you know, sure they would say they want to save
Speaker 1: every life. Of course they would say that. But yet
Speaker 1: whenever there's a story that could promote the ability of
Speaker 1: the administration to handle this better, or that it's not
Speaker 1: perhaps going to be as bad as we had been told,
Speaker 1: there's this very clear this this part is in divide
Speaker 1: in the way that people view this, and I find
Speaker 1: that very troubling. But this study that now, and I
Speaker 1: saw the bill, there were people that we're kind of
Speaker 1: spiking the football. See hydroxy chloroquin doesn't work the way
Speaker 1: that you were told it does. Well, that's that's really
Speaker 1: bad news for humanity. Okay, we want drugs that are
Speaker 1: going to save people here, we want things that are
Speaker 1: going to work. But it's also not true. This is
Speaker 1: just yet another data point among many. And we don't
Speaker 1: remember what I said. It's not about consensus. It's about science.
Speaker 1: It's about facts. It's about what is true, what is provable,
Speaker 1: what can be replicated as a result. And here is
Speaker 1: what a friend of mine, and really on all these issues,
Speaker 1: a kind of mentor or right, I said, look, Keny,
Speaker 1: you got to break this study down for me. What
Speaker 1: are we said? Is this game over for hydroxy chloroquin?
Speaker 1: And I can tell you this is somebody who I have.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've entrusted my health and my life too
Speaker 1: in the past on some serious stuff. This is a
Speaker 1: guy who really really knows his stuff, and he's very,
Speaker 1: very highly regarded. But he like he lives a private
Speaker 1: life as an MD. And I'm not I told him
Speaker 1: I just would use his analysis. I'm not gonna, but
Speaker 1: he's an infectious disease specialist. He said. This is what
Speaker 1: This is his response. You know, the media, Politico, everyone's
Speaker 1: own NPR. The study shows a hydroxy chloroquin. His garbage
Speaker 1: doesn't work for this the dangerous drug. In fact, more
Speaker 1: people died who took hydroxy chloroquin. Here's what he says. Quote.
Speaker 1: This is probably the worst of study designs. It is
Speaker 1: retrospective analysis with no stated methods as to how patients
Speaker 1: were assigned one of the three treatment arms. In addition,
Speaker 1: the three groups were not entirely comparable and all were
Speaker 1: sick enough to be hospitalized. A key indicator of prognosis,
Speaker 1: fibrine degradation products, was not even measured, So although it
Speaker 1: may be proven true in subsequent prospective trials, we should
Speaker 1: also understand that proponents of the use of hydroxy chloroquine
Speaker 1: in various combinations with other drugs, all suggest that the
Speaker 1: drug is most effective when used early, well before patients
Speaker 1: qualify for hospitalization. This is similar to the way we
Speaker 1: use otomivie. This is how you know this came from
Speaker 1: an expert, because I don't even how to pronounce this stuff.
Speaker 1: Oseltomivir or baloch savie for influenza unless started within seventy
Speaker 1: two hours of onset of viral symptoms, these effective, proven
Speaker 1: and licensed drugs have little or no demonstrable effect on
Speaker 1: the course of influenza. However, we still routinely will use
Speaker 1: them in advanced late beyond seventy two hours influenza patients
Speaker 1: who are sick enough to be admitted to the hospital.
Speaker 1: It will be interesting to see if this article is
Speaker 1: even accepted by a reputable journal, meaning the study is
Speaker 1: even accepted by a reputable journal. Oh wait a second,
Speaker 1: you mean there's a lot more layers here, There's a
Speaker 1: lot more research and work that needs to be done.
Speaker 1: I've been telling you this four weeks now. The real
Speaker 1: experts who are looking at this and who are and
Speaker 1: he's somebody who's his hospital is treating large number of
Speaker 1: COVID patients. He's looking at all the data from those trials.
Speaker 1: I have another friend who's a doctor out in Brooklyn.
Speaker 1: He's treating large numbers of COVID patients and looking at
Speaker 1: and then they were using hydroxy chloroquin on them, and
Speaker 1: it seemed like works for some people, doesn't work for
Speaker 1: other Well, it's not random. There's some reason why it
Speaker 1: would work for some and not others, and we'd have
Speaker 1: to get to the bottom of that. But notice how
Speaker 1: the politics drives the narrative, not not the science. We
Speaker 1: already know. So you see what he's explaining. Here is it?
Speaker 1: For First of all, this this study is there's a
Speaker 1: lot of holes, there's a lot of weakness in the study.
Speaker 1: But we already know that there are the most effective
Speaker 1: anti virals we use for influenza, remember fourteenth century Italians
Speaker 1: influenza influence of the stars. We already know that you
Speaker 1: have to take it early on, or else the viral
Speaker 1: replication gets to the point where you can't really you know,
Speaker 1: the horse has already left the barn, right, you're got
Speaker 1: you gotta get to it within a certain timeframe or else.
Speaker 1: And this is even true of tamiflu, which I'm assuming
Speaker 1: maybe that's what osel tamavir. That's probably what it is actually,
Speaker 1: now that I think about it, I'm just guessing that
Speaker 1: might not. You know, it's not medical advice, but you
Speaker 1: have to take these drugs early on or else they
Speaker 1: have no effect. That's true of So why would that
Speaker 1: be so strange with hydroxychloroquine because people were, you know,
Speaker 1: the regulators were a little bit gun shy about giving
Speaker 1: hydroxy chloroquine to people. You know what they've done. They've
Speaker 1: said it's only going to people in hospitals. Who shows
Speaker 1: up at hospitals now with COVID nineteen that small but
Speaker 1: substantial percentage of people that have extreme symptoms. So you're
Speaker 1: already looking at people who have had a lot of
Speaker 1: virus replication inside of them and are in bad shape.
Speaker 1: It may be too late for hydroxy chloroquine to switch
Speaker 1: that off. The primary threat to individuals once they get
Speaker 1: to that phase is the least the primary threat that
Speaker 1: we're seeing that causes causes fatality. We know the lung
Speaker 1: shutdown and they don't function. But why it's ards it's
Speaker 1: this inflammatory syndrome in the lungs had come from something
Speaker 1: called a cytokine storm. Well, if you already have enough
Speaker 1: virus in your system that you're you've arrived at the
Speaker 1: cytokine storm phase. Even if you're starting to fight back
Speaker 1: on that virus replication, the inflammatory and immune response in
Speaker 1: your lungs may be too much and you might die anyway. Now,
Speaker 1: this is theorizing, but it's theorizing, and I'm barring. These
Speaker 1: are theories I'm barring from actual mds and people that
Speaker 1: work in infectious disease, not you know, no offense. I
Speaker 1: love dermatologists. They do great work too, but I'm talking
Speaker 1: with people look at an infectious and now that they
Speaker 1: do infectious disease too in a way, but you know
Speaker 1: they you see, you see what I'm saying. People that
Speaker 1: this is their realm of expertise. So I remember, I
Speaker 1: think there was it wasn't there a Seinfeld episode where
Speaker 1: Jerry said something about dermatologists and then and then they're
Speaker 1: like our dermatologists And then uh, I think George or
Speaker 1: Somebody's like, yeah, Jerry, skin cancer and he goes, oh, no,
Speaker 1: he was dating a dermatologist and she claimed to save
Speaker 1: lives and he said she doesn't save lives and he
Speaker 1: called her out for it, and then she was creating
Speaker 1: skin cancer. Thank you, thank you. That's right, yes, yes,
Speaker 1: So I don't dermatologist legit mds that do very important stuff.
Speaker 1: I just mean that this is within the spet the
Speaker 1: doctors I'm talking about this, this is within their specialty
Speaker 1: of dealing with infectious disease um. You know, somebody on
Speaker 1: on social media actually called out Alex Barrinson, who we have,
Speaker 1: who we had on the show, who's one of the
Speaker 1: few people willing to ask questions about the dominant narrative
Speaker 1: about COVID nineteen and all of this, and someone was
Speaker 1: yelling at him on Twitter, you know your wife is
Speaker 1: not even is not even a physician, esusy chiatrists. Psychiatrists
Speaker 1: go to medical school, have an MD and are in
Speaker 1: fact physicians. Alex I think appreciated on Twitter. I explained
Speaker 1: this to some of the angry masses who people really
Speaker 1: don't want to believe what he's telling them, which is just, hey,
Speaker 1: look at the numbers. It's not it's bad. It's not
Speaker 1: as bad as they're saying. That's the message that gets
Speaker 1: you in trouble. These days. Things are bad. We all
Speaker 1: know that the economy is in really bad shape and
Speaker 1: we're losing a lot of people from this virus, and
Speaker 1: things are bad, but the virus itself is not as
Speaker 1: bad as they told you it would be. And that's
Speaker 1: the message that gets you in so much trouble right now.
Speaker 1: It's also why when you bring up the possibility of
Speaker 1: a therapy that is useful in fighting against this disease,
Speaker 1: especially if it's something that the president and not just
Speaker 1: the president. A lot of people have talked about hydroxy
Speaker 1: chloric wine. Doctors have been going on TV talking about
Speaker 1: hydroxy chloric wine. Oh, but Tom Hanks's wife says that
Speaker 1: it gave a really bad side effects. Yeah, there are
Speaker 1: side effects. We've always known that about the drug. People
Speaker 1: are not aligned here with what is righteous and what
Speaker 1: is good. They're not turning toward the light on this
Speaker 1: issue because the politics of the moment have blinded them.
Speaker 1: We don't the answer about hydroxy chloroquine is we don't
Speaker 1: have the answer. But people that are trying to act
Speaker 1: like we do and shut this whole thing down. I
Speaker 1: know there's a change in the CDC guidance about it.
Speaker 1: What's because they don't know? But we shall see my friends,
Speaker 1: it is too early to tell. That's a different thing
Speaker 1: from we know. And haha, Trump was wrong, which is
Speaker 1: bizarre on a whole bunch of levels. You're in the
Speaker 1: freedom hunt. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Corona
Speaker 1: is really saying to Americans, says, hey, wait a minute, folks,
Speaker 1: It's important to listen to the experts. It's important to
Speaker 1: listen to scientists. It's important to find a baseline of
Speaker 1: truth and make the choices on it. So coronavirus, maybe
Speaker 1: America and the world's great wake up goal with respect
Speaker 1: to the challenge of climate because this is coming at us.
Speaker 1: If you think pandemics are bad today, why do you
Speaker 1: have the warming at a greater level than it is now?
Speaker 1: And we're headed there. Every scientific report and judgment shows
Speaker 1: that we are heading into amazing negative impacts. The feedback
Speaker 1: loops or in the earth are just horrendous right now.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to go through them all. But so
Speaker 1: that's that's the meaning of the deaths thus far. And
Speaker 1: yesterday was the highest number of deaths. And still this
Speaker 1: president is avoiding responsibility for testing. Just all blather and
Speaker 1: talking points and nincompoopery from John Kerry that's really that's
Speaker 1: his expertise, nincompoopery. What the heck is he talking about?
Speaker 1: The lesson of COVID nineteen is climate change and how
Speaker 1: much worse climate change is going to make these these
Speaker 1: people that they really they have been brainwashed, and maybe
Speaker 1: perhaps their efforts to brainwash other people has seeped into
Speaker 1: their own brains and they really believe their own bs. Now,
Speaker 1: maybe that's where they this is. Maybe they know this
Speaker 1: is the reality of their own mindset. We're in the
Speaker 1: middle of this pandemic, and you want to tell us
Speaker 1: that we should be worried about climate change. That's all
Speaker 1: based on models. So you want to talk about listen
Speaker 1: to experts. Climate change is all about models. Models have
Speaker 1: been wrong for climate change consistently now for really as
Speaker 1: long as I've been alive. The experts on climate change
Speaker 1: tend to usually be people who are like lawyers who
Speaker 1: work for big international NGOs, who are leveraging some scientific
Speaker 1: consensus when the real consensus doesn't exist. But the tyranny
Speaker 1: that you're feeling right now are on this issue. They
Speaker 1: will use this on climate change in the future. Mark
Speaker 1: my words. Thanks for listening to the Bus Sesson Show. Podcasts.
Speaker 1: Remember to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. You also campaigned on reducing
Speaker 1: legal immigration, and I'm wondering if some critics are saying
Speaker 1: that you are using the virus now in this crisis
Speaker 1: to follow through on that promise to reduce legal in her. No, No, well,
Speaker 1: I want people that are in this country. I want
Speaker 1: our citizens to get jobs. I don't want them to
Speaker 1: have competition. We have a very unusual situation where something
Speaker 1: came in that nobody has seen for many, many decades.
Speaker 1: Probably nineteen seventeen would be the closest analogy if you
Speaker 1: look at it, when you look at the contagion, the
Speaker 1: kind of contagion we're talking about. So no, I'm not
Speaker 1: doing that at all. I want I want the American
Speaker 1: worker and the American or American citizens to be able
Speaker 1: to get jobs. I don't want them to compete. Right now,
Speaker 1: President saying he's suspending immigration because national security reasons. Of course,
Speaker 1: we don't want additional virus cases brought into the country,
Speaker 1: and also he doesn't want Americans at a time and
Speaker 1: we're losing tens of millions of jobs. Unpresident of Job
Speaker 1: losses competing with non Americans for those jobs. Sarah Carter
Speaker 1: is an investigative reporter. She also is a dear friend
Speaker 1: of mine and a Fox News contributor. I like to
Speaker 1: think that being my dear friend is more important than
Speaker 1: being a contribute you know, who knows. But anyway, Sarah Carter,
Speaker 1: I just realized I threw that in the middle. I'm like, well,
Speaker 1: if I should probably give a resume first. But anyway,
Speaker 1: Sarah Carter, thank you so much for joining us. Dear
Speaker 1: friend is definitely at the top of the list. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I'll I'll take it. You don't have to put that
Speaker 1: on your official resume, but but I'll take it. No,
Speaker 1: it is on my official resume. But Sexton is my
Speaker 1: dear friend. Here we go. So so, Sarah, I know,
Speaker 1: you know you we want to talk about the crossfire
Speaker 1: hurricane stuff because you've been all over that story for
Speaker 1: years now and had been breaking lots of news on it,
Speaker 1: and I think people think of your investigative journalism work
Speaker 1: on that as much as anybody in the field, if
Speaker 1: not the premier person in that field. But yeah, I
Speaker 1: know you also do a lot on the border, and
Speaker 1: when the border was a really hot topic. I used
Speaker 1: to come to you to get insights about your travels
Speaker 1: in Central America and what you're hearing from Border Patrol.
Speaker 1: Given the crisis right now, the president's decision to try
Speaker 1: and suspend immigration, what are you hearing from CBP, the
Speaker 1: challenges that they face, and just what's going on in
Speaker 1: our southern border right now. Well, I gotta tell you
Speaker 1: from the very beginning, CBP our US Customs and Border
Speaker 1: Protection officers that are out there on the border, on
Speaker 1: the front lines every day. We're very concerned. There are
Speaker 1: a number of custom and Border Protection officers who have
Speaker 1: been exposed to the coronavirus uh there. You know. Of course,
Speaker 1: those that do have it have been pulled off the
Speaker 1: front line until they can get better and recover. That's
Speaker 1: a big issue. I did speak with Patricia Kramer, she
Speaker 1: is a union rep for the very front front line
Speaker 1: officers at the ports of entry. There was a lot
Speaker 1: of concern and there still is a growing concern. It's
Speaker 1: a story I'm actually working on right now that even
Speaker 1: though people aren't allowed into the country, there's quite a
Speaker 1: bit of traffic going into Mexico and then coming back in,
Speaker 1: so they you know, they've been fighting fighting that, you know,
Speaker 1: saying that their officers are being exposed. And as far
Speaker 1: as you know, the suspension, the sixty day suspension of
Speaker 1: immigration across the board, I think it's a vitally important
Speaker 1: buck because you're looking at a number of issues here, economics,
Speaker 1: exposure of our officers, the disease which is still rampant
Speaker 1: and spreading in other parts of the world as well
Speaker 1: as here in the United States, and people got to
Speaker 1: get a grasp on this, and especially on the economic side.
Speaker 1: You know, one of the biggest problems we have right
Speaker 1: now is how are we going to get Americans back
Speaker 1: into the workforce. Some of these businesses, especially small businesses,
Speaker 1: have been lost now completely. We know that some of
Speaker 1: these businesses are not coming back, and Americans need to
Speaker 1: be the first in line to get the jobs. Once
Speaker 1: the economy, which it will come back, you know, gets going,
Speaker 1: we have to be able to get Americans back into
Speaker 1: the workforce, get our economy pumping again like it was before.
Speaker 1: The President's doing the right thing, and anyways, it's more
Speaker 1: toorium right now. Is happening at a time when we
Speaker 1: already have a moratorium on this, This just buys more
Speaker 1: time for the administration and for the government to figure
Speaker 1: out who and what needs to take priority, and that
Speaker 1: of course is the American people and our law enforcement
Speaker 1: officials on the front line. Did you see the mattel
Speaker 1: In Albright. The mattel In Albright quote. You know, she's
Speaker 1: been somebody who's very very friendly to you know, free
Speaker 1: trade with China. That's actually not free trade. As we know,
Speaker 1: she's been enriching herself for a long time on that one.
Speaker 1: That people have been talking about that for the last
Speaker 1: few days. But she said that it's almost like the
Speaker 1: president wants to shut down the country and it's an
Speaker 1: American about the border, and everyone's sitting around like, I
Speaker 1: can't even leave my house, lady. The country is shut down.
Speaker 1: The country is shut down, and this is the issue.
Speaker 1: When people were still coming back and forth across the border,
Speaker 1: and a lot of and believe me, this was happening
Speaker 1: even under the president's directive. There were quite a few
Speaker 1: supervisors on the front line and people were saying, well,
Speaker 1: we're going to still let the traffic flow back and forth.
Speaker 1: I did write a story on that where they were
Speaker 1: coming back and forth. And then you have other officers
Speaker 1: that are right there working the front line, saying, whoa wa,
Speaker 1: wait a minute, why are we being exposed? If our
Speaker 1: families are forced on lockdown, how can people come across
Speaker 1: the border here to the United States to buy milk
Speaker 1: or to visit family or vice versa. People leaving the
Speaker 1: United States who have family in Mexico or who are
Speaker 1: shopping in Mexico there. You just can't do that when
Speaker 1: you're trying to stem an outbreak of this magnitude, especially
Speaker 1: whether or not you know, the statistics are all right,
Speaker 1: and you know, you and I have both pointed this out,
Speaker 1: you know, on these random stats, whether or not that's happening.
Speaker 1: The American people are on lockdown. I mean, I'm lucky
Speaker 1: if I hit to Safeway every day, you know, to
Speaker 1: go pick up groceries. That's my trip out of the house,
Speaker 1: right and you know, sometimes walking with my daughter around
Speaker 1: our neighborhood just to get exercise. So if we're on lockdown, well,
Speaker 1: then why should we have our border wide open for
Speaker 1: people to travel in and out. There is a reason
Speaker 1: why this administration is doing that. It's smart and it's
Speaker 1: it's actually beyond just the mitigation of the spread of
Speaker 1: this disease. It's bringing us back to what we need
Speaker 1: to do, and that has put Americans first economically that
Speaker 1: we can move ahead. And if there is a place
Speaker 1: and a time where we will be reopening the border,
Speaker 1: there has to be priorities in place. And you know,
Speaker 1: Madeline Albright has always been a globalist apologist, along with
Speaker 1: quite a few other people. They definitely are the antithesis
Speaker 1: to President Trump, directly opposite and is thinking of putting
Speaker 1: America first. This is about globalism, and we have to
Speaker 1: be very careful about, you know, people that really want
Speaker 1: to push this global idea of you know, opening our borders.
Speaker 1: You know past NAFTA deals, all of these Iran deals
Speaker 1: that were so bad that President in Trunk basically just
Speaker 1: eliminated and renegotiated. And he did that for a reason.
Speaker 1: He did that to put the American worker first. And
Speaker 1: we're speaking to Sarah Carter. If you have not already,
Speaker 1: you should go to Sarah Acarter dot com. That's her
Speaker 1: site where she's posting stories and including the investigative pieces
Speaker 1: that often blow a huge hole in the deep state narrative,
Speaker 1: especially around issues of Russia collusion and well the absence
Speaker 1: of Russia collusion. But Sarah, before we moved, before we
Speaker 1: moved to that topic and your your latest work on that,
Speaker 1: because I know we have these footnotes declassified now that
Speaker 1: we can see from the Inspector General report that are
Speaker 1: some in a normal circumstance, if we didn't have a
Speaker 1: global pandemic, everybody would be saying, wow, that's a big story.
Speaker 1: But right now it's getting overshadowed as everything is. One
Speaker 1: more on the coronavirus situation of Mexico where you were
Speaker 1: talking about the border in our border security. Mexico has
Speaker 1: not yet been hit that badly by COVID nineteen, but
Speaker 1: as of today, there's all these reports that they I mean,
Speaker 1: they've had Mexico City, for example, has had half of
Speaker 1: Mexico's eight thousand, seven hundred seventy two cases, thirty five
Speaker 1: percent of the seven hundred and twelve deaths. And now
Speaker 1: Mexico's over one hundred million people. It's a large country.
Speaker 1: They've had very few of these cases. Are they expecting
Speaker 1: there to be a major spike and if that happens,
Speaker 1: what is border patrol things going to happen on our end?
Speaker 1: That's right, it's a great question, and it is something
Speaker 1: that not only the medical community is looking at, but
Speaker 1: I can tell you that you know, the intelligence community
Speaker 1: is looking at and our law enforcement officials. It would
Speaker 1: stand to reason, according to sources that I've spoken to,
Speaker 1: that Mexico and Central America will see spikes in the
Speaker 1: spread of COVID. Now, every nation is different, and how
Speaker 1: they classify and can you know, get their statistics is different,
Speaker 1: and also environments are different. So that is something that
Speaker 1: they're going to be looking at whether or not the
Speaker 1: warmer weather as summer comes around, will that mitigate the
Speaker 1: spread of this virus. But remember, book, there will be
Speaker 1: a two medical officials, a concern that there will be
Speaker 1: a second wave, and a lot of people who have
Speaker 1: been talking about, oh, coming up with a vaccine. Will
Speaker 1: we have a vaccine in the future, Will that could
Speaker 1: be years from now, that could be two to four
Speaker 1: years from now, if they ever find a vaccine that
Speaker 1: actually is really going to work against this because remember,
Speaker 1: viruses and pathogens, they mutate, they change, and that's always
Speaker 1: been the problem when we try to stay one step
Speaker 1: ahead of the flu every year. You know, sometimes the
Speaker 1: flu vaccines are effective, other times they're not effective. Because
Speaker 1: that means there's a different strain of it coming around.
Speaker 1: But I can tell you this talking to people in
Speaker 1: Central America, this is a big, big concern for them.
Speaker 1: I spend a lot of time in Guatemala. I know
Speaker 1: a lot of the senior Guatemalan officials in the government
Speaker 1: from the previous government of President Ruralis and some who
Speaker 1: are currently in this new administration. They are watching it
Speaker 1: very carefully. They're working very closely with US officials on
Speaker 1: this and trying to monitor. But gosh, buck, you've traveled
Speaker 1: to a lot of the similar places that I've traveled
Speaker 1: to around the globe, and you know there's a lot
Speaker 1: of areas of poverty in Central America as well, and
Speaker 1: it's very very difficult to get the right medical officials
Speaker 1: in those areas. It's very very difficult. And also, I
Speaker 1: would have concerns that if you're going to have you know,
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen and you have some of the economic devastation
Speaker 1: that we've had in this country, if that starts to
Speaker 1: filter you know, south of us, we can handle it
Speaker 1: better certainly than those economies can. And the possible influx
Speaker 1: of what you would what the you know, the left
Speaker 1: will refer to them as COVID refugees, even though we
Speaker 1: have COVID here that could very well becoming and I
Speaker 1: think that's that's a concern that we all have to
Speaker 1: keep an eye on. That's why the president shutting the
Speaker 1: borders might be a prescient decision at this point, shutting
Speaker 1: down immigration, I should say. But Sarah, also, just because
Speaker 1: we've got we've got a few minutes for this one.
Speaker 1: You've been following Crossfire, Hurricane, the FBI's bogus investigation into
Speaker 1: President tromp or Russia collusion in the twenty sixteen election,
Speaker 1: and there were some big stuff that came out on
Speaker 1: the Inspector General Horowitz Report, new stuff from the footnotes
Speaker 1: that are now declassified. What can you tell us about it?
Speaker 1: I think this is probably some of the biggest news,
Speaker 1: and unfortunately we're not seeing a lot of the major
Speaker 1: news outlets report on this. The American people must be
Speaker 1: informed about what happened here and these footnotes that were
Speaker 1: declassified by Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson, the senators that
Speaker 1: have been investigating and really pushing for the DNI. That's
Speaker 1: the director Acting Director of National Intelligence, Writt Grill, as
Speaker 1: well as the Attorney General to declassify these footnotes basically
Speaker 1: exposed in a nutshell that the FBI, senior members of
Speaker 1: the FBI and the Crossfire Hurricane Team, as well as
Speaker 1: I believe from what I'm hearing from my sources, other
Speaker 1: members like John Brennan, James Clapper, former Obama officials knew
Speaker 1: all along, knew all along book that this information is
Speaker 1: Russian disinformation. Basically, what Christopher Steele put in his dodgy dossier,
Speaker 1: the debunked dossier, was actually information supplied to him by
Speaker 1: some Russian connected Kremlin sources that were putting disinformation into
Speaker 1: the dossier to a harm President Trump and to harm
Speaker 1: our elections, to harm our nation and to divide and
Speaker 1: see a chaos. The question is, knowing that they knew this,
Speaker 1: why did they continue to do it, and what is
Speaker 1: their culpability in this? You know, from the beginning, I've
Speaker 1: always said this appeared to be a soft coup from
Speaker 1: senior Obama administration officials that did not want candidate Trump
Speaker 1: to become president, and if he did, they wanted to
Speaker 1: take him down. And more and more what we're seeing
Speaker 1: is that they were very aware that they were the
Speaker 1: ones actually colluding with Russia, that they were actually spreading
Speaker 1: Russian disinformation and Jess as a footnote to all of that,
Speaker 1: before you let me go, I spoke yesterday to Nigel West,
Speaker 1: a former parliamentarian from great as well as an expert
Speaker 1: on intelligence, written a number of books and did an
Speaker 1: investigation into Christopher Stile back in twenty seventeen and what
Speaker 1: he discovered from Christopher Stiele's report. And by the way,
Speaker 1: this was somebody who was friends with Christopher Stiele, so
Speaker 1: this isn't somebody who hated him by any means. This
Speaker 1: is somebody who was asked to conduct an investigation. After
Speaker 1: looking at Christopher Stile's numerous reports, because there were actually
Speaker 1: seventeen reports that he actually did on the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: he concluded that Christopher Stile made up the report that
Speaker 1: he was basically this none of the report was actually
Speaker 1: true in the intel business, so you know, we'd call
Speaker 1: him a fabricator. He's a fabricator, a fabricator exactly that
Speaker 1: he fabricated this report, which is really stunny. Now. He
Speaker 1: may have had and according to others he did have
Speaker 1: some connections to Russian sources, and he did, but the
Speaker 1: thing was the way he described his sources. The way
Speaker 1: he describes his sourcing, there was just no way he
Speaker 1: could have had this information from any legitimate sources. So
Speaker 1: what we see now is that Christopher SiO basically was
Speaker 1: a fabricator and the information that he did put in
Speaker 1: there that seemed the most salacious was just actually Russian
Speaker 1: disinformation from Russian intelligence from their GRU and FSB. And
Speaker 1: so if it looks like the Democrats themselves were the
Speaker 1: ones that were duped by the Russians, and for those
Speaker 1: that weren't duped, they should answer the question to the
Speaker 1: Attorney General and to Prosecutor John Durham, if you knew
Speaker 1: this was Russian disinformation, why did you assist in spreading it?
Speaker 1: Sarah Carter, Everybody, Sarah, please stay on this story because
Speaker 1: we're gonna need to find out what the resolution is here.
Speaker 1: And if we don't keep the pressure on, we know
Speaker 1: they're gonna You and I both know the old Potomac
Speaker 1: two step. They'll sweep it under the rug unless folks
Speaker 1: like you stay on it. So thank you for all
Speaker 1: your work on that. Everyone should be following Sarah on
Speaker 1: social media. Sarah Carter dot com is your website, Sarah,
Speaker 1: thanks so much. Thanks so much, but great to be on.
Speaker 1: You're in a freedom money. This is the Buck Sex
Speaker 1: and Show podcast. It is happening in the context of
Speaker 1: Congress having gone on recess for a month. We are
Speaker 1: going to pass a small potatoes bill and then we
Speaker 1: are talking about recessing again until May fourth, and if
Speaker 1: we are going to bring every member or call back
Speaker 1: almost every member who can back to DC to pass
Speaker 1: a small incremental bill and with the knowledge that we
Speaker 1: are not coming back until next month again, that's two
Speaker 1: rent checks. And the last time we left again, we
Speaker 1: lost over one nine eleven's worth of people due to
Speaker 1: this lack of action. We lost a nine elevens worth
Speaker 1: of people to lack of action. How that's quite a
Speaker 1: thing to say. And that's AOC as you know, the
Speaker 1: favorite young member of Congress for the for the left,
Speaker 1: and they've realized, you know, Bernie Sanders, Folks, you're not
Speaker 1: going to be hearing much more about that guy much longer.
Speaker 1: You know Bernie Sanders. You know, he had he had
Speaker 1: his several runs at the Office of the Presidency, and
Speaker 1: it's not going to happen. They're going to have to
Speaker 1: start looking to build the next generation of left wing
Speaker 1: statuss and build, build them up, and AOC is certainly
Speaker 1: very close to the top of that list, if not
Speaker 1: already at the top of that list. But notice the
Speaker 1: language being used here. I mean, I think it's important
Speaker 1: to drop in on the progressives in Congress to understand
Speaker 1: what the longer term game is. A small potatoes bill. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm willing to to say that, clearly they didn't lay
Speaker 1: out enough money. Everyone knows this, that's why they had
Speaker 1: to then. But when we're going to start referring to
Speaker 1: five hundred or so, I think it's four hundred and
Speaker 1: eighty something was the actual, but close to a half
Speaker 1: a trillion dollars of short term spending as a small
Speaker 1: potatoes bill, it's clear that we have lost all sense
Speaker 1: of proportion and also are very kind of blithely gliding
Speaker 1: toward real economic catastrophe. If half a trillion dollars of
Speaker 1: spending could be described by anybody as small potatoes, we
Speaker 1: got big problems. And the Democrats along are seeing this
Speaker 1: as no matter what happens with the spending, this is
Speaker 1: an opportunity. This is setting the stage going forward for
Speaker 1: a whole lot more spending. The ramifications of this, my friends,
Speaker 1: on a policy level, will last well beyond this virus.
Speaker 1: And that's even if the virus stretches to be a
Speaker 1: menace for a couple of years. Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: the bus seton show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcasts,
Speaker 1: the iHeart Radio app, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: No amount of money, not all the money in China
Speaker 1: will save us from ourselves. Our only hope of rescuing
Speaker 1: this great country is to reopen the economy. If you
Speaker 1: print up billions of dollars and give it to people,
Speaker 1: they are unlikely to spend it until you end the quarantine.
Speaker 1: The good news, though, is that the scientific community finally
Speaker 1: has facts instead of conjecture. The question. The question before
Speaker 1: us isn't do nothing or print endless amounts of bailout cash.
Speaker 1: The debate should now include the one choice that we'll
Speaker 1: get our economy growing again, reopening American commerce. We need
Speaker 1: to heed the senator's words here, you Rampaul's of one
Speaker 1: of these guys you know when you need them, you
Speaker 1: really need them. And I think that ran Paul, and
Speaker 1: I've always thought that his political skills weren't as far
Speaker 1: along as as his knowledge of political theory, and I
Speaker 1: do believe he's a principled guy in his approach to
Speaker 1: politics too, uh that that he does his beliefs matter
Speaker 1: in the exercise of his of his job as a centator,
Speaker 1: which makes me also think that he'd be he I
Speaker 1: think he'd be a pretty good president. I know people
Speaker 1: don't think so. I think he'd actually be. He wouldn't
Speaker 1: bother you. You wouldn't have people getting, you know, pulled
Speaker 1: off of subway subway cars because I don't have a
Speaker 1: face mask on, although that's a state issue. Not trying
Speaker 1: to not trying to, you know, take a cheap, cheap
Speaker 1: shot at our current president. But I'm just saying, you know,
Speaker 1: he's he's a guy who does believe in liberty and freedom,
Speaker 1: and he also understands because of what he knows, but
Speaker 1: also the legacy of his father, doctor Ron Paul. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, he understands that this that this amount of
Speaker 1: By the way, it's doctor Ron Paul. I know Rand's
Speaker 1: an optimologist, producer, Mark isn't is Ron Paul a doctor?
Speaker 1: Two m I imagining that I gotta gosh, sometimes I
Speaker 1: so much so much information, thank you. He was a physician.
Speaker 1: I thought so so he's doctor. He's a real doctor,
Speaker 1: not a doctor Jill by doctor, a PhD in education.
Speaker 1: New dood dud dudo. We're not good to call you
Speaker 1: doctor Jill Biden because of your PhD in education. Where
Speaker 1: were we on this? Yes, Rand Paul saying we have
Speaker 1: to reopen the economy. The projections of what starts to
Speaker 1: happen if we continue to spend money at this rate,
Speaker 1: and really, I shouldn't say spend money, print money, that's
Speaker 1: the issue. I think a lot of people, and I've
Speaker 1: seen some analysis from Wall Street on this, a lot
Speaker 1: of people recognize that we are that those who can
Speaker 1: are sitting on the sidelines, not spending money and not
Speaker 1: investing because of the great degree of uncertainty right now.
Speaker 1: And those who are in a tough position, they're spending
Speaker 1: the money very quickly to the government's giving them because
Speaker 1: they have no choice and it's coming up short. They
Speaker 1: don't have enough cash. That's twelve hundred dollars is not
Speaker 1: going to last people. Reopening the economy is going to
Speaker 1: be a very complicated, very challenging PSS. And that's assuming
Speaker 1: that we're all operating from the good faith position of
Speaker 1: what's best for the United States, what's best for the
Speaker 1: country as a whole. We have to reckon with the
Speaker 1: truth that there are people right now who I think
Speaker 1: in their mind they separate out. You know, they'd say, oh,
Speaker 1: I want all life to be protected from COVID nineteen,
Speaker 1: but if the economy needs to be if the economy
Speaker 1: needs to be a little bit beat up a little
Speaker 1: bit longer so that Donald Trump loses the election, they're
Speaker 1: okay with that. So this is where you're going to
Speaker 1: see this fight because that desire to do everything possible,
Speaker 1: as they say, if it saves one life, that theory,
Speaker 1: if it saves one life, it should be done. That
Speaker 1: will be used to shout down anyone who's pushing for reopening.
Speaker 1: And there's another another concern he or another problem that
Speaker 1: a lot of the political debate obscures right now, and
Speaker 1: that is if some states do open with the more
Speaker 1: limited mitigation measures. Remember, no state is going back to
Speaker 1: totally normal. But if some states open with these mitigation
Speaker 1: measures in place and they don't have a spike, what then,
Speaker 1: why do we need all fifty states effectively all fifty
Speaker 1: I think it's maybe forty seven or forty eight technically,
Speaker 1: But why do we need all these states to have
Speaker 1: the shutdown orders. Why is over ninety percent of America
Speaker 1: told stay home, it can't go outside? Does does anyone
Speaker 1: find an easy justification for that? If in fact it
Speaker 1: seems that states are able to control this on their
Speaker 1: own with much less severe mitigation measures, that's going to
Speaker 1: be a whole debate. It will also then indicate that
Speaker 1: the blame Trump campaign because he did not order the
Speaker 1: federal shutdown fast enough, may not have any any data,
Speaker 1: any merit behind him. Put aside that everybody got this
Speaker 1: thing wrong and nobody really knew. But if states were
Speaker 1: able to on their own gage in mitigation measures that
Speaker 1: would control the virus as it continues to be a
Speaker 1: threat and continues to spread, which it will. I mean,
Speaker 1: doctor Burke said it at the top of the show.
Speaker 1: We all know there's going to be more. There are
Speaker 1: going to be more covid cas. There's no way around it.
Speaker 1: But if it's not an overwhelming problem, and if the
Speaker 1: loss of life is not something that society cannot sustain, right,
Speaker 1: then everyone's going to turn around and say, we'll hold
Speaker 1: on a second. Was what was going on here with
Speaker 1: these what was going on with this declaration? From on
Speaker 1: high that we have to have the shutdown, and then
Speaker 1: everyone's going to look at the pain, the alcoholism, the
Speaker 1: child abused, the loss of jobs, the loss of livelihoods,
Speaker 1: the destruction of businesses, the anxiety, the psychological pain, the depression,
Speaker 1: the durest that we're all under. And we were told
Speaker 1: was for our own good. Remember, we're told was for
Speaker 1: our own good. There's going to be a moment of
Speaker 1: reckoning for all of that. They keep trying to tell
Speaker 1: you that the Swedish model is a disaster. It's not.
Speaker 1: It's just not true. They keep trying to tell you
Speaker 1: that we shouldn't look to other countries that did not
Speaker 1: shut down. To Japan shutdown its whole economy, No, it
Speaker 1: did not. Why The only answer, we were led to believe,
Speaker 1: the only answer, unless you wanted just bodies in the streets,
Speaker 1: millions of people dead, The only answer was to shut
Speaker 1: down the entire eclome the first time in history that
Speaker 1: the United States has voluntarily decided to shutdown its economy.
Speaker 1: We do not do this during wars, we do not
Speaker 1: do this during previous pandemics. And this is what our
Speaker 1: policy community settled on as the answer here, and it
Speaker 1: wasn't member, It wasn't just the They got us going
Speaker 1: with a two weeks shutdown, then they extended another month.
Speaker 1: Six weeks have shutdown. Huh, And then we get to
Speaker 1: what do we do with the second wave, the second
Speaker 1: wave that may come. Everyone right now is trying to
Speaker 1: see the future about how bad this will be coming
Speaker 1: back in the fall, and we don't know certain things
Speaker 1: and no one's going to know them right now, like
Speaker 1: will we have better therapeutics, Will we be in a
Speaker 1: stronger position to fight the virus then than we are
Speaker 1: now based on the tools that we have. There's so
Speaker 1: much focus on testing. Where will our testing be at
Speaker 1: that point? Now, Remember, as I've said to you, by
Speaker 1: the time that you know, no matter how good we
Speaker 1: think the testing gets, testing trace is going to be imperfect,
Speaker 1: which means there will be spread of this disease. It'll
Speaker 1: hopefully be a containable situation. But let's understand that even
Speaker 1: the people that are yelling testing, testing, testing, they accept
Speaker 1: implicitly that there will be some trade offs here, which
Speaker 1: means there will there will be people who die from
Speaker 1: this virus because of the reopening. Even if we get
Speaker 1: to the testing levels that they declare are completely necessary.
Speaker 1: And you know, Nancy Pelosi, never helpful in any of
Speaker 1: these discussions, keeps on. She keeps repeating this mantra about science,
Speaker 1: as if that's an answer to what the science says,
Speaker 1: what exactly right? Now? Shut down forever. This is not
Speaker 1: a scientific only question. This is also a deeply political
Speaker 1: question that goes to individual rights and freedoms and the Constitution.
Speaker 1: Here's what Pelosi says, though nonetheless play six there's a
Speaker 1: voice scout saying preparation prevents poor performance. Well, that was
Speaker 1: exactly where the president gets an f He was not
Speaker 1: properly prepared, not with the truth, with the facts, or
Speaker 1: the admission of what was happening in our country, delay
Speaker 1: whatever its delay, denial death. Instead, we'd like him to
Speaker 1: see him insist on the truth, and we must insist
Speaker 1: on the truth with him, and that is really what
Speaker 1: should give us hope if he finally never too late.
Speaker 1: It's never too late, as I keep saying, to tell
Speaker 1: the truth, mister president, and it's never too late to
Speaker 1: do the right thing, and to pay attention to science. Science,
Speaker 1: it's science and science. This is really what liberals have
Speaker 1: been reduced to, testing, testing, testing, sied sied science just
Speaker 1: repeating words that they think make them sound smart. You know,
Speaker 1: this is a little bit like the reduction they do
Speaker 1: about much more complicated issues like climate change. For example,
Speaker 1: do you believe in climate change? It's a stupid question,
Speaker 1: but people ask it all the time. What does it
Speaker 1: even mean? Do I believe in climate change that is
Speaker 1: real but not particularly important? Do I believe in climate
Speaker 1: change that would justify the shutdown of the global economy
Speaker 1: in order to save the planet. Think of the span there.
Speaker 1: You know, this is like some of the modeling and
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, I'm gonna have to dig more into
Speaker 1: the models of the path. It's not just that we've
Speaker 1: gotten the wrong models for disease right now with the
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen pandemic, the models stretching the models for ebola
Speaker 1: were terribly wrong. The models for stars were terribly wrong.
Speaker 1: Just go back. The models for initial HIV infections were
Speaker 1: very wrong. I mean, they're just the models for the
Speaker 1: Earth and the early stages of a disease are almost useless.
Speaker 1: It's like someone who gives you a range, you know,
Speaker 1: a range of well, you know, the stock market. I'm
Speaker 1: I'm predicting confidently. And I'm going to look you in
Speaker 1: the eyes right now, America, and I'm gonna tell you this.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna predict the stock market that the Dow will
Speaker 1: be somewhere between five thousand and thirty five thousand over
Speaker 1: the next six months. That's right. You can take that
Speaker 1: to the bank. Is that a helpful prediction? Does that
Speaker 1: tell you how you could manage your money? And what
Speaker 1: sort of risks you'd be willing to take that would
Speaker 1: five thousand things are very bad? That would thirty five
Speaker 1: thousand things are fantastic. We must have found a cure
Speaker 1: to this, miraculous right. But that's what you see with
Speaker 1: these disease these disease spread models that the pandemic preparedness
Speaker 1: community relies on, and it does very much affect the
Speaker 1: decision that we've had about how quickly we're willing to
Speaker 1: struct to reopen businesses. And that then brings me to
Speaker 1: some of the impediments that we see to the reopening
Speaker 1: of businesses that we've we've known they're real, we've known
Speaker 1: they're going to happen, but now it is. Now it
Speaker 1: is becoming apparent from from what's actually happening on the
Speaker 1: ground in states across the country. What happens to a
Speaker 1: restaurant now, even if they want to bring people back,
Speaker 1: I'll walk you through that. You're in the freedom hunt.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. I Miss McConnell
Speaker 1: likes to say we delayed the bill. No, heat delayed
Speaker 1: the bill a two weeks ago. He came to the
Speaker 1: floor and said, this is all we're doing, just the
Speaker 1: two fifty and that Democrats were reunited House and Senate.
Speaker 1: The Senate Democrats went to the floor and said no, no,
Speaker 1: that that we have a better idea about hospitals and testing,
Speaker 1: and more funds for all of the businesses, the low
Speaker 1: lower shall we say, the unbankable small businesses. So we're
Speaker 1: very pleased that he finally came around to the fact
Speaker 1: that we had to go forward with this. So he
Speaker 1: was the one wasting time. I say that because I
Speaker 1: keep hearing him say, are we delayed? No, he delayed.
Speaker 1: Total rewriting of history from you know, wine cooler Pelosi
Speaker 1: over here, I mean, just total crap from her. We
Speaker 1: all know. And the media, lets are get away with it.
Speaker 1: They just they pretend, oh there speak truth to power.
Speaker 1: The guardians of our democracy, the journals. You know, the
Speaker 1: fourth or state. Please, they're the worst, the worst. We
Speaker 1: all know that Pelosi was playing games. Everybody knew Pelosi
Speaker 1: was playing games. No one says that they're not gonna
Speaker 1: have There's not a willingness to try to help out hospitals.
Speaker 1: You look, part of the shutdown problem here. Part of
Speaker 1: the issue is that hospitals are going bankrupt now, folks.
Speaker 1: People can't get normal care, and hospitals are going bankrupt
Speaker 1: all across the country with each passing day. They're going
Speaker 1: under because of the cessation of elective procedures, which when
Speaker 1: you when you look at the whole scope of elective procedures,
Speaker 1: some of them are not really that elective. They're pretty important,
Speaker 1: pretty urgent. But also a lot of preventative medicine wont
Speaker 1: has not been occurring. I mean, just I don't even
Speaker 1: want to think about this, but I do think we
Speaker 1: have to keep it somewhere somewhere in the back of
Speaker 1: our minds. Think of all the cancer screenings, all the mammograms,
Speaker 1: all the all the analysis for early stage prostate cancer,
Speaker 1: all these things. I mean, here's a perfe example. I
Speaker 1: haven't gone to the doctor. I mean, I haven't gone
Speaker 1: to the barber. But I haven't gone to the doctor
Speaker 1: this year to get to get checked out and have
Speaker 1: my physical and I don't know when that's going to happen.
Speaker 1: And now you might say, well, I'm a relatively young,
Speaker 1: healthy guy, and so it shouldn't be a big deal.
Speaker 1: Well what if I don't get to go for six
Speaker 1: months and I do find out that I got something
Speaker 1: that is a big deal. Now it's not just oh
Speaker 1: look at me, it's extraplate the circumstance that each individual
Speaker 1: is dealing with over three hundred and twenty million people.
Speaker 1: And then started thinking, okay, well, how many you know,
Speaker 1: serious diseases are being missed in this period and it's
Speaker 1: not going to end anytime soon, right the shutdowns in
Speaker 1: these hospitals, they're just beginning to get up to speed,
Speaker 1: and it's been now you know, it'll be easily six
Speaker 1: weeks going on two months of just missed medical medical
Speaker 1: action other than dealing with COVID nineteen everything else. But
Speaker 1: people still have heart attack. There's a lot of really
Speaker 1: bad diseases and things out there that people as we
Speaker 1: had owe heart disease and cancer and lung cancer and
Speaker 1: all these things. Those still very much exist and are
Speaker 1: killing people. And we've effectively said, you know, the preventative
Speaker 1: measures that we can take in hospitals, those all get
Speaker 1: put on hold right now. Now Again they tell us
Speaker 1: this was the only way, but hospitals are going bankrupt. Okay,
Speaker 1: So Pelosi's pretense that Republicans wouldn't give money for that
Speaker 1: as total crap. But then you also just have some
Speaker 1: of the well for Republicans, perhaps unintended, but the consequences
Speaker 1: of the rescue bill itself really interesting. Piece in the
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal by Kurt Huffman. It's a commentary piece.
Speaker 1: Our restaurants can't reopen until August. Employees refuse to return
Speaker 1: to work as long as they're getting an extra six
Speaker 1: hundred dollars a week. He talks about how he's trying
Speaker 1: to keep going. The goal is to survive. They're doing
Speaker 1: some takeout. This reminds me of all the restaurants in
Speaker 1: New York and the service industry employees. I think it's
Speaker 1: ten to fifteen percent of America. I think it's something
Speaker 1: like that producer Mark fact check me on that one.
Speaker 1: I think it's ten to fifteen percent of America. It's
Speaker 1: a big service industry jobs, or are huge they are
Speaker 1: a huge part of the economy, or irrespective of whether
Speaker 1: my off the cuff number is right in line. And
Speaker 1: you know that he says this restaurants at thirty percent
Speaker 1: of the usual revenue. And here's what's going on. Quote.
Speaker 1: We started making the calls last week to our furloughed employees,
Speaker 1: but they've they've already begun receiving weekly federal pandemic unemployment
Speaker 1: compensation and checks of six hundred dollars under the Cares Act.
Speaker 1: When we ask our employees to come back, they all
Speaker 1: said no thanks. If they return to work, they'll have
Speaker 1: to take a pay cut. The starting wage for a
Speaker 1: line cook in one of our restaurants is fifteen dollars
Speaker 1: an hour. These cooks receive at least a dollar an
Speaker 1: hour and tips, so at minimum they make sixteen dollars
Speaker 1: an hour, or six hundred and forty dollars before taxes
Speaker 1: for a forty hour week. The overwhelming majority of our
Speaker 1: laid off cooks qualified for Oregon unemployment compensation four hundred
Speaker 1: and sixteen dollars in our example based on the cook's wages.
Speaker 1: The extra two hundred and twenty four dollars a week
Speaker 1: provides a strong incentive to return to work. But as
Speaker 1: of this week, the same employee receives a thousand and
Speaker 1: sixteen dollars a week, or three hundred and seventy six
Speaker 1: dollars more than he made as a full time employee.
Speaker 1: Why on earth would he want to come back to work.
Speaker 1: The Trump administration's talking about setting a timeline for in
Speaker 1: the country can open for business. For my business, Congress
Speaker 1: has already locked down that date. We can open our
Speaker 1: dining rooms on August first, once the government stops paying
Speaker 1: people fifteen dollars an hour on top of standard unemployment
Speaker 1: compensation to stay home. Democrats wanted this. This is a
Speaker 1: stealth fifteen dollar minimum wage. My friends, Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the Bus Sesson Show podcast. Remember to subscribe on
Speaker 1: Apple podcast, the iHeartRadio app for wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: All right, team, we have a special treat today for you.
Speaker 1: James al Tucher joins us now. He's an American hedge
Speaker 1: fund manager, author, podcaster, entrepreneur. He's founded over twenty companies,
Speaker 1: and he's host of the James Altucher podcast. Mister al Tucher, Hello, sir,
Speaker 1: but so happy to be on your show up and
Speaker 1: I've been listening ever since, back when you're at the Blaze.
Speaker 1: Wowho is that? That is a high compliment. That's like
Speaker 1: I left the Blaze four years ago. So yeah, I
Speaker 1: started almost ten years ago now, so it's been a
Speaker 1: while man. But thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: I know you, like me, are in NYC. Your background
Speaker 1: book selection that I can see here is more impressive
Speaker 1: than mine, which indicates great. Your square footage in your apartment.
Speaker 1: So lucky you, because I'm going stirred and crase you
Speaker 1: over here. But how are you? First off, how are
Speaker 1: you doing in lockdown? You know? For me personally, I
Speaker 1: don't like going outside. I don't like traveling. I had
Speaker 1: all sorts of trips scheduled for March and Abril, and
Speaker 1: I was very happy to cancel them. I was going
Speaker 1: to Austin, Houston, California, Florida, DC, Winnipeg. All the trips
Speaker 1: are canceled. I'm so grateful, but I do every day.
Speaker 1: Just I don't know what it is. I just you know,
Speaker 1: just like you, I've been reporting and covering this economic
Speaker 1: lockdown and of course the virus, and it's just horrible.
Speaker 1: The effect on society is so much suffering from you know,
Speaker 1: of course, of course the virus, but also the economic
Speaker 1: shutdowns effects three hundred million people. And you know, this
Speaker 1: is the world's biggest economy, seven billion people around the world,
Speaker 1: And so you know, I think we all, no matter
Speaker 1: how we are personally, we all feel we've heard anxiety
Speaker 1: of nobody's working, nobody's producing, everyone's scared, everyone's anxious, and
Speaker 1: you know, no one is no one could depend themselves
Speaker 1: from that. No matter rich or or sacred healthy, you're
Speaker 1: going to feel the anxiety of the world and moments
Speaker 1: like this. How do you think our leadership so far
Speaker 1: has has responded to this? Where do you think the
Speaker 1: balance is. There's obviously the virus in the economy. It
Speaker 1: feels like there's been a shift to the recognition that
Speaker 1: the economy can't just be something that we stick in
Speaker 1: the deep freezer until we decide to thaw it out.
Speaker 1: What do you think about what we've done so far
Speaker 1: with this nationwide lockdown? Are you following what Europe has done,
Speaker 1: what different cases have been like there with the nation
Speaker 1: state level, what Sweden has done in their approach, and
Speaker 1: how do you gauge all that? Yeah, Buck, it's a
Speaker 1: good question. I've been following everything on up to members.
Speaker 1: I've actually talked to members of the Federal Reserve. The
Speaker 1: other day I was talking to the deputy chairman of
Speaker 1: the stave O SPAN. I've talked to economists like Tyler
Speaker 1: Cohen from Marginal Revolution, other economists. I've talked to the
Speaker 1: top epidemiologists and immunologists at Imperial College, which was the
Speaker 1: first one out of all the kind of doom and
Speaker 1: gloom UH scenarios and mathematical novels. So I've been a
Speaker 1: little all over the place just trying to figure it
Speaker 1: out for my own audience. And I think, I think,
Speaker 1: you know, the economy is not a light switch. You
Speaker 1: can't turn it off and then turn it on three
Speaker 1: months later expecting it's just gonna it's gonna be just
Speaker 1: as glowing as it was before. We've done something disastrous here.
Speaker 1: And you know, you mentioned a lot of countries. Every
Speaker 1: single country and play, every every single state in the
Speaker 1: United States has had a different strategy for dealing with this.
Speaker 1: And we look at countries like Suiten or the Czech
Speaker 1: Republic or Taiwan, three different countries, three different strategies. None
Speaker 1: of them did a lockdown. All of them have their
Speaker 1: economy returning full force and didn't need, you know, the
Speaker 1: full stimulus that we needed. And I think it's a
Speaker 1: shame that we did this economic lockdown when there was
Speaker 1: absolutely no data to support it. Sure, by the way,
Speaker 1: and this is this is sort of sacrilegious to say,
Speaker 1: I'm not even so sure there's data to support social distancing,
Speaker 1: Like you mentioned Sweden. Maybe it's just that they naturally
Speaker 1: social distance because they don't really like each other that much.
Speaker 1: But they didn't social distance and they're they're coming back fun.
Speaker 1: It's not it's not like they were great, and it's
Speaker 1: not like they were bad. They weren't the worst in Europe,
Speaker 1: but they weren't the best. But I think I think
Speaker 1: this pandemic kind of has its natural course. I mean
Speaker 1: you probably remember, like an early February, some of the
Speaker 1: initial mathematical models, we're even saying up to one hundred
Speaker 1: forty million deaths worldwide, which was insane, Like you know,
Speaker 1: this is Singaporean total had I don't know, less than
Speaker 1: a thousand m. You have to say this again, it's
Speaker 1: like religion. Every death is horrible. We have to acknowledge that.
Speaker 1: But you know, people die every day from all sorts
Speaker 1: of causes. So just setting that aside for a second,
Speaker 1: it does up here that even the early data from
Speaker 1: all the initial countries that we were in that the
Speaker 1: virus was in, the early data was suggesting this virus
Speaker 1: doubles exponentially three or four times and then starts to
Speaker 1: peak and flatten. There was no way it was gonna
Speaker 1: have a two percent fatality rate World one. And now
Speaker 1: all these recent tests Santa Clara, California, Chelsea in Massachusetts,
Speaker 1: other tests are showing that they can te the infectiousness
Speaker 1: of this is probably fifty to eighty five times worse
Speaker 1: than we thought, or greater than we thought, which means
Speaker 1: that the ultimate fatality rate is much lower. The higher
Speaker 1: the infection rate, the lower the fatality rate. Will probably
Speaker 1: look at zero point one to zero point three percent
Speaker 1: fatality rate in order. In other words, you know, a
Speaker 1: flute similar to a flue season of course that you're
Speaker 1: not allowed to say. Also, this is similar the flue,
Speaker 1: It's not similar to the flue. The flu affects children
Speaker 1: and kills children. This is affecting elderly's, two different demographic groups.
Speaker 1: So what that means is on the hospitals. Is that
Speaker 1: if you end up on a ventilator from this, if
Speaker 1: you're elderly, you end up spending more days on the ventilator. Hence,
Speaker 1: if we were going to if the hospitals were going
Speaker 1: to be overwhelmed, it could have caused a problem. But
Speaker 1: obviously they weren't overlap whelmed and so that didn't happen.
Speaker 1: And now they're saying, well, it's because we enacted social
Speaker 1: distancing principles who we don't really know, and some states
Speaker 1: that didn't really do anything have barely any cases or deaths.
Speaker 1: So you know, to treat every state as if, oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, you're not even allowed to go to the
Speaker 1: grocery store, you know, or else you're going to die.
Speaker 1: That's just ridiculous. And now now question is we're not
Speaker 1: coming back to a new normal. We're coming back to
Speaker 1: a new abnormal. This has never happened before. And the
Speaker 1: stimulus has been trillions of dollars more than we even
Speaker 1: did in the massive stimulus in two thousand and eight,
Speaker 1: two thousands. So what do you foresee that doing, James,
Speaker 1: what do you see that doing to the economy? I mean,
Speaker 1: we're now seeing hundreds of billions of dollars thrown into
Speaker 1: congressional spending bills. We can't even keep up with it.
Speaker 1: I mean it was a couple it was a few
Speaker 1: trillion dollars, and now they've added it was going to
Speaker 1: be two hundred and fifty billion, and then it was
Speaker 1: three hundred billion, and now it's close to half a trillion.
Speaker 1: You know, four hundred something billion was the final tally.
Speaker 1: And Chuck Schumer's already saying there's going to be at
Speaker 1: apart three or apart four to this whole thing. At
Speaker 1: what point have we how do we know as a government,
Speaker 1: as a country we've spent too much money? What does
Speaker 1: that feel like? What does that look like? Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: a great question because because there's going to be of
Speaker 1: a point, it's not likely in two thousand and eight,
Speaker 1: two thousand and nine, where there wasn't a sudden afore
Speaker 1: and after, like it wasn't like the economy was bad
Speaker 1: in two thousand and eight and then as soon as
Speaker 1: the stimulus was passed and it was good, it was
Speaker 1: it was the economy never was closed then, So the
Speaker 1: economy went from bad to having some stimulus to them
Speaker 1: becoming good. But right now we're all being forced all
Speaker 1: literally at gunpoint, like they'll arrest you if you don't
Speaker 1: if you if you, you know, go outside without a mask,
Speaker 1: or don't obey proper social distancing. So sooner or later
Speaker 1: they're going to reopen the economy all across the US,
Speaker 1: and then at the same time, the stimulus is going
Speaker 1: to be hitting. We've never had an experience like that
Speaker 1: where everybody sort of walks out of their home and
Speaker 1: sees daylight and money is just showering down from the sky.
Speaker 1: And of course there's a risk of hyper inflation. But
Speaker 1: right now we're in a deflationary period because there's zero demand.
Speaker 1: So the price of pretty much everything now is between
Speaker 1: twenty to one hundred percent and below what it was.
Speaker 1: So we're in a massive deflationary scenario that's been forced
Speaker 1: on us. But it's going to change as soon as
Speaker 1: we leave and as soon as economy reopens. We don't
Speaker 1: really know what prices are going to look like now.
Speaker 1: To your point, on a macroeconomic level, the fortunate thing
Speaker 1: we have, it's both fortunate and unfortunate, but there's such
Speaker 1: huge demand for the US dollar. The US dollar is
Speaker 1: the flight to safety for the wealthy in China, the
Speaker 1: wealthy in the Middle East, the wealthy in Europe. That
Speaker 1: that keeps naturally our interest rates low, and it keeps
Speaker 1: people buying other countries buying our debt, so that sort
Speaker 1: of avoids too much inflationary pressure. But an economy is
Speaker 1: only as good as the goods and services it produces.
Speaker 1: People pay for those goods and services and dollars, and
Speaker 1: that's why the dollar is valuable because advise us goods
Speaker 1: and services. But ultimately, if you're just going a trillion
Speaker 1: dollars a month out there and you're not producing any
Speaker 1: goods and services, sooner or later everyone's in around and say, well,
Speaker 1: why are we Why are we giving so many of
Speaker 1: munch of our currents get a dollar, the dollars sort
Speaker 1: of worthless. Now, what will avoid that the story of
Speaker 1: the economy reopens the better. Every month we wait, the
Speaker 1: economy comes closer and closer to the twilight zone where
Speaker 1: we don't really understand what's going to happen next. If
Speaker 1: the economy would open this morning, we can probably start
Speaker 1: to guess what industries are going to fail, what industries
Speaker 1: are going to succeed, and we'll come back to some
Speaker 1: sort of normal. The short term stimulus will kick in.
Speaker 1: That's the direct to your bank account, twelve hundred dollars
Speaker 1: checks that are going to everybody, and the p P
Speaker 1: loans that are going to small businesses. That's the short
Speaker 1: term stimulus. The long term stimulus is the FED rate
Speaker 1: cuts and now I'll kick in. Let's stay within twelve months.
Speaker 1: So we have short and long term stimulus that will
Speaker 1: beep up the economy. And the whope is that we
Speaker 1: didn't miscalculate and rely on the kindness of others too
Speaker 1: much to support our dollar, and you know, hopefully the
Speaker 1: economy comes back and tact. James, I want to come
Speaker 1: back and talk about how this situation is changing, not
Speaker 1: just obviously the economy, but life going forward. We mentioned,
Speaker 1: you know, the new abnormal or what's and I want
Speaker 1: to also take a look back and see what have
Speaker 1: we learned about life, perhaps that we used to think
Speaker 1: was true that was not. I saw a thread you
Speaker 1: had on this I thought was really interesting. We'll come
Speaker 1: back with James al Tutor, podcaster, author, entrepreneur, investor. In
Speaker 1: just a second, you're in the Freedom Hunt. This is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Okay, we're back with James Altucher.
Speaker 1: He is a hedge fund manager, author, podcaster, book and
Speaker 1: his book Choose Yourself and many books, many podcasts, many things.
Speaker 1: Mister mister al Tucher, Jack of all trades, James of
Speaker 1: all trades, Yeah, Dilton everything, master of nothing. Yeah. Well
Speaker 1: we have the same first name technically, so that that
Speaker 1: speaks well to you. So let me let me ask
Speaker 1: about what you had A threat. I found really interesting
Speaker 1: and I think some of these some of this audience
Speaker 1: is really going to agree with it, and they're gonna
Speaker 1: probably going to disagree with someone. But that's great. We
Speaker 1: like we like to spark ideas here and spark debate
Speaker 1: myths that we have learned as a function of this lockdown,
Speaker 1: myths about ourselves and about society. I just what are
Speaker 1: some of the myths, you know, the top ones, I know,
Speaker 1: I get a whole bunch. Well, I think that I
Speaker 1: think there was this myth that we have to be
Speaker 1: in a location to work or to learn. Like look,
Speaker 1: you know, it's clear now the tide has come in
Speaker 1: and the first institution post group of institution standing naked
Speaker 1: are institutions of higher learning. Colleges like colleges were charging
Speaker 1: seventy thousand a year, and suddenly they said, oh, by
Speaker 1: the way, we were you could just go home and
Speaker 1: learn by yourselves. Well, we're keeping the money. Don't worry
Speaker 1: about it. You'll get your degree, but just go home
Speaker 1: and play with your little friends, bother your parents, get
Speaker 1: your grandparents sick. You get out of the dorm rooms,
Speaker 1: by the way, because we don't want your petrie dish
Speaker 1: of disease affecting our dorm rooms. But don't ask for
Speaker 1: your rent back because that money is ours now business
Speaker 1: one on one. We took that money from you, and
Speaker 1: possession is nine tenths of the law. So I don't know,
Speaker 1: Like everybody's leaving college and the supposing course online. I've
Speaker 1: seen some of these online courses. I would rather take
Speaker 1: a course for ten dollars on Corsarah or LinkedIn Learning
Speaker 1: orcan Academy. Like, why did anybody pay seventy thousand a
Speaker 1: year for four years to learn to get a degree?
Speaker 1: That says, oh, I learned East Asian studies, Like it's particulous. Well, well,
Speaker 1: they're credential they're really credentialing their credentialing programs, which is
Speaker 1: especially I think that's been better known for a long
Speaker 1: time about some of the more flimsy master's programs in
Speaker 1: the humanities. But now people are realizing, well, it's like
Speaker 1: an arms race, right If everybody has a four year
Speaker 1: liberal arts degree of some kind, the value in the
Speaker 1: marketplace of just having that degree is not the same
Speaker 1: as it used to be. No. I mean in this
Speaker 1: already you're seeing, you know, skills and ideas are the
Speaker 1: currency of the twenty first century, not a degree from whatever,
Speaker 1: you know school. And I'm gonna talking right up to Harvard.
Speaker 1: Like Harvard, there's always a credential ang where there's some
Speaker 1: status things, so other people who they did their higher
Speaker 1: status will hire you. But Harvard they just took they
Speaker 1: have a forty one billion dollars endowment, you know, until
Speaker 1: they were kind of caught, right, and they they took
Speaker 1: nine million dollars from the last stimulus package, supposedly to
Speaker 1: give to students leading financial Trump says they're going to
Speaker 1: give it back. By the way, he said that earlier
Speaker 1: the week. Guess what the head of the Harvard endowment
Speaker 1: makes per year? He makes Guess what nine million dollars. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's a payment protection program. Let's protect the pay of
Speaker 1: one employee guy who runs all of our money. So
Speaker 1: it's just you know, that's that's a big em And
Speaker 1: then there is the myth that you can't work remotely
Speaker 1: and be productive. You know, right now, I think anything
Speaker 1: with the word of remote in it is going to
Speaker 1: be supercharged. And there's both upside and downside to that.
Speaker 1: We're going to be able to be more flexible about
Speaker 1: our work hours, more flexible about where we work, more
Speaker 1: flexible about travel. But at the same time, you have
Speaker 1: to ask, what's going to happen to commercial real estate?
Speaker 1: And by the way, not that we have to care
Speaker 1: that much, but everything in the economy is linked. So
Speaker 1: we Work clearly is going to go out of business
Speaker 1: after this, Like there they are bankrupt and soft Bank
Speaker 1: hold the plot on funding. So we were is the
Speaker 1: biggest lee se I don't know what you call it.
Speaker 1: They rent the most wars in New York City of
Speaker 1: any other company. So if you own a skyscraper in
Speaker 1: New York City and you're heavily leveraged and you have
Speaker 1: to make your own mortgage payments, and WE Work suddenly
Speaker 1: disappears and they rented eight floors in your building, you
Speaker 1: might be out of business. You can't just replace them
Speaker 1: the next day with a renter. So and that's we were.
Speaker 1: And then there's all the restaurants store funds. Not every
Speaker 1: restaurant is coming back to business in urban areas and
Speaker 1: maybe all over the country. So this you know, ten
Speaker 1: million restaurants on average day at sixteen days of cash
Speaker 1: in the bank. Restaurants are out of business in this
Speaker 1: country right now. And so now, yes they'll be helped
Speaker 1: by the stimulus package, but guess what. The stimulus package
Speaker 1: at least initially went to the Shape Shacks and Ruth
Speaker 1: Chris steakhouses of the world. And this mom and pop
Speaker 1: small restaurants are out of business. I know because all
Speaker 1: the go fund I own a local store park business
Speaker 1: in New York City. All I see all the local
Speaker 1: goal fund these being you know, from the employees of
Speaker 1: all the different restaurants and business restaurants, but that you
Speaker 1: and I have even been to, and there are a
Speaker 1: lot of business So what are going to happen to
Speaker 1: those buildings? We're no longer getting in fifteen to twenty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars in rent a month that those restaurants were getting.
Speaker 1: So commercial real estate is gonna collapse. And we're gonna
Speaker 1: have like a mini financial collapse after we reopened the
Speaker 1: economy just on the basis of that. So, you know,
Speaker 1: I think I think a lot of things are going
Speaker 1: to be both good in that, you know, will reopen
Speaker 1: the economy, people will have an opportunity to really decide
Speaker 1: what they want to do. They've probably changed habits so
Speaker 1: they didn't spend as much, they they go out as much.
Speaker 1: Hopefully they'll start spending and going out again, but some
Speaker 1: people won't and that might be a good thing for them.
Speaker 1: But the other thing is, you know, it's gonna be
Speaker 1: quickly everything that was going to eventually happen, like they denies. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they've accelerated. They've accelerated to clean the cleaning out of
Speaker 1: a lot of the economy in ways that's gonna be
Speaker 1: very tough. Everybody. James al Tutor podcast or author. Check
Speaker 1: out a show that James al Tutor Show and we're
Speaker 1: back in a second. Thanks for listening to The Bus
Speaker 1: Sesson Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcasts, the
Speaker 1: iHeart Radio app, or wherever you get your podcasts. It
Speaker 1: is time for roll Call. Thank you so much everybody
Speaker 1: for writing it. I always appreciate it. It helps us
Speaker 1: out to hear from all of you across the country
Speaker 1: and let us know what's what's going on with all
Speaker 1: of the things all of you, so as always, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for that. Let's get to it, shall we. Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, let's check in with our friend, producer Mark,
Speaker 1: Producer Mark, how are you doing? What's What's at the
Speaker 1: top of the Netflix queue? How's how's life in the
Speaker 1: penalty box? But the home penalty box. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of questions there. I'm not really sure how to how
Speaker 1: to go there. Yeah, you just you take him as
Speaker 1: as you as they call me, take them as you want.
Speaker 1: I'm doing well, you know, I'm into a routine of
Speaker 1: doing absolutely nothing and then coming and doing the show. Right.
Speaker 1: Thank god, we actually have a show to do every day.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've always been thankful for this show. But like,
Speaker 1: if I wasn't doing this, let's let's say that, you know,
Speaker 1: there was a government ban on all home media for
Speaker 1: some reason, which would be crazy, but I'm just saying
Speaker 1: if nobody was allowed to work from home, even doing
Speaker 1: media stuff, I would I'd go nuts, man. I would
Speaker 1: have read three or four books in the first like
Speaker 1: week or two of quarantine, and then I would have
Speaker 1: just been I don't know. There's only so much cooking
Speaker 1: you can do to do too, because I cook food
Speaker 1: that's to issues and then I want to eat it
Speaker 1: and I'm going to turn into job of the Buck.
Speaker 1: So they're limitations. Yeah, I'm going nuts. Even with spending
Speaker 1: what eight hours or so on the show every day,
Speaker 1: it feels like you consume my life now, Buck, it's
Speaker 1: all I do. I know. I know you can say
Speaker 1: a priest of Mark, I complete you. I'm not going
Speaker 1: that far. Buck. It's all right with Tululah. Man. I
Speaker 1: gotta say, I've never been so thankful to have a
Speaker 1: little a little furry, a little furry companion. You know,
Speaker 1: it's just nice to have. I mean, if I didn't
Speaker 1: have her, all I've got here is a plant. Uh
Speaker 1: and it's not a it's not a plant that I
Speaker 1: think is you know, gonna be hopefully it lasts through
Speaker 1: this pandemic. I'm not great at keeping a plant alive.
Speaker 1: The dog, I'm very good at feeding because if I don't,
Speaker 1: she she lets me know that my culinary efforts are
Speaker 1: not up to par. And no one will think you're
Speaker 1: going crazy because you're talking to the dog, not to yourself.
Speaker 1: That's that's true too. I mean I do talk to
Speaker 1: the dog a lot. Now, I will say that occasionally,
Speaker 1: I have to make sure that the mic is often
Speaker 1: here because I find myself making up songs to sing
Speaker 1: to the dog. Like that's how you know those old
Speaker 1: videos where they got guys who were in prison, and
Speaker 1: they'll be like, you know, twenty five bottles of beer
Speaker 1: on the wall. You know, there's all that. I'm kind
Speaker 1: of a dad phase, except I'm singing songs to the
Speaker 1: dog just out of curiosity. Do you think I just
Speaker 1: sit here in my living room and listen to see
Speaker 1: if I can hear you all day? No, but I'm
Speaker 1: just paranoid. If anybody heard me singing, they'd be like,
Speaker 1: I think this guy's out of his mind. It's a
Speaker 1: good point. I'd be more worried about your neighbors than
Speaker 1: the microphone though. Yeah, that's that's that's definitely true. Um,
Speaker 1: you know the neighbors that I've got a neighbor upstairs
Speaker 1: and he does cough sometimes, and I'll tell you this,
Speaker 1: I hear that cough and I go, oh boy, oh boy,
Speaker 1: cough For a loud basse from upstairs because I have
Speaker 1: the basse problem. What is it with people not understanding
Speaker 1: the bass travels right through floors and walls and ceilings,
Speaker 1: and someone very disruptive like I have a sound bar.
Speaker 1: I turned the bass off because I didn't want to
Speaker 1: annoy my neighbors. I will tell you that I had
Speaker 1: a very terset exchange with the neighbor in the Freedom Hut,
Speaker 1: or he's a neighbor to the Freedom Hut, I should say.
Speaker 1: And I had to go downstairs, and initially he wanted
Speaker 1: me to do the whole well was it just loud
Speaker 1: ten minutes ago or twenty minutes ago? And I just
Speaker 1: was like, dude, it's too blanking loud. I don't want
Speaker 1: to have to come down here again. You know. It's
Speaker 1: one of those conversations. So yeah, I'd just let my
Speaker 1: landlord deal with it. It's probably and right now I
Speaker 1: don't want to go talk to random people, you know,
Speaker 1: with a mask on all that. Yeah, I mean, I really,
Speaker 1: I I'm just lucky that he didn't probably look at
Speaker 1: me and say, oh, I'm sorry my music was too loud.
Speaker 1: It's all he said. All you have to do right
Speaker 1: now are running I'm gonna say that. Look, if someone
Speaker 1: comes up to you on the street, especially in New York,
Speaker 1: because we're not really allowed to be armed at all,
Speaker 1: which is appalling, but we're not. If someone comes up
Speaker 1: to you on the street and they say, you know,
Speaker 1: give me all your money, you you let off a real,
Speaker 1: a real hacking cough in their face. Well hopefully if
Speaker 1: they they don't want to do this they have a gun,
Speaker 1: because that might end up very badly. But they're they're
Speaker 1: just threatening to like beat you up, they'll probably run away.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't. I wouldn't fight somebody who was coughing right now.
Speaker 1: I don't care what the circumstances were. I don't think
Speaker 1: i'd fight somebody who was coughing period anytime, Yeah, but
Speaker 1: particularly now. Yes, all right, Graham rights on the subway
Speaker 1: spread thesis, which makes sense to me? Are we seeing? Oh? Yes, Graham.
Speaker 1: This was written about, by the way, last Wednesday in
Speaker 1: the New York Post. That is actually where the story
Speaker 1: was broken. Just in case any of you were wondering.
Speaker 1: It was a New York Post story about an MIT study,
Speaker 1: and I cited the author here on the show, and
Speaker 1: I thank I want a hat tip and thank the
Speaker 1: New York Post for putting that story out there so
Speaker 1: that we could all use the spread this academic research
Speaker 1: far and wide in a way that is useful for
Speaker 1: the national and ongoing conversation. So high five New York
Speaker 1: Post hat tip. But yes, you're right. Are we seeing
Speaker 1: similar issues in San Francisco or other cities with high
Speaker 1: utilization of public transit? Chicago, Seattle, etc. I know, no
Speaker 1: US city really comparison to New York City, but aren't
Speaker 1: there a few that kind of do? We are not
Speaker 1: seeing it yet what I understand, But remember, the New
Speaker 1: York City Subway is in a category by itself. When
Speaker 1: you look at the numbers and the frequency of ridership,
Speaker 1: there's nothing that's even close across the nation. I mean,
Speaker 1: it really is between it's a few million rides a day,
Speaker 1: a few million. Think about that. It's someone like me
Speaker 1: for a while there at the beginning of this year,
Speaker 1: I was in the subway four times a day. I mean,
Speaker 1: producer Mark will tell you I was actually on the
Speaker 1: subway four separate trips a day. So we because because
Speaker 1: if you try to drive around Manhattan, if you if
Speaker 1: you're on any kind of a time crunch schedule, you're
Speaker 1: just going to sit in traffic all day. I mean,
Speaker 1: I've for hits for a different cable, for cable news shows.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you a little bit of insidery stuff. You know,
Speaker 1: they send a I mean, this isn't like cool insidery stuff,
Speaker 1: but they'll send a car for you. Usually that's the
Speaker 1: one perk if you're unpaid, which most of the people
Speaker 1: you see on TV are not by these big cable networks,
Speaker 1: or a lot of the people I should say are not.
Speaker 1: The host obviously are, and the correspondence are. If they
Speaker 1: call someone a contributor, that means they're getting paid. If
Speaker 1: you're just a guest, they're like, hey, it's buck, let's
Speaker 1: let talk. But you know, you could sit in a
Speaker 1: car from my from my house to Fox News, you
Speaker 1: can walk in fifteen minutes or so, or you could
Speaker 1: sit in a car and it might take it thirty
Speaker 1: minutes to get there, maybe forty. I mean, it's really
Speaker 1: can mean you could just get stuck and stuck. So
Speaker 1: that's why it runs on the subway all the time.
Speaker 1: I have not seen any data looking at other cities
Speaker 1: and their spread, but I just know off the top
Speaker 1: of my head that there's nowhere else. I mean, the
Speaker 1: DC Metro is like a tiny fraction of the New
Speaker 1: York City metro system. And because it's a tiny fraction,
Speaker 1: you have to remember the dead. You know that that
Speaker 1: MIT study published in the New York Post was pointing
Speaker 1: out that it's it's about the density on the subway
Speaker 1: car as well as the duration of the subway ride.
Speaker 1: Then look, maybe the theory is wrong, and you know
Speaker 1: what I'll do. I'm gonna look around. I'm sure there's
Speaker 1: some theories now trying to debunk it out there, and
Speaker 1: maybe it is debunked in some way. But it certainly
Speaker 1: makes sense when you look at the hotspots. And I've
Speaker 1: been talking about the subway along as a major problem here,
Speaker 1: and there's a reason why producer Mark and I both
Speaker 1: started stand off a mass transit when this thing really
Speaker 1: spiral out of control. But so the instagram is I
Speaker 1: gonna look into it. I I don't have a good
Speaker 1: answer for you, JJ. I just want to say something
Speaker 1: about the whole snitch sitch in Garcettiville. As of a
Speaker 1: year ago, the city of Los Angeles was running a
Speaker 1: one billion dollar deficit, Yet somehow he thinks he can
Speaker 1: afford to pay people to rat on those who aren't
Speaker 1: properly social distancing. I mean, the taxes on pot sales
Speaker 1: are approximately fifty percent, but I have no idea how
Speaker 1: he intends to put this bill. Also, I don't know
Speaker 1: if you have heard about this, but Garcetti has simply
Speaker 1: started taking over hotel properties and using them for the homeless.
Speaker 1: I have heard about that. Furthermore, Comrade Newsome, I like
Speaker 1: this guy JJ. Comrade Newsome has also started shaming other
Speaker 1: cities and counties for not following his example. While I
Speaker 1: lived near Los Angeles, the hotel I work at, thankfully
Speaker 1: is still in Orange County and has not yet been
Speaker 1: endangered by this reckless, fiscally irresponsible policy. Given that the
Speaker 1: situation does not fall under eminent domain, How can Garcetti
Speaker 1: or anyone else justify this seizure of property? Who will
Speaker 1: pay to have the hotel staff and police, who will
Speaker 1: pay to have the properties deep cleaned and sanitized sterilized
Speaker 1: if they can actually evict the homeless squatters after the
Speaker 1: crisis abates. I'm a born and raised Californian, but I
Speaker 1: am seriously fed up. Sadly, I'm not in a position
Speaker 1: financially to be able to move. But we'll definitely start
Speaker 1: a fun toward that goal as soon as maybe. Well, JJ,
Speaker 1: you've always got a home in the hut, my friend. Great,
Speaker 1: great note, Thank you so much for writing into us.
Speaker 1: And I don't have answer. You're asking great questions. I
Speaker 1: don't have answers. I don't pretend unlike some other smarmy,
Speaker 1: self important and nasty radio hosts, I don't pretend to
Speaker 1: have all the answers. I just have a lot of them.
Speaker 1: And as for Garcetti and how he's gonna justify this,
Speaker 1: we're seeing a lot of government power that's taken into
Speaker 1: people's hands right now. We're The only justification is because
Speaker 1: I said so. That should be troubling for people. That's
Speaker 1: a troubling precedent for the government to set, isn't it.
Speaker 1: We should think of this and think of what it
Speaker 1: really means when the government can do that. It is
Speaker 1: a concern that we should all share. You're in the
Speaker 1: Freedom Hunt. This is the Buck Sex and Show podcast.
Speaker 1: All right, more roll call justin Hey there, Bucking Mark.
Speaker 1: The interview with Jack Carr the other day got me
Speaker 1: thinking of comments you've made several times buck, you really
Speaker 1: need to get your pistol permit Livy in Massachusetts. I
Speaker 1: know it's not always an easy process, but that is
Speaker 1: definitely by design. Like so many other lib tactics, they
Speaker 1: actually use the process as the punishment. Suck it up
Speaker 1: and get it done. You'll thank me later, I promise.
Speaker 1: Stay healthy and safe in lockdown. Justin, you're one hundred
Speaker 1: percent correct, and I don't have a good excuse. My
Speaker 1: excuse is that the process is the punishment. I can
Speaker 1: tell you that when I moved from DC to New
Speaker 1: York this past summer, I did print out the New
Speaker 1: York City still permit application and was and then I
Speaker 1: just got distracted and I was like, I don't have
Speaker 1: time for this right now. But I mean I've been
Speaker 1: thinking about it. I know people who have successfully done it.
Speaker 1: It is possible. It's really just a premise. Permit to
Speaker 1: get your concealed carry here is very complicated and not
Speaker 1: easy to do and usually gets denied unless you're connected,
Speaker 1: unless you're somebody who's you know, hooked up. So yeah, uh,
Speaker 1: that's where that's where it's out, my friend. You're correct, Justin,
Speaker 1: I should I should have a pistol permit here in
Speaker 1: New York City, and when I do, which won't really
Speaker 1: be able to happen because I'm not I don't think
Speaker 1: I'm gonna wait in a long line at one Police
Speaker 1: Plaza right now to although maybe there are no lines
Speaker 1: at one Police Maybe it's like the easiest time ever.
Speaker 1: One Police Plaza is the big NYPD headquarters here. It
Speaker 1: looks like something that was built as like the KGB's
Speaker 1: interrogation headquarters. It's the ugliest, ugliest building you've ever seen
Speaker 1: in your life. Definitely not our deco as our Tribeca
Speaker 1: headquarters for I Hard Media is, which producer Mark pointed
Speaker 1: out sometime go because he's apparently on the side an
Speaker 1: architecture enthusiast. Yeah, big architecture enthusiast, even though the only
Speaker 1: architecture I see right now is the inside of my
Speaker 1: apartment building. Well, what do you do you have any
Speaker 1: kind of a yeah, gotta you gotta view? Can you see?
Speaker 1: Can you see water? So? Yeah, there's like a swamp,
Speaker 1: and so do you have do you have meadow lands
Speaker 1: kind of you you know that, yeah, metal lands type
Speaker 1: of view. And I can get a lot of train horns.
Speaker 1: You would be you would be driven nuts because there's
Speaker 1: a train horner in every five to ten minutes. When
Speaker 1: I lived in college, I I when I where I
Speaker 1: was in college for one year was fifty yards from
Speaker 1: an active railroad track. And you know why they blow
Speaker 1: the horn? There's no gate crossing here. It drives me nuts. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't, I don't know. They just do it. I guess,
Speaker 1: you know. I look, if you're a train engineer, and
Speaker 1: I'm sure like everything, there's always like a train engineer list,
Speaker 1: there's always somebody who's an actual expert on whatever I'm
Speaker 1: talking about. Listening to this show. Um, I'll never forget
Speaker 1: when I like miss when I misidentified an aspect of
Speaker 1: like Wiccan theology, I got a long email about that.
Speaker 1: Not messing with the Wickens. Lee folks are all great.
Speaker 1: Just I just didn't know. But you know, the a
Speaker 1: train engineer, I feel like, if you're the train engineer,
Speaker 1: come on, you know you're gonna want to go, you know, man,
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's like being a it's you know
Speaker 1: what you and you ask a trucker to hit the
Speaker 1: horn for you when you're a kid, you know, to
Speaker 1: do the big horn whatever? You what do you call
Speaker 1: that thing. I don't know, the horn or just the horn. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, that's I think. If you're a train engineer,
Speaker 1: you just want to let it rip right, sure, but
Speaker 1: can you do it somewhere else? Again, it's the busiest
Speaker 1: corridor of rail travel in the country, But you know,
Speaker 1: do it somewhere else, not in near an apartment building.
Speaker 1: You may or may not. I think I've talked to
Speaker 1: this before here, but you may. I don't know that
Speaker 1: I've gone on. I've gone deep down the rabbit hole
Speaker 1: of why we have backup machine sound all over the country.
Speaker 1: This you know, beep beep beep. Now we all have
Speaker 1: to hear all the time, and sometimes it'll be for
Speaker 1: like the equivalent of like an door Zamboni machine or something.
Speaker 1: It's going like three miles an hour. No one's going
Speaker 1: to get hit by this thing, but they still have
Speaker 1: to because of the ocean. It's an OSHA regulation Occupational
Speaker 1: Safety Hazard Administration, or whatever the actual acronym is, And
Speaker 1: it stretches back to the seventies when someone came up
Speaker 1: with this idea that we all have to have these noisemakers.
Speaker 1: Do you know what ends up happening in most cases?
Speaker 1: When someone actually is is hit by a car or
Speaker 1: a truck that's backing up. You know what, They find
Speaker 1: out that the person heard the noise, but they're seriously
Speaker 1: hearing it. They didn't pay attention, so it doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: This is this is anyway, I'll never forget. When I
Speaker 1: was in college, this kid was a hero. This kid
Speaker 1: was a hero when I was in college. They because
Speaker 1: Amherst was very progressive and very left wing. And I
Speaker 1: lived right right on the town Green there, so I
Speaker 1: lived near the train tracks one time. Then I lived
Speaker 1: near the town Green, which was very fancy, but it
Speaker 1: was all college housing. But I mean, it was the
Speaker 1: nice part of the college to live in. But there
Speaker 1: was a cross a crosswalk thing that would do the
Speaker 1: like you have twenty seconds to cross nineteen eighteen. It
Speaker 1: was the dumbest thing and it would go twenty four second.
Speaker 1: That elite makes sense because blind people need to be
Speaker 1: able to cross the street. Ah. Now I feel like
Speaker 1: Seinfeld when he's saying that, you know, college thanks. Now
Speaker 1: I feel like a jerk. But I'm just saying I
Speaker 1: remember some kids and I'm sure they were hungover, and
Speaker 1: you know they and it was you know, or actually
Speaker 1: they were drunk, not hungover, but it was the middle
Speaker 1: of the night. I remember seeing them from my window
Speaker 1: and I knew who they were. They were lacrosse players
Speaker 1: to this. Well, this one kid, actually the other kid
Speaker 1: was standing in the corner and he ran across the
Speaker 1: street with a golf putter and just just maul the
Speaker 1: little you know you have nineteens, like just just bashed
Speaker 1: the thing in. It was like, whoa, So the lax bros. Oh,
Speaker 1: the lax bros are crazy, crazy bunch. But man, I
Speaker 1: slept so much better for the few weeks it took
Speaker 1: them to actually come back with you know, town services
Speaker 1: to fix that thing. It was fantastic, fantastic and a
Speaker 1: bunch of people couldn't cross the street. There were no
Speaker 1: fatalities in the crosswalk. There were like ten people living
Speaker 1: in the town. But yeah, now I didn't think about
Speaker 1: thanks produiser, Mark, I didn't think about that aspect of it.
Speaker 1: All Right, Bill, sir, where will you be in North
Speaker 1: Carolina for your speech? I would like to attend and
Speaker 1: pass the word amongst my people really enjoy your show.
Speaker 1: Bill the speech, assuming that we're allowed to hold it
Speaker 1: by state regulation, which we think we will, but that
Speaker 1: is that is an if. Right now, We'll be in
Speaker 1: Craven County, Craven County, North Carolina, So that's where I'll
Speaker 1: be giving a speech and I hope everybody will show up.
Speaker 1: Craven County GOP will be hosting, and we're just gonna
Speaker 1: be quite an event. Man. We're gonna oh, We're gonna
Speaker 1: let it rip. That night, Eric Buck reading Porter's article
Speaker 1: in American Consequences left me reminiscing on early investiment hour episode.
Speaker 1: Still a great show with Dan Ferris, but to be honest,
Speaker 1: the Porter Buck combo was about as epic as podcast.
Speaker 1: Get any chance you could get Porter on for an interview, Eric,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna tell you this is the truth. During this
Speaker 1: show and one and one of our breaks, I got
Speaker 1: a text from my man, Porter Stansbury, because you know
Speaker 1: we talk all the time, and I said, Porter, we
Speaker 1: gotta get you on this show. So the answer is yes,
Speaker 1: and I'm not I swear I got it before you
Speaker 1: even asked. So we must have some kind of mind
Speaker 1: meld here or something. We'll get Porter Stansbury on and
Speaker 1: we'll do a longer form with him too. I hope
Speaker 1: you've all been producer mark. Where should people go to
Speaker 1: hear the podcast extras to watch our videos, Please tell
Speaker 1: them where to promote the things. The podcast extras are
Speaker 1: the same place you get this podcast. It'll come into
Speaker 1: the same RSS feeds, so everywhere iTunes excuse me, Apple Podcast,
Speaker 1: our radio app, Spotify, all that, and on YouTube it'll
Speaker 1: be YouTube dot com, slash Buck Sexum there we go.
Speaker 1: Please subscribe. Also share what we're putting out there so
Speaker 1: people can see it. Tell other family members. That's a
Speaker 1: great way to expand Team Buck and we really appreciate
Speaker 1: it every time you can do that. And yeah, we're
Speaker 1: gonna be doing some long form with Porter. We had
Speaker 1: we have James al Tucca. Today, we have we had
Speaker 1: Ted NuGen. We got a lot of people in the queue.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be fantastic. Team Stay Strong, Stay Safe, Shields High,