Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunch Hunter Biden back on
Speaker 1: the hot seat. ACB Hearing's final day, No notes versus
Speaker 1: No Brains, the war on sexual preference, and chardonnay Nancy
Speaker 1: won't let the peasants have cake. This is the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexon Show, where the mission or mission is to decode
Speaker 1: what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake, you're
Speaker 1: a great American. Again the Buck Sexon Show begins. He's
Speaker 1: a great guy. No, welcome everybody to the Buck Sex
Speaker 1: didn't show another day, getting closer now all the time
Speaker 1: to the big decision day. I hope that we get
Speaker 1: to celebrate in November and it's not a very sullen,
Speaker 1: very sad month for us. But we'll see, We'll see
Speaker 1: the ACB hearings. I'll tell you my thoughts on that today.
Speaker 1: I guess it's the most they've been able to pull
Speaker 1: together so far. Is some really dumb questions from Democrats? Centator?
Speaker 1: Is it? It's hard to believe there's not nearly enough
Speaker 1: psychopathy from the left. While the Ruth Bader Ginsburg seat,
Speaker 1: which is actually just a Supreme Court seat, it doesn't
Speaker 1: belong to Ruth Bader Ginsberg it's not VRBG seat. Really,
Speaker 1: it certainly isn't stolen now, nor other Supreme Court seats stolen.
Speaker 1: Despite the rhetoric to libs of the Democrats use it
Speaker 1: looks like so far, so good. That changes over the
Speaker 1: course of this show. I'll have to let you know,
Speaker 1: but I gotta tell you about something else today. And
Speaker 1: maybe it's going to move the needle. Maybe it's going
Speaker 1: to make a difference. Perhaps not. We have to see,
Speaker 1: but it is. It is good for all of us
Speaker 1: to at least know that we were certainly right. We
Speaker 1: were certainly right about Hunter Biden and Barisma and the
Speaker 1: whole situation. Let's just let's backtrack for a second. Shall
Speaker 1: we buy way of review? Friends, make yourself comfortable. Let's
Speaker 1: let's get into this so you'll recall it came out
Speaker 1: about what is it now two years ago that Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden was the recipient of a particularly lucrative board seat
Speaker 1: on a Ukrainian energy company board called Barisma. Hunter Biden,
Speaker 1: who had been kicked out of the military for failing
Speaker 1: a drug test, and who had no knowledge or any
Speaker 1: reason at all to be on a board of a
Speaker 1: Ukrainian energy company, doesn't know the energy sector doesn't mean
Speaker 1: much about business. Hunter Biden got a fifty thousand dollars
Speaker 1: a month sinecure. He got hooked up big time, while
Speaker 1: Daddy Joe Biden, now supposed to be the next press
Speaker 1: the United States, was the guy who was the point
Speaker 1: man on policy in Ukraine. I remember it was at
Speaker 1: the Hill dot com and two of my friends, John
Speaker 1: Solomon and Sarah Carter were the ones who were really
Speaker 1: pushing this story, breaking the big news on it. I
Speaker 1: remember as it was happening, I sat in the office
Speaker 1: with John Solomon when he was getting some of the
Speaker 1: trunch of documents around this issue. That was two years ago.
Speaker 1: And you will remember that while there was some attention
Speaker 1: on this, the media pretend that it was just nothing
Speaker 1: couldn't prove anything, nothing illegal about it. That really became
Speaker 1: the fallback that there was nothing illegal about what Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden did, and therefore we're not supposed to care. Well,
Speaker 1: they were assuming there's nothing illegal about it, and from
Speaker 1: what we knew, it was gross meaning it was unethical,
Speaker 1: meaning there was plenty of plenty of reason to believe
Speaker 1: that what had gone on was at least corruption from
Speaker 1: a government ethics point of view. If not a criminal
Speaker 1: legal point of view, and that was what that was
Speaker 1: what was a big focus of all these conversations and
Speaker 1: all these discussions at the time. But you know, the
Speaker 1: left circle the wagons, and it was unsurprising that they
Speaker 1: took the position they did, which was hunter Biden is
Speaker 1: important for a Democrat who's going to be running, and
Speaker 1: so they covered for him, right. They made this whole
Speaker 1: effort to say that it was no big deal. People
Speaker 1: do this all the time. Look at how Trump corrupts
Speaker 1: children are all this kind of stuff. Well, Trump had
Speaker 1: never held public office before became president, so there was
Speaker 1: no opportunity for him to engage in the same kind
Speaker 1: of public corruption that the Biden crime family has, as
Speaker 1: we know. And the media pretended to be really stupid,
Speaker 1: and they like to do this. This is one of
Speaker 1: their favorite games. They all pretend to be morons. But
Speaker 1: as long as others, supposedly smart people in the media
Speaker 1: say the same thing, they know that their audience will
Speaker 1: just go along with this upidity. They know that there's
Speaker 1: there's not going to be any consequence, and in fact
Speaker 1: that they'll be the recipient of, you know, more TV
Speaker 1: appearances and better jobs and contracts. And things like that
Speaker 1: in the media business, if they go along with the lie.
Speaker 1: Perfect example of this, I remember during the twenty fifteen
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen period talking at CNN when I was when
Speaker 1: I was a CNN contributor, speaking to them about the
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton email fiasco, and I kept saying, look, if
Speaker 1: she was operating on an email server and didn't use
Speaker 1: a classified server for communications, really ever, then there's classified
Speaker 1: under emails, and that's a huge problem. And it was
Speaker 1: much better if you wanted to be on CNN. It
Speaker 1: was much better for people to hear you say, no,
Speaker 1: it's no big deal, that's not true, even though that's
Speaker 1: a lie and it's an obvious lie. Another one was
Speaker 1: people who acted like they couldn't figure out why would
Speaker 1: foreign countries like, oh, I don't know Saudi Arabia, for example,
Speaker 1: Why would some of these foreign countries out there take
Speaker 1: the position that they wanted to give millions of dollars
Speaker 1: to the Clinton Foundation. That doesn't make any sense what
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia cares about women's empowerment or combating climate change.
Speaker 1: But if you went on TV and pointed out what
Speaker 1: was so clear to anybody with two brain cells, you
Speaker 1: were shouted down, Oh, why do you hate charity? There's
Speaker 1: no proof of that, There's no you know, the entire
Speaker 1: Democrat media effectively turned into the Clinton Foundations personal lawyers
Speaker 1: just finding as many loopholes and misdirections and BS explanations
Speaker 1: as they could, and then people like me who even
Speaker 1: said at the time, hey, you know, the the donations
Speaker 1: to the Clinton Foundation, because it is an access peddling scheme.
Speaker 1: They're selling access. That's what's going on here, donations to
Speaker 1: the Clinton Foundation. We're gonna see who's right, because they're
Speaker 1: gonna fall off a cliff. They're gonna be way down
Speaker 1: after this whole thing. Sure enough, the Clinton Global Initiative
Speaker 1: was shut down in the year after Hillary losing the election,
Speaker 1: and Clinton Foundation you never even hear about it anymore.
Speaker 1: I thought it was a charity. There's no more charitable
Speaker 1: causes that are that need help in the world anymore. Right,
Speaker 1: the whole thing was a fraud, and the people that
Speaker 1: went around. I mean, this is why I'm working you
Speaker 1: through this because there's a pattern here. Right, Once you
Speaker 1: understand the pattern, you see exactly how egregious this latest
Speaker 1: effort is with Hunter Biden to cover this thing. Up.
Speaker 1: They will do whatever they think helps their team, even
Speaker 1: at the expense of pretending to be complete morons. Journalists
Speaker 1: will all of a sudden lack the most basic intellectual
Speaker 1: capabilities because I don't understand so much easier or you know,
Speaker 1: that doesn't make sense to me what you're saying that
Speaker 1: any person could connect the dots on. That's better than
Speaker 1: just saying, yeah, I don't care because I want my
Speaker 1: side to win and I'm not really a journalist. They
Speaker 1: don't want to say that. So they did it with
Speaker 1: the Clinton Foundation, they did it with the Clinton emails,
Speaker 1: and now with Hunter Biden and the corruption around Barisma.
Speaker 1: Once again we see this same attitude at work, and
Speaker 1: we have it courtesy of a New York Post piece
Speaker 1: that goes into emails, emails that show very clearly that
Speaker 1: there was a quid pro quo. Remember that whole term
Speaker 1: from the phone call with Trump and Ukraine. They used
Speaker 1: it against Trump, But there's a quid pro quo here
Speaker 1: because Hunter Biden was introducing his dad to a Ukrainian
Speaker 1: executive and create an executives like, thanks for making the
Speaker 1: good stuff happen for me. So the quid pro quo
Speaker 1: here is we pay you a lot of money you
Speaker 1: make introductions to your father, who runs foreign policy in
Speaker 1: our country. That's corruption, friends, clear as day. We can
Speaker 1: all see it. And this is also a reminder. How
Speaker 1: does Joe Biden live in a twenty thousand dollars a
Speaker 1: month mansion? And why is he worth fourteen to twenty
Speaker 1: million dollars? I think is the range I've seen? How
Speaker 1: and why is Hunter Biden driving around in a Porsche?
Speaker 1: What's going on here? Well, turns out there are a
Speaker 1: lot of ways to pedal influence, a lot of ways
Speaker 1: to sell access and make money. Hunter Biden, according to
Speaker 1: The New York Post, here introduced his father, then Vice
Speaker 1: President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian
Speaker 1: energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden
Speaker 1: pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who
Speaker 1: is investigating the company, According to emails obtained by the Post,
Speaker 1: the never be four revealed meeting is mentioned in a
Speaker 1: message of appreciation that Vadim Pozarski, an advisor to the
Speaker 1: board of Barisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April seventeenth,
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen, about a year after a hundred joined the
Speaker 1: Barisma board had a reported salary of up to fifty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars a month. And so what we see here
Speaker 1: is what was Barisma getting for its money. Well, Barizma
Speaker 1: was getting access to the guy who was able to
Speaker 1: pretty much dictate high level policy to a Ukrainian government
Speaker 1: that was completely embattled. It had Russian backed insurgents and
Speaker 1: separatists on its border, It had had a effectively a
Speaker 1: coup take place in the in the Maidan Square. I mean,
Speaker 1: you have all this stuff that had happened in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: country that needs Western support and had the Russian bear
Speaker 1: bearing down on it. I couldn't find a way to
Speaker 1: avoid saying it that way, but you know that was
Speaker 1: what was going on there, and all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden's getting meetings for a Breezeman Tide executive with
Speaker 1: his dad. Now again, is this criminal. No, for that,
Speaker 1: you'd probably have to prove a quid pro quote directly
Speaker 1: from the meeting to a Biden action. But is it
Speaker 1: politically damaging? Should it? It should be? Will it be? Well,
Speaker 1: we'll have to see how much do independence, how much
Speaker 1: does swing voters really care about this? How much do
Speaker 1: base voters really care about this. I don't know. I'm
Speaker 1: I'm honestly a little skeptical of that, although you never know.
Speaker 1: They claim that there's some polling data that shows that
Speaker 1: the reopening of Hillary Clinton's email investigation right before the
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen election, some people believe or say they argue
Speaker 1: that that was an important moment for Trump. I think
Speaker 1: that that's revisionist history, but it could be. But so
Speaker 1: here we have it. Here, we have the email that
Speaker 1: says that, yes, in fact, somebody from Barisma was or
Speaker 1: associated with the Barisma board was getting meetings brokered by
Speaker 1: Hunter with his dad. This is a pay for access scheme.
Speaker 1: This is gross. We all see it. Biden has always
Speaker 1: been a guy who's out for Biden first and foremost.
Speaker 1: This is not about public service, and he was making
Speaker 1: sure that his family members were getting rich, fat and
Speaker 1: happy while he was in a position to be the
Speaker 1: influence that they were selling. Right. What do you think
Speaker 1: the media response to this has been so far? It
Speaker 1: is mind blowing. Friends, get ready for it. You're in
Speaker 1: this is the Buck Sex and Show podcast. Did you
Speaker 1: think it was wrong for him to take that position
Speaker 1: knowing that it was really because that company wanted access
Speaker 1: to you. Well, that's not true. You're saying things you
Speaker 1: do not know what you're talking about. No one said that,
Speaker 1: who said that? What he said that? Don't you think that?
Speaker 1: It's just one of those things where people think, well,
Speaker 1: that seems kind of sleazy. Why would he have that
Speaker 1: job if not for his who his father was. He's
Speaker 1: a very bright guy. I guess the question I'm kind
Speaker 1: of asking, is it right? Yeah? Yeah, well he said
Speaker 1: he regretted. Have he done it? Here's a very bright guy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's why. That's why Hunter Biden the impregnature of stripper
Speaker 1: that ran away from said stripper when she wanted paternity
Speaker 1: payments after getting kicked out of the military fusing drugs. Look,
Speaker 1: I look, man's obviously had a tough life, and there's
Speaker 1: a part of me that also wants to say, look,
Speaker 1: you know, the guy's a mess up. And there's a
Speaker 1: better word for it, but I can't use it on radio,
Speaker 1: But he's a mess up. But you know, this is politics, folks,
Speaker 1: And if you want Daddy to be the leader of
Speaker 1: the free world after already being VP for eight years,
Speaker 1: and all of Daddy's little buddies in the media and
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party are constantly attacking Trump's kids, who were
Speaker 1: already super rich and already super influential before their dad
Speaker 1: became president. You're gonna constantly be attacking them. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: The hypocrisy is too much here. And even Savannah Guthrie
Speaker 1: is like, I mean, it kind of looks gross. It
Speaker 1: doesn't it's obviously gross. We are not morons. We understand
Speaker 1: what happened here. We all's everyone, Democrats everyone. We all
Speaker 1: see this was influence peddling. Hunter Biden got this, got
Speaker 1: this payment because he was gonna arrange meetings for important
Speaker 1: people with dad, and then dad took actions that might
Speaker 1: have really benefited the company because Barizma had a record
Speaker 1: of corruption and this was well known. So do you
Speaker 1: know what the media is doing now today? Can't make
Speaker 1: it up, folks. I just gotta tell you what's what's happening,
Speaker 1: because it's even more interesting than what I could come
Speaker 1: up with on the fly. They're straight up saying, nope,
Speaker 1: these are stolen documents. We won't report on them. I mean,
Speaker 1: the New York Post is reporting on it. Conservative media
Speaker 1: is reporting on it, but the mainstream media, the lib media,
Speaker 1: we will not report on unverified stolen documents. Okay, so
Speaker 1: after what four years now of pretending the Steel Dossier,
Speaker 1: which we know beyond any doubt is a concoction of
Speaker 1: Hillary campaign, paid for rumors, fabrications, gossip, bull just a
Speaker 1: giant sheet of bull, That's what it is. You could
Speaker 1: say it is a sheet of bull, a bull sheet.
Speaker 1: That's what it pulled. That's what it got pulled together
Speaker 1: as And nobody can seem to address this properly right
Speaker 1: now in the media. Why Oh, because they just don't
Speaker 1: want to, So they're saying it's stolen documents. Some guy
Speaker 1: who does comms for Facebook, his name is Andy Stone
Speaker 1: put out quote what's his actual title here? I mean, yeah, communications,
Speaker 1: a face book. Oh he used to work for Senator Boxer.
Speaker 1: What a surprise, A huge lib in Facebook communications. This
Speaker 1: is why these social media platforms cannot be trusted. Quote.
Speaker 1: While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post,
Speaker 1: I want to be clear that this story is eligible
Speaker 1: to be fact checked by Facebook's third party fact checking partners.
Speaker 1: In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform. Friends,
Speaker 1: this is somebody who is a Facebook official, which is
Speaker 1: really Facebook is Facebook and Google the two most powerful
Speaker 1: media companies really in the world right now. Okay, I
Speaker 1: mean there are a few others that up there, but
Speaker 1: Facebook and Google are probably number one and number two
Speaker 1: or number two and number one. And they're straight up
Speaker 1: telling you less than three weeks before an election, hey,
Speaker 1: you know that story that's really damaging for the Democrat candidate,
Speaker 1: and that tells a narrative of not only corruption but
Speaker 1: also just all the lies. Biden lying, acting like we're
Speaker 1: all such imbeciles that we can't figure out what was
Speaker 1: going on here. You know, Biden could have come clear
Speaker 1: and said, yeah, look it was bad, my son shouldn't
Speaker 1: have done it. But instead it was you. Oh he's
Speaker 1: a smart boy. Yeah here Hunters a real smart, smart guy. Yeah. Sure,
Speaker 1: they're telling you they're suppressing this. They're telling you that
Speaker 1: this is a media outlet that acts as a platform
Speaker 1: sometimes and as a publisher other times, and right now
Speaker 1: it's a publisher on behalf of the DNC. They're actively
Speaker 1: suppressing this. You're not imagining this. This is not a theory.
Speaker 1: They won't they won't report on this because they say
Speaker 1: it's some computer tech guy who gave the information to
Speaker 1: the Senate Committee looking over this, and now the stories
Speaker 1: broke clear. The Senate Committee released some of these or
Speaker 1: talked abouts on these emails to certain news outlets. Since when,
Speaker 1: explain to me, since when these are stolen documents prevented
Speaker 1: the media from reporting on something. They will report on
Speaker 1: top secret information that is truly damaging for it to
Speaker 1: be released, but they don't care. They want to tell
Speaker 1: a story. They tell the story, and they hold a
Speaker 1: total in their minds, total autonomy to do that. They
Speaker 1: won't report on this story. Facebook is throttling it. Facebook
Speaker 1: is suppressing it because this is a bull's eye. Friends,
Speaker 1: thanks for listening to the buses and show podcasts. Remember
Speaker 1: to subscribe on Apple podcast, the iHeart Radio app, or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. And you know Biden, he
Speaker 1: can't stand up to the lunatics running his party. He
Speaker 1: can't even find his way off the stage without him. Look,
Speaker 1: look what's happened yesterday. He didn't know the name. He said,
Speaker 1: you know the guy. I think he's a Mormon, right,
Speaker 1: he said he's a Mormon. He's talking about Mitt Romney.
Speaker 1: I forgot Mitt Romney's name. Can you imagine that? Can
Speaker 1: you imagine? Then? He didn't know where he was. He said, when,
Speaker 1: hell am I where am I? No? He's shot, folks,
Speaker 1: he shot. I'm running against the single worst candidate in
Speaker 1: the history of presidential politics. And you know what that does.
Speaker 1: That puts more pressure on me. Can you imagine if
Speaker 1: you lose to a guy like this. The President's very competitive. Fortunately,
Speaker 1: so I I know that he's giving this everything he's got.
Speaker 1: It is it amazing? It feels like eons have passed,
Speaker 1: at least in new cycle terms, from when on a
Speaker 1: Friday evening Trump was going to Walter Reed Medical Center
Speaker 1: and there was this this frenzy from the Lib media
Speaker 1: of both see he deserved it. And I didn't even
Speaker 1: want to say what they were hoping for, but you
Speaker 1: all know what they were hoping for at least at
Speaker 1: least a few weeks of the president struggling in the hospital,
Speaker 1: at least at least a you know, prolonged period of recovery.
Speaker 1: Looking at Trump, you know, stammering and and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: dottering around the White House and not looking like himself
Speaker 1: and dealing with you know, really severe illness. And the
Speaker 1: guy like four days later was practically you know, doing
Speaker 1: the moonwalk. And backflips and telling everybody how he's gonna
Speaker 1: kick button twenty twenty one. Here we are, and we're
Speaker 1: also at a point that we see the media's credibility
Speaker 1: is on the line here in a way that it
Speaker 1: never really has been before. Because I think if they
Speaker 1: if they lose, this will if they lose, and that's
Speaker 1: really what it will be if Biden wins, if they
Speaker 1: lose this election, because it's the Democrat media and the
Speaker 1: and the Biden ticket and the DNC altogether. They realize
Speaker 1: that this game that they've been playing for a long time,
Speaker 1: where they act like they are the truth scribes of
Speaker 1: our society and they present information that we all need
Speaker 1: to know, they're just going to keep losing, keep losing
Speaker 1: that perceived authority. And by the end of four more
Speaker 1: years of Trump, think about this. Trump has been calling
Speaker 1: them out, saying their fake news, saying that the enemy
Speaker 1: of the people. So what I'm trying to tell you
Speaker 1: is that this time around, it's personal for the media.
Speaker 1: This time around, it's it's existential to what they view
Speaker 1: as their profession and really to their purpose. Will they
Speaker 1: continue to be this media apparatus that gets to tell
Speaker 1: everybody what reality is, and we're all supposed to nod
Speaker 1: our heads. Oh sure, that's just you're just speaking the truth.
Speaker 1: You're all truth tellers. If they get a Biden administration,
Speaker 1: with all the access they have, with all the things
Speaker 1: that they'll do, I know that they view this as
Speaker 1: an enormous win for them, not just ideologically but but
Speaker 1: professionally financially, it'll be a big win. You have to remember,
Speaker 1: within administration comes all kinds of you know, the lobbyists
Speaker 1: change out, you know to some degree, and all the
Speaker 1: administration positions, and all the patronage and the appointees and
Speaker 1: the think tanks and all this stuff, all this stuff
Speaker 1: that's out there. And you know, I turn around and
Speaker 1: I say, what happens if? Sure enough, what happens if
Speaker 1: they lose again? Right, then what do they do? What's there?
Speaker 1: Because the conservative media having a President Trump for four
Speaker 1: or years would be in a much better position to
Speaker 1: continue to show anyone who has the ability to think, clearly,
Speaker 1: this is all this media apparatus that exists in the
Speaker 1: country is all a fraud. I should probably call them
Speaker 1: apparatchicks now to start going back to the Soviet era,
Speaker 1: because there really is something very deeply Soviet about what
Speaker 1: we're witnessing. I'll talk to you in a little bit
Speaker 1: about the war on sexual preference as a term now
Speaker 1: not allowed to say that anymore, not allowed to say
Speaker 1: war on sexual sorry, and I'll say sexual preference and
Speaker 1: we'll explain how that came up yesterday. And the speed
Speaker 1: with which they almost institutionalize this newfound change was amazing.
Speaker 1: It was jaw dropping. But first understand that there is
Speaker 1: no dishonesty. There is no level of complicity that is
Speaker 1: beyond the Democrat media right now, and you're going to
Speaker 1: see that in everything as it plays out going forward
Speaker 1: for the next few weeks. It's just it's all in.
Speaker 1: It's all in. In twenty sixteen, they thought Hillary was
Speaker 1: gonna win, Yeah, they were. They were stacking the deck
Speaker 1: for her, and there was the Billy Bush tape and
Speaker 1: that was the October surprise. And I still think the
Speaker 1: Democrats have got it. There's some dirty trick they're going
Speaker 1: to play, although looking increasingly like they don't have any
Speaker 1: any They just don't have a card to play against ACB,
Speaker 1: not one that's gonna work. They don't have it, So
Speaker 1: they're probably gonna then focus all that additional rage on Trump,
Speaker 1: which we all can expect. I think that that's very
Speaker 1: likely to happen. One thing I wanted to also say here,
Speaker 1: the rhetoric from the left is increasingly not only is
Speaker 1: a divorce from reality, but it's it's troubling to hear
Speaker 1: somebody who will say these things, especially when they have
Speaker 1: you know, millions of listeners or viewers or anything else.
Speaker 1: They're doing real damage to our societ. They're just doing
Speaker 1: it because now we have a system that rewards people,
Speaker 1: whether it's in politics or media, for the most hateful
Speaker 1: and outrageous claims about the other side. It's it's not
Speaker 1: a side effect. Now, that's the goal. That's the goal.
Speaker 1: Don't don't ever try to be held up by honesty
Speaker 1: or decency. Just say whatever you have to say to
Speaker 1: just crush the other side. Here's Chris Hayes, who used
Speaker 1: to be kind of a more of a mild mannered,
Speaker 1: nerdy lib guy, you know. Now he's been an anchor
Speaker 1: for a few years, so he's you know, big man
Speaker 1: on campus kind of thing over at over at MSNBC.
Speaker 1: But while we're having this ACB hearing, here's what he's
Speaker 1: saying about the Republican tradeoff play play twenty three. How
Speaker 1: likely is not fully out of the woods? Is? Doctor
Speaker 1: today released a letter that acknowledged that Wally is improving,
Speaker 1: he is basically still experiencing symptoms self reported, and yet
Speaker 1: there he was in the hearing room today speaking without
Speaker 1: a mask. So committed to ramming through a justice to
Speaker 1: giving Trump and Conservative as a six stream majority on
Speaker 1: the court for generation so they can do things like,
Speaker 1: I don't know, maybe takeaway Americans' healthcare. So committed to
Speaker 1: that project that even though he might have contracted the
Speaker 1: illness at the last big event for this justice, even
Speaker 1: though he is still experiencing symptoms, he rushed back into
Speaker 1: that room to breathe all over his colleagues. He could
Speaker 1: have done it on zoom. I mean, we've all spent
Speaker 1: seven months working relatantly. But no, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: why Well, because they just don't seem to care how
Speaker 1: many people get sick and how many people die. So
Speaker 1: long as they can push their justice through, they don't
Speaker 1: care how many people die. They don't care about people die.
Speaker 1: This is really I want you to hear this. I
Speaker 1: know it's frustrating, it's even enraging. Perhaps this is now
Speaker 1: mainstream thought on the left. They believe this. Republicans don't
Speaker 1: care our loved ones, ourselves. We're at every bit the
Speaker 1: same risk as Democrats are from this virus. I know
Speaker 1: you're going to say Democrats states have had much worse
Speaker 1: records against this, but you know, as human beings, individuals,
Speaker 1: we're all at risk from this. As I've been telling you,
Speaker 1: the risk for a vast majority of us is quite minimal,
Speaker 1: but there are risks, there's no question about it. But
Speaker 1: we don't care about people dying. That's so interesting because
Speaker 1: on the other side of this, first of all, that's
Speaker 1: it's a stupid slander, but Democrats excel at stupid slanders.
Speaker 1: On the other side of this, you have the costs
Speaker 1: that the media will not pay attention to. Right now,
Speaker 1: You're going to be living if you if you watch
Speaker 1: mainstream media, if you turn on ABC News, which I
Speaker 1: don't know why anyone watches that warmed over, you know,
Speaker 1: poll tested socialist crap. I don't know why people think that.
Speaker 1: You know, I'll just turn on NBC News tonight, you know,
Speaker 1: and see the same thing. I don't. Oh, well, big
Speaker 1: news story that's from a left wing opinion but it
Speaker 1: sounds authoritative, and then at the end it's like, hey,
Speaker 1: here's a mama duck swimming around in a pond. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's so stupid. People watch this stuff. They won't tell
Speaker 1: you about what is increasingly clear, which is the enormous
Speaker 1: cost to life and psychological and emotional well being from
Speaker 1: policies that it used to be we had to look
Speaker 1: at lockdowns as a tradeoff. Now increasingly it's just a
Speaker 1: self inflicted wound. The data is not supportive of these
Speaker 1: things as working. They do not work. The only thing
Speaker 1: that would really work to stop this virus would be
Speaker 1: to stop society, and we can't do that. Even the
Speaker 1: Libs after and I mean really stop it. I mean everyone,
Speaker 1: you cannot move. You are in place for two weeks,
Speaker 1: no grocery shopping, no doctor's visits, no hospital visits, nothing,
Speaker 1: two weeks shut down. And even that might not do it.
Speaker 1: But we can't do that. That's crazy, that's insane. Well,
Speaker 1: it used to be we thought of this as all
Speaker 1: a big tradeoff. By the way, I think this is
Speaker 1: a much more important issue than the hearings. I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna say it, fighting against lockdowns. We are heading into
Speaker 1: a winter of lockdowns in this country again because it's
Speaker 1: been handed to the states and people are terrified, and
Speaker 1: blue states and even some red states, look at Texas
Speaker 1: are run by people who don't have the courage, don't
Speaker 1: have the political and intestinal fortitude to say, I'm look,
Speaker 1: people could take whatever precautions they want. I'm not using
Speaker 1: the power of the state to erase constitutional freedoms and
Speaker 1: rights to make people who are overly anxious or who
Speaker 1: are capitalizing on this panic and fear happy. This is
Speaker 1: this is what has been shared. You know, doctor Atlas
Speaker 1: was was on Fox last night and here are just
Speaker 1: some of the stats that he shared. Forty six percent
Speaker 1: of cancers during the lockdowns were not diagnosed, fifty percent
Speaker 1: of chemotherapy appointments were missed, and fifty percent of immunization
Speaker 1: schedule were missed for young children, those are guaranteed. Okay,
Speaker 1: we didn't we didn't cut cancer in half by having lockdowns,
Speaker 1: because then we really would be in lockdown forever. Right.
Speaker 1: All that means is we're missing hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 1: cancer k is delayed perhaps for months months. You know,
Speaker 1: when those those people who are going to we're not
Speaker 1: gonna you know, necessarily know what the real toll is here.
Speaker 1: They're going to start unfortunately, some percentage of them are
Speaker 1: going to start dying, you know, this late this winter,
Speaker 1: next spring, next summer, because then instead of being stage one,
Speaker 1: they were stage four. You know, we're instead of being
Speaker 1: stage two, they're stage three. Whatever. It may be enormous
Speaker 1: cost to this, and that's just one thing. Two hundred
Speaker 1: thousand missed cases of child abuse during lockdowns. The child
Speaker 1: abuse didn't disappear, just not seen because people don't go
Speaker 1: to school, which is actually the main reporting mechanism from
Speaker 1: where people where people see the abuse. This was one
Speaker 1: of the most sobering statistics. Twenty five percent of young people,
Speaker 1: according to the CDC, are considering suicide. Twenty five percent
Speaker 1: of one and four or have considered suicide during lockdowns.
Speaker 1: You do start to have these moments. I look, I've
Speaker 1: had moments obviously nothing not thinking anything seriously, and nobody
Speaker 1: he should ever have those thoughts, and they should get
Speaker 1: help right away if they do. But he will start
Speaker 1: to wake up and just in a general sense, he say,
Speaker 1: what's the point. I can't see anyone, I can't do anything,
Speaker 1: just gonna keep feeding myself and watching screens all day alone.
Speaker 1: That's really what lockdown is. Oh and if I go outside,
Speaker 1: I have to put on this moronic face diaper. You know.
Speaker 1: I was very happy Tucker last night, just reminding everybody
Speaker 1: on his show. Hey, the people that are telling you
Speaker 1: that if you don't mask up, you're literally and that
Speaker 1: is the word that he used as Cuomo used literally
Speaker 1: killing people. They were laughing at masks earlier this year,
Speaker 1: and now the science has changed so much. Here's something
Speaker 1: that I want you all to keep in mind. Friends,
Speaker 1: All of the data on two highly infectious airborne pathogens,
Speaker 1: measles and chicken pox, will tell you, and it is
Speaker 1: considered necessary science, science based, evidence based practice that you
Speaker 1: must have a properly fitted N ninety five mask and
Speaker 1: goggles on. If you do not, if you are an
Speaker 1: adult who has not had measles or the measles vaccine
Speaker 1: or chicken pox of the chicken pox vaccine, and you're
Speaker 1: going to be in an enclosed space with somebody who
Speaker 1: has that has one of those viruses. Cloth mask entirely insufficient,
Speaker 1: entirely insufficient, And if you wear one, you have a
Speaker 1: very high probability, very high possibility of catching of catching
Speaker 1: one of those viruses. So why is it so different here,
Speaker 1: Why is it all of a sudden that masking is
Speaker 1: supposed to be saving all of us. Well, I'll address
Speaker 1: this a little bit more because I look, I think
Speaker 1: this is the most important issue in the country, bar none,
Speaker 1: the issue of lockdowns, of COVID, of our fight against this.
Speaker 1: You're in the Freedom hud, this is the buck Sex
Speaker 1: and Show podcast. Media is not going to talk to
Speaker 1: you about this. So that's what my job is to
Speaker 1: tell you things that are important that other people who
Speaker 1: have a political agenda don't want you to know. Europe
Speaker 1: is going into lockdown and they're getting deeper and deeper
Speaker 1: into it. Madrid, England, France, a bunch of countries, Ireland, Holland, Brussels, Belgium,
Speaker 1: rather well, some cities, some countries. You get what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: They're going into lockdown. Why is this a story that
Speaker 1: the media that's usually obsessed with telling us about how
Speaker 1: terrifying COVID is. Why are they not really covering this?
Speaker 1: I mean they can't entirely not cover it, because it's
Speaker 1: certainly news in Europe. It's out there, it's on the internet.
Speaker 1: But they're not running a major broadcast. CNN is not
Speaker 1: opening up, it's this is a big story. Remember what happened.
Speaker 1: We saw what went down in China, but then also
Speaker 1: in Italy, particularly in northern Italy, and we realized what
Speaker 1: was coming for us. Now. Look, I don't think it's
Speaker 1: going to be like it was then, but I'm just
Speaker 1: saying we can watch things playing out elsewhere and understand
Speaker 1: there's a very good chance that a similar problem will
Speaker 1: face us here. How is this not a bigger news
Speaker 1: story because right now there's the same reason the Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden thing is a non news story. Right now, there
Speaker 1: is only one agenda of the news media, and it
Speaker 1: is to defeat Donald Trump. That's it. Anything that interferes
Speaker 1: with that they think is bad, anything that helps with
Speaker 1: that they think is good. That's it. And here's the
Speaker 1: problem with European lockdowns. Look at all the smug jerks,
Speaker 1: all the mask shamers, all the different people out there
Speaker 1: who think that they're so much better than Trump and
Speaker 1: Trump supporters, because they're not. They're not as pro mask
Speaker 1: a lot of Trump supporters. Look at the rallies, they're
Speaker 1: wearing masks. But the narrative that's been created here is
Speaker 1: COVID came back in this country because of irresponsible people
Speaker 1: like Trump and Trump supporters, people like me who like,
Speaker 1: why am I wearing a mask for stupid reasons and
Speaker 1: then seeing that people aren't wearing them when they should
Speaker 1: be wearing them, and this is just all nonsense. We
Speaker 1: are supposed to be the problem. Well, the issue is
Speaker 1: that if enough people figure out that Europe is having
Speaker 1: spikes and cases again, including places that have already been
Speaker 1: in very severe lockdowns, that's a reminder to all the
Speaker 1: rest of us. Hold on a second, it's not Trump
Speaker 1: and Trump supporters faults. It's just not. It's illogical. It
Speaker 1: makes no sense to believe that. But Democrats need people
Speaker 1: to think that, so they go in and vote and say,
Speaker 1: if I vote for Biden, things will be better with COVID. No. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: the tragic irony here is a vote for Biden will
Speaker 1: make everything COVID related worse because he's going he's learned
Speaker 1: all the wrong lessons so far. The Democrats the left
Speaker 1: love this control, they like this power, and they're just
Speaker 1: going to continue to use this as a political tool.
Speaker 1: They're going to take us deeper into shotdown. That's what's
Speaker 1: going to happen. Downs are on the ballot in a
Speaker 1: few weeks. Friends, Remember that lockdowns, your livelihood, perhaps your
Speaker 1: freedom for certain is on the ballot. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the Bus Sesson Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on
Speaker 1: Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Speaking of COVID lockdowns and all the damage that it's
Speaker 1: been doing, still have millions of people who don't have
Speaker 1: jobs that they should have were it not for the
Speaker 1: government deciding that they weren't allowed to continue working, who
Speaker 1: are not getting those supplemental benefits that they had been
Speaker 1: in the past, if they've lost their job, let's say,
Speaker 1: for since the beginning of the pandemic, or at some
Speaker 1: point midway through. And this is where you would think
Speaker 1: the federal government would would just step up and help out.
Speaker 1: But no, because what have I told you? You'll see this,
Speaker 1: This is a thread, This is a theme that will
Speaker 1: run through everything. What have I told you? Nothing matters
Speaker 1: to the news media and the Democrat Party right now
Speaker 1: other than beating Trump. Nothing can be allowed to be
Speaker 1: a distraction from that. It cannot detract from that. It
Speaker 1: has to be it's all systems go that is the
Speaker 1: only focus. The journalists get up in the morning, the
Speaker 1: CNN and MSNBC and ABC News. They get up and
Speaker 1: their mission in life is to make sure Donald Trump
Speaker 1: doesn't get reelected. And that's also true for Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: and the entire Democrat Party. The suffering that's out there,
Speaker 1: they don't care. They're the ones first of all that
Speaker 1: we'll just go out and say Republicans don't care about
Speaker 1: people dying. So how do we respond to that overheated rhetoric. Well,
Speaker 1: one way is just point out, well, the Democrats definitely
Speaker 1: don't care about people suffering financially, their businesses suffering emotionally.
Speaker 1: And you have this class of elites, you know, you
Speaker 1: have this class of elites that still manages to have
Speaker 1: their jobs. They work remotely, They probably have more time
Speaker 1: at home, more time on the couch. It's not so
Speaker 1: bad for them. They don't care. None of them are
Speaker 1: going to be storming Pelosi manner with pitchforks and torches,
Speaker 1: screaming that she actually do something right. That's not going
Speaker 1: to happen, but chardonnaye. Nancy is openly standing in the
Speaker 1: way of people getting the federal benefits that the Trump
Speaker 1: administration has already said we would, we will sign this,
Speaker 1: will get this done. Republicans will push it through the House,
Speaker 1: the Senate. Trump will sign it. People start getting their
Speaker 1: direct deposits, and that's money for groceries, that's money for rent,
Speaker 1: you know, money to pay for essential pharmaceuticals. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is this is serious stuff. People need help out there.
Speaker 1: Not everybody. Some people are you know, pretty fine, pretty
Speaker 1: it's fat and happy right now, emphasis on fat, given
Speaker 1: all the COVID mac and cheese and sweet treat eating
Speaker 1: that's been going on. I can't speak for all of you,
Speaker 1: but but you know, some people are not not really
Speaker 1: suffering at all about this, and they don't care what's
Speaker 1: happening to the working class. While the Democrat Party pretends
Speaker 1: to be the champions of the working class. They Nancy,
Speaker 1: if you remember, this is the third go round here
Speaker 1: where she has said, no, I'm going to take hostages.
Speaker 1: I'm going to hold the funds the American work or
Speaker 1: the American people need hostage to my left wing legislative agenda.
Speaker 1: Because that's how Nancy Pelosi is. That's what she's doing.
Speaker 1: And it was a bit of a shock yesterday to
Speaker 1: see and It really wasn't because wolf Blitzer is some
Speaker 1: big man of the people. I'm just gonna say it,
Speaker 1: all right, wolf Blitzer, guy's a millionaire many many times over,
Speaker 1: you know you. But she got really nasty with wolf Blitzer.
Speaker 1: It was kind of amazing because CNN is just carrying
Speaker 1: water for the Democrat Party all day long, twenty four seven.
Speaker 1: It's gross, it's obvious, it's pathetic. That's what they do
Speaker 1: all day long. And they'll say, oh, but what about Fox.
Speaker 1: Fox has Democrats on, Fox has real Democrats. Fox has
Speaker 1: Poopoo Pete Buddha Judge, sorry for mispronouncing his name, Pete
Speaker 1: Bouddha Judge on to represent the left wing point of view.
Speaker 1: I mean Fox will actually have these, They'll have real
Speaker 1: Democrats strategists, not you know, CNN will have on some
Speaker 1: Republican He's like, yeah, have never really worked on a campaign,
Speaker 1: but I'm just here to, you know, get punched in
Speaker 1: the face for the amusement of CNN viewers. It's crazy,
Speaker 1: all right, but CNN all day long, it's all they do.
Speaker 1: And Polo, it's not enough, Queen Pelosi, Queen Nancy expects
Speaker 1: one hundred percent obedience and servitude from CNN. Her view
Speaker 1: is she owns CNN. CNN owes her right. You know,
Speaker 1: she's above them. They are her scribes. She tells CNN,
Speaker 1: the New York Times and others what to say, what
Speaker 1: to think. Look, she's the most powerful elected Democrat and
Speaker 1: most powerful elected woman in politics in America. It's just
Speaker 1: a fact. I know it hurts me to have to
Speaker 1: say it out loud, but it's true. And so she
Speaker 1: expects them to just bow down, take their orders and
Speaker 1: say thank you. Nancy may have another that's it, But
Speaker 1: yesterday wolf Blitzer found out that that really is what
Speaker 1: she thinks. Here's how the exchange where this is over
Speaker 1: COVID relief funding, and here's how this is how Nancy v. Wolf.
Speaker 1: How it went. The Wolf can snap back apparently play five.
Speaker 1: But let's not goin to you everdently do not respect
Speaker 1: the chairman of the committees. I wish you would respect
Speaker 1: the knowledge that goes into getting the meeting the needs
Speaker 1: of the American people. But again, you've been on a
Speaker 1: JAD defending the administration all this time with no knowledge
Speaker 1: of the difference between our two bills, and like, thank
Speaker 1: you for giving me the opportunity to say that to you,
Speaker 1: and these are incredibly difficult times right now. And we'll
Speaker 1: leave it on that note. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: joining leave it on the boat that you are not
Speaker 1: right on this wolf, And I hate to say that
Speaker 1: to you, but I feel confident about it, and I
Speaker 1: feel confident about my colleagues, and I feel confident in
Speaker 1: my chairs. Oh, we're not done. Just you know, there's more,
Speaker 1: but we wanted to pop in here for a second
Speaker 1: to say, first of all, wow, it's kind of nasty, right,
Speaker 1: I'm a wolf, kind of just trying to say, okay,
Speaker 1: thanks to you later, and she's like, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: you're an idiot. Just so you know you're wrong. You're
Speaker 1: wrong before we thanks for having me again. Sure, you're wrong.
Speaker 1: Just FYI like unnecess slamming the door into his butt
Speaker 1: after she's also kicked him out of the house, You
Speaker 1: know what I mean, Not necessary, petty, petty. Nancy's feeling
Speaker 1: the heat. You know why, there's polls out there on
Speaker 1: the show that American public blames Nancy more than Trump
Speaker 1: for the hold up in the COVID aid. This may
Speaker 1: be backfiring on the Democrats. Nancy's feeling that heat. What
Speaker 1: is Nancy Pelosi is ruled by polls and power. That's it.
Speaker 1: I don't think this is no principle. It doesn't stand
Speaker 1: for anything. Stands for Nancy Pelosi and the borg you know,
Speaker 1: collective of the Democrat Party. I don't know how many
Speaker 1: Star Trek fans are out there, but you get what
Speaker 1: I'm saying. You know, Nancy Pelosi is like the hive
Speaker 1: mind that controls all the agent Smiths of the Democrat Party,
Speaker 1: if you like the matrix more so, this is all
Speaker 1: about why can't we get funding out to people. Trump
Speaker 1: the Republicans have said one point eight trillion dollars. Nancy says, no,
Speaker 1: not enough. Now, a reasonable person would say there's urgency here.
Speaker 1: People don't have money for their bills. They're running up
Speaker 1: credit card debt. They may be losing their home soon
Speaker 1: if they haven't already. They're under a lot of stress.
Speaker 1: They don't know when their jobs are coming back. If ever,
Speaker 1: let's get these people help. And there is an obligation.
Speaker 1: I think it's so important. Do you think conservatives here
Speaker 1: the government needs to help people. The government decided to
Speaker 1: take away their jobs. The government decided to shut down
Speaker 1: the economy. It's not your fault. If you can't make
Speaker 1: a living, you know, at your shoe store anymore, because
Speaker 1: you're not allowed to have customers in the store on
Speaker 1: government med it, that's government's fault. So instead of just saying,
Speaker 1: you know what, you're right, there's more stuff to be done,
Speaker 1: but let's get the money out to people police, he goes,
Speaker 1: now I want more, or I'm going to hold the
Speaker 1: American people who are suffering hostage. It's exactly what she's doing,
Speaker 1: and wolf Blitzer kind of knows it. He's like, hey,
Speaker 1: but I mean, can we get the people money? And
Speaker 1: then Nancy goes and says, you're covering for the Republicans,
Speaker 1: which for a Democrat, for someone watching CNN, I mean,
Speaker 1: that's the gravest insult imaginable to a CNN watcher. If
Speaker 1: it's being called a mass murderer or being called an
Speaker 1: apologist for the Republican position for a congressional a congressional
Speaker 1: spending bill. We all know that the second one is
Speaker 1: way worse, much better. Be a mass murderers can still
Speaker 1: believe in climate change. Mass murderers can still understand which
Speaker 1: pronoun to use of somebody's preferred pronouns Pelosi and uh
Speaker 1: and the wolf. They were not done, Blake clip seven,
Speaker 1: No six. It's not about me. It's about millions of
Speaker 1: Americans who can't put food on the table, who can't
Speaker 1: pay the rent. And represent them and the long food.
Speaker 1: I know you are them. I'm just present them, and
Speaker 1: we know them as we represent them. Don't let the
Speaker 1: perfect be the enemy of the good, as they say, Speaker,
Speaker 1: always the case, but we're not even close to the good.
Speaker 1: All right, let's see what happens, because every day is
Speaker 1: critically critically important. Thanks so much for joining your sensitivity
Speaker 1: to our constituents needs. I am sensitive to them because
Speaker 1: I see them on the street begging for food, begging
Speaker 1: for money, not am speaker, thank you from we feed them.
Speaker 1: We'll continue this conversation down the road, for sure. We'll
Speaker 1: take a quick break. We'll be right back. Let's just
Speaker 1: be clear, No, Nancy doesn't feed them. That's the point
Speaker 1: Nancy saying, we'll feed them if you buy us a
Speaker 1: new car. We'll feed them if you give us more stuff. Republicans,
Speaker 1: that's what's actually happening here. There's no problem with the
Speaker 1: PPPE and the unemployment benefits. Republicans like let's go for it.
Speaker 1: Nancy won't do it. Nancy wants bailouts for cities that
Speaker 1: have been poorly run and running up debts. And you
Speaker 1: know why they have debts. This, this is when you
Speaker 1: really get it. This is when the rubber really meets
Speaker 1: the road. Friends, Why are cities facing so much in
Speaker 1: the way of problems here? Public sector pensions huge drain.
Speaker 1: Other than police police unions, who do you think the
Speaker 1: teachers unions and the municipal employees unions, who do you
Speaker 1: think they're all completely in better with the Democrat party?
Speaker 1: Of course, what are the two things that drive large
Speaker 1: cities deep into the red New York City, Chicago unit. Well,
Speaker 1: there are two things, public sector union demands and pensions. Medicaid,
Speaker 1: that's it, programs that Democrats are obsessed with. So what
Speaker 1: do they want. They want to use the suffering of
Speaker 1: the American people to get a federal bailout for poorly
Speaker 1: run cities. And they're publicly saying, sorry, that's not that's
Speaker 1: not what this is about. You don't get to, you know,
Speaker 1: give us a wish list. You know, Nancy's standing over
Speaker 1: the patient. The patient's dying. Nancy's got the two electric paddles,
Speaker 1: you know, in her hands. You're like, bloh clear, they
Speaker 1: do that whole thing, and Nancy's got them in her hands.
Speaker 1: Republicans said, okay, we've turned on the device. Do it,
Speaker 1: and Nancy goes, I want a pony, and then I'll
Speaker 1: do it. Wait, what what do you mean? And then
Speaker 1: she goes, we're the ones that try to save people
Speaker 1: during a heart attack. No, you're you're the one who's
Speaker 1: demanding a pony, Nancy. We see what's going on here,
Speaker 1: and I'm glad that Wolf Blitzer decided to try to
Speaker 1: regain some shred of dignity here by saying, okay, but
Speaker 1: there are a lot of people who are suffering. And
Speaker 1: then this is what I love too. This is the ultimate,
Speaker 1: the ultimate fraud here, Nancy Pelosi. He's a seventy eight
Speaker 1: year old kazillionaire, Nancy Pelosi. I think she's worth forty
Speaker 1: to seventy million or something like that on the congressional form.
Speaker 1: You're worth a ton of money here, ladies rich and
Speaker 1: then some I mean really her husband is, but you
Speaker 1: know she that's her money too. And she lives in
Speaker 1: a in a straight up mansion, I mean like a
Speaker 1: baronial castle. Practically in San Francisco, and she really cares
Speaker 1: so much about the poor and struggling people. Anybody who
Speaker 1: believes that's an idiot, doesn't care, doesn't know these people,
Speaker 1: She doesn't spend any time with them. Nancy Pelosi hasn't
Speaker 1: worried about paying a bill in over fifty years. So
Speaker 1: come on, folks, Come on. CNN accidentally pushed into a
Speaker 1: moment of journalism by pushing back on the Speaker of
Speaker 1: the House, trashing one of their best known anchors. Just
Speaker 1: trashing him, I mean, really abusing the guy. Actually look
Speaker 1: kind of bad for him. But you know why this
Speaker 1: is happening, because Nancy knows that people are figuring this out,
Speaker 1: that her scam is not working as well as she
Speaker 1: had anticipated, just like it had in the previous times.
Speaker 1: And now she can't allow for the Republicans to get
Speaker 1: their way in her mind, because that's a political victory
Speaker 1: right before the election, that people are really gonna feel,
Speaker 1: they're going to see the money in their bank accounts
Speaker 1: and it's going to be clear that wait a second,
Speaker 1: we could have had this a month ago, six weeks ago,
Speaker 1: but Nancy wanted to play games. I don't think I'm
Speaker 1: putting those lunatic Libs in charge. I don't think so. No, Instead,
Speaker 1: what she has to do is make sure people are
Speaker 1: either miserable and blame Trump that's the game. Or she
Speaker 1: gets this bountiful you know, two point four trillion dollars
Speaker 1: or whatever does she's demanding now, not one point eight trillion,
Speaker 1: and gets to look like a hero, a savior of
Speaker 1: Democrats cities across the country, which will help with base
Speaker 1: turnout and also show that the Republicans cave to her.
Speaker 1: It's all politics, friends, It's all you have to know
Speaker 1: about Nancy. What is what is benefiting her, not what
Speaker 1: helps the people. True the Democratic Party as well. You're
Speaker 1: in the freedom hunt. This is the Buck Sex and
Speaker 1: Show podcast. The Democrat Party hates fracking, they hate call,
Speaker 1: they hate clean beautiful call. I see what they do
Speaker 1: with call down. They hate domestic energy production. And Biden
Speaker 1: will shut you down. He wants to shut you down,
Speaker 1: just like your governor's got you shut down right now,
Speaker 1: they better open up your stay. That's right, they want
Speaker 1: to shut it down. Friends. I've been telling you it's
Speaker 1: on the ballot, and you know there's big problems ed
Speaker 1: because first of all, they're lying about what's already happened constantly.
Speaker 1: They're always telling you things. The Democrats who have made
Speaker 1: decisions about COVID are in a furious again Soviet style
Speaker 1: rewriting of history contest all the time. Perhaps the best
Speaker 1: the example of this is Governor Cuomo himself, who has
Speaker 1: the worst, the single worst record on COVID of anyone
Speaker 1: in the United States, perhaps the world. Maybe the Chinese
Speaker 1: Polite Borow was worse, the Chinese Communist Party, but you know,
Speaker 1: inhumane and evil, but probably pretty effective in some ways.
Speaker 1: Here is what Cuomo says now about the nursing home
Speaker 1: order that I have seen that exists, that is out there.
Speaker 1: There's evidence here, there's proof, there's smoking gun. Here is
Speaker 1: Governor Cuomo the possible attorney general of a Biden administration. Friends,
Speaker 1: just remember that play seven Willie. I hate to get
Speaker 1: technical with you, but sometimes these seeing things and technical.
Speaker 1: There was never a directive that said we will send
Speaker 1: COVID positive people back to nursing homes. The directive, which
Speaker 1: was modeled on the federal directive, said you cannot discriminate.
Speaker 1: But the state law clearly says a nursing home can't
Speaker 1: accept the person unless states can treat them. Having said that,
Speaker 1: would my health department have followed the federal guidance, obviously
Speaker 1: not knowing the political issue it was going to create.
Speaker 1: But there was no issue in reality, is what I'm saying,
Speaker 1: because we never did have a scarcity of beds. We
Speaker 1: always had additional hospital beds and emergency beds, So no
Speaker 1: nursing home was forced to take someone we never got there,
Speaker 1: just a lie. Can't discriminate against on the basis of
Speaker 1: COVID means when someone comes out of the hospital and
Speaker 1: they're supposed to go back to their they want to
Speaker 1: go back to their nursing home, even if they may
Speaker 1: still have COVID. We're here and all the time they
Speaker 1: want Trump to still wear a mask, and then he's
Speaker 1: been testing negative. But can't discriminate in this context means
Speaker 1: you gotta take them back or else you're going to
Speaker 1: get sued. That's what it means. This didn't happen, ever,
Speaker 1: a rolse This happened in New York, and New York
Speaker 1: had the highest death rate, particularly in nursing homes, of
Speaker 1: any place in the United States. Almost is trying to
Speaker 1: rewrite history. It's all politics. He says, Yeah, just not
Speaker 1: the way he says it is. Play eight. What do
Speaker 1: you say to those families who believe that the death
Speaker 1: of their loved one was preventable. One of the things
Speaker 1: I find reprehensible about it, Willie, is the president did
Speaker 1: create that impression, which is cruel. It's cruel. It's cruel
Speaker 1: to say that the families who lost people in nursing homes, well,
Speaker 1: this could have been prevented by a different government policy.
Speaker 1: It makes their pain worse. It is not true. If
Speaker 1: you want to rewind all the tape. We should have
Speaker 1: been testing staff before they walked into a nursing home.
Speaker 1: That is true, and that's back in March when we
Speaker 1: didn't have any tests. We were told asymptomatic spread wasn't possible,
Speaker 1: that you had to have a symptom, so the nursing
Speaker 1: home workers without symptoms were allowed in. That was bad information.
Speaker 1: I want to say what he said. Notice how he
Speaker 1: hides behind the family members of people that have died
Speaker 1: from COVID. That's his first response to this, because he's scummy.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening. To remember to subscribe on Apple podcasts,
Speaker 1: the iHeart Radio app, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: The ACB hearings in their last day, and so far,
Speaker 1: the best summary I can give you of this is
Speaker 1: that Amy Coney Barrett should send the Democrat Senate Judiciary
Speaker 1: members a bill for the week long constitutional law class
Speaker 1: that she has been giving them. She should she should
Speaker 1: ask for payment in full. She should ask for payment
Speaker 1: up front next time, because she's been taking them on
Speaker 1: a school bus all week. Nobody has been able to
Speaker 1: trip her up corner. In fact, they look pretty sad,
Speaker 1: pretty pathetic when they try. And it's largely been for
Speaker 1: the public I think a waste of time. It's all
Speaker 1: just proform a nonsense from the Democrats about you know,
Speaker 1: oh we love Rov Wade and Obamacare. I mean, they
Speaker 1: mostly turn this into an Obamacare commercial and reminded Americans
Speaker 1: that abortion for all nine months of a pregnancy is
Speaker 1: the most important, most necessary thing that the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: stands for overall things. But there have been some notable moments,
Speaker 1: and one that will I think affect you and me
Speaker 1: already through a change in the rules, changing the rules
Speaker 1: of what we're allowed to say. But first I just
Speaker 1: want to point out that I love the state of Hawaii.
Speaker 1: I think Hawaii is one of the most gorgeous places
Speaker 1: in the world, and Hawaiian people are great. I've been
Speaker 1: to Hawaii a few times and I love it, and
Speaker 1: I've dreamed of moving there before. I just feel like
Speaker 1: it's such a it's just so beauty. Anyway, there's a
Speaker 1: lot about Hawaiian I'm a big fan of. Even with
Speaker 1: all of that, it's hard for me to forgive the
Speaker 1: State of Hawaii for foisting Maizie Herono upon us. It's stunning,
Speaker 1: and I don't usually say this in this way. It's
Speaker 1: stunning that this woman has been elected any I mean,
Speaker 1: if she was elected the head of her local school board,
Speaker 1: I would be shocked. Who thought this was a good idea?
Speaker 1: She's a United States Senator and it was a struggle
Speaker 1: to even understand what she thought she was saying yesterday,
Speaker 1: and she's reading from notes handed to her buy her staff.
Speaker 1: And I love this too. They asked Amy Coney Barrett,
Speaker 1: can you show us your notes? At one point held
Speaker 1: up a blank piece of paper that said the United
Speaker 1: States Senate on it. Hadn't written a thing, had no
Speaker 1: notes whatsoever, everything just going from memory and always as
Speaker 1: completely fluid. I gotta say more impressive in this questioning
Speaker 1: period than either Kavanaugh or Gorsitch were, I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: say it more impressive even even fredlinc and those are
Speaker 1: very smart guys, but even better grasp of the law,
Speaker 1: even more able to engage in recall and a little
Speaker 1: bit of back and forth intellectual jousting which usually she
Speaker 1: to continue this medieval metaphor unhorsed her opponents rather abruptly.
Speaker 1: It was not hard for her. But with all that,
Speaker 1: we still had to hear from Mazie HERONU yesterday and
Speaker 1: what became apparent, and this is true of a lot
Speaker 1: of Democrat lawmakers and Democrat lawyers too, is at a
Speaker 1: fundamental level, they don't really understand the purpose of the law.
Speaker 1: They think that the law, it's it's true of the
Speaker 1: Constitution as well. They think that these are just social
Speaker 1: constructs that you shift or change as needed, and that
Speaker 1: there's nothing there's nothing below, there's no important reason that
Speaker 1: we all agree exist for this thing. It's always this movable,
Speaker 1: moving target. Okay. So that's one part of this, And
Speaker 1: there's another part of this, which is that I think
Speaker 1: that they're really just unable to understand a lot of
Speaker 1: the arguments that Amy Coney Barrett makes so they misunderstand
Speaker 1: the purpose of the law, and they don't understand the
Speaker 1: people that know and try to explain to them, they're
Speaker 1: not really even able to process it. They don't understand
Speaker 1: these complexities. Maisie Herono, here you go. Here, here's an
Speaker 1: example of where she says something out loud, and everyone
Speaker 1: who was watching this yesterday felt like it's like she
Speaker 1: had taken all of her brains out of our skulls,
Speaker 1: put them in a microwave for five minutes, and then
Speaker 1: handed them back to us. We're just amazed what's going
Speaker 1: on here? Play clip one. So when you say that
Speaker 1: you're going to make a decision based on the law
Speaker 1: real life stories that we've been talking about, you would
Speaker 1: consider those to be part of the law. Yes, when
Speaker 1: we are talking about the law, it includes real stories
Speaker 1: from like what now, You might think, Buck, that's got
Speaker 1: to be the craziest thing the crazy Mazie said yesterday, Right,
Speaker 1: that's got to be the top of the list. But no, no,
Speaker 1: there was something that was even more outlandish that happened.
Speaker 1: Play clip three. To ensure the fitness of nominees for
Speaker 1: a lifetime appointment to the federal bench or to any
Speaker 1: of the other positions for any of the committees on
Speaker 1: which they appear. I ask each nominee these two questions,
Speaker 1: and I will ask them of you since you became
Speaker 1: a legal adult. Have you ever made unwanted requests for
Speaker 1: sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment assault
Speaker 1: of a sexual nature? No, Senator. Have you ever faced
Speaker 1: discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind
Speaker 1: of conduct? No, Senator. She's asking a female Supreme Court
Speaker 1: nominee if she's ever sexually assault at someone. Yep, Now
Speaker 1: I understand the Democrat responds to this is she asks everyone. Okay,
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean it's not a stupid thing to do
Speaker 1: in the first place. And for those who say, why buck,
Speaker 1: is there a problem with this? Okay? Should everybody who
Speaker 1: wants to be in public office be asked on a
Speaker 1: during a televis I'm not saying that this shouldn't come
Speaker 1: up in background checks and there's other stuff that goes
Speaker 1: into this, folks, But in a televised Senate hearing, should
Speaker 1: somebody be asked, you know, if they've if they've ever
Speaker 1: molested a child? Should everyone be asked that question? Have
Speaker 1: you ever beaten your wife or beaten your husband. I
Speaker 1: suppose should everyone be asked that question during a televised hearing. No,
Speaker 1: this is grand standing from crazy Mazie. That's what's going on.
Speaker 1: What the heck is this? But it gets it gets worse.
Speaker 1: I keep trying to tell you, a Papa, we're not
Speaker 1: even done yet. We haven't even gotten all the way
Speaker 1: all the way through this, and yet there's more. This
Speaker 1: is this is where the language change comes in. Senator
Speaker 1: Mazie harrono As brings this up because earlier in the day,
Speaker 1: Diane Feinstein asked a question of of ACB, and ACB
Speaker 1: responded and used the term sexual preference. Now, I will
Speaker 1: tell you, and perhaps this is going to be a
Speaker 1: big problem for some people. I have used the term
Speaker 1: sexual preference in my life, probably thousands of times. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't even know, maybe even more. I mean, how
Speaker 1: many times have you used a phrase in common usage?
Speaker 1: You know, limo a word in common usage? Does you
Speaker 1: like black hawk down? You remember this all right? How
Speaker 1: many of you have used a phrase in common usage?
Speaker 1: And we were we were just told yesterday and it
Speaker 1: was a fascinating real time case study of how the
Speaker 1: left tries to win arguments by changing the words in arguments,
Speaker 1: the actual meaning and the definition and the usage of
Speaker 1: the words. I don't mean by just switching in other words,
Speaker 1: I mean no, that's no longer, that's no longer a potato,
Speaker 1: that's a petunia. Well, okay, but I guess then that wait,
Speaker 1: I thought we're talking about vegetables, right, It doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: doesn't matter, that's what they do. And here's an example
Speaker 1: of it. May and Maizie went to bring this back up.
Speaker 1: Clearly your staff at hander to this one. If you
Speaker 1: want to just see, if you want to see proof
Speaker 1: that we are largely ruled by idiots in this country,
Speaker 1: not everybody, but largely ruled by idiots, watch some of
Speaker 1: the Senate testimony from yesterday and watch Mazie Horrono's questioning,
Speaker 1: I really mean this. You will never think of the
Speaker 1: United States Senate in quite the same way this. This
Speaker 1: person is really yeah really, but here's when we found
Speaker 1: out that sexual preference is now a sexual preference is
Speaker 1: now a slurer effectively against the LGBTQ community. Not not
Speaker 1: allowed play clip too. So, even though you didn't give
Speaker 1: a direct answer, I think your response to speak volumes,
Speaker 1: not once, but twice. You use the term sexual preference
Speaker 1: to describe those in the LGBTQ community, And let me
Speaker 1: make clear, sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term.
Speaker 1: It is used by anti LGBTQ activists to suggest that
Speaker 1: sexual orientation is a choice. It is not. Sexual orientation
Speaker 1: is a key part of a person's identity. That sexual
Speaker 1: orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and
Speaker 1: immutable was a key part of the majority's opinion in
Speaker 1: A Burden Fell, which, by the way, Scullia did not.
Speaker 1: We get it, we get it, we get it. Sexual
Speaker 1: orientation is used by anti LGBTQ activists. No, it's actually
Speaker 1: the phrase that has been in common usage for as
Speaker 1: long as I've been alive, and no one meant it
Speaker 1: as any kind of a slight. It was just meant
Speaker 1: to be descriptive. You know, your sexual orientation. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: your sexual preference. Now orientation. See, that's what we're supposed
Speaker 1: to say. But orientation means you're positioning relative to other things.
Speaker 1: So if it's relative to other things, and that must
Speaker 1: mean it also is some degree of change and subjectivity.
Speaker 1: But I'll get into that in a second. But this
Speaker 1: is what they came at Amy Coney Barrett with yesterday.
Speaker 1: And as much as I don't think this is really
Speaker 1: going to do anything change anything in this hearing, I
Speaker 1: think Gamy Coney Barrett's going to get confirmed and Democrats
Speaker 1: now we're just resigned to the reality of Wow, we
Speaker 1: can't you know, without without a white male Christian to attack,
Speaker 1: Democrats are a little bit defanged. They just don't. They
Speaker 1: don't have the same firepower. They need a white male
Speaker 1: Republican Christian and then their tricks work. You make mother
Speaker 1: of seven female, adopted two kids from Haiti, you know, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's and you have to specify a mother of seven.
Speaker 1: You gotta say female because it could be a male
Speaker 1: mother of seven. You don't know, you don't know. And
Speaker 1: this is left wing dogman. Now you're saying, come on, no,
Speaker 1: that's real, that's real. That's what they want. At least
Speaker 1: that's what we're supposed to do. So now it's no
Speaker 1: longer sexual sexual preference. It has to be sexual orientation,
Speaker 1: which is interesting because I mean, I would tell my
Speaker 1: sexual preference is women. This is not hard to think
Speaker 1: about or say. It's very clear that I prefer I
Speaker 1: am sexually attracted to women, so why And you know
Speaker 1: other people are sexual intersecution, some intersecually attracted to men,
Speaker 1: and so on so forth. You know all this, Why
Speaker 1: is this offensive? Oh well it gets too as as
Speaker 1: Maisie was saying here or she was reading off of
Speaker 1: her Q cards, the immutability of sexual will use the
Speaker 1: term nout orientation. And notice that now they've changed this
Speaker 1: rule as of yesterday. I've never heard this before in
Speaker 1: my life, and I study wokeness and I fight wokeness.
Speaker 1: This is a new one. Had never heard that before,
Speaker 1: sexual preference, never heard it. But I do remember being
Speaker 1: at a party a long time ago and someone said
Speaker 1: he's a guy who prefers prefers men or something like
Speaker 1: that for a guy who was same sex attracted, and
Speaker 1: somebody else got a little bit snippy. This is a
Speaker 1: long time ago, and I remember thinking, like, how gets that?
Speaker 1: What's the He didn't say anything disparaging? Why is that?
Speaker 1: But because they because the whole thing is, oh, you're
Speaker 1: you're born this way and it's always that way, and
Speaker 1: there's no choice involved. That's why, and that's necessary for
Speaker 1: it to become In the leftist approach to this, a
Speaker 1: protest did characteristic like race, you know, like your gender.
Speaker 1: So here's a problem though that they create with this.
Speaker 1: See see they're they're illogic, and their irrationality creates more inconsistencies,
Speaker 1: creates more problems. Now, you can change your gender. We
Speaker 1: know this. You can change your gender, and it's not
Speaker 1: based in anything physical. So it's actually not people who
Speaker 1: have I'm forgetting that. We don't use the H word
Speaker 1: term for it anymore. There's another term for it, I'm forgetting.
Speaker 1: But where you have some male parts that some female parts,
Speaker 1: usually vestigial of one and more of the other. But
Speaker 1: it's not that it's not physically based, it's psychologically. It's
Speaker 1: how you feel inside that determines your gender. But if
Speaker 1: you can change your gender, how is it you can't
Speaker 1: change your sexual preference? Right if you so? So if
Speaker 1: you're a man who says that I'm really a woman,
Speaker 1: so I'm a trans woman now, and I believe they
Speaker 1: want you to just say woman too, you can't even see.
Speaker 1: And if you say someone's old name, that's dead naming, right,
Speaker 1: there's all these new rules that we have to live by.
Speaker 1: You're a trans man who's attracted to a woman who
Speaker 1: says you're a woman, and once you make that transition,
Speaker 1: you are now attracted to men whereas you had been
Speaker 1: attracted to women. That does happen, doesn't always happen that way,
Speaker 1: But so then that means that sexual orientation is at
Speaker 1: some level. It has to be at some level preference,
Speaker 1: because if it can change based on emotion and psychological desire,
Speaker 1: then it's not immutable. They tell us that gender is
Speaker 1: on a spectrum. Gender I'm just I'm just working you through.
Speaker 1: This is the left wing woke logic here. Gender is
Speaker 1: on a spectrum, it's fluid all these things. But sexual
Speaker 1: preference is locked in stone. You're born with a certain
Speaker 1: sexual preference that it cannot be added to or shift.
Speaker 1: How does that make any sense? So you can have
Speaker 1: all male body parts x X or sorry x Y
Speaker 1: chromosomes and think that you're a woman in society has
Speaker 1: to completely accept and protect and actually now celebrate and
Speaker 1: cherish that. You know, men can get periods too. These
Speaker 1: are phrases the left uses. It's true, but we're supposed
Speaker 1: to believe from the moment of birth you are either
Speaker 1: same sex attracted, or heterosexual or bisexual or I don't
Speaker 1: know what else there I know there are other things
Speaker 1: that would go into this, and you say that way forever.
Speaker 1: Where's the evidence for this? Where's the science, Libs? But
Speaker 1: it's not about that, you know what. It's about changing
Speaker 1: the rules and making all of us snap to it,
Speaker 1: do what we're told. You're in the freedom hud. This
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sex and Show podcast. Oh wait, what
Speaker 1: another thing I want to throw in the mix? Here?
Speaker 1: Hat tips Steve Krakauer, who put this up on his
Speaker 1: Twitter account. He is the editor host of the Fourth
Speaker 1: Watch newsletter, so he did a quick look up to
Speaker 1: see that as of last month, Webster's Dictionary included a
Speaker 1: definition of preference as orientation or sexual preference. Today they
Speaker 1: changed it to add the word offensive. I mean, they're
Speaker 1: actually changing definitions online friends, in real time to attack
Speaker 1: Republicans and reflect their political wims. We have proof, we
Speaker 1: can prove it. That's what they do. I'm sure they're
Speaker 1: changing all the Wikipedia entries now to This is the
Speaker 1: Soviet rewriting of history. They can't win on the facts,
Speaker 1: so they change the facts. This is just one example
Speaker 1: of it. But they do this constantly, and they feel
Speaker 1: justified in doing it. In fact, they think that they're
Speaker 1: doing this because are such good people, because they speak
Speaker 1: truth to power or whatever other nonsense they tell themselves
Speaker 1: at night. God lives really need to get a grip.
Speaker 1: But Trump wins a selection, that's going to be something
Speaker 1: that I don't think's happening anytime soon. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the Buss and Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on
Speaker 1: Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: I got another incredibly stupid question for you, courtesy of
Speaker 1: Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee trying to take down ACB.
Speaker 1: And this one is pretty remarkable, I guess, not surprising
Speaker 1: in its own way, but but remarkable. Nonetheless, you have
Speaker 1: Senator Corey Booker here, because remember, for a lot of
Speaker 1: these Senate Democrats, this is really just about getting camera time.
Speaker 1: They treat these hearings not as an opportunity to get
Speaker 1: too important truths or speak to differing judicial philosophies in
Speaker 1: a way that's illuminating. This that's not an AT's to
Speaker 1: come on, Come on, what is that week sauce right now?
Speaker 1: Nothing that's actually worthwhile. No, it's about grandstanding. It's about
Speaker 1: getting camera time. It might as well be a cable
Speaker 1: news hit on MSNBC for these Democrats. And I do
Speaker 1: think that particularly the TV news media has just has
Speaker 1: done so much to poorly influenced political discourse, especially for
Speaker 1: these for these Democrats. It exists on the right too,
Speaker 1: and I sometimes even call it out on the right,
Speaker 1: but it's really on the left. I mean, if you
Speaker 1: want to keep getting elected to the House of the Senate,
Speaker 1: you just got to be on an MSNBC like every
Speaker 1: ten minutes. You know, you gotta do it. So that's
Speaker 1: something that goes I think unnoticed a lot of the time.
Speaker 1: But okay, here we go. We have we have Corey
Speaker 1: Booker who asks Amy Coney Barrett this question because he's
Speaker 1: trying to remember he was he was I am Spartacus
Speaker 1: well with this question. He definitely didn't sound particularly smartacus
Speaker 1: womp womp. But Corey Booker asked her a question that
Speaker 1: I guess he thought this was worth while for some reason.
Speaker 1: Please play thirteen. I'm going to ask you some questions
Speaker 1: that if you had told me five years ago that
Speaker 1: would be questions asked at a Supreme Court nomination hearing,
Speaker 1: I would have thought they wouldn't be possible, but unfortunately
Speaker 1: I think they're necessary to ask you, and I hope
Speaker 1: that you'll give me direct answers. The first one. You've
Speaker 1: already spoken towards issues of racism, how you deplore it.
Speaker 1: But I want to just ask you very simply, and
Speaker 1: I imagine you'll give me a very short, resolute answer,
Speaker 1: but you condemned white supremacy. Correct, Yes, thank you. I'm
Speaker 1: glad to see that you said that. I wish our
Speaker 1: president would say that so resolutely, unequivocally as well. But
Speaker 1: we are at a time that Americans are literally fearful
Speaker 1: because their president cannot do that in the resolute manner
Speaker 1: in which you did. I'm I'm sorry that that question
Speaker 1: had to even be asked at this time. All Right,
Speaker 1: I don't want this question to be asked, and it
Speaker 1: shouldn't have to be asked. But and I know what
Speaker 1: your answer is going to be, and it's not going
Speaker 1: to tell us anything we don't already know. And I
Speaker 1: can't believe it's gonna be asked, but I'm gonna ask
Speaker 1: you the question. I mean, this guy, what a clown. Honestly,
Speaker 1: he's asking a woman who is mother to two Haitian children.
Speaker 1: Those are her kids, asking her if she condemns white supremacy.
Speaker 1: I'm look. I know that he says that he knew
Speaker 1: what the answer is gonna be, But why has he
Speaker 1: asked the question? Oh, we all know why he's asked
Speaker 1: the question so he can turn this into some speech
Speaker 1: about how Trump doesn't condemn white supremacy, which is a lie.
Speaker 1: We've noticed last week. We had to go through this.
Speaker 1: It's the cycle all over again. They say, oh, he
Speaker 1: won't condemn white supremacy, and then people finally go, okay, fine,
Speaker 1: they start pulling out all the clips and all the Times,
Speaker 1: and the Press secretary and all these people have said
Speaker 1: the President condemned white supremacy. Right, They grab all this stuff,
Speaker 1: and then they wait a week or two and they go,
Speaker 1: you know, the president doesn't condemn white supremacy. And you
Speaker 1: just want to sure throw things at the wall. What
Speaker 1: do you if we're doing this again? Yes, we're doing
Speaker 1: this again, doing this again. Gas lighting Shae, there you go,
Speaker 1: there you go. I was supposed to be a gaslight noise.
Speaker 1: It kind of just sounded like I was slurring my
Speaker 1: words for some reason. Didn't really work. But gas that
Speaker 1: actually comes from a play. I believe the term comes
Speaker 1: from a play, although who knows, maybe they'll they'll they'll
Speaker 1: tell you, they'll tell you something else, they'll change the
Speaker 1: definition of the dictionary. Yeah, asking her if she's she
Speaker 1: condemned white supremacy. She's got two black children, but she
Speaker 1: needs to be asked that. Sure. It is worth noting
Speaker 1: that the left has nonetheless attacked Judge Amy Coney Barrett,
Speaker 1: including her adoption, and they did this particular in the
Speaker 1: early days of this nomination process online because they say
Speaker 1: that there's a I think it was Ibraham Kendy, professor
Speaker 1: at Boston University, who said that there was something colonial
Speaker 1: and therefore exploitative or I can't remember his exact wording
Speaker 1: about a white woman adopting two children from Haiti. It
Speaker 1: was really really ugly. First of all, it just untrue
Speaker 1: and ugly stuff to say, and a lot of Democrats
Speaker 1: and including Democrat professors, excel at that stuff. Here's what
Speaker 1: ACB said about that play. Ten some butt head professor
Speaker 1: at Boston University who says that because you and your
Speaker 1: husband have two children of color, that you're a white columnist.
Speaker 1: The implication is that you're a racist, and that you
Speaker 1: use your two children as props. Do you use your
Speaker 1: children as props? Senator Kenny, It was the risk of
Speaker 1: people saying things like that which would be so hurtful
Speaker 1: to my family that when I told Senator Graham this morning,
Speaker 1: but my husband and I had to really weigh the
Speaker 1: costs of this. It was saying deeply offensive and hurtful things,
Speaker 1: things that are not only hurtful to me, but are
Speaker 1: hurtful to my children, who are my children, who we
Speaker 1: love and who we brought and brought home and made
Speaker 1: part of our family. And accusations like that are cruel.
Speaker 1: You know what. One of the problems that Amy Coney
Speaker 1: Barry Barrett has with all this is one of the
Speaker 1: challenges that she really has. There are a lot of leftists,
Speaker 1: a lot of Democrats who see her and they recognize
Speaker 1: someone who, no matter how much they tell themselves they
Speaker 1: believe in climate change, and they wear masks all the time,
Speaker 1: and they watch Rachel Maddow and they read The New
Speaker 1: York Times. They see someone who is smarter than they are,
Speaker 1: kinder than they are, and a better person than they are,
Speaker 1: and it really bothers them, It really unsettles them. Part
Speaker 1: of the narrative that you tell yourself as a liberal.
Speaker 1: Is that because of some of those things I just
Speaker 1: mentioned to you and many many others, you at least
Speaker 1: get to look at half the country with some disdain.
Speaker 1: You get to look on everybody who doesn't agree with
Speaker 1: your politics. I mean, as a conservative, I always tell people,
Speaker 1: don't don't look at libs. I mean, some of them
Speaker 1: are obviously crazy, a lot of them are, but you
Speaker 1: don't look at them with disdain. If anything. I wish
Speaker 1: they would agree with more of what I say, and
Speaker 1: I try to find points of common humanity and common
Speaker 1: understanding with them whenever possible. It's hard these days because
Speaker 1: they won't let us, but I do it. And on
Speaker 1: an individual level, I have plenty of friends who are liberals,
Speaker 1: and I think our interpersonal relationships in decency are more
Speaker 1: import than any professed political position. You know, I always
Speaker 1: say that I will not I do not attack liberals
Speaker 1: who are friends of mine on this show because and
Speaker 1: that's just a rule, that's just that's just how I
Speaker 1: go about my life, that's how I conduct my business.
Speaker 1: But that all said, there are still a lot of
Speaker 1: a lot of liberals out there who see Amy Coney Barrett,
Speaker 1: and she is a reminder of their deficiencies. She is
Speaker 1: a reminder that it is possible, in fact, to believe
Speaker 1: actual Catholic teaching, to get married, to have a career,
Speaker 1: to have a big family, and to be happy, and
Speaker 1: to be really, really smart. Yeah, now many of us,
Speaker 1: I mean, if you're listening to this show, you know
Speaker 1: that that already has existed all along, and that's but
Speaker 1: she's a real symbol of it. There's resentment for Amy
Speaker 1: Coney Barrett. There's resentment among those on the left as well.
Speaker 1: You know, we have so many of these liberals and
Speaker 1: I think this is this is also getting to a
Speaker 1: real sore point for them that they won't bring up.
Speaker 1: But you know, Pelosi before when I was when we
Speaker 1: were talking about getting the aid package for people from COVID,
Speaker 1: Pelosi really clearly went into high outrage because there was
Speaker 1: even a suggestion that she wasn't taking care of people
Speaker 1: who have been hit hard by COVID, that she wasn't
Speaker 1: doing everything possible to help those who are suffering during this.
Speaker 1: And it was interesting because, well, well she's not, but
Speaker 1: she wants everyone to think so, and that's a very
Speaker 1: important part of her self regard. There's another area where
Speaker 1: a lot of particularly very wealthy white liberals think of
Speaker 1: themselves very highly, and it's in that they care so
Speaker 1: much about underprivileged minorities, particularly Black Americans and African Americans,
Speaker 1: who have obviously, you know, in different parts of the country,
Speaker 1: disproportionate rates or rates of incarceration and not finishing high
Speaker 1: school at the same rates and all of that. Right,
Speaker 1: So the libs always talk a big game about this,
Speaker 1: but it's fascinating because when you start to get down
Speaker 1: to a little bit, there are a lot of I know,
Speaker 1: a lot of white liberals who really don't spend any
Speaker 1: time with minorities. Certainly not I mean maybe minorities who
Speaker 1: went to their you know, went to their class in
Speaker 1: heart or went to their university, went to Harvard with them,
Speaker 1: but not minorities who are struggling. They don't know any
Speaker 1: They don't they don't have any over for dinner. They
Speaker 1: don't spend any time with them. They don't go into
Speaker 1: the poor, high crime neighborhoods. No, they go march with
Speaker 1: other idiot libs complaining about the police in those neighborhoods. Right.
Speaker 1: They don't actually spend any time in these places. They're
Speaker 1: not they're not volunteering their own hours to try to,
Speaker 1: you know, provide mentorship, an additional educational opportunity for these kids. No, No,
Speaker 1: your classic, your classic white lib is watching Rachel Maddow thinking, yeah,
Speaker 1: Republicans are so racist. Here's Amy Coney Barrett, who's I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not even getting this, doesn't matter what she looks like,
Speaker 1: but she's also know telegenic, because I think the word
Speaker 1: I can say without getting in trouble. It's a telegenic woman,
Speaker 1: mother of seven, legal superstar, clearly, and she clearly doesn't
Speaker 1: care about skin color and did something beautiful for two
Speaker 1: children from Haiti, made them her own children, right, you
Speaker 1: know you got you got Corey Booker who's saying, oh,
Speaker 1: do you condemn white supremacy? The whole point is, oh,
Speaker 1: Republicans are also racist. What's Amy Coney Barrett who's adopted
Speaker 1: two kids from Haiti and loves them as her own,
Speaker 1: loves them as as she does as a mother or
Speaker 1: all of the rest of her kids. And I think
Speaker 1: that that upsets live at some level because they like,
Speaker 1: they like the stereotype of the at least being able
Speaker 1: to believe. Yeah, and even the Republicans that are kind
Speaker 1: kind of fancy sounding out there. You know they're they're
Speaker 1: a little bit racist. They're a little bit racist. Amy
Speaker 1: Coney Barry, I keep saying on Sorry, Amy Coney Barrett
Speaker 1: did something selfless and beautiful and expanded her family and
Speaker 1: showed that she is someone who should be lecturing the
Speaker 1: left actually on how to take action based upon your
Speaker 1: morals and beliefs and to do so with dignity and poise.
Speaker 1: They just resent all of this. Who is this Republican,
Speaker 1: pro life woman who's had this family in this career
Speaker 1: and adopted these two black children from Haiti and has
Speaker 1: pulled all of this together. You can't have that and
Speaker 1: be a Republican. You can't act that way and think
Speaker 1: that way and be a Republican. You're an evil Trump
Speaker 1: supporter if you're a Republican. Oh. Maybe what the left
Speaker 1: sees is that they're some of them at least, and
Speaker 1: this manifests itself as more hatred. But eventually they might
Speaker 1: be able to smarter, ones might be able to process
Speaker 1: this over time. What they see and what's happening here
Speaker 1: is they resent her because she is a living refutation
Speaker 1: of what they've been brainwashed to think. The right is
Speaker 1: all about. In so many ways, she is a perfect
Speaker 1: example of what many on the right and conservatism aspire
Speaker 1: to in so many ways and hold up as well.
Speaker 1: We might look. No one's perfect. I'm not saying she's
Speaker 1: some ideal for all of us loved, but there's some
Speaker 1: impressive stuff here. And on the other side, they don't
Speaker 1: like this. They're much more comfortable, They're much happier living
Speaker 1: in this fantasy that anyone who's a Democrat cares more
Speaker 1: about the poor, about minorities, has better ideas for the advancement,
Speaker 1: not just the advancement of women in the workplace or professionally,
Speaker 1: the advancement of women's happiness and fulfilling very deep purpose
Speaker 1: as a woman, like what are the best ways to
Speaker 1: achieve that? Men have to think about the same things too.
Speaker 1: The left has no answers, and as I've said, Amy
Speaker 1: Coney Barrett is just a reputation of so many of
Speaker 1: the false answers they offer. You're enough freedom life. This
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sex and Show podcast. And I want
Speaker 1: to emphasize, you know, just given these list line of
Speaker 1: questions that you're asking, that you know I'm standing before
Speaker 1: the committee today saying that I have the integrity to
Speaker 1: act consistently with my oath and apply the law as
Speaker 1: the law, to approach the ACA and every other statute
Speaker 1: without bias. And I have not made any commitments or
Speaker 1: deals or anything like that. I'm not here on a
Speaker 1: mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act. I'm just here
Speaker 1: to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law.
Speaker 1: She's just saying, look, I'm gonna be a really good
Speaker 1: fair judge, and obviously I have all the skills and
Speaker 1: experience and knowledge to do this. I love it. For
Speaker 1: about two days there was this whole she doesn't have
Speaker 1: enough time on the federal bench. Elena Kagan was never
Speaker 1: even a judge. It's made a Supreme Court justice. Okay,
Speaker 1: I don't look Kagan smart. I'll say that I disagree
Speaker 1: with her, but she's a smart lawyer. She's capable. Not
Speaker 1: all the Democrat Supreme Court justices are smart. But you
Speaker 1: already know how I feel about that. But then when
Speaker 1: they can attack, and you're gonna hear a lot of
Speaker 1: this in the closing moments, the closing arguments from these
Speaker 1: ACB hearings. Would you notice I kept this for later
Speaker 1: on the show because it's important. But you know, everyone's
Speaker 1: gonna forget about this in a few days. I want
Speaker 1: us to get back to the political fight here. I
Speaker 1: want us to get back into lockdowns and back to
Speaker 1: the economy and all this ACB's gonna get through. There
Speaker 1: we go, it's gonna happen. And now we're getting to
Speaker 1: two out of three, two out of three of the
Speaker 1: big three. Trump beats COVID, Trump gets ACB, Trump beats Biden.
Speaker 1: If we get to if we get all three of
Speaker 1: those in one month, it's gonna make gonna make the
Speaker 1: year twenty twenty field just a little bit less bitter
Speaker 1: and awful. I think that's true. I think that's fair.
Speaker 1: But they're they're gonna in the closing moments, they're also
Speaker 1: just attacking this on weak process grounds. One of my
Speaker 1: favorites is that this is a a stolen look John Avalon,
Speaker 1: the guy's a lib. He's over at CNN. He does
Speaker 1: whatever they tell him to do. It's fine. A stolen
Speaker 1: Supreme Court seed play fourteen. Of course, that's exactly what
Speaker 1: President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland was denied, but Republican senators
Speaker 1: assured us that this was the new election years standard.
Speaker 1: That was a lie. So when Mitch McConnell complained about
Speaker 1: the Democratic playbook of double standards, broken promises, and raw power,
Speaker 1: he was engaging in some premode projection. Here's some way
Speaker 1: to gate it. Judge Amy Coney Barricks actually sitting in
Speaker 1: a stolen appellate court seat right now, that's right. Obama's nominee,
Speaker 1: Mary Selby was the first woman in first African American
Speaker 1: to serve on the Indiana Supreme Court. She was flat
Speaker 1: out and denied the Senate vote. That's because Republican Senator
Speaker 1: from Indian Dan Coach blocked it. In contrast, Democratic center
Speaker 1: from Indiana Joe Donnelly granted to vote Damie Coney Barrett
Speaker 1: when she was nominated by trauma and when Trump got
Speaker 1: into office there were one hundred court vacancies. How did
Speaker 1: that happen? What exactly does he not understand? Does he
Speaker 1: understand how government works? This should be like saying, but
Speaker 1: Republicans don't vote for bills that Democrats want. Sometimes, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's the system we have. And even while talking about lying,
Speaker 1: he misstates what the McConnell rule was, which is when
Speaker 1: the president and the Senate are not the Senate majority
Speaker 1: is not the same party. That's the rule. That's not happening.
Speaker 1: So they're not even and who gives a crap what
Speaker 1: the McConnell rule was. There was a filibuster for judicial nominee.
Speaker 1: So Harry Reid came along and said, yeah, well there
Speaker 1: doesn't have to be so laws the law, and that's
Speaker 1: ultimately what this comes down to. The law is the law.
Speaker 1: The Constitution is the constitution. This process is clear. They
Speaker 1: have no means to try to subvert it. And that's
Speaker 1: where that's where we find ourselves. My friends, they're just
Speaker 1: just whining and they get nothing. Maybe we really are
Speaker 1: by the time you hear this, maybe it'll really almost
Speaker 1: be all done in ACB. We're gonna have this vote.
Speaker 1: It's hard for me to trust that, though yesterday I
Speaker 1: was feeling like they must have some trick up their sleeve,
Speaker 1: but I couldn't think of one. You know, I've been
Speaker 1: telling you that, and maybe I couldn't think of one
Speaker 1: because there isn't one. Sometimes you just run out of
Speaker 1: divisions and you can't win the war. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the Buses and Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on
Speaker 1: Apple podcasts. The iHeart radio app or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. Before we get to roll call, I just
Speaker 1: want to say, are they really claiming that like Trump
Speaker 1: is not allowed to dance to YMCA over at CNN?
Speaker 1: This is what this is what I'm seeing play fifteen.
Speaker 1: You know, they play that song like every night in
Speaker 1: every gay bar acrossing them here. But you know, and
Speaker 1: last night I think it was Macho Macho Man and
Speaker 1: that one too. You cannot write this stuff, but he
Speaker 1: is having fun and dancing on the graves of two
Speaker 1: hundred and fifteen thousand Americans dancing. Not allowed to dance,
Speaker 1: folks not allowed to dance. M people have died, can't dance.
Speaker 1: You shouldn't be able to watch a movie either. You
Speaker 1: shouldn't be able to enjoy your food. You should just
Speaker 1: lock yourself at home and just breathe into the same
Speaker 1: stifling mask twenty four to seven and just beg for
Speaker 1: forgiveness from the Democrat overlords who say, if only you
Speaker 1: listen more, nobody would have died from COVID. No joy,
Speaker 1: no fun, no human contact, no dancing. That's that's ah,
Speaker 1: that's what we're heading for if we allow them to
Speaker 1: continue this abject madness. But that's also a that's a
Speaker 1: real litmus test. I remember some I remember a teacher
Speaker 1: telling me when I was in grammar school. He said,
Speaker 1: you know how you can really hate, You really hate
Speaker 1: somebody when the sight of them eating food really bothers you.
Speaker 1: And when you think about that, it makes it makes
Speaker 1: some sense. And I'm sure some of you have had
Speaker 1: that before. You see someone and you just go, oh,
Speaker 1: just look at that person just stuffing his face. You know,
Speaker 1: they may be having just like a peanut butter and
Speaker 1: jelly sandwich. Doesn't look at that person just the way
Speaker 1: they're oh, the way they're chewing, and they're just such
Speaker 1: a gluttonous It doesn't matter if they're super skinny and
Speaker 1: eating health it doesn't matter they're but they're getting some
Speaker 1: enjoyment out of this process and you find it gross.
Speaker 1: That's when you know you really hate someone. If you
Speaker 1: hate the sound of someone chewing, but only one person
Speaker 1: or you know someone specifically. If you hate chewing in general,
Speaker 1: then you're like me because I just get bothered by noises.
Speaker 1: It's a problem. But if you hate the sound of
Speaker 1: one individual chewing, then you you know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: And if you also, you know, the best one of
Speaker 1: the best things that I that I think I've I've
Speaker 1: learned as I've gotten older. Is all you have to
Speaker 1: know about whether a person is really on your team,
Speaker 1: whether they're a real real friend, is are they legitimately
Speaker 1: happy for you when something good happens and want the
Speaker 1: best for you and has nothing to do with them.
Speaker 1: You know when a friend of yours, when you come
Speaker 1: to a friend and say, hey, I just got you know, hey,
Speaker 1: hey Bob, I just got that promotion. Is Bob like, oh,
Speaker 1: that's great. Let me let's I'm gonna take you out
Speaker 1: stakes on me. You know that's fantastic. I'm so happy
Speaker 1: for you. You know, you must have told Ethel, you know,
Speaker 1: the wife back home that I don't know why Bob's
Speaker 1: married to Ethel, but you know they met when they're
Speaker 1: in high school. And you know the whole thing, right,
Speaker 1: that's if you tell somebody that you know you got
Speaker 1: that big promotion and he goes and you say, hey, Bob,
Speaker 1: you know I got the promotion. I don't know who's
Speaker 1: Bob and this I've lost the plot with that, but
Speaker 1: I say, hey, you know I got that promotion, and
Speaker 1: your friend responds, really, I thought you didn't even like
Speaker 1: that job. It's really all you have to know, folks,
Speaker 1: It's all you have to know. Tells you everything else.
Speaker 1: It shows you their hand all at once. And when
Speaker 1: you have members of the media who can't allow the
Speaker 1: President to the United States in an off the cuff
Speaker 1: moment at a rally, which is supposed to be an entertainment,
Speaker 1: and it's supposed to be at a rally, to just
Speaker 1: like dance to some music for a second, it means
Speaker 1: you hate you hate the sight of that person chewing
Speaker 1: his food. It means you've crossed over into well true
Speaker 1: trum Trump's arrangement syndrome. You've crossed over into the realm
Speaker 1: of irrational disdain. So I think it's I know, it's
Speaker 1: just a little moment there, but they really you've heard
Speaker 1: me say, they really hate this guy. And always remember this, friends,
Speaker 1: we don't we don't hate, you know, we don't hate
Speaker 1: the Democrat politicians. We make fun of them when we
Speaker 1: need to. We disagree with them vehemently. We want to
Speaker 1: defeat their ideology. But the ones that can be brought
Speaker 1: over to our side, I say, great, the water's warm,
Speaker 1: jump in and the ones that we think are you know,
Speaker 1: doing a lot of damage the country. We have a process,
Speaker 1: we have a political process to push back and fight
Speaker 1: back against that. But ultimately, they're human beings too, and
Speaker 1: you know, we want we don't want anything bad to
Speaker 1: happen to them. We want them to be healthy and
Speaker 1: just you know, to spend time with their family and
Speaker 1: grandkids and have moments of joy too. And don't ever lose.
Speaker 1: Don't ever lose that. Don't ever allow these political fights
Speaker 1: to turn you into a person who hates the sight
Speaker 1: of a stranger dancing and expressing joy. Don't ever let
Speaker 1: that happen. Now we can do roll call. Hit it
Speaker 1: like soft butter on warm toast. Time to spread some
Speaker 1: freedom coast to coast. It's time for roll call. Indeed,
Speaker 1: it is time for roll call. And this is also
Speaker 1: the time of day when I see the dog. It's
Speaker 1: time for I've got her back again, producer mark the
Speaker 1: Little French. My parents let me have her. They thought
Speaker 1: I was sad without her. In fact check true, so
Speaker 1: I've got her again. But she goes this is nap
Speaker 1: number three. At this part of the day, I didn't
Speaker 1: know you lost the dog. For a while. I had.
Speaker 1: I had to give her back to my parents technically
Speaker 1: their dogs, so I had to give her back for
Speaker 1: a while. But now we're like shared custody. Now I'm
Speaker 1: like her her uncle that you know takes her to
Speaker 1: ball games, but you know that's and and then keeps
Speaker 1: her for a few days. So now you'sually gonna have
Speaker 1: to get your own dog. I know, but I feel like,
Speaker 1: you know, as long as she's around, I don't you
Speaker 1: gotta shar shared custody. I'd have a I'll have to
Speaker 1: figure this one out. But one day, one day, you
Speaker 1: and missus Mark are going to get a four legged friend.
Speaker 1: Oh absolutely, as soon as we get a house. The
Speaker 1: second purchase as a dog. Well, I guess you don't
Speaker 1: know what I mean. I was visiting friends down in Baltimore,
Speaker 1: lovely place, Baltimore over the weekend. But actually they live
Speaker 1: outside of Baltimore. It's quite beautiful, but uh, and there
Speaker 1: are they're surprised. There are some really nice, kind of
Speaker 1: gothic looking structures. They're old. Baltimore has got some cool stuff,
Speaker 1: but there's obviously some really rough areas of it. But
Speaker 1: they're in the suburbs. But I was down and they
Speaker 1: have a little a little kitten, and I always feel
Speaker 1: like kittens are a trap because kittens are great, like
Speaker 1: they're so fawn and soft and cute, but then they
Speaker 1: grow up into cats. I'm just saying, yeah, they're awful animals. Whoa, whoa.
Speaker 1: We love all cat lovers here on the buck sextage.
Speaker 1: If you love cats, good for you. I just don't
Speaker 1: like them, but you know what I mean about. There
Speaker 1: was a little tiny kitten too. It was like a
Speaker 1: little fluffy furball phase. It's tiny. It was like jumping
Speaker 1: all over me and stuff. Yeah. I guess kittens are cute.
Speaker 1: When they turn into cats, they just hide from you. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I have I always have this dream too that one
Speaker 1: day I could have a pet fox. And there's a
Speaker 1: there's a an Instagram account called Juniper Fox that I
Speaker 1: follow where it's a person who has two pet foxes,
Speaker 1: like they're like dogs, except they're wild foxes and they
Speaker 1: live in their house. I saw a Facebook video the
Speaker 1: other day as some woman that has two squirrels as pets.
Speaker 1: I mean that sounds amazing. Really, Mark, why didn't you
Speaker 1: send this to me? Sign me up? I'm sorry. I
Speaker 1: love animals. Yeah, any cute animal stuff. You could always
Speaker 1: either send me like important stuff so that we can
Speaker 1: keep doing the show, and any pictures of animals, but
Speaker 1: also yeah, cute, cute animal pictures. I'm all about it,
Speaker 1: all right, all right, Brandy, I'm sorry for the delay.
Speaker 1: Here we go, Hey, Buck, what do you think of
Speaker 1: all these polls saying Trump is behind Biden? I don't
Speaker 1: get it. He has huge crowds and enthusiasm. Are the
Speaker 1: polls all wrong? Is Trump going to win? Shields High? Oh? Brandy,
Speaker 1: you ask a great question, but it's one that I
Speaker 1: can just give you my my best sense about. And
Speaker 1: my best sense is, yes, Trump is going to win,
Speaker 1: but I cannot guarantee it, and I wish I could.
Speaker 1: I am not. I'll tell you this. I'm more confident
Speaker 1: that at least New York City and other Democrat parts
Speaker 1: the country you are going to go into lockdowns than
Speaker 1: I know that Trump is going to win the election.
Speaker 1: Which is not to say I don't think Trump's gonna
Speaker 1: win the election. It's just i'd say I'm I'd say
Speaker 1: I'm sixty seven er five or you know, something like
Speaker 1: sixty seventy percent sure. But there's a good chunk I
Speaker 1: mean there's about a there's about a one in three
Speaker 1: shot here that Biden, in my mind, wins this thing.
Speaker 1: I'm like, I, folks, gotta keep it real. I can't
Speaker 1: tell you lies. And then as for the crowds, well,
Speaker 1: you know, Democrats right now think that good people avoid crowds.
Speaker 1: So it's tough to know how much of that is
Speaker 1: lack of enthusiasm for Biden. But also when you add
Speaker 1: in all the fraudulent mail in ballots that are going
Speaker 1: to be collected by ballot harvesters and all the other stuff,
Speaker 1: gets a little little tougher, you know. I don't know,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be very, very tight. As for the polls,
Speaker 1: I think the polls are not representative of what's going
Speaker 1: to happen in this election. And I think it's because
Speaker 1: there are enough people who are Libs, who are in
Speaker 1: these polling companies, who feel like it doesn't matter if
Speaker 1: they're wrong, they better do everything they can just suppress
Speaker 1: Trump turned out. I think that's what's happening. But maybe
Speaker 1: that look, folks, if the freedom hunt has to become,
Speaker 1: you know, the freedom fort where we're all gathered together
Speaker 1: every day because we're heading into a Biden administration, and
Speaker 1: we got to get ready for the oncoming. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is why we say shields high. It's all about,
Speaker 1: you know, all about being able to handle the incoming
Speaker 1: you know, incoming administration in this case, but incoming in
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of ways. That's that's really a secret
Speaker 1: to life. And if we have to, we'll we'll band
Speaker 1: together and we'll do it and we'll be fine, you
Speaker 1: know what I mean, We'll figure it out. I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna you know, one thing you'll never have is me
Speaker 1: Trump lost that we can the Republic is gone, and look,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be bad for the country. I'm not gonna lie.
Speaker 1: I'm probably gonna sell all the stock that I own.
Speaker 1: And I'm not kidding when I say, you know, gold,
Speaker 1: there's a reason I love gold so much. There's a
Speaker 1: reason I own gold. There's a reason I got a
Speaker 1: gold sponsor. That's not that's that's for real, folks. That's
Speaker 1: all for real. Because you get you get an abiden
Speaker 1: and modern monetary theory stuff and the AOC wing and
Speaker 1: the history of fiat currency. And I really mean this,
Speaker 1: the history of fiat currency, currency that is not tied
Speaker 1: to any actual observable, demonstrable metric of value. It's very clear,
Speaker 1: and it's very bad. Eventually it collapses. So I do
Speaker 1: have concerns about that, but I'm not not really yet.
Speaker 1: I'm not not going to do the catastrophist thing because
Speaker 1: who knows, maybe maybe Trump wins and we're able to
Speaker 1: make some good things happen here. That's and I think
Speaker 1: it will happen. But Brandy, so you got me on
Speaker 1: this one, and that was where my mind focused in
Speaker 1: on You're in the Freedom. This is the Buck Sex
Speaker 1: and Show podcast more role call he with Richard Buck.
Speaker 1: I thought Obamacare and Rowe was settled law constitutionally. Is
Speaker 1: the left tipping their hat that they've built a judicial
Speaker 1: house of cards since the seventies that could fall if
Speaker 1: we get some traditional judges in there. The dams have
Speaker 1: reaped what they have sewed, rack up the cases and
Speaker 1: knock them down, shields and gavels high. Yeah, Richard, you're
Speaker 1: right about this. I mean they realize that there these
Speaker 1: victories that they've had from the Supreme Court are fragile
Speaker 1: and could be and are temporary in that sense. And
Speaker 1: they've led themselves to believe that whatever they achieved via
Speaker 1: the court, which means they couldn't get it through normal
Speaker 1: legislative process. Whatever they get handed by the court is permanent.
Speaker 1: But that's just not true, or it doesn't have to
Speaker 1: be true. It has been true so far, at least
Speaker 1: with Rowe, but it does not have to be true.
Speaker 1: So we will have to see if perhaps this is
Speaker 1: the the beginning of the end of that perception. We'll see.
Speaker 1: I remember I've told you this ACB would be a
Speaker 1: very good judge. Doesn't mean conservatives are gonna like everything
Speaker 1: that she decides and we're okay with that, right. That's
Speaker 1: where That's how I view things. Sometimes I don't agree
Speaker 1: with the law. You know, look, even would like the
Speaker 1: like the Roger Stone thing for example, you know General Flynt.
Speaker 1: I don't think actually lied. I think that they miscons
Speaker 1: they misrepresented what he said and they that's why they
Speaker 1: didn't think he liked So I think they just they
Speaker 1: set him up and that was an ambush and they
Speaker 1: lied about it. So it was it was, you know, fraudulent,
Speaker 1: the fix was in. But you know Roger Stone, I
Speaker 1: like Roger. I think I like Roger. I think the
Speaker 1: entertaining guy. But you know, he kind of he kind
Speaker 1: of didn't really you know, technically, yeah, he did some stuff,
Speaker 1: so you know he's being held accountable for that, um so.
Speaker 1: And then, uh, although they want to send in a
Speaker 1: prison for nine years, that's insane. He should have gotten
Speaker 1: a slap on the risk probation and you know, let
Speaker 1: let to go on his way. That's it. Let's see here,
Speaker 1: Kathy Buck. I love the show. It's my favorite drive
Speaker 1: home radio. You guys crack me up while informing you
Speaker 1: of the day's Democrat. But I gotta clear this up.
Speaker 1: Jersey gravy starts with beef bass, usually a Demi gloss
Speaker 1: made with bones. Marinara, he is a vegetable based Hey,
Speaker 1: Mario Luigi. I always thought they were the same, just
Speaker 1: like you, until I got really into cooking shields high. Uh.
Speaker 1: Producer Mark is this is this? Does this? Uh? This
Speaker 1: Jersey thing? Jersey gravy with beef bass? You're a Jersey guy?
Speaker 1: Any any any way in on this? All right, let's
Speaker 1: start off with one thing. I'm not a Jersey guy.
Speaker 1: I mean, technically, you are a resident of the state
Speaker 1: of Jury right now. I'm a resident. That doesn't mean
Speaker 1: I'm a Jersey guy. Fair enough, Uh, yeah, I think
Speaker 1: that's true. Marinara sauce is just kind of tomato sauce
Speaker 1: that doesn't have anything in it, and usually other sauces
Speaker 1: have stuff in it, you know, be vegetables or something.
Speaker 1: The producer Nick who is he would know better than me.
Speaker 1: He's never, he's never, he's never heard of this before.
Speaker 1: So maybe this is like a Jersey specific thing. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, if you buy a jar of tomato sauce,
Speaker 1: so you go to a restaurant, usually they cook it
Speaker 1: with vegetables and whatnot. And I believe Marionaro sauce, you know,
Speaker 1: it's just tomatoes, just you know, vegetarian. Maybe I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't really care. They both are delicious. Fair point. No,
Speaker 1: I had I had a gluten free there's a great
Speaker 1: gluten free Italian place in New York. And I have
Speaker 1: my brothers over last night because I got one brother
Speaker 1: now who just moved out. He's moved to Austin. He
Speaker 1: moved today. Actually, people hear the show. So KLBJ. Austin,
Speaker 1: you have one of the Sexton boys now among you.
Speaker 1: He's moved there. So if you've got any advice or
Speaker 1: any from all our KLBJ. Folks. Any advice you know,
Speaker 1: and he'll kill me if he hears me say this.
Speaker 1: Any lovely single ladies in their thirties who want a
Speaker 1: handsome ivy league educated to entrepreneur, you know, verys a
Speaker 1: single man. I'm just putting it out. I'm just saying,
Speaker 1: I'm just helping my brother. I'm just helping my brother.
Speaker 1: But he's down in Austin. So there you go. Rob
Speaker 1: Buck been listening since the days of the Blaze. Glad
Speaker 1: you'll be resuming Shields High series. I'm thrilled to hear it.
Speaker 1: I'm also a keen student of history and thoroughly enjoyed
Speaker 1: Shields High. I've often wondered if you ever have more
Speaker 1: time to create episodes. Can't wait to hear them. Keep
Speaker 1: up the great work. All hail the hair, and yes,
Speaker 1: the beard as well. Rob. I think that's the first
Speaker 1: beard props I've ever gotten. Usually it's like, yeah, you
Speaker 1: look like you're trying to buy beer somewhere, you know,
Speaker 1: But yeah, thank you. I appreciate that I've gotten better
Speaker 1: at shaping and trimming the beard. At first, it was
Speaker 1: kind of just like the Tom Hanks beard from Castaway,
Speaker 1: except not as full and and now I understand Beard
Speaker 1: Beardo dynamics a little bit. Do you think that's the thing,
Speaker 1: Producer Mark beardics, No, No, I like, I feel like
Speaker 1: I just made up a word. But yeah, now I
Speaker 1: understand how to contour and shape and and do all
Speaker 1: that good stuff. So that's kind of that's kind of
Speaker 1: where I'm rolling. And as for the Shield's High, Yeah,
Speaker 1: we already. We already have one Malta in so at
Speaker 1: some point if I don't get others, Producer Mark, You're
Speaker 1: just gonna say, I can't, we can't wait anymore. He's
Speaker 1: gonna release it. But well, I'm gonna get others done.
Speaker 1: We're gonna get Malta one and two, Lepanto one and
Speaker 1: two U and Dracula. I think Drakula. That'll be fun.
Speaker 1: And that one's got to get done soon because I
Speaker 1: want to do it for for the Also, maybe I
Speaker 1: should do Madam. Is it Madame Bovary? I think is
Speaker 1: her name from Romani or something? Who you know? Some
Speaker 1: of you know what I'm talking about. She liked killed
Speaker 1: all the people and swamming their blood or something. It's
Speaker 1: bad stuff but scary anyway, Sorry, not the way I
Speaker 1: want to end the show. Thanks so much for being
Speaker 1: your team. Back tomorrow. Pass the Buck to a friend
Speaker 1: this week, Tell them about the Buck Secting Show, give
Speaker 1: them the podcast to listen to. Shield's High