Speaker 1: You're in the freedom hunt. Thanks for listening to The
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show podcast to get the latest from Buckhead
Speaker 1: buck Sexton dot com. I try not to watch this
Speaker 1: silly stuff about the British Royals. In fact, the Daily Mail,
Speaker 1: which is one of my favorite websites for a lot
Speaker 1: of things, I wish I could pay them a subscription
Speaker 1: just so I didn't have to see all this stuff
Speaker 1: about what's going on with Meghan and Harry. I could
Speaker 1: care less, But now they have overtaken our culture. Now,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, we're supposed to be paying attention
Speaker 1: to this, at least for the next day or so,
Speaker 1: so I'll do some of that. Also, we've got to
Speaker 1: get into Cuomo and how this guy is just constantly
Speaker 1: shifting the goalposts. He's trying to now pretend that he
Speaker 1: just wants an investigation. Send it past at one point
Speaker 1: nine trillion dollars spending goal. We've got a lot to
Speaker 1: get to today. But you know, the Internet never forgets,
Speaker 1: and it's never been a more important time to understand
Speaker 1: that than right now, because given how much what you
Speaker 1: look for online can be tracked and sword and put
Speaker 1: into an algorithm, now more than ever you really need
Speaker 1: to be aware of the fact that your data is
Speaker 1: out there, it's being mined, it's being farmed, and it
Speaker 1: could even be used against you. When this cancel culture
Speaker 1: world we're in, you never know if going to certain
Speaker 1: sites that look at politics in a particular way could
Speaker 1: become a problem for you down the line. You also
Speaker 1: have the possibility that people out there are going to
Speaker 1: sell your data in a way that would really infringe
Speaker 1: upon your privacy. Everything you search for watcher click online
Speaker 1: can be tracked by big tech companies. Okay, that's why
Speaker 1: I switch on Express VPN and you should too, because
Speaker 1: with Express VPN on my computer on my phone, my
Speaker 1: IP address is masked by a secure VPN server, which
Speaker 1: makes it harder for websites to identify me. The Express
Speaker 1: VPN Apple also encrypts my network data to protect my
Speaker 1: sensitive information from being compromised. You really need this on
Speaker 1: your stuff. Okay. Think of this the same way we
Speaker 1: all used to have anti virus back of the day.
Speaker 1: Because you don't want your computer to crash. You want
Speaker 1: your data and what your activities are on your computer
Speaker 1: to be protected and secure. This is so straightforward. Use
Speaker 1: Express VPN on up to five devices simultaneously. Okay, Express VPN,
Speaker 1: so stop heading over your data to big tech companies.
Speaker 1: Go to the VPN I Trust for online protection. Visit
Speaker 1: Express vpn dot com slash buck to get three months
Speaker 1: free on a one year package. That's right, three months
Speaker 1: free on a one year package is a great deal
Speaker 1: Express VPN, Express vpn dot com slash buck. To get
Speaker 1: those three months extra free, go to ExpressVPN dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck right now. I'm pretty sure we fought a
Speaker 1: war a couple of hundred years ago so that we'd
Speaker 1: never have to pay attention to the British monarchy ever again,
Speaker 1: and the American people wouldn't have to ever give a crap,
Speaker 1: if you will, what the monarchs think about anything. But
Speaker 1: here we are, now, with the complete saturation and domination
Speaker 1: of media today, with this interview. I saw some of
Speaker 1: it last I couldn't stomach watching the whole thing. I
Speaker 1: just don't care enough, but I watched enough of it
Speaker 1: to get it to get the gist. And here's what
Speaker 1: we know. Harry and Meghan are part of the British
Speaker 1: royal family. I don't even know what their official titles
Speaker 1: are anything. I don't really care, but they sat down
Speaker 1: with Oprah, who is a multi billionaire, to whine about
Speaker 1: how their lives are so hard and the British Royal
Speaker 1: Family is being mean to them. And for a lot
Speaker 1: of people they view this as, I don't know, a
Speaker 1: fairytale story gone awry. There's a fascination for certainly Americans
Speaker 1: and definitely for everybody in the UK about the Royal
Speaker 1: Family that they either they hate them they love them.
Speaker 1: But for a lot of us here you think of
Speaker 1: a case like this and you say, how could it
Speaker 1: be possible to find people who are more privileged than
Speaker 1: ultra rich celebrities like Royal family? How could you find
Speaker 1: anybody who's more more privileged than this? And yet they
Speaker 1: want to be victims. Harry and Meggan. I don't know them,
Speaker 1: I don't care. But now the whole world, this is
Speaker 1: the biggest news story in the world. Right now, You've
Speaker 1: got two incredibly lucky, I mean lucky beyond a normal
Speaker 1: person's wildest dreams, human beings who want to go on
Speaker 1: TV and want about Look, I'm not saying they don't
Speaker 1: have challenges. I know that every human being. You know,
Speaker 1: you see people you don't see the full truth of
Speaker 1: their situation. You see what people have to deal with,
Speaker 1: and you don't recognize all the challenges they've gone through.
Speaker 1: I get that, of course. You know, you see some
Speaker 1: of your greatest heroes throughout history have you know, substance
Speaker 1: abuse problems, or terrible personal issues in their marriage or
Speaker 1: you know what, you know, have demons have extreme depression
Speaker 1: of things that they have to handle. I'm not in
Speaker 1: any way negating any of that, but this is a
Speaker 1: move that is beneficial. You see for Harry and Megan,
Speaker 1: this is something that really just elevates their brand, their
Speaker 1: power in their career, and it's indicative of this sickness
Speaker 1: of victimology chasing that has come to dominate Western civilization
Speaker 1: and Western culture. Now. You know, the entire Western world
Speaker 1: seems completely obsessed with this idea that if you can,
Speaker 1: if you can claim righteous victimhood status, everybody has to
Speaker 1: feel sorry for you and give you what you want
Speaker 1: and do so because of the moral obligation you've imposed
Speaker 1: on them. And it's just it absolves, you know, the
Speaker 1: victim mentality absolves people of their own mistakes. It means
Speaker 1: they're no longer responsible for their shortcomings. It means that
Speaker 1: there is always an out right Why hasn't something worked
Speaker 1: out the way that you thought it showed or you
Speaker 1: wanted to. It's not your fault. You're a victim. Why
Speaker 1: aren't you a better person? Why don't you treat people better?
Speaker 1: Why don't you work harder? Why don't you get more done?
Speaker 1: Why aren't you more disciplined? Why aren't you more exemplary
Speaker 1: when it comes to character and courage and kindness? None
Speaker 1: of that matters. If you're a victim, it's not your fault.
Speaker 1: You see, there's other people that are doing all these
Speaker 1: things to you. There's other people who have made your
Speaker 1: life so much harder. And even if, as Harry and
Speaker 1: Meghan are, you are globally recognized celebrities for no real reason.
Speaker 1: I mean, in the case of Harry because he was born,
Speaker 1: he's famous, and in the case of Megan, because she's
Speaker 1: an attractive female who married him. Now everybody has to
Speaker 1: care who they are and pretend that somehow what they
Speaker 1: say matters. It's absurd, the whole thing. But in a way,
Speaker 1: the royal family starting the mid twentieth century were the
Speaker 1: original ultra celebrities before the Kardashians came along and really
Speaker 1: proved out the celebrity because you're a celebrity model. The
Speaker 1: closest thing we had too was being born into the
Speaker 1: British royal family, and there has always been this this
Speaker 1: fascination with them for some people. I, as I've said,
Speaker 1: I think the whole thing is absurd. I think monarchy
Speaker 1: should be abolished. I don't understand why anybody doesn't see that.
Speaker 1: But I'm also an American, so I know a lot
Speaker 1: of us is sitting here, but America's embracing this couple
Speaker 1: now too. You see, they were on with Oprah, the
Speaker 1: ultimate media powerbroker. I mean, if you're talking about a
Speaker 1: media brand that is of course worth billions of dollars,
Speaker 1: but that has tremendous sway in pop culture. I don't
Speaker 1: know if you could find somebody more powerful than Oprah.
Speaker 1: She sits down with them, spends three hours with them,
Speaker 1: and they get to complain. Of course, if you want
Speaker 1: to be a real victim, they go with with some
Speaker 1: of the the victimology greatest hits, uh, namely Megan makes
Speaker 1: some insinuations about racism. Well that because that's all you
Speaker 1: have to do is say something or someone is racist,
Speaker 1: and now all of a sudden you're you're you're one
Speaker 1: of the good people. You're you're righteous, you have been
Speaker 1: you have been wronged, and society must pay you some
Speaker 1: debt of some kind to make everything better. What does
Speaker 1: that even mean? How do we do that? Don't worry
Speaker 1: about the details. People bathe in, they luxuriate in. And
Speaker 1: this is true all across our society. It's true with
Speaker 1: cancel culture. All right, we just had Peppi Lapew has
Speaker 1: now gone from the Space Jam movies, and I'm not
Speaker 1: kidding because of rape culture. They also got rid of
Speaker 1: Speedy Gonzalez. They've gotten rid of six of the Doctor
Speaker 1: SEUs books, as you know. Now that's the choice of
Speaker 1: the Doctor SEUs publishing company. But still it's showing you
Speaker 1: where the mentality is right now. But it's because there
Speaker 1: are people that are afraid of being accused of being
Speaker 1: a victimizer, and there are a whole lot more people
Speaker 1: out there who just walk around trying to find a
Speaker 1: way to view themselves as victims. It's really an obsession.
Speaker 1: It's a deep seated mindset because think about what it does.
Speaker 1: It absolves you from all of your transgressions, It absolves
Speaker 1: you from all of your guilt, it removes any need
Speaker 1: for you to have introspection, for you to be honest
Speaker 1: with yourself about what's gone right and wrong in your
Speaker 1: own decisions, in your own life. You're a victim. It's
Speaker 1: somebody else's fault. It takes agency away from you. And
Speaker 1: in a sense, the same way I tell you that
Speaker 1: a lot of people like to be controlled, a lot
Speaker 1: of people like to be victims because it means that
Speaker 1: now they have a purpose. They just exist to be
Speaker 1: emblems of how others have wronged them. And you can
Speaker 1: monetize this. You can use this to grow your brand.
Speaker 1: You can use this to grow your power, which is
Speaker 1: really the dynamics that we see at play now all
Speaker 1: across cancel culture in America. But that's right, Harry and began.
Speaker 1: They live in what looks like a palace that one
Speaker 1: of the Medici family would have lived in in Renaissance
Speaker 1: era Florence. But they're lives are really hard because people
Speaker 1: in the royal family weren't always super nice to them,
Speaker 1: or didn't treat them with all of the pomp and
Speaker 1: circumstance they wanted, or something. It's not even really clear,
Speaker 1: but just some some insinuations about racism and we have
Speaker 1: things really hard. Feel sorry for us while we have
Speaker 1: our multimillion dollar Netflix deal living in a mansion that
Speaker 1: looks like it's out of a fairytale in California. Oh gosh,
Speaker 1: things are so hard for us. This goes to show you,
Speaker 1: no matter, no matter who we're talking about here in society, now,
Speaker 1: it seems that there's an opportunity should they choose, there's
Speaker 1: an opportunity to claim victim, victim's status. I mean the
Speaker 1: case of Harry. You have a white male monarch, but
Speaker 1: he's married to somebody who is a quarter a quarter minority.
Speaker 1: She's one of her parents is bi racial and is black,
Speaker 1: And so we have to hear about how hard it's
Speaker 1: been for Harry too. You sit around and you wonder,
Speaker 1: when is this too, When is this all just too absurd?
Speaker 1: When are people no longer in a position to claim
Speaker 1: at they're victims? But then again, look at some of
Speaker 1: the most powerful people in our society. Look at you know,
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton. Why did she lose the twenty sixteen election
Speaker 1: because she's a woman, she says Lebron James, globally recognize
Speaker 1: celebrity probably worth close to a billion dollars now, himself,
Speaker 1: certainly half a billion dollars. But you know he's got
Speaker 1: to do protests in hoodies and it's so hard and
Speaker 1: talk about how the challenges of the streets, what it
Speaker 1: is to be a poor minority in American inner cities today,
Speaker 1: because you know, he's had to overcome that challenge. Jim
Speaker 1: the guy's been I think he was on the cover
Speaker 1: of Sports Illustrated when he was sixteen. But yeah, it's
Speaker 1: been a really tough road. You know, this is what
Speaker 1: we see now. Everyone's ang length is everybody wants this because,
Speaker 1: in a sense, it's the ultimate power. It's invulnerability from
Speaker 1: your own failings, your own poor decisions, and it gives
Speaker 1: you power over other people. You can make demands from them.
Speaker 1: And it also brings you sympathy. People are like, oh,
Speaker 1: you're so great. Look what you've achieved, Look what you've done,
Speaker 1: because you've overcome the victims status. People are looking for
Speaker 1: this all over the place. In so many ways, it
Speaker 1: undermines what we know is good and true and worthwhile
Speaker 1: in America and Western societies, which is that every individual,
Speaker 1: regardless of race, creed, color, gender, every individual is equal
Speaker 1: in the eyes of God, but also is responsible for
Speaker 1: his or her own life and decisions, and there needs
Speaker 1: to be honesty about this. You know, we all are
Speaker 1: failed individuals in our own way. We all have our shortcomings,
Speaker 1: and it's really a form of malignant narcissism to think
Speaker 1: that whatever hasn't gone right in your life is because
Speaker 1: of what somebody else has done. Wherever you've come up short,
Speaker 1: it's because the system has oppressed you or held you down,
Speaker 1: even when you're at the very top of the system.
Speaker 1: Think about the think about the confusion here, that the
Speaker 1: cognitive dissonance. You can be an ultra famous elite billionaire
Speaker 1: and go on TV and cry about how hard everything is,
Speaker 1: and people are supposed to feel sorry for you. I'd say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: this isn't America. This is the UK, this is their
Speaker 1: royal family, and people have a fascination with this, like
Speaker 1: we're all reading some story book about kings and queens
Speaker 1: back in the Middle Ages or something. But it's a
Speaker 1: problem here in America too, which is why we've also
Speaker 1: why our culture has latched onto this. Everybody wants to
Speaker 1: be a victim these days. Why is that, Well, it's
Speaker 1: because it means that they get all of the benefits
Speaker 1: and none of the responsibilities of their position, and they
Speaker 1: can get even more. This is a part of the
Speaker 1: cancel culture wave in this country. It's also a part
Speaker 1: of the leftism that seeks to tear down and destroy
Speaker 1: everything that we view as objective, everything that we view
Speaker 1: as an issue of merit, truth or falsehood. It can
Speaker 1: all be changed, it can all be moved around, depending
Speaker 1: on what one's narrative of victim status may be. You know,
Speaker 1: you didn't build that, you didn't achieve that, and whatever
Speaker 1: I did. If I'm a victim, well there's always a
Speaker 1: way to turn that around and make it somebody else's problem. Well,
Speaker 1: we have to acknowledge that what is the public likely
Speaker 1: to do with any guidance that we give them. And
Speaker 1: if we just tell people that they've got to stay cocooned,
Speaker 1: that they've got to stay in their homes, that they've
Speaker 1: got to continue to wear their mask even though they're
Speaker 1: fully vaccinated, they're not going to do that. They're going
Speaker 1: to disregard the public health recommendations. So we have to
Speaker 1: get real. We have to say, you know, what what
Speaker 1: does it mean if I've not seen my grandchildren for
Speaker 1: the last year and I'm now vaccinated. My spouse is vaccinated,
Speaker 1: you know, can I see those kids are not. They're
Speaker 1: not likely to have vaccine through next fall or next winter.
Speaker 1: We have to be practical, and I worry a little
Speaker 1: bit that we will basically stay with this idea that
Speaker 1: we've had all along do this or else. And so
Speaker 1: I hope that the CDC guidance acknowledges that people are
Speaker 1: not going to do the extreme of staying master twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two. That's just not going to happen. So what
Speaker 1: can we provide them reasonable information that gives them the
Speaker 1: best case for protecting themselves, Like you know what, you
Speaker 1: wouldn't catch me tonight in a crowded restaurant somewhere, even
Speaker 1: with my vaccination. I think that's what we have to
Speaker 1: concentrate on and let them do the kinds of things
Speaker 1: that are really much safer. That's Ouster home. It was
Speaker 1: a Biden COVID advisor right giving the Biden administration when
Speaker 1: it was coming in during the transition advice on COVID nineteen.
Speaker 1: And what he's saying is we need to start to
Speaker 1: understand what reality is your guys, If we tell everybody
Speaker 1: to mask up for another year, a lot of people
Speaker 1: just aren't going to do it. And if we're telling
Speaker 1: people they have to keep doing all the same things
Speaker 1: they're doing even after vaccination. All of this is based
Speaker 1: on risk profile, risk mitigation, balancing different things. Out Right,
Speaker 1: we could say, if you wanted to save a whole
Speaker 1: lot of lives from COVID nineteen, you cannot leave your
Speaker 1: home for a year. Sorry, food will have to be
Speaker 1: delivered to you by somebody else. You're not allowed to
Speaker 1: leave your home. But that's too extreme, even though it
Speaker 1: would save live No question, that would save lives from
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen, it's too extreme. People won't do it. It's
Speaker 1: not okay, it's not worth it. Now we're at a
Speaker 1: point where, let's remember, lockdowns until vaccine at the start
Speaker 1: of this was considered insane. Now we have public health
Speaker 1: officials who are telling us that masking and mitigation and
Speaker 1: maybe some lockdown, some social distancing mandates are necessary post
Speaker 1: vaccination for individuals. I mean, look at how much this
Speaker 1: moves over time. Here's the CDC on December twenty third,
Speaker 1: Until every person in the US can get a COVID
Speaker 1: nineteen vaccine, continue to wear a mask, keep at least
Speaker 1: six feet between yourself and others, avoid crowds, and wash
Speaker 1: your hands often, learn more about who can get vaccinate
Speaker 1: and well supplies limited. Yeah, they're still doing the wash
Speaker 1: your hands thing, by the way. Yeah, that's that's really
Speaker 1: gonna that's gonna save us. That's gonna make a big difference.
Speaker 1: That was great. That was in December. But the point
Speaker 1: is they've been advocating for this for a while that
Speaker 1: until everybody is vaccinated, you've got to do all the
Speaker 1: things you've been doing all along. This is madness. And
Speaker 1: if you're wondering, and I found this to be a
Speaker 1: particularly interesting study. Over the weekend, people were sharing this
Speaker 1: thing saying that that masking works. Study CDC report that
Speaker 1: mask mandates lower COVID cases. So it works, that's what
Speaker 1: we're told. I actually read the study. I actually pulled
Speaker 1: from the study for you. Here is fascinating. Here's what
Speaker 1: it says. This is the latest CDC study that they
Speaker 1: put out. CDC report on mask mandates. During March first
Speaker 1: to December thirty one, twenty twenty, state issued mask mandates
Speaker 1: applied in seventy three percent of three thousand, one hundred
Speaker 1: and forty two US counties mask mandates were associated with
Speaker 1: a point five percentage decrease in daily COVID cases one
Speaker 1: to twenty days after implementation, and decreases of one percent,
Speaker 1: one point five, one point seven, and one point eight
Speaker 1: percent twenty to forty, forty one to sixty, sixty one
Speaker 1: to eighty, and eighty to one hundred days, respectively. Friends,
Speaker 1: they're telling you here that mask mandates are basically bringing
Speaker 1: down COVID cases over a period of months one percent.
Speaker 1: But understand that that one percent is when the margin
Speaker 1: of error for the study, so it could be zero.
Speaker 1: That's how effective they are. Now Now I want us
Speaker 1: alved me very clear about this. Were you told at
Speaker 1: the beginning that your mask wearing might have a roughly
Speaker 1: one percent effect on the reduced rand? How long have
Speaker 1: I been saying it's about how effective this is more
Speaker 1: than whether it's effective, because making us go through this absurdity.
Speaker 1: When you add into it the changes in behavior as
Speaker 1: well that come from mask wearing. People think they're pretty protected,
Speaker 1: and then they are much closer to each other, more
Speaker 1: willing to be around each other than they probably would
Speaker 1: be otherwise, thinking that these masks are doing a great
Speaker 1: job of protecting them. I will never forget that imbecile
Speaker 1: Redfield that ran the CDC. The quote was, this is
Speaker 1: back in September. More guaranteed a mask is more guaranteed
Speaker 1: to protect me against COVID nineteen than when I take
Speaker 1: a vaccine. That's what CDC director Redfield said in September.
Speaker 1: And now we're seeing that mask mandates have about a
Speaker 1: one percent effectiveness in actually the one percent. Friends, so
Speaker 1: we all wear masks. What this is telling you is
Speaker 1: that you know we're all wearing masks under ammand it.
Speaker 1: Now I know they're going to say, oh but Buck,
Speaker 1: it's not perfect implementation of the matt Well, okay, but
Speaker 1: we're all wearing more masks. Shouldn't we see a substantial drop?
Speaker 1: Why are we wasting our time with this idiocy if
Speaker 1: it's only one percent? Oh no, one percent is effective
Speaker 1: if it saves one life. Friends, that's what we're back to.
Speaker 1: I don't want to know why this makes me laugh
Speaker 1: so hard. But he did say neander Neanderthal, thinking not
Speaker 1: you're all Neanderthals, which she owned. She can ditch the
Speaker 1: present tense because, as you mentioned, they are extinct. And
Speaker 1: she's also someone that's been very vocal about denying evolution.
Speaker 1: So I found it fitting that she used that. But
Speaker 1: I just feel like that this is an example. It
Speaker 1: shows there's not much to pick on. If this is
Speaker 1: the words we're parsing. They spend a lot of time
Speaker 1: talking about how old Biden is. Well, you're going to
Speaker 1: get words like slacks and ornery and neanderthal. It's kind
Speaker 1: of an uncivilized choice to not wear a mask when
Speaker 1: the science speaks loud and clear. And I think that
Speaker 1: it's you know again, as Sunny mentioned on the heels
Speaker 1: of someone who could offend you know people four times
Speaker 1: in a sentence, picking on an extinct Homo sapien seems
Speaker 1: like pretty safe ground for me as someone who has
Speaker 1: two percent Neanderthal. I represent my community. I'm not offended. Yeah, Like,
Speaker 1: let's have people on the view talk about the science
Speaker 1: and like the science speaks like really clearly on all
Speaker 1: this stuff. Yeah, so clearly that a year ago the
Speaker 1: scientific community, as as evidence by doctor Fauci himself, had
Speaker 1: a completely different view. But but we've we've been told
Speaker 1: except the one eighty switch in viewpoint and do so
Speaker 1: because the science says so, even though no, sorry, this
Speaker 1: is a very straightforward thing if you believe the Earth
Speaker 1: is flat a year ago, and now you're telling me
Speaker 1: the Earth is round, I want to know why you've
Speaker 1: changed you're thinking. I'm not just gonna say, hmm, you
Speaker 1: must have switched it around because the science speaks to you. No,
Speaker 1: explain to me why you change your thinking. Because if
Speaker 1: you were that wrong a year ago, shouldn't it matter
Speaker 1: as to whether I believe you now shouldn't shouldn't it
Speaker 1: make it different? Or if you thought the world was
Speaker 1: round and now you think it's flat. Whatever. The point
Speaker 1: is a one eighty switch on something so fundamental, so straightforward.
Speaker 1: But now this has become such a giant virtue signaling
Speaker 1: opportunity for people double mask. I mean I know that
Speaker 1: people now that are saying things like if it only
Speaker 1: works one This is what the news reports are trying
Speaker 1: to say for the weekend. A one percent reduction, which
Speaker 1: is effectively zero by the way, because of mass. It's
Speaker 1: effectively zero because it's within the margin of error. You
Speaker 1: don't even know, so the science doesn't even say that
Speaker 1: it's reducing it. But okay, officially the numbers are a tiny,
Speaker 1: tiny tiny decrease, a tiny, tiny tiny decrease. The speed
Speaker 1: limit really should be fifteen miles an hour in this country.
Speaker 1: And if you don't believe that, you're a monster who
Speaker 1: thinks people should die. This was the argument I was
Speaker 1: making a year ago, almost to the day. You either
Speaker 1: believe in a fifteen million hour speed limit or you
Speaker 1: believe that people should die in fiery correct, by the
Speaker 1: thousands every year. There is no difference between the thinking
Speaker 1: here on a one percent mask mandate effectiveness and a
Speaker 1: fifteen million hour speed limit. By the way, better get
Speaker 1: ready to wear that mask during flu season, because we're
Speaker 1: told that flu is essentially eradicated by this that is
Speaker 1: the official word. I'm just saying, I'm very curious to see.
Speaker 1: Really the flu virus is so much better contained by
Speaker 1: our measures then, I mean, COVID was basically not really
Speaker 1: contained at all over this winter. We can all see that.
Speaker 1: That's quite obvious. Okay, we didn't stop it, we didn't
Speaker 1: contain it, but the flu was eradicated ninety eight percent
Speaker 1: decrease in cases. That's interesting, isn't it. That won't be
Speaker 1: the case going forward if we go back to normal
Speaker 1: life and thousands of people die every year, particularly older
Speaker 1: people die every year from the flu. So when I
Speaker 1: was arguing at the beginning, we should have a fifteen
Speaker 1: mile an hour speed limit, we should have been wearing
Speaker 1: masks all along, and we're monsters during flu season for
Speaker 1: not doing so. Based on this new logic, people said no,
Speaker 1: and they got all emotional and they got all friends ether.
Speaker 1: I listened to science, and I'm really smart. No, my
Speaker 1: argument is sound. What I'm saying is true, was true,
Speaker 1: is true, and now they don't want to hear it.
Speaker 1: Now they want to pretend that what some of us
Speaker 1: saw all along is not the case because it makes
Speaker 1: them feel like they've been essentially fooled, or that they've
Speaker 1: been believing something along that's not true, and their belief
Speaker 1: in that thing made them feel like they were smart,
Speaker 1: good people, and folks don't like to give up thinking
Speaker 1: they're smart and good. They want to hold on to
Speaker 1: that no matter what. But I read this study out
Speaker 1: of the ZDC mask mandate. It decreased death rates as well,
Speaker 1: by around one percent over a couple of months. This
Speaker 1: is from breaking nine one one. Unbelievable. That's what we
Speaker 1: were promised. Huh, really, we're all gonna wear masks all
Speaker 1: the time. Maybe there'll be a one percent decreasing one percent. Folks,
Speaker 1: that means ninety nine out of one hundred. You're walking
Speaker 1: around with your mask on, thinking, oh, look, we're all
Speaker 1: wearing our masks in public, because that's what this really is.
Speaker 1: There's no mask mandate in your home. We're all wearing
Speaker 1: our masks in public, huge amounts of compliance all across
Speaker 1: the country, and you might reduce cases by one percent.
Speaker 1: That's we're really gonna pretend that that's what we were,
Speaker 1: that's what we're led to believe was the case here. No,
Speaker 1: no Ah, I'm sorry. I remember the mannequin studies with
Speaker 1: the spray and they were saying, you know, seventy percent
Speaker 1: of particles, ninety percent of particles. Somehow it blocks seventy
Speaker 1: or eighty percent of all particles out of your mouth,
Speaker 1: even though viral particles are so small that they would
Speaker 1: go right through the mesh of a mask. But they
Speaker 1: say it it is clinging to the you know, to
Speaker 1: the the spittle or to the the vapor that comes
Speaker 1: out of your mouth. Anyway, they're they're claiming that seventy
Speaker 1: percent of everything coming out of your mouth is blocked
Speaker 1: by these masks. And yet it's a one percent reduction
Speaker 1: in cases and a one percent reduction in depth at best?
Speaker 1: At best? Is that what we were I mean, who here?
Speaker 1: Who he really thinks that? That's that they're being honest
Speaker 1: at this point? Who really thinks of what they're saying?
Speaker 1: In any way? Lines up? It was wear a mask
Speaker 1: save lives. So we've been wearing a mask for a year.
Speaker 1: And maybe maybe they're maybe there's been a you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know. They would say a few thousand people,
Speaker 1: A few that's what we're really talking about, right, four
Speaker 1: or five thousand people that they think might have been
Speaker 1: saved by a year of mask mania. And out on
Speaker 1: top of that all the distress, the dehumanizing effects, the
Speaker 1: psychological disorders, the constant disco for Like I said, if
Speaker 1: you believe in masking, you need to believe, if you're
Speaker 1: going to be morally consistent, you need to believe in
Speaker 1: a fifteen mile an hour speed limit. It's effectively impossible
Speaker 1: to die in a car crash if you're going fifteen
Speaker 1: miles an hour. I mean almost impossible, right, meaning if
Speaker 1: you're in a car and someone else is a car,
Speaker 1: you're going fifteen miles an hour. Modern cars today, you're
Speaker 1: going to survive that. I mean, unless it's a freak accident.
Speaker 1: But you know, then again a car could just explode
Speaker 1: for no reason. You know who knows, right, But you see,
Speaker 1: we've established a more principle if it saves one life.
Speaker 1: Look at the liquid you're seeing now, the authoritarian left
Speaker 1: mentality and that you've been aware of for so many
Speaker 1: other things. You know, if they have to take every
Speaker 1: ten round magazine out of the hands of every American
Speaker 1: in the country, and it plays it with a five
Speaker 1: round or a seven round, which I know they didn't
Speaker 1: really make, but whatever, you know, the plays it with
Speaker 1: some other magazine size for a firearm. If that slows
Speaker 1: down one mass shooter in one shooting by one or
Speaker 1: two seconds, it's worth it. This is this is a
Speaker 1: gateway to authoritarianism. We all understand that, right. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's really there's no justification for you to have ever
Speaker 1: gone out into crowded places because you could have always
Speaker 1: been infecting people with fluid's around you, around you don't know,
Speaker 1: you could always give somebody just a standard cold virus,
Speaker 1: and folks that have a weakened immune system, they could
Speaker 1: end up getting pneumonia from it. Now I know you said, Buck,
Speaker 1: but this is we're taking it into absurd territory, right exactly.
Speaker 1: We've been an absurd territory with this for a year.
Speaker 1: They told you things were true that we're not true,
Speaker 1: and they keep doing it and the social medium, you know,
Speaker 1: oligarchs and the morons who run user Experience and all
Speaker 1: this other stuff at these places, who aren't even like
Speaker 1: the tech engineers. They're the people that are on the
Speaker 1: on the softer side of these businesses, who are just
Speaker 1: a little left wing activists coming out of schools or
Speaker 1: they didn't actually learn anything other than how to be
Speaker 1: woke and how to be grievance collectors about all the
Speaker 1: oppression that they feel. They told you things that we're
Speaker 1: not true, and you should be aware of that now.
Speaker 1: You should understand that that is what happened, because they're
Speaker 1: going to keep telling you things that are unsure about
Speaker 1: all of this. I mean, the CDC is an abomination,
Speaker 1: that much should be clear at this point. It's a
Speaker 1: it's a politicized organization that has failed at every major
Speaker 1: stage of this pandemic to do anything useful, and now
Speaker 1: we're going to be gas lit in a way that
Speaker 1: it had is just mind blowing. We're going to be
Speaker 1: gas lit by people telling us, yeah, that's right. You know,
Speaker 1: the psychosis of people running around screaming and other people
Speaker 1: in some cases getting into you know, lethal exchanges. They're
Speaker 1: people have been shot, people have been beaten to death
Speaker 1: because they weren't wearing a mask. And yet here we
Speaker 1: are being told that maybe it reduces cases one percent,
Speaker 1: and that's max. And trust me, the CDC had to
Speaker 1: find something. You think the CDC was ever going to
Speaker 1: come up with a study. It turns out mask mandates
Speaker 1: don't do anything. But the problem is they can only
Speaker 1: fudge the data is so much if they told us,
Speaker 1: is so incorrect and so ineffective that it's becoming really hard.
Speaker 1: So now they're retreating into Yeah, it doesn't work that well,
Speaker 1: but it works a tiny, tiny, tiny bit. M Okay.
Speaker 1: Now the state can say that any level of infringement
Speaker 1: upon your day to day life and on your basic liberties,
Speaker 1: including your ability to just breathe normally. Any infringement that
Speaker 1: they can claim might save some small percentage of human
Speaker 1: beings from getting sick and or dying, is justified. So
Speaker 1: you better mask up forever if you think a one
Speaker 1: percent mask mandate is just, you know, one percent of
Speaker 1: cases being reduced by a mask mandate justifies the inconvenience.
Speaker 1: Mask up forever, because that's what you've established, mask up forever.
Speaker 1: Oh theoh, COVID will go away. Yeah, there's still the flu.
Speaker 1: There's still other things out there. Better wear your mask forever.
Speaker 1: You're a monster. They were wrong all along, and I
Speaker 1: know that, you know, I focused it on this one,
Speaker 1: and I've been very just because people have been so vicious,
Speaker 1: so nasty, so stupid. People think they're so smart on
Speaker 1: this one, and they've been wrong. Yeah, I'll take the
Speaker 1: buck position on this over the one percent is really
Speaker 1: effective when it's actually within the margin of error, which
Speaker 1: means that I can also make the case that it
Speaker 1: is entirely ineffective based on the CDC zone data. And
Speaker 1: you could say, oh, buck, but mandates aren't. Aren't the
Speaker 1: same as individa Okay, Well, then why have a mandate?
Speaker 1: If a mandate doesn't work, what's the point of a mandate?
Speaker 1: If individuals should just do this on their own, why
Speaker 1: do we have the government enforcing this, finding people threatening
Speaker 1: to lock people up over this? Ask yourself these questions. Remember,
Speaker 1: there's a strong case to be made that thousands of businesses,
Speaker 1: tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, and millions of lives.
Speaker 1: We're devastated during this pandemic in part because social media
Speaker 1: companies employed moronic parties in third party fact checkers to
Speaker 1: for any criticism of lockdowns. And they did this while Twitter,
Speaker 1: Facebook and Google got a lot richer That's what was
Speaker 1: happening during this you know, even the Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: had to put out an editorial over the last week
Speaker 1: where they they point out what I've been telling this
Speaker 1: is the Wall Street Journal fact checking Facebook's fact checkers.
Speaker 1: The media giant is employing left wing vetters to limit
Speaker 1: scientific debate. They the Wall Street Journal points out that
Speaker 1: they have a entirely mainstream, highly credentialed scientist right and
Speaker 1: op ed crunching the numbers and making a projection about
Speaker 1: herd immunity being in the US basically being here by
Speaker 1: the end of April. And the women's in Gender studies
Speaker 1: majors out of Wellesley who work at PolitiFact, and they
Speaker 1: probably even went to crappier schools and that, but the
Speaker 1: women's in Gender studies majors that work at PolitiFact in general,
Speaker 1: they're deciding that the science that the scientist is projecting
Speaker 1: here is unsound, and therefore they limit the reach of it.
Speaker 1: On Facebook, they are laundering their censorship and they're using
Speaker 1: morons to do it. But they're left wing activists, moron,
Speaker 1: so they feel good about this. They've done this to me.
Speaker 1: They've done this to me. They took one line out
Speaker 1: of context. They try to By the way, go to
Speaker 1: Bucksexen dot com. You want to show the sensors where
Speaker 1: to stuff it, go to Bucksexton dot com. Check out
Speaker 1: our edit my editorials there. I'm gonna have another one
Speaker 1: up tomorrow. You can listen to podcast there. It's it's
Speaker 1: a website where you can also give us your email
Speaker 1: because we're building out a newsletter. I need direct, direct
Speaker 1: reach with all of you because the social platforms you
Speaker 1: can't trust them anymore. You can't trust them. And some
Speaker 1: people that have built really big social followings. Looking at
Speaker 1: the thing, so this person somehow never gets throttled on,
Speaker 1: This person somehow never gets banned or suspended. That's interesting.
Speaker 1: M Anyway, I'm I'm very frustrated by this, and it's
Speaker 1: really damaging to society. It's damaging to free speech and
Speaker 1: free a free inquiry. But you know, Facebook is run
Speaker 1: by cowards now who don't appreciate liberty and freedom and
Speaker 1: the free exchange of ideas. They don't appreciate these things anymore.
Speaker 1: And remember they set their business up with that promise.
Speaker 1: In a sense, they're defrauding the public based upon the
Speaker 1: initial promise that they were going to be platforms for
Speaker 1: free speech and communication. I mean, this is really not
Speaker 1: all that different. I know, we've made the phone companies
Speaker 1: of utility, but it would be like if the phone
Speaker 1: companies were private, and then all of a sudden they
Speaker 1: started saying, well, you know, right before the election, where
Speaker 1: we don't want this one candidate to win, so we're
Speaker 1: going to shut down all of his phone banks and
Speaker 1: we're going to decide that the person can't communicate. It's
Speaker 1: really not any different than that in principle, and this
Speaker 1: is what the social media companies are doing. But they
Speaker 1: will even stop a JOHNS Hopkins MD scientists from looking
Speaker 1: at the numbers and making a project. They will say
Speaker 1: a projection is false and therefore cannot be shared. I
Speaker 1: make a prediction, That's what they'll tell you. You know,
Speaker 1: I wrote on BUCKSX and dot com a few weeks
Speaker 1: ago schools should be open, and they said, no, that's false,
Speaker 1: because schools should only be open if they reached the
Speaker 1: following criterion. Guess what New York City out today. Lockdown
Speaker 1: Central just said schools are opening March twenty second. So
Speaker 1: who is right and who is wrong? PolitiFact? You morons
Speaker 1: and these like. I mean, can you imagine that you
Speaker 1: go work at one of these places. You're you're like
Speaker 1: a little hall monitor of free speech on the internet
Speaker 1: doing the left's bidding. I mean, honestly, the only the
Speaker 1: only thing that is, you know, more intellectually degrading than
Speaker 1: being a third party fact checker would be if you're
Speaker 1: one of these people that works at Media Matters. And
Speaker 1: the only thing more intellectually and emotionally and psychologically degrading
Speaker 1: than that would be you know, I can't even say
Speaker 1: the kind of job it would be on radio because
Speaker 1: it's not family not family friendly. But it's just it's degrading.
Speaker 1: It's disgusting, and these people are shameful who do this stuff,
Speaker 1: and they're hurting the country. And that's my bigger point
Speaker 1: here is that we were never allowed to have a
Speaker 1: real discussion about masks and effectiveness and the trade offs.
Speaker 1: Because they just kept lying and saying this is the consensus.
Speaker 1: They kept they kept changing the goalposts around and saying, no,
Speaker 1: we didn't shut up. You're not allowed to ask any questions.
Speaker 1: And I have to ask you if they did this,
Speaker 1: and since we know they can do this for COVID,
Speaker 1: for the lockdowns, do you really believe that they won't
Speaker 1: do this for climate change? You think that all this
Speaker 1: power they've acquired, all this power they brought together, they're
Speaker 1: just going to give it all back and decide they're
Speaker 1: not going to do this again when something else that
Speaker 1: they view is really important comes up. I don't think so.
Speaker 1: I think we're all quite aware of the fact that
Speaker 1: their plan going forward is going to be to use
Speaker 1: states of emergency for a similar shutdown of free speech
Speaker 1: and inquiry, using the most powerful platforms for communication in
Speaker 1: the world to decide what you can and cannot say.
Speaker 1: This is now the Democrat Party, this is what we're
Speaker 1: up against. The authoritarian left has seized the most powerful
Speaker 1: institutions in the country, and we need to understand what
Speaker 1: that means for us going forward and how we can
Speaker 1: fight back against it. I said We're going to get
Speaker 1: the government out of the business from battling on Twitter
Speaker 1: and back in the business of delivering for the American people.
Speaker 1: But making a difference in their lives can mean everyone
Speaker 1: a chance of fighting, chance of showing the American people
Speaker 1: that their government can work for them. And passing the
Speaker 1: American Rescue plans will do that. Yeah, passing the passing
Speaker 1: the American Rescue Plan. That's that's all we need to do. Amazing,
Speaker 1: isn't it. There were some there were some Washington Post
Speaker 1: headline that was along the lines of, you know, Biden
Speaker 1: defeats poverty, basically a passing the American Rescue player. You know,
Speaker 1: it defeats poverty for the American people. Places such the places.
Speaker 1: Such a joke. It's so outrageous, so ridiculous. Anyway, here
Speaker 1: we are looking at the realities of the one point
Speaker 1: nine trillion dollars spend, and I just say, Unfortunately, elections
Speaker 1: have consequences, and we're seeing some of those consequences right
Speaker 1: now with this. Unfortunately, Republicans are not in a position
Speaker 1: to really stop this from happening, and we are just
Speaker 1: gonna We're gonna keep spending and spending and go deeper
Speaker 1: and deeper to dead as a nation until everyone starts
Speaker 1: to realize how bad it is and what this really
Speaker 1: means for our currency, for our economy, and then it's
Speaker 1: too late. Then it's essentially all over. But we're supposed
Speaker 1: to celebrate this. Now, we're supposed to decide that this
Speaker 1: is a great moment for the American people. Why did
Speaker 1: it take this long? They could have passed rescue stuff
Speaker 1: about COVID many months ago. Well, Democrats wanted it their way.
Speaker 1: Here's what the legislation has in it. This is from
Speaker 1: the Wall Street Journal. Quote provides a direct payment of
Speaker 1: fourteen hundred dollars for a single taxpayer or twenty eight
Speaker 1: hundred dollars for a married couple that files jointly, plus
Speaker 1: fourteen hundred dollars per dependent. Individuals earning up to seventy
Speaker 1: five thousand would get the full amount, and married couples
Speaker 1: with incomes up to one hundred and fifty thousand. The
Speaker 1: size of the check would shrink for those making slightly more,
Speaker 1: with a hard cut off at eighty thousand dollars for
Speaker 1: individuals and one hundred and sixty thousand dollars for married couples.
Speaker 1: Most Americans will be getting the full amount. The median
Speaker 1: household income was sixty eight thousand, seven hundred and three
Speaker 1: twenty twenty nineteen. The bill provides forty six billion to
Speaker 1: expand federal, state, and local testing for COVID nineteen and
Speaker 1: to enhance contract tracing capabilities with new investments to expand
Speaker 1: laboratory capacity and set up mobile testing units. It also
Speaker 1: contains about fourteen billion dollars to speed up the distribution
Speaker 1: or administration of COVID nineteen vaccines. Look money for vaccines. Great,
Speaker 1: they could have done this a long time ago. Testing
Speaker 1: as a means of getting us past this pandemic is
Speaker 1: also this is now just a talking point that they
Speaker 1: won't let go of. I mean, yeah, you need to
Speaker 1: have some ability to test, obviously, but look at the
Speaker 1: huge ramp up and testing we've done, and you still
Speaker 1: had a tremendous amount of cases and debts and hospitalizations
Speaker 1: all throughout the winter, test and trace. By the time
Speaker 1: they're really at a place where they think they can
Speaker 1: test and trace this thing, the pandemic will have essentially passed.
Speaker 1: What we're going to look back and see is that
Speaker 1: one day at least we'll look back and see that
Speaker 1: we really just were dragged to herd immunity with people
Speaker 1: saying they were going to stop this thing. But by
Speaker 1: the time we got to herd immunity, we had suffered
Speaker 1: through the maximum amount of anxiety, tyranny, economic destruction, psychological
Speaker 1: devastation possible to get us to a point that we
Speaker 1: were inevitably heading to anyway, which is a huge amount
Speaker 1: of infections, unfortunately, a terrible amount of death at all
Speaker 1: these intervention to interventions, as Fauci calls them. And yeah,
Speaker 1: we're getting to hurt immunity with a maximum amount of
Speaker 1: damage done along the way that was unnecessary damage. I mean,
Speaker 1: we were gonna have a lot of infections and a
Speaker 1: lot of bad stuff happen here no matter what. But
Speaker 1: you look at all the things that have been done.
Speaker 1: I mean, just look at a side by side comparison.
Speaker 1: They're out there right now of states with mask mandates
Speaker 1: and states without them, and you will see a remarkable
Speaker 1: thing here. You'll see the same rise and fall on
Speaker 1: the same timeline, irrespective of whether there was a mask
Speaker 1: mandate in place or not. And we're talking about dozens
Speaker 1: of states. I mean you line them all up, mask mandate, yes,
Speaker 1: mask mandate no, and you'll see a rise and a
Speaker 1: fall and they're right in line with each other with
Speaker 1: no real discernible difference whatsoever. But we all had to
Speaker 1: go through a year of people going where you double masks,
Speaker 1: You're putting me at rasbar, you know, freaking out all
Speaker 1: the time? Yeah, I know. I believe in science. People
Speaker 1: that haven't read on their own about anything in the
Speaker 1: world of science for the last twenty years of their lives,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, it's like they have been reading,
Speaker 1: you know, the New England Journal of Medicine every day
Speaker 1: for fun. It's absurd. You know what the science tells you?
Speaker 1: What's a bigger what's a You know, should is dietary
Speaker 1: stodium an issue for heart disease? Yes or no? Should
Speaker 1: he eat red meat? Yes or no? Is being a
Speaker 1: vegan healthy? Yes or no? You know our antibiotics and
Speaker 1: the food supply negatively affecting immunity, Yes or no? You
Speaker 1: want me to just keep going, where's the science on
Speaker 1: all these things? Well, there is science, there's data, but
Speaker 1: there are arguments that are being made because it's not
Speaker 1: clear you were if you were like me, at least
Speaker 1: I know many of you were browbeaten, you were shame,
Speaker 1: you were forced to accept that the science was settled
Speaker 1: when it wasn't. And when I say the science is
Speaker 1: settled again, do I think that masks sometimes? Will a
Speaker 1: mask stop somebody from getting COVID? Yeah? Of course I
Speaker 1: think it works sometimes. Is it worth the mass panic
Speaker 1: and dehumanization and discomfort and absurdity of all this? Now
Speaker 1: they're double masking for a negligible benefit of less than
Speaker 1: one percent or one percent? No? And if you're going
Speaker 1: to argue with that, then you have to explain to
Speaker 1: me why we don't have a fifteen dollars minimum wage,
Speaker 1: why we don't ban alcohol illegal, make it illegal? Kill
Speaker 1: so many people so bad? Right? People believe that there's freedom,
Speaker 1: including the freedom to make bad decisions. And you know,
Speaker 1: you could say, oh, but that's your own decision against yourself.
Speaker 1: A lot of drunk driving deaths where people are killed
Speaker 1: who had nothing to do with it. Ban alcohol, you
Speaker 1: get rid of those, right. So I'm just saying, you know,
Speaker 1: this is this is a question, do you want to
Speaker 1: live in a freesis sidey or not? Do you want
Speaker 1: to live in a free country or do you want
Speaker 1: to live in a Fauci country. That's been really the
Speaker 1: central debate of the last year, and the left and
Speaker 1: the Democrats that media have been on the wrong side
Speaker 1: of it. Doctor Lena. When this woman was she was
Speaker 1: an MD at Planned parenthood. Just you understand what her
Speaker 1: moral compass is like. So she understands fully the procedure,
Speaker 1: although she was not extreme enough for planned parenthood, which
Speaker 1: is the really one of the most odious and immoral organizations,
Speaker 1: not just in America today but in all of America
Speaker 1: and all of modern history. Here she is, though, talking
Speaker 1: on CNN about how they're really the CDC is really
Speaker 1: messing up this whole vaccination post vaccination behavior guidance situation.
Speaker 1: Play A teen. So we have what thirty million people
Speaker 1: who are already fully vaccinated, that's almost ten percent of
Speaker 1: the population, and we have not been giving guidance to
Speaker 1: these individuals who want to know what is it that
Speaker 1: I can do now? And the absence of information, they're
Speaker 1: making decisions anyway. Some people are throwing away their masks,
Speaker 1: which is not a good idea. Others just really want
Speaker 1: to visit their grandchildren, which is something that we should
Speaker 1: be able to tell people please do that. I'm also
Speaker 1: very concerned that we're squandering an opportunity to specifically tie
Speaker 1: these reopening that's already happening in various states with vaccination status.
Speaker 1: This is the time now to be saying, as an example,
Speaker 1: maybe you can reopen a hundred percent for people who
Speaker 1: are vaccinated, but maybe people who are not vaccinated. If
Speaker 1: you're not checking vaccination status, you can only open at
Speaker 1: twenty five percent. Keep masks on, but continue. But we
Speaker 1: really need to be looking at how vaccination status is
Speaker 1: tied to reopening and every day that goes by without
Speaker 1: that kind of specific guidance from the city. See again,
Speaker 1: the governors, as you were just discussing, and Michael, we're
Speaker 1: just discussing. Governors are making these decisions anyway, So let's
Speaker 1: give them the tools to do so. Go fauci yourself,
Speaker 1: give me a break. Notice the mic chro management as well.
Speaker 1: Some places could open up to a certain capacity and
Speaker 1: other places could open up to another capacity depending on vaccination. Said,
Speaker 1: how are they going to check any of this? Is?
Speaker 1: You know, the difference in me and these these little
Speaker 1: authoritarian tyrants is that I live in the real world.
Speaker 1: How are they gonna check? How are they gonna know
Speaker 1: The reason the CDC won't put out guidance is they
Speaker 1: know that they can't. If they release their grip a little,
Speaker 1: people are just gonna say, yeah, you know what, this
Speaker 1: is nonsense, I'm done. So they're just they'd rather just
Speaker 1: have total control, or at least believe they have total
Speaker 1: control over people's behaviors. I know not everyone's listening to
Speaker 1: them anyway, but this is this is ridiculous. But what
Speaker 1: they really don't want to say is yeh, if you're vaccinated,
Speaker 1: you can start living a normal life again. They won't
Speaker 1: say that. Why because there's still a risk. There's always
Speaker 1: still a risk. What is it gonna take for people
Speaker 1: to understand this. There's always still a risk. There's no
Speaker 1: such thing as zero risk. But what they're doing is
Speaker 1: pushing a risk parameters into the into absurdity. And they're
Speaker 1: destroying freedom, and they're destroying liberty in the process. And
Speaker 1: for what for what They didn't even they didn't even
Speaker 1: make everything better. Let's the other It's not like they
Speaker 1: saved all these lives and stopped all the cases that
Speaker 1: ever didn't happen. It didn't happen. We saw they fail.
Speaker 1: They were wrong. How much more obvious. Does it have
Speaker 1: to get Oh, but people weren't listening and they weren't
Speaker 1: doing their masks. I'm here in New York City. We
Speaker 1: had a second wave. We had a second shutdown. You
Speaker 1: everyone outside is wearing masks, and there's not even any
Speaker 1: data to indicate the mask wearing outside is a necessary
Speaker 1: precaution against the virus. That's how much we're masking. You know,
Speaker 1: Switzerland just voted to ban face coverings. They did it
Speaker 1: really in the context of more extreme adherents of Islam.
Speaker 1: You'll have women who will wear either in a baya
Speaker 1: or a burka, or you know, than they wear the nikab,
Speaker 1: which is the face fail and or burker obviously comes in.
Speaker 1: Burker always has a face covering face fail. Actually that
Speaker 1: burker is full. It's just a slit for the eyes.
Speaker 1: And they voted just by a narrow margin, but the
Speaker 1: Swiss vote. It's sorry. Now you have to show your
Speaker 1: face in public. You're not allowed to cover your face
Speaker 1: in public. Doesn't matter that you think this is a
Speaker 1: religious freedom issue. You know, you have to show your
Speaker 1: face because not showing your face is dehumanizing and breaks
Speaker 1: down public trust, and it has psychological impacts on society
Speaker 1: that are really deliterious. We all knew that in this
Speaker 1: country until twelve months ago, and now they want us
Speaker 1: to forget that. There are costs to this. This, This
Speaker 1: was not something we could just do. Oh, it's not
Speaker 1: a big deal. No, it is a big deal. The
Speaker 1: government thinks it can tell me to wear a mask.
Speaker 1: What else is the government think it can do for
Speaker 1: my benefit? Where else is the government able to just
Speaker 1: say you can't live life anymore until you do things
Speaker 1: my way? You don't think the people that are claiming
Speaker 1: that climate changes in existential threat will abuse this. If
Speaker 1: you don't think so, you're not paying attention. In your view,
Speaker 1: hours Joe Biden done on climate issues in his first
Speaker 1: fifty days in office? What grade would you give him? Well,
Speaker 1: you shouldn't take that from me. I'm just just a teenager,
Speaker 1: so I'm not I don't have the mandate to to
Speaker 1: sort of give grades like that. My opinions on this
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. You should rather look at the science and
Speaker 1: whether his policies are in line with the persuiements and
Speaker 1: to stay below to one on five or even two
Speaker 1: degrees celsius, and then you can clearly see that no
Speaker 1: it's not nearly enough in line with the science. And
Speaker 1: that's not me saying that's just black and white looking
Speaker 1: at the fact she's learned the tools of propaganda, Well
Speaker 1: hasn't she. That's missus Greta Thunberg, who is now an adult.
Speaker 1: I believe she is eighteen. So that means we're allowed
Speaker 1: to actually criticize this person who is advocating for policy
Speaker 1: on a global scale. She's a know nothing. She has
Speaker 1: no idea what the hell she's talking about, and she
Speaker 1: even admits that as part of the of the ploy
Speaker 1: here right, Well, you know, I'm just a teenager. I
Speaker 1: don't really know. But the science, which is just of
Speaker 1: course in line with exactly what she thinks she knows.
Speaker 1: The science says that Biden is not doing enough. How
Speaker 1: you liking those higher gas prices? Everybody is that you
Speaker 1: feel like you feel like you're doing a lot of
Speaker 1: good things for the for the climate. How those high
Speaker 1: gas prices feeling right now? Oh yeah, Joe Biden really
Speaker 1: really getting it done, isn't he. It's It's remarkable, isn't it.
Speaker 1: For this? This is what we are up against, this
Speaker 1: is what we seem the I am worried about the
Speaker 1: US economy. The economy should be on a springboard right now.
Speaker 1: I mean the economy should feel like we are loading
Speaker 1: up a catapult and we're just gonna unleash prosperity all
Speaker 1: across the land. We fire that sucker, and instead it
Speaker 1: feels like I'll let could go bad. At a moment,
Speaker 1: you've got Janet yelling telling us that this package will
Speaker 1: revive the relief bill will revive our economy. Play three.
Speaker 1: You know, this is the package we need to revive
Speaker 1: our economy to where it was. But there are long
Speaker 1: term challenges that we have faced for a very long time. Um.
Speaker 1: We have a key shaped recovery going on in which
Speaker 1: high income people are doing much better than those at
Speaker 1: the bottom of the economic ladder, low wage workers and minorities.
Speaker 1: And that problem frankly existed before the pandemic struck, although
Speaker 1: it was made measurably worse by the pandemic. So UM, eventually,
Speaker 1: when this has passed, UM, we're going to turn to
Speaker 1: recovery and to build back better and to address the
Speaker 1: problems that have been festering in the US for a
Speaker 1: long time leading to rising inequality. So that's the next
Speaker 1: part of the agenda. But this will be a very
Speaker 1: important relief, especially to those people who are really struggling.
Speaker 1: Do you think that this crew knows how to run
Speaker 1: the economy? You think that they understand how to get
Speaker 1: things up and running? I doubt it. You know, this
Speaker 1: spending package, I'm sure there'll be a moment here we say,
Speaker 1: oh wow, look at this, Look how this, Look how
Speaker 1: this gets things up and running, gets things going again,
Speaker 1: and then there'll be the recognition in some time. Hold
Speaker 1: on a second, where is this money coming from? How
Speaker 1: can you spend almost two trillion dollars as though it's
Speaker 1: nothing without that having an effect on interest rates, without
Speaker 1: that having an effect on the dollar. Can we just
Speaker 1: make it up as we go along? Why not ten trillion?
Speaker 1: We're really in that territory now we have to start
Speaker 1: asking questions like why not just spend? Why not go
Speaker 1: full modern monetary theory? You know, there are prominent democrats,
Speaker 1: AOCS among them who believe in MMT, which just means
Speaker 1: you spend whatever you want to spend as a government,
Speaker 1: and then you do your best to manage inflation when
Speaker 1: it comes. You know, that's it. You spend whatever you
Speaker 1: want to spend, whatever you think you need to spend,
Speaker 1: you spend. That's modern monetary theory. How far are we
Speaker 1: right now from that? And look, there was a lot
Speaker 1: of spending in the Trump administration. I get it. We
Speaker 1: didn't tackle the debt, we didn't tackle the deficit. Nobody cared,
Speaker 1: nobody wanted to hear about it. You know, if things
Speaker 1: felt like they were going well and maga and yeay
Speaker 1: and all that stuff, But well, now here we are,
Speaker 1: and the Democrats really could care less about what we
Speaker 1: say about that. And I wonder if there's going to
Speaker 1: be a rise of a Tea Party like movement now
Speaker 1: when people start to feel like they're telling me inflation
Speaker 1: is zero, but why is everything more expensive? They're telling
Speaker 1: me that the economy is good, but why is it
Speaker 1: so hard to actually produce enough from my labor to
Speaker 1: be able to get ahead of my bills. You know,
Speaker 1: there's going to be the economy that they tell you
Speaker 1: is happening, and then there's going to be the economy
Speaker 1: that you are feeling. And I can assure you these
Speaker 1: are not going to be the same thing. That much.
Speaker 1: We definitely know, and that's why I'm I am concerned
Speaker 1: that what will happen is we will see this this
Speaker 1: uh spike of oh great, everyone's getting these checks and
Speaker 1: there'll be more economic activity. But we get into maybe
Speaker 1: the third or fourth quarter of this year, when we
Speaker 1: should just be seeing a boom, an economic active. Things
Speaker 1: should be going great, and all of a sudden, growth
Speaker 1: is kind of sluggish, and people aren't feeling like they're
Speaker 1: doing better, and they don't think that they're they're getting
Speaker 1: wealthier in this whole, in this process, or where I
Speaker 1: say wealthier, that that their wealth is increasing, not that
Speaker 1: they're wealthy in the first place. And you know the
Speaker 1: Democrats are going to do at that point, you guessed it.
Speaker 1: Blame Trump. They'll find a way. Guarantee the Senator has
Speaker 1: never spent two trillion dollars in a more haphazard way
Speaker 1: or through a less rigorous process. Voters gave Senate Democrats
Speaker 1: the slimmest possible majority. Voters picked a president who promised
Speaker 1: unity and bipartisanship. Democrats' response is to ram through what
Speaker 1: they call quote the most progressive domestic legislation in a
Speaker 1: generation on a razor sin majority in both houses. The
Speaker 1: right path was obvious. We followed it five times last year,
Speaker 1: five rescue packages totaling four trillion dollars, and none of
Speaker 1: them got fewer than ninety votes. The Senate wrote the
Speaker 1: Cares Act, Republicans and Democrats shoulder to shoulder. That was
Speaker 1: the road to real pandemic relief. But Democrats actually wanted,
Speaker 1: mister President something else. They explained their intent very clearly
Speaker 1: to exploit this crisis as a tremendous opportunity to restructure
Speaker 1: things to fit our vision. That's how you get this
Speaker 1: massive bill with only one percent, one percent for vaccinations. Yep,
Speaker 1: this is what Democrats do. They use a crisis to
Speaker 1: get exactly what they want. And that's what they're doing here.
Speaker 1: Why do they wait all this time? Why do they
Speaker 1: make the American people stand by and suffer during all
Speaker 1: of this When they could have passed a COVID relief
Speaker 1: bill last August, when the initial round of funding was
Speaker 1: largely depleted and people were going to need more help
Speaker 1: and businesses were struggling. Why they waited, Well, because they
Speaker 1: wanted to use this for maximum leverage. That's why. That's
Speaker 1: why they waited. And this is another another thing that's happening,
Speaker 1: is they're passing this and it's very much a replay.
Speaker 1: It feels like a replay of the Obama administration in
Speaker 1: two thousand and nine. Right, there's a financial crisis, Well,
Speaker 1: let's spend almost a trillion dollars on stuff. Want to
Speaker 1: spend money on that isn't about actually rescuing the banks
Speaker 1: or from insolvency and the you know, the credit contagion
Speaker 1: that could have happened afterwards. No, it was more than that.
Speaker 1: It was Democrats saw a crisis, and they saw an opportunity,
Speaker 1: and this is what they do, and this is how
Speaker 1: they get it done. And let me tell you that
Speaker 1: there's such a focus on this right now, on the
Speaker 1: spending bill, the almost two trillion dollars of spending, that
Speaker 1: there's not nearly the focus there should be on what
Speaker 1: I call Pelosi's plan to annihilate the GOP forever. I mean,
Speaker 1: officially it's called the Four the People Act of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty one, but they should really call it the Democrats
Speaker 1: turning voting into a free for all while gutting their
Speaker 1: political opponents Act. Look, Pelosi's been in office what three
Speaker 1: plus decades now, representing San Francisco, and Pelosi's been a
Speaker 1: member of the House almost longer than I've been alive,
Speaker 1: which is pretty remarkable. And the Four the People Act
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty one, better known as HR one, is
Speaker 1: really all about Democrats winning in chaotic and fraud prone elections.
Speaker 1: In a way, you almost have to respect the Democrats
Speaker 1: ruthlessness with this bill. As soon as they could, they
Speaker 1: wielded their power for maximum advantage with no apologies. That's
Speaker 1: how they play the game, that's how they get it done.
Speaker 1: When Republicans find themselves with control of the White House
Speaker 1: in Congress, you know they're they're content with a decrease
Speaker 1: in the marginal tax rate, maybe emailing some think tank
Speaker 1: papers around Capitol Hill. Oh gosh, you all right, you
Speaker 1: know I'm comparing, you know, what what Milton Freeman said
Speaker 1: with with what Friedrich Hyaks said. And then there's John
Speaker 1: Maynard Keynes, And you know that's a lot of a
Speaker 1: lot of GOP big brains so to speak, spend their
Speaker 1: time doing that, and Democrats say, this is what we want,
Speaker 1: We're gonna get it, and we're gonna do it. They
Speaker 1: have a will to power and a will to use it.
Speaker 1: So I almost respect their ruthlessness, although I think it's
Speaker 1: so bad for the country. That respect is clearly the
Speaker 1: wrong word. Democrats don't dither when it comes to getting
Speaker 1: their way. You know. They introduced HR one four, the
Speaker 1: People Act, on January fourth, The Democrat controlled House just
Speaker 1: passed it on March third, and President Joe Biden's now
Speaker 1: strongly advocating for the Senate to pass it as well
Speaker 1: so he can sign it into law. I mean, how
Speaker 1: bad could HR one really be? You might ask, right,
Speaker 1: it is dressed up with a lot of flowery language
Speaker 1: about protecting sacred voting rights. Well, here's what HR one
Speaker 1: promises to do. Quote to expand Americans access to the
Speaker 1: ballot box, reduce the influence of big money and politics,
Speaker 1: strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti
Speaker 1: corruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy. And
Speaker 1: for other purposes. Ah, yes, for other purposes. Interesting, what
Speaker 1: other purposes are there? What else do Democrats have in mind?
Speaker 1: Remember this has already passed the House and the Senate
Speaker 1: is going to consider its passage. Joe Biden's pushing forward
Speaker 1: this could actually happen. It's all meant to sound fair, ethical, nonpartisan,
Speaker 1: but many of the details of HR one make it
Speaker 1: clear the primary intent of the bills to replay the
Speaker 1: only because it's a COVID emergency voting changes from twenty
Speaker 1: twenty and expand upon the nationwide. Democrats want to eliminate
Speaker 1: many election safeguards in the name of increasing access and
Speaker 1: federalize elections in a way that is contrary to constitutional intent.
Speaker 1: One of the big changes would be the legalization of
Speaker 1: the process that we know of as ballot harvesting. Twenty
Speaker 1: four states have this as illegal right now, but twenty
Speaker 1: six states have some form of ballot harvesting, which can
Speaker 1: range a whole lot. In some places, it's only when
Speaker 1: your family members can do it for you. But you know,
Speaker 1: ballot harvesting is when a person can take other people's
Speaker 1: actual physical votes in hand and go turn them in
Speaker 1: at a polling place on their behalf. Now, this is
Speaker 1: not necessarily nefarious. There are some states where family members,
Speaker 1: for example, are allowed to do this. So if you
Speaker 1: got if your grandma's ninety five and she wants to
Speaker 1: vote and she hands you you know you live in
Speaker 1: her house or you live down the street, she hands
Speaker 1: you the ballot, Okay, you're gonna go turn that in.
Speaker 1: But imagine what this means when it's much more widespread.
Speaker 1: I mean, you've got immediate chain of custody issues with
Speaker 1: ballot harvesting. I mean, if community organizers on behalf of
Speaker 1: a get out the vote effort can collect hundreds of
Speaker 1: ballots at a time, who to say whether some of
Speaker 1: them make their way to the polling place. Well, maybe
Speaker 1: some other ballots find themselves dumped in a trash can.
Speaker 1: Ballot harvesters, under the guise of helping senior citizens and
Speaker 1: other easily exploited groups, could encourage votes to go a
Speaker 1: certain way on the spot, or even fill out the
Speaker 1: empty ballots themselves. That's just the start. There's a whole
Speaker 1: laundry list. There's a whole laundry list of other election
Speaker 1: integrity measures that are loosened or eliminated in HR one. Friends,
Speaker 1: this is still very much a live deal. This could happen,
Speaker 1: and if this happens, we're going to lose the next
Speaker 1: election too. That's the whole point. Voter ID requirements would
Speaker 1: be decimated. HR one would give anyone the right to
Speaker 1: show up on election day and without providing a photo ID,
Speaker 1: sign an attestation and vote. That's all they have to do,
Speaker 1: sign an attestation, So that's where we are. I mean,
Speaker 1: producer Mark. If I signed an attestation that I was
Speaker 1: the greatest hockey player that ever lived, that would not
Speaker 1: make it true, would it? No, No one would not. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Automatic voter registration would also be enacted. That means anyone
Speaker 1: who goes to the DMV, uses food stamps, or attends
Speaker 1: community or state college would be enrolled as a voter.
Speaker 1: Some non citizens would also likely be enrolled in error
Speaker 1: because it leaves it up to the individual to attest
Speaker 1: their own eligibility. The list goes on and on. You
Speaker 1: got universal mail and ballots would be sent out to
Speaker 1: everyone on the voter rolls. They wouldn't be systematically perged
Speaker 1: of people who have moved out of state. You'd have
Speaker 1: a lot of people getting ballots in the wrong state,
Speaker 1: a lot of live ballots out there that shouldn't have
Speaker 1: been sent. You've got ballots arriving and being encounted long
Speaker 1: after election day. Early voting expanded. Felons would have voting
Speaker 1: rights restored upon release from prison, and as we know,
Speaker 1: convicts overwhelmingly support Democrats. It's not hard to see the
Speaker 1: pattern here. Democrats believe these changes would help them win elections.
Speaker 1: They don't care about the risks of fraud because they
Speaker 1: believe they'll benefit from the chaos, the loopholes, the Shenanigans.
Speaker 1: Elections aren't supposed to be federalized in this way, but
Speaker 1: constitutional objections mean nothing of Democrats like Pelosi, who, as
Speaker 1: we all know, sees a pathway to becoming a permanent majority.
Speaker 1: That's really what this is all about. A number of
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen, A number of states rather have used COVID
Speaker 1: nineteen for these temporary changes. In the twenty twenty elections cycle,
Speaker 1: they got things like a huge increase in mail in
Speaker 1: balloting nationwide. States like Pennsylvania extended the deadline account mail
Speaker 1: in ballots beyond the actual election. With these changes to
Speaker 1: election rules, Democrats were able to accomplish big wins in
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty election. We know Biden officially beat Trump
Speaker 1: by about seven million votes. A huge portion of the
Speaker 1: country still believes, despite the social media prohibitions on questioning
Speaker 1: the election, that there was substantial fraud. That's the reality.
Speaker 1: They can tell us, we're not allowed to say it.
Speaker 1: They can tell us we're not allowed to talk about
Speaker 1: but that's reality. If HR one becomes law, it will
Speaker 1: further hurt election integrity and confidence, and could rapidly turn
Speaker 1: America into a day facto one party state where the
Speaker 1: losers no longer have faith that the system is fair
Speaker 1: or worth preserving. Okay, that's where we are. That's what
Speaker 1: we see happening here. So you've got almost two trillion
Speaker 1: dollars spending bill where Democrats are getting whatever they want,
Speaker 1: and they're trying to ram through a change the election process.
Speaker 1: We haven't even talked about amnesty and what that would do.
Speaker 1: We haven't even talked about the expansion of the Democrats,
Speaker 1: you know, in their own mind, the expansion of what's
Speaker 1: possible or probable for them to get done if they
Speaker 1: get rid of the filibuster. And people are already talking
Speaker 1: about how HR one might be. I thought it would
Speaker 1: be amnesty, But maybe what they use, or where they
Speaker 1: decide the filibuster has to be used, is for HR
Speaker 1: one worth it, even though there'd be blow but back
Speaker 1: worth it, even though people would recognize this is an
Speaker 1: egregious overreach because it'll change the game forever, that's the
Speaker 1: way they see it. What do you think Democrats would
Speaker 1: be unwilling to do if they found that a certain
Speaker 1: action would put them in power for the rest of
Speaker 1: my lifetime. Let's say, I mean for decades to come.
Speaker 1: Where do you think they would draw the line on that.
Speaker 1: HR one is supposed to be the death knell of
Speaker 1: the Republican Party. That's what is playing out, and that
Speaker 1: is what we are seeing. Everybody should be very clear
Speaker 1: on what those implications are. Everybody should really understand what
Speaker 1: this means. And yet there's so little focus on this.
Speaker 1: Republicans right now, aren't. We're only united insofar as we're
Speaker 1: all suffering from bad Democrat decision making. But we need
Speaker 1: a counter narrative as well. We can't just say, look
Speaker 1: at what they're doing, it's bad. It's look at how
Speaker 1: bad what they're doing and what we would do differently.
Speaker 1: And that's a piece that's missing right now that we
Speaker 1: need to Reinstate. President Biden supports raising the minimum wage
Speaker 1: to fifteen dollars an hour. That is where he stands.
Speaker 1: That's where he stood for a long time. He believes
Speaker 1: strongly that that's the level at which people in this
Speaker 1: country who are working full time can make a living
Speaker 1: wage and not be living in poverty. And he believes
Speaker 1: that that's a fundamental matter of values. He doesn't believe
Speaker 1: that anybody in this country should work full time and
Speaker 1: be living and be living in poverty. You know what
Speaker 1: I would say, Jake, is you know they're currently but
Speaker 1: there are currently no active discussions about lowering the threshold.
Speaker 1: These are details that are going to get worked out.
Speaker 1: We just the Senate just passed our American Rescue Plan,
Speaker 1: this massive effort to get aid to people who need
Speaker 1: it across the country and make these investments. So we're
Speaker 1: going to the conversation is going to turn to how
Speaker 1: we tackle the minimum wage, and but the President is
Speaker 1: looking forward to working with Congress to determine the best
Speaker 1: way to do it. But what I can say to
Speaker 1: you right now is the President is committed to raising
Speaker 1: the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour. Committed to
Speaker 1: raising the minimum wage for fifteen dollars an hour. Even
Speaker 1: though anybody that you know who owns or runs a
Speaker 1: small business will tell you that the fifteen dollars minimum
Speaker 1: wage is one of these ideas that sounds good, it
Speaker 1: sounds great. Actually, I mean, I can't say anything other
Speaker 1: than yeah, of course, I want people to be paid
Speaker 1: well for their work. I want workers to feel like
Speaker 1: they're getting a fair deal here, for sure, But then
Speaker 1: there's economics and there's the reality of money and productivity
Speaker 1: and how businesses would handle this, and it's just not
Speaker 1: we keep coming back this. It's not what people want
Speaker 1: to believe it is. And I mean when I say people,
Speaker 1: those who are pushing for a fifteen dollars minimum wage.
Speaker 1: Eight Democrats in the Senate voted against voted no on
Speaker 1: the fifteen dollars minimum wage component of this. You know,
Speaker 1: they wanted an increase waged by fifteen dollars an hour,
Speaker 1: two fifteen dollars an hour by twenty twenty five. On Friday,
Speaker 1: eight members of the Senate Democratic Caucus voted against it.
Speaker 1: And there was an effort by Bernie Sanders to get
Speaker 1: rid of to waive a procedural objection to add of
Speaker 1: the fifteen dollars minimum wage for a COVID nineteen relief package,
Speaker 1: and that was that was defeated fifty eight forty two.
Speaker 1: So the people who voted against it are Joe Manchin,
Speaker 1: Kristin Cinema, Jean Sheheen, Maggie Hassan, John Tester, Tom Carper,
Speaker 1: and Chris Coons. And this is this is showing your
Speaker 1: right right now that oh at Angus Angus King one
Speaker 1: of the dumbest senators of all of them. And this
Speaker 1: is showing you that there's not actually unanimity on this.
Speaker 1: And it's in part, I think because people who understand
Speaker 1: what this will do to some small businesses, there will
Speaker 1: be job losses that happen. People will get fired, and
Speaker 1: there'll be more. We're required of employees who stay on
Speaker 1: the who stay employed but have the fifteen dollars minimum
Speaker 1: wage now as as the floor for what their pay
Speaker 1: would be. Understand that really very few places have the
Speaker 1: federal minimum wage, even if they're all generally being paid
Speaker 1: more than the federal minimum wage. But there are supply
Speaker 1: demand issues, I mean economics. As much as we want
Speaker 1: to believe that it can be changed to suit social
Speaker 1: policy and social justice, that's not how it works. And
Speaker 1: then there's also I think there's it's worth getting and
Speaker 1: it's worth adding into this that why go right to fifteen?
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's basically seven twenty five right now
Speaker 1: or something like that. I think it's seven dollars and
Speaker 1: no one even no one really it's used in so
Speaker 1: few places. People don't even know what it is. Oh wait, wait, wait,
Speaker 1: before we get let's get to the actually dumbest member
Speaker 1: of the United States, Senate Maizie Hirono, who says the
Speaker 1: minimum wage should be able here it is play sixteen
Speaker 1: fun thing. The minimum wage should be in this bill
Speaker 1: because raising the minimum wage for the people who are
Speaker 1: most adversely affected by the pandemic should get a minimum wage,
Speaker 1: which we have an increase in a decade or so,
Speaker 1: and it's a minimum wage I kept up with inflation, etc.
Speaker 1: It would be at least twenty dollars an hour. So
Speaker 1: here we are, we're among the last and all of
Speaker 1: the developed nations in terms of our minimum wage. So
Speaker 1: it should be in the bill. And frankly, I'm not
Speaker 1: going to blame the parliamentarian, but what I hope is
Speaker 1: that we will change the filibuster rules so that it
Speaker 1: will take a majority bill rather than having the Republicans
Speaker 1: continue to be a roadblock to all of this kind
Speaker 1: of legislation that will actually help American people. So you're
Speaker 1: saying you support ending the filibuster to get through future
Speaker 1: democratic legislative priorities. I definitely support filibuster reform, and part
Speaker 1: of that is ending the filibuster. It could be totally
Speaker 1: or it could be for certain kinds of bills. But
Speaker 1: I'm definitely open to making those kinds of changes so
Speaker 1: we can get things done that helps people, as opposed
Speaker 1: to not doing anything, which is the Republican's posture. Yep,
Speaker 1: get rid of the filibuster. Democrats talking about it openly.
Speaker 1: They want to create the pressure to get some people
Speaker 1: like Mansion to go along with them the Democrats side,
Speaker 1: and then it's open season for whatever crazy policies they want.
Speaker 1: Governor Cuomo running into some trouble. He's got trouble. What's
Speaker 1: the latest trouble for Governor Cuomo. Well, he's got five,
Speaker 1: count them, five accusers now females who are saying that
Speaker 1: he engaged in various degrees of sexual harassment and workplace misconduct.
Speaker 1: But Governor Cuomo is also saying that he does not
Speaker 1: plan to resign. What would it take to get this
Speaker 1: guy to resign, or better, what would it take to
Speaker 1: make him actually get impeached. We've got somebody who can
Speaker 1: tell us about that and more. Our buddy Joe Borelli
Speaker 1: in the House, New York City councilman from Statn Island,
Speaker 1: which is still technically part of New York City. Joe,
Speaker 1: good to have you back. Always great to be here,
Speaker 1: and thank you. And you know, this is one of
Speaker 1: my favorite topics because it can't be happening to a
Speaker 1: nice of God. How well known is it for everybody
Speaker 1: out there? How well known is it that Andrew Cuomo
Speaker 1: is just not a good guy? I mean, before all this,
Speaker 1: I think people should know about this. Oh oh yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean it is tremendously well known. I mean, to
Speaker 1: be fair, I had never heard of any any claim
Speaker 1: of sexual harassment or anything of that nature, but just
Speaker 1: a general evil nature of this guy has been known
Speaker 1: since he was a boy. You know. His nickname growing
Speaker 1: up as the governor's son was called the Dark Prince.
Speaker 1: The Legislative Correspondence Association does the dinner similar to the
Speaker 1: White House Correspondence Dinner, and they parody people. And they
Speaker 1: actually used to parody the Governor's son Andrew in nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty whatever as Darth Vader. I mean, that's how terrible
Speaker 1: of a human this man has been, and how long
Speaker 1: his reputation of being just a terrible person goes on.
Speaker 1: For now, we have the New York State Senate Majority
Speaker 1: leader calling on Cuomo to resign. He already said he
Speaker 1: won't resign, right. He says he won't resign because he
Speaker 1: wants to wait for an investigation to be completed. He says,
Speaker 1: he's a just allegations or accusations or whatever. And so
Speaker 1: he's saying he won't resign. New York State Senate majority
Speaker 1: they're asking, you know, calling on him to resign. I mean,
Speaker 1: at some point this turns into it's clear he's not
Speaker 1: going to do that, right, Joe, there's no way in
Speaker 1: your estimation he's going to resign, right, No, No, And
Speaker 1: this turns into a proverbial peeing contest. I think at
Speaker 1: some point between the majority leaders and the Assembly speaker
Speaker 1: and the governor, and I think he's going to make them,
Speaker 1: you know, basically call the bluff and see if they'll
Speaker 1: actually investigate and have an impeachment hearing. The problem for
Speaker 1: Governor Cuomo is that I think there's actually enough vote,
Speaker 1: certainly with Republicans, there's enough vote to impeach the governor
Speaker 1: on impeachable offenses. I mean that the standards to be
Speaker 1: impeached are not the same as criminal liability. And it's
Speaker 1: fairly obvious that there was willful and deliberate cover up
Speaker 1: of the nursing home scandal. I mean, forget, forget the
Speaker 1: sexual harassment for a moment, but the nursing home scandal
Speaker 1: is so plainly obvious, and just from what we know
Speaker 1: from the Attorney General's report that he has committed impeachable offenses.
Speaker 1: This drip, drip drip of stories and allegations and problems
Speaker 1: is becoming quite the puddle which mister Cuomo finds himself
Speaker 1: in today. Do you think that there's there's a real
Speaker 1: chance that he may be removed? I mean, that is
Speaker 1: that serious? Yeah, I actually do, and I know he
Speaker 1: does too, because he's out there calling legislators very desperately,
Speaker 1: both on the New York City Council and around the
Speaker 1: state legislature, asking them not to make statements on his
Speaker 1: own resignation. Now bear in mind you this is someone
Speaker 1: in twenty eighteen who called on the resignation of Eric Schneiderman,
Speaker 1: then Attorney General. Schneiderman for the accusation in one solitary
Speaker 1: article in Vanity Fair. And let's suppose the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: one Andrew Pomo is right. Maybe accusations are something that
Speaker 1: you shouldn't resign, or especially if you do leave your innocent. Fine,
Speaker 1: but that's not what he said when it was Schneiderman.
Speaker 1: That's not what he said when it was a guy
Speaker 1: named Vito Lopez. That's not what he said when it
Speaker 1: was a guy named Dennis Gaberjack. That's not what he
Speaker 1: said when it was a guy named Micah Kellmer. And
Speaker 1: the list goes on. I mean, the names are irrelevant
Speaker 1: to the audience. They probably aren't familiar with them. But
Speaker 1: the names are all of men who have been accused
Speaker 1: of sexual harassment. I couldn't even tell you the outcome
Speaker 1: of their ethics investigations or fact finding stuff, but they
Speaker 1: all resigned in shame and pushed out the door by
Speaker 1: none other than Andrew Bomo Amy Roebock, who is at
Speaker 1: ABC News. I guess I never watched the network news broadcasts.
Speaker 1: It's amazing to me that anybody does, quite honestly, but
Speaker 1: they still do have, you know, big audiences. She was
Speaker 1: on Good Morning America over the summer. And now this
Speaker 1: is granted, this is before the sexual raspan allegations, but
Speaker 1: I just want everyone to get a little trip down
Speaker 1: memory lane for the way the media was responding to
Speaker 1: treating propping up elevating Governor Cuomo this past summer. Here
Speaker 1: she is played too in one word? Can you describe
Speaker 1: the past one hundred days? He can? I see that, Yeah,
Speaker 1: you can. I think that's there. What still keeps you
Speaker 1: up at night? You've been commended for your clear and
Speaker 1: your calm leadership. People from all over the country, in
Speaker 1: the world have tuned into your press conferences. Your state
Speaker 1: wide approval rating a career high eighty four percent. You
Speaker 1: came in second only to President Obama as the most
Speaker 1: trusted Democratic leader in America. How do you intend on
Speaker 1: spending that political capital that you've earned? If you had
Speaker 1: to give President Trump a grade on how he's handled
Speaker 1: this pandemic, what would you of him? Well? Great? Would
Speaker 1: you give yourself? You've said that you have no political
Speaker 1: aspirations beyond the job you're in right now, right A
Speaker 1: lot of people are asking why why not think about
Speaker 1: something grander, bigger presidential? Would you accept a cabinet position
Speaker 1: in a Biden administration? That was a quick no, why not?
Speaker 1: I know that you've been portrayed as some sort of
Speaker 1: a homecoming king of this crisis and headline from Jezebel help,
Speaker 1: I think I'm in love with Andrew Cuomo. The New
Speaker 1: York Post dubbed you the new love gov. Chelsea Handler
Speaker 1: wrote you a love letter essay in Vogue entitled Dear
Speaker 1: Andrew Cuomo, I want to be your first lady. You're
Speaker 1: a reaction to all that, your daughter's reaction to all
Speaker 1: of that. When are you going to hug your mom again?
Speaker 1: It's a very powerful interview when he is no holds part.
Speaker 1: He says exactly what he's thinking, as you know, that's
Speaker 1: his style. Well, you can see that you asked the
Speaker 1: tough questions. I tell you that much as well. Yeah,
Speaker 1: oh yeah, the tough questions. What's your reaction to the man?
Speaker 1: I mean, there's so much there. I know, Joe, but wow,
Speaker 1: it Buck, It's insane. But I mean, this is a guy.
Speaker 1: You have to realize. For everything the media did to
Speaker 1: prop this man up, to celebrate his sexy handsomeness and
Speaker 1: the Cuomo sexual no one is as big of a
Speaker 1: proponent and proper upper of Andrew Cuomo than Andrew Cuomo himself.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a guy who just fundamentally wants
Speaker 1: to aggrandize himself at every single opportunity. The man made
Speaker 1: posters of himself celebrating the win against COVID, which did
Speaker 1: not happen. The man wrote a book, as we all know,
Speaker 1: leadership lessons about a pandemic that wasn't solved. And then
Speaker 1: you answer that just this constant and never ending, whether
Speaker 1: it's any Roebuck or a Vogue magazine or whoever else,
Speaker 1: just claiming this guy as this princely masculine model of sexiness.
Speaker 1: It was absurd then and it looks so stupid now,
Speaker 1: I mean so fundamentally stupid now in hindsight after the
Speaker 1: sexual harassment allegations. Same thing with the whole family aspect
Speaker 1: of how we all followed who was having dinner at
Speaker 1: his house the boyfriend. I mean, think about this charade,
Speaker 1: this guy went on a charade, but that he's this
Speaker 1: tough guy dad protecting his daughters from exactly the type
Speaker 1: of creepy older man that Andrew Cuomo actually is. But
Speaker 1: it's just top to bottom, soup to nuts insane. Why
Speaker 1: are people in New York state politics all the way
Speaker 1: down to you know, state state assemblymen or state senators,
Speaker 1: some city council folks, present company excluded, Why are they
Speaker 1: also scared of this guy. I mean, you get the
Speaker 1: sense that people are worried that, like Andrew Cuomo, is
Speaker 1: going to have them disappear in the middle of the night.
Speaker 1: I mean, clearly that's not what he does. But why
Speaker 1: are they so terrified of him? That's a great question,
Speaker 1: because he follows through and he's popular enough where his
Speaker 1: support could make or break careers for Democratic officials. He
Speaker 1: also has been clear that the rules don't apply to him.
Speaker 1: He threatened, think about it. He threatened openly over the
Speaker 1: weekend to release the files of Jacob which is the
Speaker 1: state's investigative arm, which he's already been accused of interfering.
Speaker 1: The Albany Times Union, a pretty powerful paper in Albany. Actually,
Speaker 1: we're in whole article how he uses the State Ethics
Speaker 1: Commission as his own personal defense team. He threw out there, well,
Speaker 1: if you think I should resign, maybe I'll throw out
Speaker 1: all the accusations about all the legislators. Now, he's just
Speaker 1: supposed to be confidential. Right, A young woman or whoever
Speaker 1: goes to the State Ethics Department and says I have
Speaker 1: a serious allegation against Assemblyman Jones, that's supposed to be confidential.
Speaker 1: And here's this guy just dangling it out there. We
Speaker 1: saw him blackmail in real time ron Kim. Ron Kim
Speaker 1: had terrible things to say about him, granted right, accusations
Speaker 1: that he killed nursing whole patients, all that, right. But
Speaker 1: he told the press he said, well, he's threatened ron
Speaker 1: Kim personally and said I'm going to destroy you and
Speaker 1: leak damaging information if you don't change your official statement
Speaker 1: on nursing homes. And then he actually went out in
Speaker 1: a press conference and spun this whole story, whether it's
Speaker 1: true or not, as relevant but damaging that ron Kim
Speaker 1: is beholden to some you nail salon, underground lobbyist racket.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's how insane the guy is. Right, those
Speaker 1: are things he just did publicly. Now there's a laundry
Speaker 1: list of things he did privately to try to get
Speaker 1: one over on people. He's excluded me from press conferences
Speaker 1: on stuff I supported and voted for. He's you know,
Speaker 1: there's allegations that he's used the State Liquor Authority during
Speaker 1: COVID to target certain businesses, certainly businesses that suit him.
Speaker 1: So this is a guy who goes there and this
Speaker 1: is a guy who rewards people that work below him
Speaker 1: for acting in the same manner. What has to happen
Speaker 1: we're speaking of Joe Barelli, city councilman from New York,
Speaker 1: from Staten Island. Joe, what has to happen for uh,
Speaker 1: for for Cuomo to actually go at this point, man,
Speaker 1: we talked about impeachment and removal by the state legislature.
Speaker 1: How long would that take and what do you think
Speaker 1: would have to change for them to actually be willing
Speaker 1: to take action on that. Well, there's no precedent for impeachment.
Speaker 1: The last one who was impeached was Governor plane Bill Selzer.
Speaker 1: They used to call him back in nineteen thirteen, and
Speaker 1: the guy was a Tammany governor and actually was a
Speaker 1: straight shooter and Tammany was very upset that he wasn't
Speaker 1: giving them patronage or kickbacks or whatever it was, and
Speaker 1: they actually had the guy impeach. So wait, so they
Speaker 1: impeached the guy for not being corrupt? Correct, plane Bill
Speaker 1: Seltzer's it's worth everyone's you know, fifteen seconds of googling
Speaker 1: when when they're you know, picking their nose later. Um,
Speaker 1: but but yeah, I mean, there's no precedent, so we
Speaker 1: don't really know how long it will take to draft
Speaker 1: charges and it have to trial, etc um. But I
Speaker 1: think that's the only way. I think another way he
Speaker 1: goes is if the President weighs in. I think another
Speaker 1: way he goes as if Schumer and Jillibrand and basically
Speaker 1: the federal apparatus, the National Party. He doesn't care about
Speaker 1: the state party. He controls the state party. The number
Speaker 1: one state Democrat is in his own good, so he
Speaker 1: doesn't care about the state party. He does care about
Speaker 1: the DNC. He cares about his national profile, and if
Speaker 1: those people are now leveraging him to leave, I think
Speaker 1: that's the only chance to Again. The other thing is
Speaker 1: in cornering politician Democrats and making them declare at this
Speaker 1: point now that they won't support him for re election
Speaker 1: in two years. And I think that's another way he'll
Speaker 1: see the exit door, if not immediately, but at least
Speaker 1: won't run for real. So the National Party would have
Speaker 1: to turn on him, and then there may be consequences
Speaker 1: from his own state party. You think or you think
Speaker 1: that the National Party would would pressure him to resign.
Speaker 1: I think the National Party could pressman can resign. I
Speaker 1: mean that that that's where his care is. That's who
Speaker 1: he's concerned with. You know, he's already proven he can
Speaker 1: beat back some of the more radical progressives that pose
Speaker 1: him ideologically within the State Democratic Party. So it is
Speaker 1: really the pressure, I believe from above. I think if
Speaker 1: he loses Joe Biden, if Joe Biden finds out which
Speaker 1: room he is in at any point in the day
Speaker 1: and he realizes that who Andrew Cuomo is and he
Speaker 1: weighs in, I think is a good chance he goes
Speaker 1: Joe Burrell, everybody, councilman for New York from Stotton Island. Joe,
Speaker 1: I always appreciate your insights. My friend talks, So thank
Speaker 1: you Buck, thank you well. I would say two things
Speaker 1: right now, as you've indicated just today, we're dealing with
Speaker 1: I think the most consequential piece of legislation for working
Speaker 1: people in the modern history of this country. And we're
Speaker 1: doing that to a reconciliation process, which means that we
Speaker 1: only need fifty votes plus the Vice President. And as
Speaker 1: you know, this legislation is going to provide fourteen hundred
Speaker 1: dollars for a working class person and their children's can
Speaker 1: extend unemployment with a four hundred dollars supplement on top
Speaker 1: of normal unemployment. Put a whole lot of money into
Speaker 1: education so that we can reopen our schools, expand healthcare.
Speaker 1: It is enormously important. Sadly enough, we have zero Republican support.
Speaker 1: So your point is well taken. In one way or another,
Speaker 1: We're gonna have to do what the American people want
Speaker 1: us to do. This COVID bill we're debating today enormously
Speaker 1: popular among Democrats, independence, Republicans, and if we cannot get
Speaker 1: Republican support in one way or another, we've got to
Speaker 1: go forward. Now you ask me about the filibustate, is
Speaker 1: my position absolutely that democracy has got to prejail in
Speaker 1: the United States Senate. We cannot cannot have continue to
Speaker 1: have a minority who are obstructing what the American people want.
Speaker 1: So count me in as somebody who believes that majority
Speaker 1: should rule in the Senate so that we can begin
Speaker 1: doing the business of the American people. We cannot have
Speaker 1: a minority obstructing what the American people want. All of
Speaker 1: a sudden, bodies about the filibuster removal does not want
Speaker 1: the filibuster not a surprise. Is it obstruction? Obstruction? This
Speaker 1: is what they said all all you have to do
Speaker 1: is go back to what the debates were like, the
Speaker 1: discussions were like around the Obama administration when Republicans didn't
Speaker 1: do what Congress wanted them to, and it quickly turns
Speaker 1: into obstruction. Now, when Democrats did everything in their power
Speaker 1: to abuse rules and precedent when they were in the minority,
Speaker 1: was resistance, hashtag resistance. But when Democrats in the majority,
Speaker 1: if Republicans don't actively collude with their big government plans,
Speaker 1: they are obstructionists. Isn't it fascinating how quickly that turns.
Speaker 1: It's very very clear how that happens. Oh, one thing,
Speaker 1: we'll get into more on the border tomorrow. But what's
Speaker 1: been fascinating is how it's how Democrats have been trying
Speaker 1: very hard to convince everyone that, oh, no, there's not
Speaker 1: a crisis at the border. There. It's just a really
Speaker 1: bad situation that's spiraling out of control that we can't
Speaker 1: really handle. But there's not a crisis at the border.
Speaker 1: Here's Jen Saki on that play fourteen. Usman or leader
Speaker 1: Kevin McCarthy. He's requesting a meeting of President Biden the
Speaker 1: botanist issue. He's also asking President Biden to acknowledge the crisis.
Speaker 1: Will President Biden take that meeting, and I'll ask it again,
Speaker 1: will he acknowledged that there's a crisis. Well, First, the
Speaker 1: President and this administration's focus is on digging out of
Speaker 1: the dismantled and inhumane immigration approach of the last administration.
Speaker 1: And that's why the President has proposed an immigration bill
Speaker 1: that would not only address the root causes that Leader
Speaker 1: McCarthy referenced in his letter, but would move beyond the
Speaker 1: policy of funding and effective border walls by investing in
Speaker 1: smart security at ports of entry, and would also create
Speaker 1: a pathway to citizenship. And we would welcome the openness
Speaker 1: or desire to engage on that from the Leader or
Speaker 1: any Democrat or Republican who wants to have a conversation
Speaker 1: about a constructive pass forward. Yeah, investing in smart security
Speaker 1: at ports of entry? What does that even mean? Right?
Speaker 1: I mean, they say these things and you all know
Speaker 1: that they're just trying to avoid telling you the truth
Speaker 1: about what's happening in the border. I also get very
Speaker 1: agitated every time I hear Democrats refer to border walls
Speaker 1: that don't work. Border walls work. It's very obvious, it's
Speaker 1: very clear there should really be no debate on this.
Speaker 1: The question might be how well they work and how
Speaker 1: you can make them work better? But they work, They
Speaker 1: work better than the one percent mask mandate effectiveness. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's for damn sure. Border walls do work. But Democrats
Speaker 1: don't want border security, but they're not willing to say
Speaker 1: that openly, so they play this game. Democrats on immigration
Speaker 1: want to have it both ways. They want to pretend
Speaker 1: they believe in rule of law and border security while
Speaker 1: allowing for a day facto open border, because that's how
Speaker 1: a nation of immigrants, in their eyes, should operate. That's
Speaker 1: what's going on here and the cry this is getting
Speaker 1: worse and we will dive into the into it some
Speaker 1: more tomorrow with all of the latest from our southern border.
Speaker 1: The show ain't over yet, folks. It's time for roll
Speaker 1: call producer Mark, Buddy, how was the weekend? What did
Speaker 1: you get into? Tell? Tell the folks they want to know.
Speaker 1: They hear from me for like hours, but you know
Speaker 1: then now it's producer Mark's time to tell everybody what's
Speaker 1: going on. Howard things? Well, my arm hurts a bit
Speaker 1: from what the vaccine? Oh is it a little sore
Speaker 1: it's a little sore. But if that's the only side effect,
Speaker 1: I'm cool. Yeah. No, hopefully you're not going to grow
Speaker 1: like a second head or something. Then i'd have two
Speaker 1: producer marks telling me to be on time for things. Yeah, somehow,
Speaker 1: I think there would have been a media report by
Speaker 1: now if somebody grew a second head. That's I think
Speaker 1: that's true. I think you're pretty safe around there at least.
Speaker 1: Think this way. If you did grow a second head,
Speaker 1: you would be um, you'd be an anomaly, and and
Speaker 1: you'd probably get like an interview with you know, various
Speaker 1: TV stations about it. That's true. I might become rich
Speaker 1: off of that. So maybe I'm right, Like not like
Speaker 1: an Oprah level interview, but like you would get some
Speaker 1: kind of interview. Yeah, I'd get attention. Was it which
Speaker 1: one was it? By the way, the Maderna? No, it
Speaker 1: was the one shot John. I mean, they make such
Speaker 1: nice baby powder and shampoo. I feel like you got
Speaker 1: to trust them, you know exactly. It did not no
Speaker 1: audience right now is people are like, how no Buck, no,
Speaker 1: big Pharma, don't trust them. But you know, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I like I had their baby shampoo when I was
Speaker 1: a kid, you know, because it gets in if it
Speaker 1: gets in your eyes, it won't hurt you know that stuff.
Speaker 1: So no tears shampoo. Yeah, that's right, that Johnson, And
Speaker 1: that's what that was like my first shampoo as a kid.
Speaker 1: I remember that no tears baby shampoo. I could have
Speaker 1: just learned to close my eyes, but you know, I
Speaker 1: was a slow learner, so I had to have the tears.
Speaker 1: Big head, slow owner, slow learner. A big head, slow learner, definitely.
Speaker 1: I can put that on a T shirt. Any anything
Speaker 1: fun you watch or check out or anything like that
Speaker 1: going on. Off the weekend, my wife and I watched
Speaker 1: the first six episodes. I think of WandaVision. I've not
Speaker 1: even heard of this before. Have you not even heard
Speaker 1: of it? Yes? On Disney Plus. It's the newest Marvel thing.
Speaker 1: It involves the character's Wanda and vision, hence the name WandaVision.
Speaker 1: It's very interesting. It's different than anything you've ever seen
Speaker 1: from Marvel before. It's a TV show. I enjoyed it
Speaker 1: so far. Okay, okay, I mean, have you tried to
Speaker 1: sell missus Mark on the boys or she just not?
Speaker 1: She was all into WandaVision This weekend, I couldn't even
Speaker 1: we were waiting. So they were doing the two episodes
Speaker 1: a week thing, so we decided to wait until it
Speaker 1: was all out. So we just kind of binged, Yeah,
Speaker 1: this's no princess, people. I posted a photo of her
Speaker 1: over the weekend on Instagram and so now people know that,
Speaker 1: which is good exactly. I think there were some people
Speaker 1: who thought that like, either this no Princess was just
Speaker 1: a code name for Tolulu the French bulldog, or that
Speaker 1: there wasn't really a human being here. You know, they
Speaker 1: were starting to have their doubts. So no, no, she
Speaker 1: is real, and there's a photo of me and her
Speaker 1: in Miami. Really, it was just because we were having
Speaker 1: a nostalgic moment. I'm at Miami and I'm like, i
Speaker 1: gotta post a Miami photo because man, it's it's nice her.
Speaker 1: So yeah, well you've never you know, I haven't seen
Speaker 1: you in a year, buddy, are you But have you
Speaker 1: grown like a big lockdown beard or anything yet? Or
Speaker 1: you know, I'm incapable of growing a beard, So I
Speaker 1: look almost exactly the same, maybe a little heavier, but
Speaker 1: aren't we all? That makes that makes two of us,
Speaker 1: by the way, yeah, all my suits right now are
Speaker 1: like a little a little snug around the middle, which
Speaker 1: is just a constant reminder that I just need to
Speaker 1: wear sweats all the time. I mean, I'm a wedding
Speaker 1: coming up in June. I just expect to have to
Speaker 1: go buy a new soup. Oh, I'm I'm right there
Speaker 1: with you, buddy. My brother is getting married this summer
Speaker 1: in August, and I'm I'm hoping I would say that
Speaker 1: I'm positive I will, but I'm hoping that I'll be
Speaker 1: able to get back to my you know, my like
Speaker 1: fitting well into my my suit from the past, because otherwise, yeah,
Speaker 1: I gotta go get another one. Yeah, but wouldn't you
Speaker 1: rent a tux or something for your brother's wedding? Aren't
Speaker 1: you in the wedding party? I think I don't think
Speaker 1: it's a tuxedo time. I think it's a suit. I
Speaker 1: guess it depends on the bride usually, Yeah, yeah, black tie.
Speaker 1: Not everyone does the black tie thing, so it depends.
Speaker 1: But anyway, Yeah, so I hung out with the Snow Princess.
Speaker 1: We basically just just chillaxed. I got a I got
Speaker 1: a new TV because I found out that getting my
Speaker 1: TV fixed. This was quite a This is quite a mathematical,
Speaker 1: mathematical challenge. Getting my TV fixed by Samsung was gonna
Speaker 1: cost me four hundred dollars. Getting my TV brand new
Speaker 1: instead of four years old was going to cost me
Speaker 1: five hundred and fifty dollars. So I decided to just
Speaker 1: get a brand new TV. It feels kind of wasteful,
Speaker 1: like I'm like, I'm building up the landfills of the
Speaker 1: world or something. But what am I gonna do? You know,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna put four hundred dollars to fix an
Speaker 1: old TV. When I get a new TV for you know,
Speaker 1: on one hundred and fifty bucks more, you probably just
Speaker 1: sell the old TV too, So I want to buy it.
Speaker 1: Who knows how to fix it? Maybe I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't. I wonder what the value is in that.
Speaker 1: But it's like when you find out that a car
Speaker 1: is worth less than what it would cost to really
Speaker 1: fix it. You know, that's kind of where we're TV
Speaker 1: TVs are a remarkable and I really mean this. TV's
Speaker 1: are a remarkable expression of flat screens of capitalism. Because
Speaker 1: I remember being in college and getting like one of
Speaker 1: those big cathode tube TVs that weighed like one hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty pounds and the bigger the screen. You know,
Speaker 1: TVs used to be really expensive. Do you remember this?
Speaker 1: Are you too young? Yeah? I remember when, like my
Speaker 1: grandmother bought me this huge box TV tube TV and
Speaker 1: it was only like maybe thirty inches wide, which is
Speaker 1: nothing compared to what you can get now in a
Speaker 1: flat screen. And that was like the latest technology. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: And you know TVs used to be like three feet deep,
Speaker 1: you know, they were big, bulky, heavy things. Yeah, And
Speaker 1: I I mean now you can get a really good
Speaker 1: name brand flat screen, you know, forty some odd inch
Speaker 1: or fifty some odd inch TV for a few hundred bucks.
Speaker 1: It's amazing when you think about it. I mean how
Speaker 1: much the technology has improved. But then again, we all
Speaker 1: carry around supercomputers in our pockets all the time, known
Speaker 1: as smartphones. And I mean I still remember when having
Speaker 1: a beeper, that's right, having a beeper was like cutting
Speaker 1: edge technology. Yeah, I'm not that old too, Yeah, you're
Speaker 1: not that old. Yeah, I mean beepers originally they were
Speaker 1: for doctors and drug dealers, but then they went through
Speaker 1: a little phase where people had their beepers on them
Speaker 1: so that you could just like have your friends call you,
Speaker 1: and then you'd know to call them back, you know,
Speaker 1: when you were out and about. But then then they
Speaker 1: got replaced by the cell phone. But it's pretty the
Speaker 1: whole thing is pretty remarkable. All right, let's get to
Speaker 1: roll call Charles kicking us off. Remember Facebook dot com,
Speaker 1: slash buck Sex and Oh team, I have a favorite
Speaker 1: ask I meant to ask you this too. Please write review,
Speaker 1: use on iTunes on the Apple Podcast Store of our
Speaker 1: podcast and give it five stars. It has been brought
Speaker 1: to my attention that we do not have we have
Speaker 1: a huge audience for the podcast, and we don't have
Speaker 1: nearly the reviews in terms of a proportion that we should,
Speaker 1: and so we get penalized in the Apple podcast Store
Speaker 1: for this. So please tell people if you love the
Speaker 1: Bucks X and show, just give it. Look, I don't
Speaker 1: even care if you love it, just give it five stars. Okay,
Speaker 1: do it for producer Mark if you won't, do it
Speaker 1: for me and write a review about how the show
Speaker 1: is cool and you like it and Producer Mark makes
Speaker 1: fun of me and it's good, you know, do something
Speaker 1: like that. And if we could just get a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of you to do that, it would really really
Speaker 1: help us Out'll take you fifteen seconds, so please write
Speaker 1: a review for the Bucks X and show on Apple Podcasts.
Speaker 1: Give it five stars. If you're listening to this, all right,
Speaker 1: let's get to it. Charles Hey Buck Charles here in Florida.
Speaker 1: My martial arts teacher told me a long time ago
Speaker 1: that as humans, we only have the rights we can enforce.
Speaker 1: That means that might makes right in the end. Nobody
Speaker 1: ever won a war or a fight because they were
Speaker 1: morally correct. Example Roversus Wade. They made the wrong decision
Speaker 1: to quell the crazies. Clearly more people have always thought
Speaker 1: it was wrong. With that in mind, I think back
Speaker 1: through my life. The right seems to always think that
Speaker 1: it's about what's right and good that promotes individualism. The
Speaker 1: left aximum place of fear and gathers in numbers. They
Speaker 1: outnumber the right in every aspect of life. This means
Speaker 1: that when you take your case to court, if you
Speaker 1: happen upon a lib judge, you're done, and you probably will.
Speaker 1: This means that if you watch TV, you're being indoctriated
Speaker 1: by the owners of the station, who are probably libs.
Speaker 1: This means if you go to the movies, you'll see
Speaker 1: subliminal messages of wokeness because the director and producer are
Speaker 1: probably libs. Your kid is probably being taught by a lib.
Speaker 1: It's hard to fight back when you're outnumbered and they
Speaker 1: know it, and now they're bringing in more. Sorry to
Speaker 1: be such a downer. Well, Charles, you're in Florida. I man,
Speaker 1: it's beautiful down there. You've got no state income tax,
Speaker 1: You've got Governor Ron des Santis who in the line
Speaker 1: for freedom. You got a lot of good things to
Speaker 1: be happy about, my man, So start with that. As
Speaker 1: for as for your your being outnumbered point here, or
Speaker 1: how we're outnumbered all these places, It's not just a
Speaker 1: question of sheer numbers. It's also a function of the
Speaker 1: lib mentality. The lib mentality is that they have to
Speaker 1: inflict their bad ideas on all the rest of us.
Speaker 1: They don't. They don't view of neutral spaces as as
Speaker 1: desirable or even really possible. So you know, if I go,
Speaker 1: let's say, to work at a at a company that
Speaker 1: sells shoes, as a conservative, I'm thinking, how do I
Speaker 1: sell the best shoes? How do I make the most profit?
Speaker 1: How do I make our shareholders happy while making our
Speaker 1: customers happy with the great shoes we're making and that
Speaker 1: we we create something of value for society. And in
Speaker 1: that process, a lib goes to work in a shoe
Speaker 1: company and thinks, yeah, all that other stuff, you know whatever,
Speaker 1: But really, what is this shoe company doing to address oppression?
Speaker 1: What is this shoe company doing to address systemic racism
Speaker 1: or sexism or you name it. So it's a difference
Speaker 1: in approach. So you're much more aware of the politics
Speaker 1: of the left because they want to use whatever they
Speaker 1: can as a platform for those politics. And we've seen
Speaker 1: that wokeism all throughout corporate America as a result. So, Charles,
Speaker 1: it's not just a sheer numbers thing. It's also about
Speaker 1: the mentality. It's also about the approach. In Buck, I
Speaker 1: share your optimism regarding states that have finally opened up.
Speaker 1: Hopefully Texas has enough herd immunity to absorb all these
Speaker 1: COVID plus illegal aliens they're dropping off in the interior
Speaker 1: or wherever they go once they get to the bus station. Ian,
Speaker 1: I think that the reopening is you know, we were
Speaker 1: moving in the right direction, but the lockdowners are fighting it.
Speaker 1: You know, they're fighting it with everything they've got. And
Speaker 1: I think that that means we're going to be extended
Speaker 1: here longer than we should for sure. And as for
Speaker 1: illegal aliens, you know that, Look, there's not a lot
Speaker 1: of there's not a lot of illegal immigrants who are
Speaker 1: going to be you know, who are going to be
Speaker 1: in the grand scheme of COVID positivity across the country.
Speaker 1: This is not changing it one way or the other.
Speaker 1: We're talking about probably hundreds, maybe a few thousand cases,
Speaker 1: but it's just really the government's approach to this, which
Speaker 1: is whatever restrictions they have to put you under your business,
Speaker 1: under a limit, maybe one percent of cases in an area,
Speaker 1: they'll do. But they'll actually actively send people with COVID
Speaker 1: nineteen into the country illegally not supposed to be here
Speaker 1: in the first place, and have no problem with that.
Speaker 1: All right, Albert buck mate, I'm from England. Piers Morgan
Speaker 1: is not considered right wing. He's a Champagne socialist who
Speaker 1: says things to get attention. He is hated by every
Speaker 1: conservative in this country, actually by everyone in the country. Yeah, Albert,
Speaker 1: I know my Instagram live guest, you know, Case Smith
Speaker 1: said that Piers Morgan was right wing and I was
Speaker 1: kind of shocked by that because I have never seen
Speaker 1: or heard that. But she's from the UK. I'm not so.
Speaker 1: I kind of deferred to her on it at the time.
Speaker 1: But Piers Morgan is not a concern. The guy's anti gun.
Speaker 1: He's not conservative in the American sense. I don't know
Speaker 1: what he is in the British sense. I don't know
Speaker 1: the guy. I don't understand why anybody cares when he
Speaker 1: thinks about anything, but he somehow manages to put his
Speaker 1: name in the media, put his name in the headline. Still,
Speaker 1: I don't know for what exactly, but there you go, Russell,
Speaker 1: Uncle Buck, thank you for finally talking about the fact
Speaker 1: that Libs don't debate anymore. They rarely ever have conversations
Speaker 1: with people who disagree with them. I truly believe that
Speaker 1: if I were an AOC fan and saw her get
Speaker 1: dismantled by any prominent conservative, it would totally change my perspective.
Speaker 1: Please keep pushing debate, challenge prominent Libs, call them out.
Speaker 1: It'd be amazing to see, though I don't though I
Speaker 1: doubt any of them would accept when they don't X,
Speaker 1: I don't well hold on, I doubt any of them
Speaker 1: would accept. But when they don't accept. You can say
Speaker 1: it's because they know I will destroy them shields Way
Speaker 1: High Russell, I'm with you on that man, Thanks so much.
Speaker 1: And yeah, libs. Libs do not debate. There are all
Speaker 1: these brands that are that are supposed to be public
Speaker 1: intellectuals who are leftists, and what we see is that
Speaker 1: they really have no actual interest in a debate of
Speaker 1: any kind. They if they have people on to represent
Speaker 1: the alternative point of view of conservatism, they're there only
Speaker 1: to just get annihilated and get mocked and destroyed. And
Speaker 1: that's that's obviously not moving the debate forward in any
Speaker 1: meaningful sense. I mean, let me ask you, have you
Speaker 1: seen think about people. Have you ever seen Rachel Mattaw
Speaker 1: or Anderson Cooper or Chris Hayes, or just go down
Speaker 1: the list, any of these people in a debate with
Speaker 1: a prominent conservative who can really hold his own or
Speaker 1: her own No, you don't see that. Why is that
Speaker 1: because the left won't debate. Continuing on with our Monday
Speaker 1: roll call, we got Nate Hey Buck, great work, keep
Speaker 1: it up. There's a much simpler reason for the fences
Speaker 1: in DC lockdown. All the fearmongering is simply a smokescreen.
Speaker 1: The real reason is to avoid Democrat embarrassment when President
Speaker 1: silver Alert forgets who where he is and wanders off.
Speaker 1: Would hate to lose him. Uh so Nate's making a joke,
Speaker 1: producer Mark, Right, Yes, I believe he's joking about our president. Yes,
Speaker 1: well not our president, but you know what I mean. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: well it's technically a president. What is a silver Alert?
Speaker 1: I think maybe a life alert button. Maybe that's the joke. Okay,
Speaker 1: is that like a version of a life alert, like
Speaker 1: like the Remember remember that old commercial I fall it
Speaker 1: and I can't get up? Remember that? Of course? Yeah,
Speaker 1: that that commercial became like a cultural icon for a
Speaker 1: while because of the of the old lady that that was.
Speaker 1: You know, yell that thing depressure, summer suffage, depressure. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's that. That's he is our president, Mark, That is true.
Speaker 1: It's true. Yeah, we're not allowed to go shout in
Speaker 1: the streets, not our president. We don't do something. I
Speaker 1: just want everyone to remember that I told them that
Speaker 1: that the day will come when the guy basically walks
Speaker 1: out on stage without his pants on, I mean metaphorically speaking,
Speaker 1: or maybe even without his pants. It's gonna do that,
Speaker 1: and there are gonna be a lot of Libs out
Speaker 1: there whose position on all of this is um Oh,
Speaker 1: we had no idea, but I guess we've just got
Speaker 1: to make Kamalo the president. Now, that's what's gonna end
Speaker 1: up happening bad. It kept turn scrubbing Scuba. That's what's
Speaker 1: gonna That's what Biden's gonna say about it when it happens. Pablo, Oh,
Speaker 1: I know this is gonna be unpopular, but here it goes.
Speaker 1: I think that if Trump ran in one again, it
Speaker 1: could earth the party. Here's my reasoning. If he won,
Speaker 1: he would be a newly elected lame duck candidate. It
Speaker 1: would have been different if he was reelective, but now
Speaker 1: he'd be a one term president again. I was on
Speaker 1: board with Donald J. Trump for the time he came
Speaker 1: down the elevator, but now I do believe he would
Speaker 1: be better in the role of figurehead for the GOP.
Speaker 1: The ticket I would love to see, and I know
Speaker 1: it's early, is a desantist Pompeo ticket. I believe this
Speaker 1: ticket is the one the GOOP could get behind. One
Speaker 1: of your thoughts, you know, Pablo, I don't I don't
Speaker 1: have a ticket in mind right now. Obviously, I think
Speaker 1: Desantists has really shown us some great stuff in the
Speaker 1: last year, and I gotta give some all due credit
Speaker 1: to Desantists, but I mean a Pompeo ticket. You know,
Speaker 1: maybe I like the former Secretary of State. Is I
Speaker 1: think he'd be good? I don't. I don't know. I
Speaker 1: gotta think about it. As to your thoughts on Trump,
Speaker 1: I gotta think about that too. But we're at the
Speaker 1: end of the show, so I can kind of hit
Speaker 1: the bailout and come back to it button. Pablo, team,
Speaker 1: please give me those reviews on the Apple podcast store
Speaker 1: of The Buck Sexton Show, five stars write a little
Speaker 1: something nice, Producer Mark, I'll appreciate it. Shield's Eye