Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom huge the fault. George Floyd
Speaker 1: arrest video is out. Some BLM racketeering under way in Kentucky.
Speaker 1: Sweden sees no point in mask wearing. Biden's VP pick
Speaker 1: is imminent and is time running out on TikTok. Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton coding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake American. Let great, You're a great American again.
Speaker 1: This is the bucks Sexton Show, formless CIA analysts. I
Speaker 1: can speak to three hours without a phone call. Try
Speaker 1: doing that sometime. No, Welcome my friends to the buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show, where I'm currently broadcasting from the of a
Speaker 1: tropical store. I think or it's some weather event here.
Speaker 1: We've got crazy gusts of winds. It sounds like my
Speaker 1: windows are going to blow in at any moment. Here,
Speaker 1: rain rain all day. So we will hopefully be able
Speaker 1: to continue with the broadcast as is. That is certainly
Speaker 1: the plan. But there's going to be some There's gonna
Speaker 1: be some technical challenges for some folks in the Eastern Corridor,
Speaker 1: that's for sure. But let's get right to it. George Floyd.
Speaker 1: George Floyd's killing by a Minneapolis police officer led to
Speaker 1: the restart of the BLM. The Black Lives Matter Movement,
Speaker 1: a movement that is intentionally named in such a way
Speaker 1: that if you do not concede to all of its demands,
Speaker 1: you are immediately subject to questions about your possible racism,
Speaker 1: and you are clearly a horrible human being that no
Speaker 1: one should listen to, because how could you disagree with
Speaker 1: Black Lives Matter? And we get into this game of no.
Speaker 1: Of course, we all agree Black Lives matter, but I
Speaker 1: do not agree nor should I be forced or pressured
Speaker 1: to agree with BLM the movement's list of demands. It's
Speaker 1: a very straightforward proposition, but there are a lot of
Speaker 1: people who are quite dishonest about it for obvious reasons.
Speaker 1: The George Floyd video that we saw showed officer Derek
Speaker 1: Chauvin with a knee on the neck of George Floyd
Speaker 1: for over eight minutes, and he is yelling, I can't breathe,
Speaker 1: and he's clearly in deep distress. The officer involved here
Speaker 1: has already been charged with homicide and could face a
Speaker 1: very lengthy stint in prison, perhaps even the rest of
Speaker 1: his life in prison. We have to see what the
Speaker 1: final charges and the and of course what the jury
Speaker 1: says in all of this will be. But we saw
Speaker 1: this and everyone based on the video condemned it, and
Speaker 1: there was still the BLM movement that rose up and
Speaker 1: said there's systemic race sist police violence. That's the narrative.
Speaker 1: The narrative isn't really that there is such a thing
Speaker 1: as a rogue cop, a bad cop, or even a
Speaker 1: racist cop. It's at the system. This proves that cops
Speaker 1: are engaged in continuous systemic racism, and so we should
Speaker 1: all have this national conversation that quickly turned into a
Speaker 1: national excuse for rioting, looting, violence, arson attacks on cops,
Speaker 1: undermining law enforcement and police across the country. Really wasn't
Speaker 1: much of a conversation, wasn't. And it's no surprise because
Speaker 1: it's exactly what happened before. And the left saw this.
Speaker 1: The Democrat Party saw this as politically useful in the moment,
Speaker 1: so they wholeheartedly embraced it. Corporate America, which is full
Speaker 1: of a lot of self interested cowards as well as
Speaker 1: brainwashed left wing idealogus, now completely supported this, no questions asked,
Speaker 1: sent it money the movement, whatever support they could, and
Speaker 1: there was a period there for a few weeks where
Speaker 1: if you said anything about this that wasn't a full
Speaker 1: bending of the knee, you risked losing your job. If
Speaker 1: you said all lives matter, you could get fired, and
Speaker 1: people did get fired from their jobs over that. Another
Speaker 1: statement of what is obviously and clearly true. But the
Speaker 1: truth is not the point, right. The point is the
Speaker 1: exploitation of emotions all in order to have a shift
Speaker 1: of power from one group to another, so that the
Speaker 1: left can be ascended, so that the socialist democrats can
Speaker 1: have even greater control over your life and over the
Speaker 1: future of this country. That was really the purpose of
Speaker 1: all of this. And for people that would say, oh,
Speaker 1: that's ridiculous and it's just just right wing talking points, really,
Speaker 1: what has improved as a result of the BLM movement?
Speaker 1: What is better now? Nothing? Nothing. Cities are less safe,
Speaker 1: more people, more Black people have died because of this movement.
Speaker 1: Just look at the data. Look at the statistics. You've
Speaker 1: got violent crime rising, homicides which are disproportionately affecting the
Speaker 1: black community, homicides rising in thirty six of fifty major
Speaker 1: US cities. Of the top fifty cities in the country,
Speaker 1: Chicago is a war zone in some parts of the city,
Speaker 1: not the whole city. And then on top of this,
Speaker 1: you have the piggybacking on the movement of the Antifa movement. Right,
Speaker 1: you have the Antifa movement which decides to attach itself
Speaker 1: to hop on top of the BLM movement and trying
Speaker 1: to do everything that it can to bring down our system,
Speaker 1: or at least make our system as miserable and unlivable
Speaker 1: as possible in advance of a Joe Biden victory. So
Speaker 1: that's what we've seen happen. For all the marches and
Speaker 1: the kneeling and the cheerie eyed white liberals showing up
Speaker 1: to scream in the faces of black police officers that
Speaker 1: they are betraying their race by being law abiding, law enforcing,
Speaker 1: good Americans who are protecting our communities. Unbelievable what so
Speaker 1: many of these white libs were doing at these protests,
Speaker 1: the racism that they were showing. And yet the media
Speaker 1: has learned no lessons from any of this. They still
Speaker 1: feel so smug and sanctimonious. A lot of millionaire anchors
Speaker 1: on CNN and MSNBC who haven't slept the night in
Speaker 1: a single high crime neighborhood in their entire lives, not
Speaker 1: one night. Okay, let's just be honest about this. They're
Speaker 1: total frauds. But we see the benefits that you get
Speaker 1: if you're a Democrat, if you're a lib You know,
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi, absolutely disconnected, self righteous, arrogant, multi multi millionaire
Speaker 1: living in a true mansion in San Francisco, I mean,
Speaker 1: a palazzo for Pelosi. And she cares so much about
Speaker 1: violence in the black community in poor parts of major cities.
Speaker 1: He doesn't care. And I'm gonna tell you this right now,
Speaker 1: she doesn't give a damn. She pretends she doesn't really care.
Speaker 1: Useful for her. This is what the Democrats do. This
Speaker 1: is the real truth of the matter. They use this
Speaker 1: issue for their own purposes. They don't really care, they
Speaker 1: don't do anything. They're smart enough to know that all
Speaker 1: of this is posturing and theatrics. They're smart enough to
Speaker 1: know that this isn't gonna make anyone's life better in
Speaker 1: majority black communities of America or any community in America.
Speaker 1: But they don't care. They don't care. They're frauds. You see.
Speaker 1: There's a fraudulence at the heart of the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: today that brings me now to the truth of the
Speaker 1: George Floyd arrest as we see it. Now, let me
Speaker 1: just first state it still appears to me, based on
Speaker 1: the totality of the video evidence, that there was excessive
Speaker 1: force used against George Floyd and the officer involved should
Speaker 1: be charged. So before anybody before you know, media matters
Speaker 1: can clip this and say, oh, say, it still seems
Speaker 1: to me. And again I'm just going on the video evidence,
Speaker 1: which we didn't even have the full context of until now, right,
Speaker 1: we only saw a clip of the video. We didn't
Speaker 1: see the whole thing. But with under the circumstances, you know,
Speaker 1: the knee on the neck, there should have been greater
Speaker 1: care taken to make sure that George Floyd was not
Speaker 1: in lethal distress. That's my opinion, and the officer should
Speaker 1: be held fully culpable for it. That said, what you
Speaker 1: see in the almost ten minutes or so a video
Speaker 1: leading up to the knee on the neck segment on
Speaker 1: the pavement in Minneapolis, in front of onlookers, with two
Speaker 1: other officers present, what you see is George Floyd acting
Speaker 1: like an EEDP we would call it in the NYPD
Speaker 1: in New York, an emotionally disturbed person. This guy was
Speaker 1: completely having a panic attack, saying things that made no
Speaker 1: sense and shouting constantly that he can't breathe and he's
Speaker 1: terrified and he can't breathe. While he's being gently walked
Speaker 1: in handcuffs from his own car into the police car.
Speaker 1: While he's standing outside in open air, he's shouting, I
Speaker 1: can't breathe, I can't breathe, when no one's doing and
Speaker 1: understand this. Later on, he's saying it when there's a
Speaker 1: knee on his neck, but the video shows him saying
Speaker 1: it when there is no pressure on his neck or
Speaker 1: anywhere else, so that matter. Yes, he's handcuffed, but there's
Speaker 1: no reasonable expectation that would asphyxiate anybody. So he's yelling
Speaker 1: he can't breathe. Now. Why is that relevant? It's relevant
Speaker 1: because it shows that the officers involved were courteous, respectful,
Speaker 1: and professional until they had received substantial resistance. He was
Speaker 1: resisting arrest, he was refusing to get in a car.
Speaker 1: He was claiming to be claustrophobic about getting into a
Speaker 1: car when they had already pulled him out of a car.
Speaker 1: So they grabbed, they pull him out, They tell him
Speaker 1: to step out to be arrested from his vehicle and
Speaker 1: then they're trying to put him in a cop car
Speaker 1: and he starts screaming that he's claustrophobic and that he
Speaker 1: can't breathe he has drugs in his system. He had
Speaker 1: fentanyl in his system. He was high. Now, again, that
Speaker 1: doesn't change the excessive force component of this, and it
Speaker 1: doesn't change the lack of care given to Floyd on
Speaker 1: the ground by the officer who had him in custom
Speaker 1: But if we're looking at severity of the charge, then
Speaker 1: it may factor in. When you're looking at a what
Speaker 1: the defense will be able to tell a jury, it
Speaker 1: will factor in. Then there's the bigger Then there's the
Speaker 1: bigger issue that this raises, which is that this video
Speaker 1: in no way shows cops hunting a black man for
Speaker 1: the purposes of racism out to kill him. That is
Speaker 1: not what happened. Excessive force is bad in any police situation,
Speaker 1: and copsy to be held accountable for it. And it
Speaker 1: does happen. I've written about it when it has happened.
Speaker 1: I thought that cops have committed murder. We all know this.
Speaker 1: It does happen. But to say that this incident was
Speaker 1: just a racist practically a member of the clan. Cop
Speaker 1: going out and just killing a black man for no
Speaker 1: reason is not true, meaning that it wasn't There is
Speaker 1: no there's no reason to believe there were racist origins
Speaker 1: in the targeting of Floyd, or that the officers set
Speaker 1: out in their minds to physically hurt him at all.
Speaker 1: The video shows them saying step out of the car,
Speaker 1: play step out of the car. At one point, an
Speaker 1: officer pulls his weapon and points it to Floyd because Floyd,
Speaker 1: who is hysteric, I mean actually hysterical, just from cops
Speaker 1: saying can you step out of the car. He's he's panicking,
Speaker 1: he's shouting, he's saying, don't shoot me. He's he's high.
Speaker 1: The officer pulls his weapon because he keeps saying keep
Speaker 1: your hands on the steering wheel, keep your hands where
Speaker 1: I can see them, keep your hands out in full view.
Speaker 1: And Floyd doesn't comply, so he draws his weapon. Put
Speaker 1: your hands on the steering wheel. Okay, He puts his
Speaker 1: hands as steering wheel. The officer immediately holsters his weapon,
Speaker 1: puts him in handcuffs, walks him, walks him toward the
Speaker 1: other vehicle, to the police vehicle. Why didn't we see
Speaker 1: this video until now? Why is it that a British tabloid,
Speaker 1: the Daily Mail were the ones that got it and
Speaker 1: posted it. Shouldn't the American public in a case of
Speaker 1: this gravity that affected American consciousness and was having a
Speaker 1: real effect, a very negative one on Citi's Coast to coast.
Speaker 1: Shouldn't we have seen the full context of the arrest.
Speaker 1: They had the body camera footage. Why do we have
Speaker 1: to wait months to see this? Because it does not
Speaker 1: support the narrative of racist, evil cops. It shows that
Speaker 1: cops were challenged with a very difficult situation, a criminal
Speaker 1: from his past who was high and not complying with
Speaker 1: lawful orders. And then, because he had said so many
Speaker 1: times I can't breathe, the officer and he should be
Speaker 1: held accountable for this because it's on a him, right.
Speaker 1: You've got someone handcuffed, you got your knee on their neck.
Speaker 1: That's not okay, that's criminal. He killed the man. So again,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying the officer isn't guilty of excessive force
Speaker 1: leading to a death here, and I'm not saying he
Speaker 1: shouldn't face charges. I still believe he should. But the
Speaker 1: narrative of a racist cop just going out to kill
Speaker 1: a black man for no reason whatsoever other than racism,
Speaker 1: which is what we were fed. That's what we were told.
Speaker 1: That's why Lebron James went out and said that black
Speaker 1: people are quote literally being hunted when they leave their homes.
Speaker 1: That was the Lebron James quote. Right, That's just not true.
Speaker 1: That's not And no one would watch this, No fair
Speaker 1: minded person watches this video and says, well, these cops
Speaker 1: just want to kill this guy. No, it was the
Speaker 1: cops were dealing with an emotionally disturbed under the influence
Speaker 1: of drugs person having a complete panic and did not
Speaker 1: handle it appropriately and one officer put pressure on his neck,
Speaker 1: killed him, led to his death, and is going to
Speaker 1: be held accountable for it. But there's no there is
Speaker 1: no systemic targeting of black of a black man by
Speaker 1: his race from the start of this video, from the
Speaker 1: start of this video that makes you think that this
Speaker 1: was a racially motivated killing. And this is what there's
Speaker 1: going to be a lot of a lot of debate
Speaker 1: in fighting over right now. It was excessive force dealing
Speaker 1: with the difficult with the difficult arrest, which is illegal,
Speaker 1: but that's not what we were told this was in
Speaker 1: the beginning. We were told this was an execution. We
Speaker 1: were told that this was just sheer, pure racism. I
Speaker 1: think that's a much more difficult case to make when
Speaker 1: you see the way these officers interacted with Floyd, spoke
Speaker 1: to Floyd, worked with them until he simply refused to
Speaker 1: get into the cop car after all kinds of asking, cajoling,
Speaker 1: you know, practically begging the officers please just get in
Speaker 1: the car, please the world. We'll roll down the windows
Speaker 1: for you. We'll make sure you're Okada. That's what the
Speaker 1: racist cops say. Please just get in the car. We'll
Speaker 1: roll down the windows, make sure you're comfortable. NI guy
Speaker 1: wouldn't get in the car. So then officer Chauvin puts
Speaker 1: him on the ground, puts his knee on his neck,
Speaker 1: and kills him and kills him. But I remember he's saying,
Speaker 1: I can't breathe, which is what he had been saying
Speaker 1: for ten minutes before when he could breathe. The officer
Speaker 1: is still responsible, But to me, it looks like involuntary manslaughter.
Speaker 1: It's certainly not a hate crime murder that was intentional
Speaker 1: from the start. That's a very big difference. You're in
Speaker 1: the freedom This is the Buck Sex and Show podcast.
Speaker 1: Is there a double standard from elected officials, from people
Speaker 1: and positions of power in the BLM era? Well, here's
Speaker 1: a great example of that double standard from here to Blasio.
Speaker 1: Who now, because he took city time and resources to
Speaker 1: paint a BLM sign outside of Trump Tower, other groups
Speaker 1: want to Blue Lives Matter signs on the streets. Right,
Speaker 1: The streets are now an open political canvas, aren't they. Oh,
Speaker 1: but they have to go through a permitting process. Did
Speaker 1: Blasio go through a permitting process for his BLM sign?
Speaker 1: Please play for We haven't said no to people who said,
Speaker 1: if you want to apply, you can apply, but there's
Speaker 1: a process. Look, the fact is that what I decided
Speaker 1: to do with the Black Lives Matter murals, and this
Speaker 1: came out of a meeting a Gracie mansion weeks ago
Speaker 1: with community leaders and activists who said, this would be
Speaker 1: such an important thing for this city to declare officially
Speaker 1: that is something again transcends all normal realities because we
Speaker 1: are in a moment of history where this had to
Speaker 1: be said and done. That's a decision I made, But
Speaker 1: the normal process continues for anyone who wants to apply
Speaker 1: this really is the lib mentality across the board about BLM.
Speaker 1: All the rules are out the window if it interferes
Speaker 1: with the BLM agenda. You know, that's what he says.
Speaker 1: You know this, this, this normal point in or this
Speaker 1: extraordinary point in time, is what it says. Who That's
Speaker 1: what I mean, All of a sudden, whether it's the
Speaker 1: protests or the signs on the streets, normal rules don't apply. Oh,
Speaker 1: because this is so important. What exactly makes this moment
Speaker 1: so important? What has changed? What's the big policy directive?
Speaker 1: What's the change in law that's going to make us
Speaker 1: all better? Oh, it's all just right nonsense from libs, nonsense,
Speaker 1: self righteous virtue signaling nonsense from the Democrat Party. There
Speaker 1: we go. Oh, and the process is the punishment, of course,
Speaker 1: with his there's a process to go through. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to the Bus and Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe
Speaker 1: on Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. President Trump sat down with Axios, which is, say,
Speaker 1: another one of these uh lib news websites. Oh, but
Speaker 1: they provide the great service of giving you one paragraph
Speaker 1: and then a talking point a Lib talking point below
Speaker 1: of what the conclusion is of why this matters. You know,
Speaker 1: for the Libs who have who find the New York
Speaker 1: Times front page is taking too long to read, you know,
Speaker 1: they go they go to Axios. I guess I don't
Speaker 1: know people some people go to this website. It is
Speaker 1: started by political people. How many lib websites with all
Speaker 1: the same opinions, all the same thoughts on the news
Speaker 1: have to exist. I mean, it's it's pretty amazing when
Speaker 1: you think about it, isn't it. They're all telling you
Speaker 1: exactly the same thing. None of them have anything, no
Speaker 1: unique takes. It's just are we far left or just
Speaker 1: sort of far left? Okay, well, I'm so glad that
Speaker 1: we have those diverse opinions out there for the liberal media.
Speaker 1: But anyway, we've got the president weighed in on a
Speaker 1: number on a number of issues here, and they're they're
Speaker 1: they're hammering him today. They're picking the parts of the
Speaker 1: interview where look at it wasn't it wasn't a particularly
Speaker 1: strong interview for Trump. I don't know why he sits
Speaker 1: down with Axios, and you know, at this point in time,
Speaker 1: so that they can push him on things that I
Speaker 1: don't some of the things I think are just clearly
Speaker 1: meant to go Trump. And everyone knows that if you're
Speaker 1: in the press and you ask the president a question
Speaker 1: where he's expected to give a certain answer and he
Speaker 1: doesn't want to, he really likes to stick it to
Speaker 1: the media and be like, no, I'm not gonna I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna give the answer that I know I'm supposed
Speaker 1: to give. I'm not going to say the thing that
Speaker 1: I know I'm supposed to say. So there was some
Speaker 1: of that too. But he was asked about where we
Speaker 1: are with COVID and in this Axios interview, and here's
Speaker 1: what you said, play seventeen. Even in these states, however,
Speaker 1: where the virus is under controlling at a very low number,
Speaker 1: Americans should continue to be vigilant, be careful in order
Speaker 1: to prevent the new hot spots from opening up or
Speaker 1: any new hotspots from ending up in those states. To
Speaker 1: that end, diverge all Americans to continue to socially distance,
Speaker 1: wash your hands, wear a mask when you cannot, avoid
Speaker 1: crowded places, and to protect the elderly, very very important,
Speaker 1: protect the elderly. So that was actually a Trump's press conference,
Speaker 1: but I same idea. It's talking about what he's trying
Speaker 1: to do, what we're trying to do nationwide against COVID.
Speaker 1: I will return to this issue of how the Libs
Speaker 1: really give this sense that they know what would need
Speaker 1: to be done to make this virus go away. And
Speaker 1: I'm just wondering when will they tell us? When can
Speaker 1: we hear? Because if their only thing is wear a
Speaker 1: mask and shut down the economy, that won't work, and
Speaker 1: that is crazy. So this this make believe world they
Speaker 1: live in where there is no virus. The virus has
Speaker 1: hit all over the world all right, and countries that
Speaker 1: we had been told have beaten it or having surges
Speaker 1: right now. So they're still trying to suppress it. And
Speaker 1: it's you know, it's a challenge all over the globe.
Speaker 1: And if you look on a per capita basis, the
Speaker 1: US is still in far better shape when it comes
Speaker 1: to mortality from this than many other comparable major countries,
Speaker 1: you know, the UK, Italy, Spain were pretty even with Germany. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I'll get back to COVID response in a second. Now
Speaker 1: that was on me. I picked out a clip that
Speaker 1: was not of the Axios interview but of the Trump
Speaker 1: Press conference yesterday. So let's actually go into a pretty sermark.
Speaker 1: I'm assuming well, I know this was a question that
Speaker 1: was asked in the press conference about John Lewis, the President,
Speaker 1: getting a lot of pushback on this one place sixteen.
Speaker 1: I don't know John Lewis. He chose not to come
Speaker 1: to my inauguration. He chose, I don't. I never journalist.
Speaker 1: Actually I don't believe. Do you find him impressive? I
Speaker 1: can't say one way or the other. I find a
Speaker 1: lot of people impressive. I find many people not impressive.
Speaker 1: But no, but I didn't you find his story? He
Speaker 1: didn't come to my inauguration, he didn't come to my
Speaker 1: study of the Union speeches. And that's okay, that's his right.
Speaker 1: And again, nobody has done more right back to the
Speaker 1: Americans than I have. I understand he should have come,
Speaker 1: but I think he made a big mistake of taking
Speaker 1: your relationship with him out of it. Do you find
Speaker 1: his story impressive? What he's done for this country was
Speaker 1: a person that devoted a lot of energy and a
Speaker 1: lot of heart to civil rights. But there were many
Speaker 1: others also. There's a petition to rename the Edmund Pettis
Speaker 1: Bridge in Selma Alabama as the John Lewis Bridge. Would
Speaker 1: you support that idea? Would I would have no objection
Speaker 1: to it if they'd like to do it, Yeah, would
Speaker 1: have no objection to it whatsoever. But see, that's not
Speaker 1: acceptable to the establishment, the live media. He's supposed to
Speaker 1: genuflect and go on a long You know, there's so
Speaker 1: many people in the media that they honestly don't know
Speaker 1: a darned thing about the legacy of John Lewis or
Speaker 1: really the civil rights movement, but they know what they're
Speaker 1: supposed to say. You know, he was a giant of
Speaker 1: the civil rights movement, a hero and look, he was
Speaker 1: a hero of the civil rights movement. That's true. But
Speaker 1: Trump doesn't like to be in a position where he
Speaker 1: has to say the thing that everybody has to say
Speaker 1: in that moment in time. You can argue that this
Speaker 1: is or you could certainly take the position this is
Speaker 1: a little bit childish of the president, and you know
Speaker 1: he shouldn't play into the journalist's hands on these things.
Speaker 1: But I also the president takes it kind of personally.
Speaker 1: Why didn't John Lewis show up the Presidence inauguration? But really,
Speaker 1: the president of United States, I think he's allowed. I
Speaker 1: think he's allowed to be a little annoyed about that.
Speaker 1: I do wish the President was a little more generous
Speaker 1: about you know, John Lewis as civil rights here. But
Speaker 1: John Lewis as congressman is a politician just like any
Speaker 1: other folks right there. These are different things. This is
Speaker 1: the This is a bit similar to you know, John McCain.
Speaker 1: Of course his military service, Uh, incredible, wonderful, praiseworthy, honorable,
Speaker 1: all that, that's all true. John McCain the politician really
Speaker 1: like to send other people's children off to fight wars
Speaker 1: that weren't a particularly good idea and love to get
Speaker 1: nice things written about him in the New York Times
Speaker 1: at the expense of the conservative movement in this country. Okay,
Speaker 1: like we're allowed to criticize a policy. I'm not criticizing
Speaker 1: as a human being, I'm not you know, I'm not
Speaker 1: to be rude about somebody who has passed away. But
Speaker 1: they're these are different, These are different areas of discussion.
Speaker 1: But Trump should know that that's not that's a nuance
Speaker 1: that will not be in any way, will not be
Speaker 1: accepted at this point in time. You're allowed only one thing.
Speaker 1: It has to be according to the media, and according
Speaker 1: to the establishment, you have to bow down and just
Speaker 1: speak in the most glowing terms possible about every aspect
Speaker 1: of anything that John Lewis ever did. Ever, that's the
Speaker 1: only thing, that's the only thing that's allowed. Now. Again,
Speaker 1: I'm somebody who thinks that when someone passes away, out
Speaker 1: of respect for the family, there should there should be
Speaker 1: a little bit of a decency in public discourse and
Speaker 1: just you know, use your judgment, right it be a
Speaker 1: nice human being about things when you can. But the
Speaker 1: president is getting absolutely hammoring. Oh my gosh, the journalists
Speaker 1: are all freaking out about this absolutely all day. I'm
Speaker 1: still the John Lewis news cycle that we're in right
Speaker 1: now for me is largely dominated by the blaring and
Speaker 1: completely unacceptable double standard for travel to this funeral. Right,
Speaker 1: you can have a funeral, you're not allowed. John Lewis
Speaker 1: is important, so he can have multiple funeral services where
Speaker 1: states will waive the health restrictions in play for those
Speaker 1: two for people to be able to go, because it's
Speaker 1: all so special. It's also because he's important. Your family
Speaker 1: is not that the state wants. You know, your family
Speaker 1: is not important. I tell you this right now, if
Speaker 1: I had a family friend, or god forbid, a member
Speaker 1: my family who passed away during this pandemic, it's a
Speaker 1: hell of a lot more important to me than going
Speaker 1: to a John Lewis funeral. I find somebody who is
Speaker 1: in the public eye, right Your actual connection to someone
Speaker 1: in assuming that I didn't know him, I didn't, I
Speaker 1: never met them. In your actual connection to a family member,
Speaker 1: I know, people say, oh my gosh, I'll give you. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Your connection to a family member matters a heck of
Speaker 1: a lot more than paying your respects to a political figure.
Speaker 1: But the state allows one and not the other. Why
Speaker 1: is that? Well, we all know why, because they pretend
Speaker 1: that this is all about health, but it's really all
Speaker 1: about so very much more, and it's really ultimately supposed
Speaker 1: to just be about making all of this Trump's fault.
Speaker 1: This is all everything that we see happening across the country,
Speaker 1: all the bad things going on as Trump's so old.
Speaker 1: You know, here's bro Cuomo. He's done with his deadlifting
Speaker 1: for the day and he wants to lecture the country
Speaker 1: on what to do about about Trump and how what
Speaker 1: a terrible guy he is. Play five, middle of a pandemic,
Speaker 1: and this President spent the weekend hitting golf balls and
Speaker 1: bragging about his large MAGA crowd turnouts and coronavirus hot zones,
Speaker 1: no mask, big crowd, buh fedic And the reality is
Speaker 1: once again, the key is the Wii. It's the truth,
Speaker 1: my brothers and sisters, This man is determined to keep
Speaker 1: down his golf handicap, not the number of cases that
Speaker 1: are making us sick. Should we be pushing on Congress, absolutely,
Speaker 1: But you know, too many on the right or playing
Speaker 1: the game because they're afraid of him keeping his golf
Speaker 1: handicap down instead of dealing with is this we're really
Speaker 1: going to do this now? So what's the President's supposed
Speaker 1: to do? We're all we're all under lockdown. We're all
Speaker 1: dealing with this misery. Is he not allowed to play golf?
Speaker 1: It's outdoors, it's zero risks for the people around him.
Speaker 1: Your socially distanced, what's the problem. I remember when Obama,
Speaker 1: who played a lot of golf. Obama would get criticized
Speaker 1: for his golfing during two wars and a war against
Speaker 1: terrorism that the Obama administration was doing a terrible job
Speaker 1: of winning, and there were mass casualty attacks on us
Speaker 1: soil and isis and all that. Obama playing a lot
Speaker 1: of golf, and the Libs would say, oh, it's so,
Speaker 1: it was racist to criticize Obama playing golf. That was
Speaker 1: what some of the journalists would say. It was just
Speaker 1: it was just more evidence of the racism of the
Speaker 1: right that it so, are you allowed to play golf
Speaker 1: or not? You know, can we can we just get
Speaker 1: can we get one standard? This is the problem with libs.
Speaker 1: You can never make any headway in an argument with them,
Speaker 1: or even an exchange of ideas, because what's true one
Speaker 1: day is not true the next. To them, all truth
Speaker 1: is relative. They just make it up as they go along.
Speaker 1: It's whatever works in the moment, whatever gets people on
Speaker 1: their side excited, makes them feel good, and whatever they
Speaker 1: say to that end is considered acceptable. Um, even something
Speaker 1: as dumb as he he's keeping his golf handicap down
Speaker 1: instead of COVID cases. What is the present supposed? Is
Speaker 1: the president supposed to give a nationwide lockdown order? And
Speaker 1: you know, we vote all this focus on testing, as
Speaker 1: if if we have enough testing, we're going to deal
Speaker 1: with this problem in a way that we wouldn't. We
Speaker 1: got eight hundred thousand tests a day in this country,
Speaker 1: I think is the last number I saw it, basically
Speaker 1: doing a million tests a day all across America close
Speaker 1: to it? Are are we in much better shape? Because
Speaker 1: of that? A test is not a cure, A test
Speaker 1: is not even a treatment. What what do we think
Speaker 1: for a disease that has a huge asymptomatic spread? How
Speaker 1: is testing ever? Nam Nancy Pelosi? From my test? Does
Speaker 1: it have enought? Testing? What? And trace? They've left out now?
Speaker 1: Because it turns out that the trace plan that they
Speaker 1: had at this stage of a pandemic was absurd. You're
Speaker 1: never going to catch up to all these people anywhere,
Speaker 1: not in anyone city, not in any one's state. This
Speaker 1: is madness. It was madness from the beginning. But they thought, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's what we're gonna do. Remember, folks, there is a
Speaker 1: huge ideological divide between people who understand that the government
Speaker 1: is not is incapable in any way of solving certain problems,
Speaker 1: and is inept in doing things that it should be
Speaker 1: able to do. So there are some things that are
Speaker 1: beyond government's capability to solve, and there are a lot
Speaker 1: of other things that the government should be able to
Speaker 1: At least make better, and it actually makes worse. And
Speaker 1: we're seeing a lot of that with the COVID nineteen pandemic.
Speaker 1: We're seeing a lot of that play out before our
Speaker 1: eyes right now. And then of course all all the
Speaker 1: blame shifting, all the f's to make this about Trump
Speaker 1: and about nothing else. Maxine Waters always always interesting soundbites
Speaker 1: from Maxine Waters, Member of Congress, Folks Democrat Member of Congress,
Speaker 1: blay clip twelve. And for those people who like him
Speaker 1: and support him and believe in him, many of them
Speaker 1: have followed him, and in following him, you know, it
Speaker 1: took all of this time for him to finally come
Speaker 1: around to say that masks were important and masks should
Speaker 1: be worn. And I want to tell you a lot
Speaker 1: of people who have not warned those masks because their
Speaker 1: their their president didn't wear them and told them that
Speaker 1: it didn't make any difference or probably dead now and
Speaker 1: he's responsible for it. People didn't wear masks because of Trump,
Speaker 1: she says, and because of that they died. So they
Speaker 1: died because of Trump. A lot of people died who
Speaker 1: were wearing masks all the time. I just wanted, so
Speaker 1: what do we think about that? There's a there's a
Speaker 1: logical fallacy that keeps getting applied here. We have no
Speaker 1: idea whether somebody didn't wear a mask at one point
Speaker 1: in time because of Trump and got COVID and then died,
Speaker 1: or if they were wearing a mask a lot and
Speaker 1: then it didn't matter because they still got the virus,
Speaker 1: which is absolutely not just possible, it's the evidence point
Speaker 1: to it as being probable. It is likelier than enough
Speaker 1: that if you're exposed this virus, the mask will not
Speaker 1: save you from getting infected, at least based on all
Speaker 1: the studies that they actually have real studies on this,
Speaker 1: not theoretical modeling. I'll give you get another example of it.
Speaker 1: You're in the hud This is the Buck Sex and
Speaker 1: Show podcast. Sweden has joined the Netherlands, now yet another
Speaker 1: country where their top docs, their their health experts have
Speaker 1: come out to say, hey, there's no point quote, we
Speaker 1: see no point in wearing masks, including on public transportation.
Speaker 1: And this is as COVID nineteen cases are dropping in
Speaker 1: the country. This is all reported by Fortune magazine and
Speaker 1: Newsweek here. As of Sunday, the latest death rate in
Speaker 1: Sweden per one hundred thousand people was fifty six the
Speaker 1: figure is lower than that in the UK sixty nine,
Speaker 1: Spain sixty Italy fifty eight. So that's that's data that
Speaker 1: Newsweek put out from JOHNS Hopkins University. UK has the
Speaker 1: world's fourth highest death toll overall, while Spain in Italy,
Speaker 1: which had the six highest and eighth highest death tolls, respectively,
Speaker 1: were formerly Europe's two countries worst hit by the outbreak.
Speaker 1: Sweden's latest case fatality ratio portion of deaths compared to
Speaker 1: total cases was reported to be seven point one percent.
Speaker 1: The figure is more than half the percentage in reported
Speaker 1: in the UK fifteen percent, half of Italy and Belgium
Speaker 1: each at about fourteen percent, and almost half out of
Speaker 1: France thirteen percent. So Sweden has less per capita deaths. Okay,
Speaker 1: Sweden has done better against the virus and never locked down.
Speaker 1: Someone explained a few months ago. We were told, Oh,
Speaker 1: Sweden is experimenting a national sacrifice and it's terrible and
Speaker 1: everyone's going to die there. No, there were people got sick,
Speaker 1: people died, just like it's happened everywhere. No lockdown, better
Speaker 1: outcome than a whole lot of its neighboring countries that
Speaker 1: did lockdown. Someone want to explain that no, no mandated
Speaker 1: mask wearing outside. None of this, My friends, I understand.
Speaker 1: I'm sick of this issue too. I want all of
Speaker 1: this to go away. But the people who were exploiting
Speaker 1: this and who are hysterical and don't learn from the
Speaker 1: past are the ones that are making the decisions now
Speaker 1: about what's going to happen in the future. The lockdowns
Speaker 1: are getting worse. Thanks for listening to the Bus Sesson
Speaker 1: Show podcast. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts. Yeah. Look, I think
Speaker 1: the federal officials, the White House, doctor Burkes, the Secretary,
Speaker 1: just sending the exact wrong message. They've learned nothing in
Speaker 1: six months. They're saying the same thing they said about
Speaker 1: the economic reopening. Just do it, Just do it. It
Speaker 1: will be fine. No, don't just do it. It It wasn't fine.
Speaker 1: We learned that lesson. Do it. If you have the
Speaker 1: virus under control, do it. If you have the safeguards
Speaker 1: in place, do it carefully. Let's understand that what Cuomo
Speaker 1: is really advocating for here is lockdown until election day
Speaker 1: New York is lockdown. Cannot eat inside, cannot gather in
Speaker 1: places told, where masks everywhere, told, the social distance. They're
Speaker 1: arresting people that are violating these things. Now, New York
Speaker 1: is lockdown. Other parts of the country are also in
Speaker 1: various stages of lockdown, right. I mean, they're not yet
Speaker 1: at the point where they're able to monitor you inside
Speaker 1: your house, but I'm not I'm not sure that they're
Speaker 1: never going to get there in terms of your outside life,
Speaker 1: what you can do outdoors, all kinds of restrictions. Still,
Speaker 1: so what are we seeing here. We have record high cases,
Speaker 1: and there's plenty of data to point to the case,
Speaker 1: the caseload falling, especially ICU hospitalization in Arizona, um in
Speaker 1: several other important states. Right now, if you look at it,
Speaker 1: the the ICUs are getting more freed up in Florida,
Speaker 1: more freed up in Arizona. So it seems to anyone
Speaker 1: who's looking at this with objective eyes that the virus
Speaker 1: is spreading across the country, because that's what this virus does.
Speaker 1: And I know that's that seems like a tautology. It
Speaker 1: seems like, well, of course, buck, but no, there are
Speaker 1: people who don't seem to don't seem to accept that.
Speaker 1: They think, if only we had more mask wearing. If
Speaker 1: only we did as we were told, like good little
Speaker 1: boys and girls, we wouldn't have this problem. It's just
Speaker 1: not true. It's just not true. The dictates of people
Speaker 1: like Cuomo are based in a dishonesty. The dishonesty is
Speaker 1: that New York did not suffer through the worst of
Speaker 1: this epidemic of any place in the entire country, which
Speaker 1: it did, and had more people die here for capital
Speaker 1: than anywhere else really in the world, which we did.
Speaker 1: So if you're looking at this, what is more likely
Speaker 1: that New Yorkers somehow learned over the course of months
Speaker 1: to all change their individual behaviors perfectly so that the
Speaker 1: virus would really no longer be a threat here, Or
Speaker 1: that the virus burned through the population of New York
Speaker 1: so thoroughly that we now have heard immunity against it.
Speaker 1: What's more likely. I'm here. I can tell you that
Speaker 1: people were wearing masks the whole time. People have been
Speaker 1: social distancing the whole time. So what really happened here?
Speaker 1: And if what Cuomo says is true, if this really
Speaker 1: is Oh, people, they haven't learned, they haven't listened that
Speaker 1: I want a mask, I told him, I'm to wear
Speaker 1: a mask. Quite in awhare a mask if that's what happened.
Speaker 1: The moment that we try to go back to our lives,
Speaker 1: the virus is going to explode in New York again.
Speaker 1: Right the moment that we have an actual reopening here,
Speaker 1: the virus is going to be everywhere. So what are
Speaker 1: we doing? We all agreed at the beginning of this,
Speaker 1: or at least we thought we did that. Remember, this
Speaker 1: was fifteen days to slow the spread. We're almost at
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty days to slow the spread. We
Speaker 1: were told that it was just a good hospital capacity. Ready,
Speaker 1: not a single You cannot find one case of a
Speaker 1: person anywhere in the country who was denied care in
Speaker 1: a hospital in the United States because of lack of resources.
Speaker 1: Not one time have I seen this, And I'm trust
Speaker 1: me when I say it would have been reported on right.
Speaker 1: The news would have been all over it. So what
Speaker 1: is this really? It's all these restrictions to slow the spread.
Speaker 1: We are just stretching out the spread of this virus
Speaker 1: and adding maximum economic impact to it and political instability.
Speaker 1: I'll get it to the mail in ballot issue in
Speaker 1: a few moments too. This is this is where we
Speaker 1: are right now, What is the answer that is offered
Speaker 1: by the other side. They never tell us. They act like, oh,
Speaker 1: if only you listen to I'm sitting here saying, Okay,
Speaker 1: what are we gonna do? He says. Chromos says, until
Speaker 1: the virus is under control, it's in. It's under control
Speaker 1: in New York, in New Jersey. I think because it
Speaker 1: got we went through a mass in mass infection, which
Speaker 1: effectively now is mass inoculation, t SELL and antibody immunity
Speaker 1: put together. You got a huge reduction in the ability
Speaker 1: of this thing to spread in New York. That's my belief.
Speaker 1: And they're plenty. They're plenty of good doctors out there
Speaker 1: who have already said the same thing. Right. There are
Speaker 1: some areas where you know, we were wrong. We didn't
Speaker 1: see this coming. I thought that it was going to
Speaker 1: dramatically drop down in the summertime, the same way that
Speaker 1: it does with seasonal influenza. That didn't happen, right. The
Speaker 1: spread happened all across the Sun belt over the summer.
Speaker 1: So what has happened then, right? And why is it
Speaker 1: that we didn't know these things? We haven't understood all along?
Speaker 1: How to stop this? The reliance on masks, my friends
Speaker 1: and the pandemic of nineteen eighteen, they were also there
Speaker 1: were masking everywhere. There were you know, the pro masking
Speaker 1: groups in different cities, and everyone was supposed to mask
Speaker 1: all the time. Do we really believe that that was
Speaker 1: an effective tactic? I mean, millions and millions of people
Speaker 1: around the world died from the Spanish flu pandemic of
Speaker 1: nineteen eighteen. If masking was so effective, it should be.
Speaker 1: If it was a worthwhile tactic on its own to
Speaker 1: deal with a pandemic, you would say, why doesn't it
Speaker 1: bring it to a screeching halt in any area where
Speaker 1: there's a real outbreak. And then I'd say, well, okay,
Speaker 1: social distancing, of course that works. If human beings aren't
Speaker 1: in contact with each other, they can't spread the virus.
Speaker 1: But you can't run a society that way. And by
Speaker 1: mixing these things together, masking and social distancing, well, which
Speaker 1: one is really effective? You will not find any hard
Speaker 1: science other than theoretical science. Right. We think that this
Speaker 1: is true, and a lot of people believe it to
Speaker 1: be true, But you will not find any hard evidence
Speaker 1: that masking alone will stop the pandemic from spreading. It
Speaker 1: might slow it a little bit, maybe by ten twenty percent,
Speaker 1: who knows, but you still have a massive pandemic going
Speaker 1: all over the country. I mean, I just wish we
Speaker 1: could have an adult conversation about this because we're all
Speaker 1: sick of it. I'm sick. I want to talk about it,
Speaker 1: and we were all of course other topics, other things,
Speaker 1: but this is it. They think if they can put
Speaker 1: this all at Trump's feet and have the country lockdown
Speaker 1: and miserable going into the election, we will, you know,
Speaker 1: the American people will vote for anything that's not Trump
Speaker 1: and just in a desperation act. And the desperation candidate
Speaker 1: is gonna be Joe Biden. That's where it is. It's
Speaker 1: also why the vice presidential pick, which is supposed to
Speaker 1: happen any day this week, who knows. They might delay it.
Speaker 1: I mean, people have been asking me, who do I
Speaker 1: think it's gonna be. I think it's gonna be Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: That's what I think. I think it's gonna be Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: Media loves her. Remember Obama picked Joe Biden. So it's
Speaker 1: like and everyone's kind of really and it's foreign policy
Speaker 1: credentials to the Obama ticket. Yeah right, but you know,
Speaker 1: there's there's really it just comes down to a pretty
Speaker 1: small circle of people that will really, in the end
Speaker 1: make this decision. The media loves Kamala Harris. She you know,
Speaker 1: checks a lot of boxes that the Democrats want checked,
Speaker 1: and that's it. I don't think these other names that
Speaker 1: are being put out their bass out of California, Lance
Speaker 1: Bottoms in Atlanta and Georgia, and these are mayors. I
Speaker 1: think it's or at least Bottoms as a mayor. I
Speaker 1: don't think that that's likely to happen. But this is
Speaker 1: a more consequence. I could be wrong, by the way,
Speaker 1: So who knows right? And the lives are crazy, who
Speaker 1: knows what they're gonna do. I do think it's oh
Speaker 1: well here, maybe maybe Atlanta mayor Bottoms is in fact
Speaker 1: higher up in the running because she's willing to just
Speaker 1: take every opportunity to trash Trump. So that's that's one
Speaker 1: way to get in the good graces of the Democrat Party.
Speaker 1: Play three. What do you think about when President Trump
Speaker 1: says he personally has done more for black Americans than
Speaker 1: anyone else. He's delusional, he's a narcissist, and he is delusional.
Speaker 1: The only person that believes that is him. He's done
Speaker 1: nothing for African Americans in this country, and she speak
Speaker 1: that and the same sentence is speaking of John Lewis.
Speaker 1: Is almost blasphemous. But okay, So Trump did have the
Speaker 1: lowest African American unemployment I believe, ever measured in this
Speaker 1: country under his presidency. So to say that he did
Speaker 1: nothing for the African American community, I think is that's
Speaker 1: clearly not true. If you're going to give presidents credit
Speaker 1: for things, they're certainly giving him all the blame for COVID.
Speaker 1: Now I think he should get credit for other milestones
Speaker 1: and things that happen on the upside. But this vice
Speaker 1: presidential pick is more consequential than they usually are because
Speaker 1: we all know that Biden. He says he's gonna be
Speaker 1: a one termer, and I think he's going to be
Speaker 1: even less than a one termer. And it makes I've
Speaker 1: walked you through this analysis that all lines up. He
Speaker 1: gets to be a hero he doesn't have. They don't
Speaker 1: need him there. He has no great leadership skills or
Speaker 1: qualities that they really want. He's just a placeholder so
Speaker 1: that they can get those swing voters in the Purple
Speaker 1: States they need to win to I'm out and vote Democrat,
Speaker 1: and then they'll hand it off to somebody who's who's
Speaker 1: a more of a leftist. Now, Count Kamala Harris is
Speaker 1: a transactional liberal. I mean, she's somebody who does what
Speaker 1: she has to do to work her way up the
Speaker 1: ladder of power, and so that may keep her from
Speaker 1: being quite as radical as some of the others out there,
Speaker 1: But I don't think that that's really the case anymore.
Speaker 1: You know, the old Democrat Party had the Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: style radicalism I'm sorry, Hillary Clinton style pragmatism of pay
Speaker 1: me and you know, I'll do whatever you want me
Speaker 1: to do, right, I mean, it's it's what's best for
Speaker 1: the Clinton individual brand, and that keeps it from being
Speaker 1: too socialists two Marxist, a little too crazy. She was
Speaker 1: still she was a progressive and a leftist, no question,
Speaker 1: But she was a leftist that wanted to get paid,
Speaker 1: all right. She was a leftist that believed in the
Speaker 1: power of the dollar. And you look at something and
Speaker 1: I think at all leftist at some level do they
Speaker 1: want it for themselves and not for others. But Hilary
Speaker 1: was somebody that look you could buy her off, and
Speaker 1: so that created some degree of predictability. I think the
Speaker 1: left today wants to go with somebody that is willing
Speaker 1: to go scorched earth against the other side. And that's
Speaker 1: why you see all this analysis now about what happens
Speaker 1: if a Democrat wins this election, and they're saying this increasingly.
Speaker 1: They're more open about this than they had been in
Speaker 1: the past. They'll say things like they're going to pack
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, They're going to add statehood for DC
Speaker 1: and for Puerto Rico, and try to pack the Senate
Speaker 1: against the Republicans because those are two places that'll be
Speaker 1: Democrat until Kingdom come. I mean, they'll be Democrat strongholds forever.
Speaker 1: They're trying to do things that will structurally, oh amnesty,
Speaker 1: of course, structurally change American politics so that we have
Speaker 1: a one party we have one party rule in this country.
Speaker 1: That is all on the table for the Democrats, and
Speaker 1: I think the mainstream Democrat party would go along with that.
Speaker 1: Now they have corporate America in their back pocket. They
Speaker 1: have the academy, colleges, universities, Hollywood, ninety five percent of
Speaker 1: the news media. They have all of that to bring
Speaker 1: to bear. The only thing that stops them from getting
Speaker 1: their way is that most Americans are like, I don't
Speaker 1: really want to live in a socialist hell hole where
Speaker 1: I'm being lectured on social justice nonsense all the time
Speaker 1: and people are just constantly being micromanaged and hectored into oblivion.
Speaker 1: I mean, just just being We're just going to live
Speaker 1: in a state of endless nagging if Democrats get their way.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's really what it is to be a
Speaker 1: modern liberal, to be a leftist today. You know, a
Speaker 1: Democrat who's really committed to the cause, you just want
Speaker 1: to nag and undermine and just annoy the crap out
Speaker 1: of everybody who wants to just live their life, make
Speaker 1: their own choices, and have some basic rights protected and
Speaker 1: left the hell alone. That's all they really want. Democrats
Speaker 1: hate that. That is their kryptonite. You're in the Freedom
Speaker 1: un This is the Buck Sex and Show podcast. You
Speaker 1: all know it's not my name on the ballot. It's
Speaker 1: Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, fighting against structural racism,
Speaker 1: really truly trying to combat poverty in our country with
Speaker 1: the Boost Act, ending discrimination with the auto insurance industry,
Speaker 1: and really taking on the corporate bullies. So know all
Speaker 1: of that right now is on this ballot. And I
Speaker 1: can't thank you all enough for being part of this
Speaker 1: journey with me. I can't wait to show our nation
Speaker 1: that this is what people want right now. They want
Speaker 1: real change, and they want it now, sated Philip, saying
Speaker 1: it it's all about the the left wing agenda on
Speaker 1: the ballot. Doesn't really even matter whether it's Biden or
Speaker 1: anybody else for that matter. The Democrat Party has its priorities,
Speaker 1: and this is the plan. This is the plan. AOC. Also,
Speaker 1: you know that Congress is certainly on board with this.
Speaker 1: They're radical, they're leftist. Blake Clip nine. When you are
Speaker 1: put into a really high pressure situation, that's when people
Speaker 1: start to change. That's when they start to shift, that's
Speaker 1: when they start to hedge back on their values. And
Speaker 1: that's why you see so much swarming in Washington right now.
Speaker 1: That's why a lot of things, that's why you aren't
Speaker 1: seeing the political courage that we need, which is why
Speaker 1: it is so important that we have folks like Ilhan
Speaker 1: who are anchoring our Congress around a moral center that
Speaker 1: is accountable to everyday people and not lobbyists or corporations
Speaker 1: that are looking to make a buck off of our
Speaker 1: public good, off of our public institutions. And we have
Speaker 1: so much of that right now, which is why it's
Speaker 1: so important that we use this and we use this
Speaker 1: opportunity to organize and to expand our AOC says something
Speaker 1: very important there. And I know and make a lot
Speaker 1: of jokes about AOC as to others, but I mean
Speaker 1: that she says something very important that ilhan Omar and
Speaker 1: other far left members of the Democrat Congress are are
Speaker 1: are now creating an anchoring, a moral center of their party. Now.
Speaker 1: I often talk to you about how I view the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party as largely immoral and chasing what feels good
Speaker 1: is what is useful for the purposes of power and control,
Speaker 1: for a ment for a mentality, for an ideology that
Speaker 1: is largely anti God, anti individualism, anti objective reality. And
Speaker 1: I stand behind all of that. But as I've told you,
Speaker 1: white liberals are actually large that they are the anti
Speaker 1: God movement within America, as white liberals who aren't aren't
Speaker 1: really religious, don't really believe in that stuff, and that
Speaker 1: disparity between those who believe in God and those who don't,
Speaker 1: between Democrats and Republicans. If it weren't for minority who
Speaker 1: are Democrats, who are more connected to their church and
Speaker 1: to their religion, would be even more apparent. But when
Speaker 1: she says a moral center of the Democrat Party, understand
Speaker 1: that she means she means to declare socialism and the
Speaker 1: different policy dictates of the Democrats as inherently moral right.
Speaker 1: That having this and what this means is that people
Speaker 1: can make a determination, people in power can make a
Speaker 1: determination about what can be taken from you by force
Speaker 1: by this state, and that your success or your individual
Speaker 1: choice is is only subject to the whims of the state.
Speaker 1: There is no natural law, there's no natural right, there's
Speaker 1: none of that. It's whatever whatever the government decides your
Speaker 1: rights are, that's what they are. Right. This is whether
Speaker 1: you want to talk about cultural Marxism or the economic
Speaker 1: implications of this, all of that, all that points in
Speaker 1: the same direction. So the moral center of the Democrat
Speaker 1: Party becomes the state in place of God. That's what
Speaker 1: you have to know. And so there's an essential truth
Speaker 1: that she is getting at here that the moral core
Speaker 1: the Democrats believe in is not that there is objective
Speaker 1: right and wrong, that there are principles that are true
Speaker 1: in all cases, that should be applied to all moral questions,
Speaker 1: that they are universal and eternal. None of that right,
Speaker 1: inalienable rights, all of that is just that's all just nonsense.
Speaker 1: That's all just you know, bla bla blap claptrap. No,
Speaker 1: what they see is the government in the actual role
Speaker 1: of determining what is right and what is wrong. The
Speaker 1: government tells you what you can and cannot do in
Speaker 1: any sphere that it chooses, and determines it on a whim,
Speaker 1: in real time, based on whoever's in power. This is
Speaker 1: a huge door way open for totalitarianism. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: we're gonna be come totalitarian tomorrow, but once that mentality
Speaker 1: is adopted, how far are we from even a modern
Speaker 1: totalitarian state like China? A generation or two maybe. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to The bus Esson Show podcasts. Remember to
Speaker 1: subscribe on Apple Podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. The Care Act or cares Act or
Speaker 1: whatever they're calling it. The the rescue bill of the
Speaker 1: economy is run out, and so now we get to
Speaker 1: play our favorite game. Who wants to play Chicken on
Speaker 1: the Roadway with Nancy Pelosi with chardonnay socialist Dancy, And
Speaker 1: I'm never going to take my foot off the pedal
Speaker 1: I've covered for you. You better turn it off the
Speaker 1: road or else. Who wants to Who wants to see
Speaker 1: if Nancy's gonna play first? I don't know. This is
Speaker 1: this is what she likes to do, especially with the
Speaker 1: the political temperature as as high as it can possibly be,
Speaker 1: and the more suffering and misery that can happen in
Speaker 1: the meantime the better. Why is this in any way
Speaker 1: an issue right now when we could just have an
Speaker 1: extension of the benefits for a week or two while
Speaker 1: they finished negotiation. No, Nancy wants Americans to feel pain. Nope,
Speaker 1: no pain, no gain. Insane in the membrane, Nancy is
Speaker 1: all about it. And here she is telling everybody that
Speaker 1: it's all, Oh, what a surprise, It's all Republicans fall
Speaker 1: play eleven. Right now today we have an emergency. A
Speaker 1: building is on fire, and they're deciding how much water
Speaker 1: they want to have in the bucket. This is very
Speaker 1: important to start. Millions, millions of people could have fallen
Speaker 1: into poverty without the six hundred dollars. They're so fussy
Speaker 1: about any anecdote information they may have about somebody not
Speaker 1: going to work because they make six hundred dollars on this,
Speaker 1: but so cavalier about big money going to companies that
Speaker 1: really shouldn't be having it. So the six hundred dollars
Speaker 1: is very important in the lives of the American people.
Speaker 1: When you want to speculate about stabilization and this or that,
Speaker 1: if and when, that's for another day. For right now,
Speaker 1: we have an emergency. But Nancy wants to hold up
Speaker 1: the emergency. Nancy doesn't doesn't want to do anything. We've
Speaker 1: seen this before. Who was it that was stalling twice
Speaker 1: to get a bill pass to get money to the
Speaker 1: American people. It was Nancy Pelosi and her lunatic Democrats.
Speaker 1: So we've already seen this, We've already been to this place.
Speaker 1: Sure enough, now we are having the same argument, the
Speaker 1: same fight because the Democrats see political advantage in it.
Speaker 1: That's what that's what's actually happening, that's what's going on
Speaker 1: right now. And I think that they walked into a
Speaker 1: bit of a trap here because remember, once you turn
Speaker 1: on six hundred dollars a week unemployment in addition to
Speaker 1: whatever state unemployment one gets. Those are pretty generous benefits now,
Speaker 1: and I saw some messages about this last night I
Speaker 1: was reading. I understand this is a different situation, right
Speaker 1: that the government mandated the shutdown of the economy. People
Speaker 1: lost jobs, People that I know very well, friends of mine,
Speaker 1: lost jobs because of government policy. They absolutely should be helped.
Speaker 1: They have been paying their taxes, paying into these state
Speaker 1: insurance programs a lot for unemployment for exactly this reason.
Speaker 1: So I am not you know, this is not oh
Speaker 1: people are just all living, fat and happy and not
Speaker 1: caring and no, no, not at all. But you can
Speaker 1: see that at some point there does have to be
Speaker 1: some mechanism to incentivize going back to work, especially for
Speaker 1: those whose jobs pay them less than they are currently
Speaker 1: getting on unemployment. If somebody told me, well, I love
Speaker 1: my jobs, I'm probably a bad example. I would probably
Speaker 1: do the show if I was getting paid, you know,
Speaker 1: the same amount to not work anyway. But that's that's
Speaker 1: the truth. I know that sounds all you're all all
Speaker 1: buck Really it is true, though I probably would do
Speaker 1: it anyway. Brucer Mark would be sending us postcards from
Speaker 1: the beach in Jamaica, but I would still be doing
Speaker 1: this show. Correct. Yeah, so for most people though, it's
Speaker 1: a reasonable thing for them to say, I don't want
Speaker 1: to I don't want to expose myself to possibly getting
Speaker 1: this virus, and also I want I want to get
Speaker 1: paid even more money, and so they're going to stay home.
Speaker 1: So what is the big what is the big political
Speaker 1: fight here? Democrats get to posture as Santa Claus. They
Speaker 1: love this, Oh, just give people more money and list
Speaker 1: amounts of more money, especially going to election. Republicans are saying,
Speaker 1: we got to get people back to work because these
Speaker 1: we have lulled ourselves, ourselves into a false sense of
Speaker 1: economic security where the government can can effectively pay bills.
Speaker 1: And the debt bomb that we are running, we're running
Speaker 1: up a debt bomb at multiple levels. You know, we're
Speaker 1: running up a debt bomb. At the national level. It's
Speaker 1: the most prominent one, twenty five trillion and counting very
Speaker 1: likely that we're going to be at thirty trillion in
Speaker 1: just a few years here and maybe sooner. So we're
Speaker 1: gonna be the thirty trillion dollars of debt soon, friends, soon.
Speaker 1: That's absolutely mind blowing. And there are, of course consequences
Speaker 1: of this, and we've been in an unprecedented era of
Speaker 1: American financial dominance and prosperity, where we're still the global
Speaker 1: reserve currency. Once any of these things starts to shift, though,
Speaker 1: it's too late to change it back right And China,
Speaker 1: I think, is sensing real weakness on our behalf. There's
Speaker 1: a lot happening here in the background, a lot of
Speaker 1: structural pressure going on for our entire economy that no
Speaker 1: one's paying any attention to you right now, or at
Speaker 1: least is not driving the political conversation. We're focused on
Speaker 1: who's how quickly and who are we going to get
Speaker 1: checks too? To keep the lights on at home? And
Speaker 1: that's important, and I'm not saying it's not, but we
Speaker 1: also need to look at the bigger picture of how
Speaker 1: long do we really think this is sustainable? How much longer?
Speaker 1: And what happens when all of a sudden we don't
Speaker 1: have an expectation the governments is going to be writing
Speaker 1: checks for everybody. And we go back to industries where
Speaker 1: you know, the restaurant industry in New York. I think
Speaker 1: over eighty percent of restaurants in New York and this
Speaker 1: is just one sector, but it's one that I know
Speaker 1: well from eating a lot of food. They didn't pay
Speaker 1: their full rent during the pandemic, and a pretty large
Speaker 1: percentage of paid almost no rent. Well, you might say, buck,
Speaker 1: the landlords can afford that, not all of them can.
Speaker 1: What happens to them? Then the banks are going to
Speaker 1: have properties that they're going to have to either lease
Speaker 1: or sell. How's that going to work? Right? How do
Speaker 1: you There's gonna be so much that we're gonna have
Speaker 1: to so much destruction of wealth and so much dislocation
Speaker 1: of assets. You're gonna have to purge all of this.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be a mess. A lot of people that
Speaker 1: haven't paid their rent in months and months, and the
Speaker 1: government I think is pretending, or at least the government
Speaker 1: perhaps can't is unwilling to face up to what it
Speaker 1: really means when they're paying such a large percentage of
Speaker 1: Americans bills. What happens when they stop? But this is
Speaker 1: a bit like the normal deck conversation we have, where
Speaker 1: nobody wants to be the one to say, hey, everybody,
Speaker 1: the party's got to stop now, before the party stops forever.
Speaker 1: No one is the one that wants to say that.
Speaker 1: Trump is at least weighing in to tell everybody. Look,
Speaker 1: he's he's trying to help quarterback from behind the scenes,
Speaker 1: getting this another round of economic rescue, stimulus, whatever you
Speaker 1: want to call it. Play fourteen. The fact that I'm
Speaker 1: not over there with crazy Nancy. No, I'm totally about
Speaker 1: and we're going to be doing some things that are
Speaker 1: very good because we don't think that she would. Look
Speaker 1: what Chuck Shermer wants more than anybody, and I would
Speaker 1: say Nancy Pelosi would be second. They want to bailout
Speaker 1: cities and states that have done a bad job over
Speaker 1: a long period of time, nothing to do with coronavirus
Speaker 1: or a China virus or whatever you want to call it.
Speaker 1: They want to bailout cities and say they want bailout money.
Speaker 1: They want a trillion dollars in bailout money, and a
Speaker 1: lot of people don't want to do that because we
Speaker 1: don't think it's right. The Democrats have run some very
Speaker 1: bad states and some very very bad cities, and a
Speaker 1: lot of people don't want to give them a trillion
Speaker 1: dollars to reward them for doing a bad job. A
Speaker 1: trillion dollars for state and local governments. A lot of
Speaker 1: that's supposed to go to Democrat run cities, and they're
Speaker 1: going to make all kinds of claims about what debts
Speaker 1: have they run up now? But were they really run
Speaker 1: up during the pandemic or were these structural issues from before.
Speaker 1: I just think about that. The Democrats want to use
Speaker 1: this as a massive federal taxpayer funded giveaway to states
Speaker 1: and cities that are Blue strongholds that have mismanaged their
Speaker 1: finances and are in some really dire economic straits and
Speaker 1: they're facing they're going to raise taxes anyway. I mean,
Speaker 1: the cities. Cities are gonna have a one two punch
Speaker 1: I think pretty soon where and this is true pretty
Speaker 1: much all major cities. I mean, and certainly any city
Speaker 1: over a quarter of a million people, you're gonna have
Speaker 1: a rush on taxes. Right. People are gonna start or
Speaker 1: people are gonna run away from taxes because the services
Speaker 1: are going to start to go down, crime is rising,
Speaker 1: people gonna want to leave cities, and meanwhile those cities
Speaker 1: are going to become more desperate and they're gonna say, ah,
Speaker 1: but wait, we want more of your tax dollars. That
Speaker 1: creates a death spiral for a city. People start to flee.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's the big worry in New York and
Speaker 1: the most the highest earners are also the most mobile economically.
Speaker 1: That's just the case in our economy. The people with
Speaker 1: the most money have the greatest option to leave and
Speaker 1: go wherever they want to leave, to leave a city,
Speaker 1: to leave a state entirely. And so that's what Democrats
Speaker 1: are trying to manage right now. They're trying to leverage
Speaker 1: the panic that the whole country is going through with
Speaker 1: this continuing wave of COVID nineteen and get enormous payoffs
Speaker 1: courtesy of the taxpayer for states and cities like New
Speaker 1: York and Los Angeles and others that are going to
Speaker 1: want enormous bailouts. That's what the fight is over. So
Speaker 1: what are democrats doing holding unemployment payments that people deserve
Speaker 1: and need, holding those hostage. That's what democrats do. You're
Speaker 1: in the Freedom Hud. This is the Buck Sex and
Speaker 1: Show podcast. Under my administration, African Americans were doing better
Speaker 1: than they've ever done in the history of this country.
Speaker 1: So I did a lot job numbers all of the
Speaker 1: money they had, money, they were getting great, their percentage
Speaker 1: was up there. Housing ownership, they did better than they've
Speaker 1: ever done. And now you know what we're doing. I'm
Speaker 1: building it up again. We're going to have it. Next
Speaker 1: year will be a great year, unless it's screwed up
Speaker 1: by somebody that doesn't know what he's doing, which could happen,
Speaker 1: but I don't think it will. He's saying, Joe Biden's
Speaker 1: not going to know how to get the economy up
Speaker 1: and running. I think that's definitely the case. What do democrats,
Speaker 1: What do democrats think is going to make us all
Speaker 1: wealthier and better off? More government spending. Just just have
Speaker 1: the government spend more money, tax people more, and spend
Speaker 1: more money. That's going to somehow make your life better.
Speaker 1: It's not going to work, but they will never change
Speaker 1: on this one because spending is also a form of
Speaker 1: power and control and social engineering, and they know that.
Speaker 1: So that's going to be the plan. That's what they're
Speaker 1: gonna do. That's why they're so uh, they're so invested.
Speaker 1: They're so invested in these massively expensive programs like the
Speaker 1: Green New Deal because this appeals ideologically, appeals to them. Oh,
Speaker 1: the idea that we could spend trillions of dollars the
Speaker 1: government in charge of all this. It's like these people
Speaker 1: have never interacted with anyone who works for the government.
Speaker 1: The government overwhelmingly doesn't care, is inefficient, is bloated, and
Speaker 1: as bad at what it does because there are no
Speaker 1: price controls, there are no incentives really in government, and
Speaker 1: the only accountability you get is from public perceptions. There's
Speaker 1: no marketing mechanism. Really, it's just what do people think
Speaker 1: is a government doing a good job. Well, it's what
Speaker 1: we got, we need it, we got to deal with it.
Speaker 1: And this is why, yet another reason why I'm so
Speaker 1: concerned about what happens the future of this country if
Speaker 1: the Democrats do in fact, when how are they gonna win? Well,
Speaker 1: we know that vote by mail is a very big
Speaker 1: part of this. Here's what Chuck Schumer has to say
Speaker 1: about what we're seeing in their place. Six. We Democrats
Speaker 1: believe strongly that we have to have free and fair elections,
Speaker 1: that the mail must be delivered in a timely way
Speaker 1: because so many more people are going to vote by mail,
Speaker 1: so many more polling places need to be set up
Speaker 1: because of Covidge can't be close together. There's a long
Speaker 1: list of things that are needed. And the good news
Speaker 1: is our Republican colleagues agree with a few of them.
Speaker 1: But some they don't agree with and we are discussing
Speaker 1: why we think they need them, and they'll counter with
Speaker 1: us in the room. Minuchin and the Meadows yep. Vote
Speaker 1: by mail. They can get vote by mail. They think
Speaker 1: they can win. They don't care how much cheating there is,
Speaker 1: as long as they win. And if they don't win,
Speaker 1: they'll claim there was cheating because of vote by mail.
Speaker 1: It's perfect, folks. It's perfect now. All that works, isn't it?
Speaker 1: Another thing? I want to throw this in the mix.
Speaker 1: A note on TikTok. Yesterday I talked to you about
Speaker 1: about TikTok and the presidents saying it has to be
Speaker 1: sold by September fifteenth. This is the Chinese social media app.
Speaker 1: Has eight hundred million users worldwide. I believe a hundred
Speaker 1: million users in the US. It's considered the fastest growing
Speaker 1: social media app of all time. It's supposed to be
Speaker 1: worth one hundred billion dollars. It is highly addictive if
Speaker 1: you start to use it. I can tell you that
Speaker 1: I just watch people cooking and basting stakes all day.
Speaker 1: Is it really an espionage threat? Because people have been
Speaker 1: asking me this, is it really an espionage threat? And
Speaker 1: I say maybe how is it a national security threat?
Speaker 1: I view this is as there are there are two levels.
Speaker 1: There are two levels on this one. Oh, when the
Speaker 1: President waited on this during his actually his interview play fifteen,
Speaker 1: we had a great conversation called me to see whether
Speaker 1: or not how I felt about it, and I said, look,
Speaker 1: be controlled for security reasons by China, too big, too invasive,
Speaker 1: and it can't be. And here's the deal. I don't
Speaker 1: mind if whether it's Microsoft or somebody else, a big company,
Speaker 1: a secure company, very very American company, buy it. It's
Speaker 1: probably easier to buy the whole thing than to buy
Speaker 1: thirty percent of it, because they say, how do you
Speaker 1: do thirty percent? Who's going to get the name? The
Speaker 1: name is hot, the brand is hot, and who's going
Speaker 1: to get the name? How do you do that? Of
Speaker 1: its own by two different companies. So my personal opinion
Speaker 1: was probably better off buying the whole thing rather than
Speaker 1: buying thirty percent of it. I think buying thirty percent
Speaker 1: is complicated, and I suggested that he can go ahead,
Speaker 1: he can try. We said a date. I said, a
Speaker 1: date of around September fifteenth, at which point it's going
Speaker 1: to be out of business in the United States. But
Speaker 1: if somebody, and whether it's Microsoft or somebody else, buys it,
Speaker 1: that'll be in custom. So what we have here, and
Speaker 1: this is a short a short version of what could be.
Speaker 1: I suppose a much longer conversation. What we have is TikTok,
Speaker 1: which is owned by byte Dance, which is a Chinese
Speaker 1: company and therefore has ties to the Chinese Communist Party.
Speaker 1: Is it an espionage threat? Maybe not the same way
Speaker 1: that Huawei, which has already been banned, would be, where
Speaker 1: there are concerns that they can intentionally leave open a
Speaker 1: backdoor and their software or in their hardware. The bigger
Speaker 1: issues influence operations, and that's much more pernicious because it's
Speaker 1: much harder to find to pinpoint that and find out.
Speaker 1: And we've seen what a little bit of Facebook add
Speaker 1: by from some Russian hackers does the US political discourse.
Speaker 1: Can you imagine with TikTok, the minor, the minor changes
Speaker 1: that they could make to their algorithms, the ways that
Speaker 1: they could try to influence the political conversation in this country.
Speaker 1: That's part of it. And then also China bans the
Speaker 1: US from having Facebook and Google and these mega companies.
Speaker 1: It gives it won't give access to the to the
Speaker 1: Chinese market, So why shouldn't we respond in kind? That's
Speaker 1: a question I don't see asked nearly enough. This is
Speaker 1: really as much an economic war as it as anything else.
Speaker 1: And perhaps now there's a greater understanding, thanks to President Trump,
Speaker 1: about this as a new digital cold war, that we
Speaker 1: are in an online cold war, if you will, against
Speaker 1: the Chinese Communist Party, and TikTok is caught up in
Speaker 1: the middle of that. I hope Microsoft buys it though,
Speaker 1: because I like watching those Steake videos. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the buses and show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on
Speaker 1: Apple podcast, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: So what's really going on with the schools, folks? I
Speaker 1: know a lot of you want to know, and it
Speaker 1: is a local issue, it's a national issue, and it's
Speaker 1: a hugely political one. To walk us through what's really
Speaker 1: happening with whether schools will be open or not and
Speaker 1: what's going on behind the scenes. We have Inez Felcher
Speaker 1: with us now. She is a policy analyst at the
Speaker 1: Independent Woman's Forum, and there's a lot about education and
Speaker 1: stuff in it. It's great to have you back. It's
Speaker 1: great to be here. But okay, let's start with this one.
Speaker 1: I'm seeing some stuff about Montgomery County, which is right
Speaker 1: outside of DC, so it gets a lot of attention
Speaker 1: to the national media where private schools are now being
Speaker 1: told that they can't. So it was up to public
Speaker 1: schools to determine that they could open, but not private
Speaker 1: schools also were being told that they couldn't. Or what happened?
Speaker 1: What's going on? Yeah, it's it's kind of a long saga,
Speaker 1: but I think it's an illustrative one about how politicized
Speaker 1: and ridiculous this conversation has gotten. Right, So, the Maryland
Speaker 1: public schools are doing localized decisions as to whether or
Speaker 1: not they open. Teachers unions are lobbying to make sure
Speaker 1: that not only the public schools don't open, but they
Speaker 1: don't want to lose what they see as market share
Speaker 1: of parents that they seem to feel completely entitled to.
Speaker 1: And so what's happening is they're trying to close down
Speaker 1: avenues that parents are looking at to actually avoid the
Speaker 1: disaster of distance learning the most of them experience in
Speaker 1: this spring. So one option, of course, is to look
Speaker 1: at private schools which were reopening. Unlike public schools, they
Speaker 1: don't have a guaranteed source of income. Just like any
Speaker 1: other business, they rely on being open to be able
Speaker 1: to keep the lights on so and pay their employees.
Speaker 1: So a lot of private schools are looking to open.
Speaker 1: They are taking a lot of precautions and doing so.
Speaker 1: This is not a sort of lase reopening. But nevertheless,
Speaker 1: a lot of private schools are opening when public schools aren't,
Speaker 1: and so it's created this this lobby effort on behalf
Speaker 1: of teachers unions to close down all options like learning pods,
Speaker 1: like private schools. Unfortunately, the governor just issued about a
Speaker 1: day ago, the governor just issued order that nicipalities would
Speaker 1: not be given the power to arbitrarily close a private schools.
Speaker 1: So the governor stepped in and prevented that situation in
Speaker 1: Montgomery County. But the same thing is happening all across America, right,
Speaker 1: So this is what I want to ask. It sounds
Speaker 1: like public school teachers unions are trying to get this
Speaker 1: to a place where if they can't have your kids
Speaker 1: to teach, nobody can. That seems to be the policy design.
Speaker 1: That's exactly what's happening. And I think parents are getting
Speaker 1: really frustrated because it is not a negotiation in good faith.
Speaker 1: So every poll shows that families and parents are worried
Speaker 1: about staff safety, for example, in a reopening, but they
Speaker 1: know what teachers and at least some teachers, and certainly
Speaker 1: the unions and the districts refuse to acknowledge that the
Speaker 1: last few months of distance learning prior to the summer
Speaker 1: break was a total disaster for a lot of families
Speaker 1: and a lot of students. And so that's just not
Speaker 1: an option. It doesn't seem like a feasible option to
Speaker 1: a lot of families. But instead of negotiating good in
Speaker 1: good faith about how to reopen during a pandemic, we
Speaker 1: find teachers unions making absolutely crazy demands, not just related
Speaker 1: to health and safety, but related to politics. Right, So
Speaker 1: they've demanded that charter schools be closed, that private schools
Speaker 1: be closed. They've demanded that the police be defunded. Right.
Speaker 1: These are things that have absolutely nothing to do with
Speaker 1: whether or not it's safe to open public schools in
Speaker 1: a pandemic. And I think it's really frustrating a lot
Speaker 1: of parents who might otherwise have wanted to work with
Speaker 1: the unions and with teachers in good faith, and I
Speaker 1: think we're going to see an earthquake. I think this
Speaker 1: is really going to shake up American education for decades
Speaker 1: to come, because the parents are not going to take
Speaker 1: this lying down, and they aren't taking it lying down.
Speaker 1: What are your expectations for how parents and a lot
Speaker 1: of parents listening to this right now who are trying
Speaker 1: to figure out how they will adapt. You know, what
Speaker 1: are the changes that you see coming to the approach
Speaker 1: that American parents across the country will take about education
Speaker 1: and also their views on how they should have their
Speaker 1: kids educated going forward. I think we're seeing the collision
Speaker 1: of two separate sort of lines of thought here. One is,
Speaker 1: as I said, the total failure of distance learning. So
Speaker 1: a lot of families are looking to form what was
Speaker 1: being called pandemic pods. But prior to this was called
Speaker 1: micro schooling, where you have a few families, let's say,
Speaker 1: you know, anywhere from five, ten, fifteen students binding together
Speaker 1: to then hire a teacher or a tutor and have
Speaker 1: those classroom settings just be smaller and more localized. In
Speaker 1: a lot of times, in the COVID situation, these families
Speaker 1: are agreeing to try to limit their social interaction to
Speaker 1: each other. So they're essentially trying to expand their households
Speaker 1: out And this is something that actually isn't it's new
Speaker 1: for this context, but it's not new. It's been going
Speaker 1: on in Florida for quite some time because Florida has
Speaker 1: something called education savings accounts where some parents can actually
Speaker 1: take a portion of the funds that are spent on
Speaker 1: their child for their education and do exactly that with it.
Speaker 1: So we have micro schools in Florida that are just
Speaker 1: a few families deciding they have they have similar sort
Speaker 1: of visions for what they want their kids to learn,
Speaker 1: and then they're combining those scholarships that they're given by
Speaker 1: the state, those flexible account clip they're given by the state,
Speaker 1: and then they're hiring the staff almost as if they
Speaker 1: were a small school, although they are not regulated as
Speaker 1: a school. They're not like a pub open to the
Speaker 1: public school. There's sort of a little tiny pod and
Speaker 1: I think they kind that can become a really good
Speaker 1: model for a lot of families now, but it'll be
Speaker 1: open to more families. We saw, you know, the Washington Post,
Speaker 1: New York Times, right end teachers unions. Of course, I'll
Speaker 1: pile on this idea, saying it's it's terrible for quote equity, right,
Speaker 1: because not everybody can afford to do this. Well, first
Speaker 1: of all, there are families of limited means who have
Speaker 1: been doing this on their own for years, so tell
Speaker 1: them that. But but it's true that it would be
Speaker 1: more equitable if we actually passed universal education savings accounts
Speaker 1: and allowed kids to every kid to have that dollar
Speaker 1: amount attached to his name actually go to the family
Speaker 1: to address this challenging time, rather than to go straight
Speaker 1: to a district school. Their teachers unions feel entitled to
Speaker 1: their money, but don't feel obligated to actually provide an education.
Speaker 1: That's what we're seeing right now, and I think parents
Speaker 1: are fed up and right to be, and just on
Speaker 1: the point about the failures of distance learning, virtual teaching,
Speaker 1: whatever it is that we're calling it now. I've even
Speaker 1: heard a lot of Democrats just in passing to like, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: it was kind of a debacle. Why how what were
Speaker 1: the failures? Like, well, first of all, you know, there
Speaker 1: are some inherent limitations. Obviously for young kids learning from
Speaker 1: zoom or learning on a computer with a lot of
Speaker 1: screen time is not the ideal situation. But there are
Speaker 1: virtual charter schools who have that have perfected this over
Speaker 1: a decade or more and have learned how to deliver
Speaker 1: education online. But that's that's not what this was, right,
Speaker 1: um So for starters only the minority of schools we're
Speaker 1: actually offering um live instruction online. The rest of them
Speaker 1: had some combination of worksheets or like digital platform check ins,
Speaker 1: often like multiplying platforms, which is really frustrating for families.
Speaker 1: And then we saw some complete abandonment of the instruction
Speaker 1: purpose of schooling. Uh So, for example, in Chicago, almost
Speaker 1: half of the teachers didn't even log on to the
Speaker 1: learning platform at least three times a week for the
Speaker 1: in duration of distance learning, meaning those kids just essentially
Speaker 1: went without instruction, they went without education, They just basically
Speaker 1: gave up on actually delivering education. And that's the experience
Speaker 1: that families had in the spring, which is why continuing
Speaker 1: that distance learning or that force of distance learning seems
Speaker 1: like such an impossible ask for many families, especially um
Speaker 1: you know, single moms who have to work. There is
Speaker 1: a real crunch time, real life you know consequence to
Speaker 1: this that the unions are just not recognizing and they're
Speaker 1: just calling everybody who brings it up as a concern.
Speaker 1: They're saying, oh, you want people to die, you know
Speaker 1: you want like they threw up bunch of body bags
Speaker 1: in front of the district office in DC as part
Speaker 1: of the protest, and indeed, DC the district went from
Speaker 1: a partial reopen several times a week to fully online
Speaker 1: this fall because of the protests of teachers unions. But
Speaker 1: I think they're overplaying their hands in his felt everybody
Speaker 1: the Independent Woman's Forum. It is always great to have
Speaker 1: you all talk soon. It's great to be here about
Speaker 1: things you're in the Freedom und This is the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show podcast and back by popular demand, the one
Speaker 1: and only are our favorite intellectual anarchist, the man himself,
Speaker 1: Michael Malice is in the mix. He is the host
Speaker 1: of You're Welcome with Michael Malice, also author of books
Speaker 1: including The New Right and Dear Reader, and unauthorized biography
Speaker 1: of Kim jong Ill. What's up, my man? How you doing?
Speaker 1: I am doing great here reading from Brooklyn. Nice man.
Speaker 1: So what's happening in America right now? Mal So I
Speaker 1: just want to I want to just just toss the ball.
Speaker 1: Do you tell us what's going on? I think we're
Speaker 1: seeing the increasing cold war between the right broadly speaking,
Speaker 1: or even just the left and the anti left. And
Speaker 1: I think a lot of organizations that have been in
Speaker 1: power for a very long time are doubling down on
Speaker 1: their attempts to stay in this power, which they perceived
Speaker 1: to be not entirely in correctly a function of the
Speaker 1: upcoming presidential election. So you view this, then, I would
Speaker 1: guess as only likely to get worse and intensify, which
Speaker 1: I suppose is the expectation that we all have. But
Speaker 1: are you surprised at all at the hypocrisy and the
Speaker 1: ferocity of the way the left has embraced this, whether
Speaker 1: it's the BLM movement, anti for all these things together
Speaker 1: while putting forward Joe Biden as their candidate makes sense
Speaker 1: of that for us, I don't think it's hypercritical at all.
Speaker 1: I think how it works and progressivism for over a
Speaker 1: century has been based on the concept and they would
Speaker 1: call it scientific envisioning a conclusion and then you know,
Speaker 1: messing around with the inputs to force the output that
Speaker 1: you find desirable, whether it's through bureaucrats or whether it's
Speaker 1: through ideal logs. So you know, for them to take
Speaker 1: any organization or movement and bring it under their rubric
Speaker 1: is par for the course. I mean, the progressivism got it.
Speaker 1: You got to start in the eighteen nineties by being
Speaker 1: variently homophobic. They were thriving gay cultures in New York
Speaker 1: seeding other places. But they won't talk about that. Now
Speaker 1: now you know, they love gay rights. So any weapon
Speaker 1: that they will have at their disposal they will use
Speaker 1: to further and maintain their control of cultural dominance. But
Speaker 1: I think things are and yeah, here's a great example.
Speaker 1: I think things are going badly for them. The New
Speaker 1: York Times is engaged in a very public assault in
Speaker 1: our history and trying to redefine America with the sixteen
Speaker 1: nineteen project as a function of slavery. And if you
Speaker 1: define America as foundationally based on slavery, then a lot
Speaker 1: of other things follow suit and dominoes logically speaking. And
Speaker 1: now they've had to push back the woman who runs it,
Speaker 1: Idah Wells. She said, Oh, we're not saying this is
Speaker 1: the history. We're just saying this is a history. You
Speaker 1: wouldn't be having to make that clarification publicly if people,
Speaker 1: including many leftist historians, weren't calling you out on your nonsense.
Speaker 1: So I think they're overplaying their hand. And I think,
Speaker 1: just like any jihadis, they're going for the moderates first,
Speaker 1: but they don't have the capacity, thank god, to actually
Speaker 1: execute people. So that is going to drive people in
Speaker 1: opposition to them, if not necessarily toward Trump, who is
Speaker 1: almost secondary in this longer battle. What do you make
Speaker 1: of the calm with which I think a lot of people.
Speaker 1: I mean, now we're speaking about hundreds of millions of people,
Speaker 1: but the way that rights have been hipped away at
Speaker 1: during the pandemic, where now they will just on a whim.
Speaker 1: I mean, the New York is probably the best example
Speaker 1: of this other line. I know there are others. They'll say, well,
Speaker 1: you can eat food, but you can only eat it
Speaker 1: at a restaurant outside, and you can't order drinks alone.
Speaker 1: You have to order food with your drinks, and you
Speaker 1: can't order a drink before your food. And you know,
Speaker 1: I've been joking around people saying, at what point did
Speaker 1: they start putting an egg timer on the table outside
Speaker 1: that you're allowed to eat in and if you don't,
Speaker 1: they're going to arrest you. I mean, it seems to
Speaker 1: me like we're a country that thinks of itself as
Speaker 1: a as a big collection of individuals who care about
Speaker 1: their rights and freedoms and democracy and the Constitution. And
Speaker 1: when the governor jumps, we all say how high it's
Speaker 1: a little disappointing. Well, hl Menkin, the great cynic of
Speaker 1: times past, said, the average man does not want to
Speaker 1: be free. He simply wants to be safe. I'm not
Speaker 1: surprised at this because if you go back a generation,
Speaker 1: look at the Patriot At the Patriot Act allowed the
Speaker 1: government to basically infringe on our rights and near you,
Speaker 1: Edward Snowden revealed that pretty much all our phone calls
Speaker 1: are being recorded as a matter of course, by the
Speaker 1: state and Conservatives and Democrats, you know, both who have
Speaker 1: members of their movements who ostensibly or for privacy rights
Speaker 1: blithely every year. We knew these things without even a
Speaker 1: mention of this being a huge atrocity in terms of
Speaker 1: rights and in terms of the Constitution the founding fathers.
Speaker 1: So it's a lot easier to put over ideas when
Speaker 1: there is a legitimate crisis, when people are sincerely dying.
Speaker 1: But in terms of broader issues, I see very little
Speaker 1: pushback among Americans despite how we're perceived and told that
Speaker 1: we are when it comes to infringements on our freedoms,
Speaker 1: and it is It's just, it is what it is.
Speaker 1: I guess I could say I'm not surprised that's the
Speaker 1: President said that about the pandemic on that Axios interview
Speaker 1: and certainly got a lot of yeah, yeah, a lot
Speaker 1: of heat. I think we're speaking of Michael Malice, author
Speaker 1: of A Dear Reader, the unauthor Biography of Kim Jong
Speaker 1: Ill and also The New Right, a book that I
Speaker 1: have here on my bookshelf. Michael, you know, there seems
Speaker 1: to be a very consistent chorus from the anti Trump,
Speaker 1: not just left, anti Trump everything. If only, and then
Speaker 1: there's kind of a pause, we'd be so much better off.
Speaker 1: All of this is Trump's fault. I never really understand
Speaker 1: what they're it's never clear. I shouldn't say I don't understand,
Speaker 1: it's never clear. If only what what is it that
Speaker 1: you think they're The claim really is if Trump, if
Speaker 1: Trump hadn't done the following, we wouldn't be in this circumstance.
Speaker 1: It seems like that the data does not support the
Speaker 1: idea that the American experience with COVID nineteen is uniquely bad,
Speaker 1: especially when you look at our general health as a population,
Speaker 1: which I don't know one wants to talk about. Diabetes
Speaker 1: and heart disease are the two biggest mortality risks other
Speaker 1: than age that people have for this, and America is
Speaker 1: in a class by its self in those areas. But
Speaker 1: what are we supposed to have done differently according to
Speaker 1: the left as you see it, other than just not
Speaker 1: have trumpy president. I think what they are reacting to
Speaker 1: is a population and a nation that does not regard
Speaker 1: them as worthy of praise and does not waste time
Speaker 1: engaging in conversation with their stupid opinions. And when you
Speaker 1: have this is unprecedented. You had George W. Bush, Rodney McCain.
Speaker 1: They all felt comfortable engaging with and having discussions on
Speaker 1: the left's terms. President Trump is saying, no, we're not
Speaker 1: having this conversation. You guys are an abomination. And you
Speaker 1: know he often refers to the fake news as the
Speaker 1: enemy the people. He said this yesterday. I have a
Speaker 1: similar expression. So this causes them an enormous existential grief
Speaker 1: because if you are a moral, busybody whose focus in
Speaker 1: life is domination and controlling people's lives, controlling their money
Speaker 1: and controlling how they live, and you have an establishment
Speaker 1: in the White House that is not even to give
Speaker 1: you the time of day. This will cause you enormous
Speaker 1: psychological distress. And I think that is what they are,
Speaker 1: if not explicitly referring to, emotionally responding to. Isn't it
Speaker 1: fair to say, I mean, some of these signals that
Speaker 1: we've seen, especially from the more anti full protests that
Speaker 1: have happened. What are you, as somebody who's an actual anarchist, Michael,
Speaker 1: What do you make of these people in Portland who
Speaker 1: say they're antiphon and then they run up to black
Speaker 1: cops and screaming their faces and spit at them and
Speaker 1: say that they're race traders and all this. What does
Speaker 1: any of this have to do with actual anarchism. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean they're referring back to the original anarchism in
Speaker 1: the late nineteenth century, which was very much based on
Speaker 1: anti police, which reviewed the police as a function of
Speaker 1: capitalist control. There's a monument in seven term in Chicago
Speaker 1: to the hate Market Right Martyrs. These were seven men
Speaker 1: who were killed simply for their political views when a
Speaker 1: police officer was killed by bomb, even though several of
Speaker 1: them weren't even present at the location, so this go
Speaker 1: back a long way. However, it's just fascinating to see
Speaker 1: how if you watch the corepor press, these people apparently
Speaker 1: don't exist. I'm sure you probably saw the video where
Speaker 1: General Nadler from the House Chairman was asked about, you know,
Speaker 1: Antika violence, and he's just said, it's a myth if
Speaker 1: this doesn't exist. So you know, the New York Times
Speaker 1: will put on page a one above the fold an
Speaker 1: article about some kid who watched Bench Shapiro videos and then,
Speaker 1: as a result of YouTube, started watching more to various
Speaker 1: videos and then kind of revert to the mean. But
Speaker 1: when you have people engaged and movements engaged in wholesale
Speaker 1: violence and wholesale disrespect towards the police, they simply act
Speaker 1: as if they don't exist. Michael Mallis everybody author of
Speaker 1: the New Right. Check it out. Also, go watch You're
Speaker 1: Welcome with Michael Mallos and maybe I'll have you back
Speaker 1: on a show at someone we'll have a longer conversation,
Speaker 1: mister Mallus, Good to see you. Thanks Black, Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to the Bus Sesson Show podcast. Remember to subscribe
Speaker 1: on Apple podcast. The iHeartRadio app or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcast. Ain't no party like a Team Buck party,
Speaker 1: because a Team Buck party don't stop. Yeah, we got
Speaker 1: Buck turned up to eleven. It's time for roll call,
Speaker 1: Roll call time, everybody. Hey, producer Mark just saw this one.
Speaker 1: In case you ever get you ever get tired of
Speaker 1: the Buck Section show. There's a new job opportunity. Huawei,
Speaker 1: the banned Chinese company, is seeking a director of Government
Speaker 1: Relations in Washington, DC to develop and maintain effective relationships
Speaker 1: with federal government officials. Oh perfect, I'll send my resume. Enemy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you want to be that guy who was like, hey, guys,
Speaker 1: come on, saw the Chinese company wants to help destroy
Speaker 1: America and you know, take over the future of the world.
Speaker 1: We can make some money here, folks, you know, so
Speaker 1: want way to go. They probably would pay pretty well.
Speaker 1: But that's not that's not a job, and I think
Speaker 1: anybody would. It's it's a little bit like being a
Speaker 1: big tobacco lobbyist. After all the lies from big tobacco
Speaker 1: have come out and people are like, oh, so you
Speaker 1: guys really were suppressing the science about how this kills people.
Speaker 1: So yeah, you don't want to you don't want that gig.
Speaker 1: That's a tough one. You ever smoked a cigarette, Producer Mark, No,
Speaker 1: I don't enjoy killing myself. Yeah, I can do that
Speaker 1: with food. I have never smoked a cigarette in my life.
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you, I don't know, Yeah exactly. If
Speaker 1: I'm gonna have a vice, it's gonna taste delicious and
Speaker 1: preferably have either an excess of sugar or or cheese
Speaker 1: or something like that. Yeah, and I never got the
Speaker 1: ala of smoking a cigarette. Cheese and sugar are are
Speaker 1: the things that really get me? Cheese and chocolate. Yep, yep, yep.
Speaker 1: Oh man, I'm getting hungry just thinking about it. All right,
Speaker 1: let's get to roll call. Remember to go to bucksexon
Speaker 1: dot com. Also, we're doing buck briefs these days. You
Speaker 1: gotta check them out. You can do so on Facebook
Speaker 1: or on Instagram. If you're not following me on Instagram,
Speaker 1: what's going on buck sexon on Instagram? You should be
Speaker 1: checking it out. We're posting show content there now. We
Speaker 1: are using that platform. Not gonna be doing TikTok yet,
Speaker 1: that's for sure. TikTok gets bought. Will you agree to
Speaker 1: do some dances for the TikTok audience TikTok gets bought
Speaker 1: by an all American company with Microsoft. Then you know,
Speaker 1: I might, I might do some buck shuffle dances and
Speaker 1: show people how we get down. Show everybody my funky moves.
Speaker 1: You can do the dances, put like little captions about America,
Speaker 1: Oh your opinions stuff. I'll do a dance for American freedom.
Speaker 1: Baby who that's the plan? All right? Um? Mike kicks
Speaker 1: us off here, Hi, Buck. The rules are demonstrably, presumptuously
Speaker 1: and unapologetically different for our fred congressional and bureaucratic royals
Speaker 1: these most recent decades. They glare with indignation and quickly
Speaker 1: dismiss any commoner's public challenge to their privilege. Oddly, Americans
Speaker 1: must have some odd fascination with them, voting them back
Speaker 1: in every two years. Castle doctrine shields high. Yeah, Mike,
Speaker 1: the political class in this country loves to exempt themselves
Speaker 1: and expects different treatment from what the rest of us have.
Speaker 1: I think that's really an irrefutable point at this at
Speaker 1: this stage. And you know that's if you go back
Speaker 1: to the origins of English common law, and you even
Speaker 1: go back to Magna carta and twelve fifteen, signed on
Speaker 1: the fields of Runnymede. If you go back to Magna Carta,
Speaker 1: the big evolution in Western Western civilization and jurisprudence specifically,
Speaker 1: was there got to be rules that everyone, everyone is
Speaker 1: held accountable too, and that you can't break. There are
Speaker 1: got to be rules, real rules that we can all understand,
Speaker 1: that are clear and that are applicable to everyone. If
Speaker 1: there is anybody for whom there are no rules whatsoever,
Speaker 1: then we got a problem. And there if there's a
Speaker 1: whole class of people for whom there are no rules,
Speaker 1: we got really big problems. So I do insist on
Speaker 1: continuing to point out the ways in which our current
Speaker 1: legal system and just the application of laws and regulations
Speaker 1: is inconsistent based upon political expediency. I got a big
Speaker 1: problem with that, very very big problem of that ownah
Speaker 1: hi Buck. I live in Redding, California. We are the
Speaker 1: true Northern California. My grandsons are eight and ten. My
Speaker 1: daughter just told me they'll be going back to school
Speaker 1: usually the middle of August, masks worn only two and
Speaker 1: from the classroom, not in the classroom. The children will
Speaker 1: only be with each other, lunch eaten in the classroom
Speaker 1: recess only with their classmates. We're thankful for this concession.
Speaker 1: There is a petition I signed to recall Gavin Newsom
Speaker 1: whatever the rea, and he's opening the schools will take it.
Speaker 1: My heart goes out to you for being locked down. Still,
Speaker 1: our law enforcement in Reading is more relaxed, for which
Speaker 1: we are grateful. Thank you for what you continue to do.
Speaker 1: Thanks for being our voice. Blessings and shields high Well, Ohanna,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for your kind noted for letting
Speaker 1: us know what's going on with schools in California, that
Speaker 1: this school opening issue is going to just get even
Speaker 1: more contentious. And I want to just ask the people
Speaker 1: that think that lockdown is what is the endgame here?
Speaker 1: When do we stop doing this when the virus is
Speaker 1: under control. If that is the standard, then let's all
Speaker 1: be and we believe everything else they say about mask
Speaker 1: wearing and social distancing and all this stuff. The moment
Speaker 1: that we go back to living our lives, the virus
Speaker 1: will not be under control. So what are we doing? Oh,
Speaker 1: it is lockdown until vaccine. They just won't tell us that.
Speaker 1: Oh no, I'm sorry, it's lockdown until election. That's what
Speaker 1: we're all going through. They are stealing a year of
Speaker 1: americans lives from them. That is what the government is
Speaker 1: currently doing. That's what is happening. And the public health
Speaker 1: experts who have been wildly unimpressive this whole time, Well,
Speaker 1: what have they known? What have they told you that
Speaker 1: you didn't know from the first week of this wash
Speaker 1: your hands, wear a mask, social distance. We all know
Speaker 1: that from just dealing with colds and flu in our
Speaker 1: normal lives, that those are things that we do. Do
Speaker 1: they work? Man, I don't know. We all get colds
Speaker 1: and flu anyway, but we try. What is the great
Speaker 1: public health policy? I'm speaking about innovation here. What have
Speaker 1: they come up with to test and trace? Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: been a disaster, But you know, people want to believe.
Speaker 1: They want to believe that the experts can save them all,
Speaker 1: and that if only we had listened more, if only
Speaker 1: we were more obedient little surfs in this country, we
Speaker 1: wouldn't all be subject to this disease. Still, it's it's nonsense,
Speaker 1: but that's what they think. Eric. Hey Buck, it's been
Speaker 1: a while, but I have two questions. Who is the
Speaker 1: snow Princess? And how do we outlast strawberry ice cream?
Speaker 1: On a side note for producer Mark, Cinnamon Life is
Speaker 1: the best producer Mark. What say you to this Cinnamon
Speaker 1: Life claim? Yes, Cinnamon Life cereal is the best. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: that is my favorite cereal. Everyone my wife thinks I'm nuts,
Speaker 1: and a lot of people think I'm nuts, but it is. Hey. Look,
Speaker 1: you know, I think cinnamon is a great and underutilized spice.
Speaker 1: So and I told you I love cinnamon toast crunch,
Speaker 1: cinnamon French toasts. Who my favorite thing? Who? It's really
Speaker 1: really good? So and at the snow Princess is my girlfriend.
Speaker 1: And that's that's where we leave that. And then how
Speaker 1: do we outlast strawberry ice cream? I don't know, a
Speaker 1: good question. We gotta speak to our local representatives about that.
Speaker 1: You know, I found something. I was very it's very
Speaker 1: startled when I was told this, you know, really really
Speaker 1: like strawberry ice cream and has some has some on
Speaker 1: hand pretty much at all times. My own wonderful parents too, great,
Speaker 1: fantastic patriotic Americans. They like strawberry ice cream. So I
Speaker 1: don't know, at least be no strawberry ice cream. Liking
Speaker 1: or not liking is not a genetic thing, you know,
Speaker 1: it just it can skip a generation. They like it,
Speaker 1: Producer Mark, I'm what can I say? I know we
Speaker 1: brought it up an they can have one flaw. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and they're a lot of perfect. They like strawberry ice cream.
Speaker 1: It's okay, they like strawberry ice cream. You can never
Speaker 1: show up places on time. You know, everyone has their Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: No one's perfect. No one's perfect, Zach hey Buck. First off,
Speaker 1: Producer Mark is the best. But don't worry. Running up
Speaker 1: ain't bad. There we go. I completely agree with your
Speaker 1: long standing, correct opinion on not bestowing titles to public
Speaker 1: officials after they leave the office. It perpetuates the faux
Speaker 1: royalty that public service has become. Pro tip to support
Speaker 1: your exception on retired military keeping their rank. When you
Speaker 1: are placed on inactive role is retired, you are still
Speaker 1: technically in the military for the rest of your life,
Speaker 1: subject to UCMJ, and with the potential to be recalled
Speaker 1: to active duty if needed. Zach, Very very interesting, very
Speaker 1: worthwhile addition to our our thought process here on the
Speaker 1: keeping up of the titles. So yes, yes, indeed, and
Speaker 1: you're still subject to being called up to duty if
Speaker 1: need be. Yeah. I just also I think that there's
Speaker 1: a special a special honorific for serving in the government
Speaker 1: is different than serve far serving the military is different.
Speaker 1: Then you know, yeah, I was the ambassador to I
Speaker 1: was the ambassador to a Kosovo for a year, and
Speaker 1: we all have to be like, oh, mister ambassador. And look,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna say it because I saw today there
Speaker 1: was an interview on Fox News with doctor Jill Biden.
Speaker 1: Her name is Jill Biden. Okay, she's a doctor of education,
Speaker 1: which is not a doctor. She has a PhD in education.
Speaker 1: I don't. I'm sorry. I know people get the PhDs
Speaker 1: of the audience can get mad at me. That's fine,
Speaker 1: but you are you know, Joe Blow or Jane Blow PhD.
Speaker 1: I do not think that everyone has to run around
Speaker 1: calling you doctor all the time. I mean, do we
Speaker 1: have to call people who have an honorary doctorate doctor? No.
Speaker 1: I think doctor is for m d medical doctor, boom dropping,
Speaker 1: some dropping, some truth bombs. So there there we have it.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't, don't. It's like a lawyer who
Speaker 1: insists on always being called or always writing, you know,
Speaker 1: esquire at the end, it's like, come on, come on, really,
Speaker 1: but some people do you'd be surprised. Hunter. Hey Buck,
Speaker 1: my name is Hunter and I am thirteen. I am
Speaker 1: from Spokane, Washington. I love listening to the program. You
Speaker 1: are extraordinary talented, extraordinarily talented in what you do. You're
Speaker 1: Alex Jones impression cracks me up every time. Keep it up,
Speaker 1: Buck and producer Mark shield Tide. Well, I'm gonna tell
Speaker 1: you something right now. You gotta stop listening to bucks
Speaker 1: ecident because he is part of the Illuminati. He is
Speaker 1: a deep state plot with a CIA to take over
Speaker 1: the government. He's he's gonna do things to amphibians that
Speaker 1: will blow your mind, part of an alien plot. To
Speaker 1: also use the plot with the King of England who's
Speaker 1: not even a person, and all the Illuminati and the
Speaker 1: builder Bergs come together, and there you go. Google it,
Speaker 1: read it, check it out. It's true. Stop listening to
Speaker 1: Buck Sex. It's telling too much, too much stuff not true. Also,
Speaker 1: that guy's hair can't be real. Can't be real. I
Speaker 1: tell you right now, I've seen it. I've seen the schematics.
Speaker 1: It's a ts TS cleared only Buck Sex's hair is fake.
Speaker 1: It's part of a government plot. So there you go, Hunter,
Speaker 1: thanks for listening. My man, appreciate it. Alex. Hey Buck,
Speaker 1: I've been enjoying your show every day since this pandemic started.
Speaker 1: Needed somebody to actually tell the news. You've been doing great.
Speaker 1: Keep up the good work. Thank you, Alex. You were
Speaker 1: talking about mail in ballots little on Thursday or Friday,
Speaker 1: and I saw a meme that applies it basically says,
Speaker 1: imagine you won the powerball, would you send it in
Speaker 1: the mail or go yourself to turn it in? Same
Speaker 1: situation for mail in ballots. Thanks again, Alex. I would
Speaker 1: not trust the mail to get it done, that's for sure.
Speaker 1: Mail in ballots are going to be fraught with problems
Speaker 1: and challenges and shortcomings. Oh my, thank you very much
Speaker 1: for writing again. I appreciate it. She'll tie you're in them.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. All right, more
Speaker 1: roll call here. We have Nanette in the mix, and uh,
Speaker 1: you know, we're just trying to trying to get the
Speaker 1: show on with bearing down on us here with terrible
Speaker 1: winds and rain and lions and tigers and bears. Oh my,
Speaker 1: it's crazy here right now. It's hope it's not a
Speaker 1: tornado ripping through manat at anytime soon. It looks pretty
Speaker 1: dark out there. All right, we have m what's up?
Speaker 1: We have Nanette Buck, I love the Fouch and Cuomo
Speaker 1: as an Indiana girl who spent a few weeks every
Speaker 1: summer fishing in Minnesota. Gotta tell you too much Minnesota
Speaker 1: in your Gretchen Wilson Michigander. Um, well, what does the
Speaker 1: fouch think about this? The Fouch wants you to know
Speaker 1: that if you mitigate the Michiganda or the mitigate the
Speaker 1: Minnesota in your Michiganda, the data will tell you that
Speaker 1: you're less Michigan and more Minnesota. That's what I'll tell you.
Speaker 1: But what does Cuomo say? Quobo wants you to know
Speaker 1: that Michigan is not Minnesota. How do we know Michigan
Speaker 1: is not Minnesota. Minnesota on a map looks a little
Speaker 1: bit like a glove or perhaps a mitten. What does
Speaker 1: a mitten is? Why you put on your kid when
Speaker 1: you want them to look like a little kid because
Speaker 1: a glove is too adult looking. Why is it glove
Speaker 1: to adult? Because their little fingers all stead together in
Speaker 1: the mitten where it is warm, unlike a glove where
Speaker 1: their fingers separate, which could in fact result in less insulation.
Speaker 1: What do I mean by insulation. All right, you get
Speaker 1: the idea. I don't know, Producer Mark, can you tell
Speaker 1: the difference between a Michigander and a Minnesota accent because
Speaker 1: I'm a I'm just a yuppie from NYC man. I
Speaker 1: can't tell the difference at all. No, it's just like
Speaker 1: telling the different between New York, New Jersey, Long Island
Speaker 1: and all the same. Yeah, New York and New Jersey.
Speaker 1: They definitely think, they definitely think that they have very
Speaker 1: different accents. But I don't think that the the the
Speaker 1: tonal variations really are all that all that different at all.
Speaker 1: John Shields, a real news fan, I recently attempted to
Speaker 1: engage your discussion about how America is divided. My point
Speaker 1: was that the Democrats the media have been dividing us
Speaker 1: for decades. Al Gore and Florida and Trump the last
Speaker 1: four years are pretty obvious examples. The other guys seem
Speaker 1: to get upset at this, claiming that both sides are
Speaker 1: responsible for dividing the country or that it's I'm doing this.
Speaker 1: But he didn't openly say that. Just wanted your thoughts
Speaker 1: commy bear lives, John, Yeah, lives are always going to
Speaker 1: think that Trump is the one who is responsible for
Speaker 1: dividing the country. No one else has ever divided the
Speaker 1: country before Trump. He's the worst. It's all Trump. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he got all that stuff, and you're never gonna convince
Speaker 1: them otherwise. So just understand that liberals have convinced themselves
Speaker 1: of certain things about Trump that are not They are
Speaker 1: impervious to additional facts or reality. So you're not going
Speaker 1: to win that argument, man, But I appreciate you stay
Speaker 1: in the fight. And I have been thinking more about
Speaker 1: that little furry commy bear character from the earlier iteration
Speaker 1: of the Buck Sexton Show, and I'm starting to think
Speaker 1: maybe he needs to make a return. But it'll be
Speaker 1: a triumphant one Tony. At least one listener listens to
Speaker 1: all five hours of programs you do a day. Wow, Tony,
Speaker 1: that is really that is really humbling and very kind
Speaker 1: of you. I listened to wo R Live and I
Speaker 1: and I am my newly listening wife listening to your
Speaker 1: national show later. Thank you for all your hard work.
Speaker 1: It was appreciate it well, Tony. You're in the five
Speaker 1: hour You're in the five hours of Buck Club, my man,
Speaker 1: five hour Bucks. That's a special place. I don't even
Speaker 1: know if I have any relatives on the five hour
Speaker 1: Buck Club, So thank you so much for that, and
Speaker 1: it's really meaningful. Yeah, guys, I do a show in
Speaker 1: New York City as well on wr Radio. So there
Speaker 1: you have it. Thought, Oh, this is Tony's got more.
Speaker 1: It is the Devil's greatest achievement that he convinced the
Speaker 1: world the devil does not exist. It is the Democrat's
Speaker 1: greatest achievement. They convince people of color the Democrats care
Speaker 1: about them best to you, the Snow Princess and Telula,
Speaker 1: as well as producer Mark. But you are number one. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you, especially since that other person said producer Mark
Speaker 1: is number one gonna give gonna give him a big head,
Speaker 1: although I'm the one, you know, Mark. I actually got
Speaker 1: a special sized baseball cap that fits. I found a
Speaker 1: special site that makes hats for huge headed people. Nay,
Speaker 1: they make hats horses now apparently, and it does fit.
Speaker 1: I have a baseball hat that fits. Is it just
Speaker 1: a generic baseball hat or what's on the hat? Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's like a just a generic cap for giant headed
Speaker 1: people like me. So it fits. Though, I'm gonna be
Speaker 1: let me take a photo and make fun of myself.
Speaker 1: Is it look I finally have a hat that fits.
Speaker 1: Look at that you gotta get I had a special
Speaker 1: order it though. What's your head size? Like it was
Speaker 1: this was this was the equivalent of like double xcel. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: because like I, either the fitted hat sizes go to
Speaker 1: like seven eight you know. No, no, it's beyond that. Man,
Speaker 1: It's like twelve on the ten point scale. I'm an eleven.
Speaker 1: That's the show today. Everybody, stay safe, stay dry. She'll
Speaker 1: tie