Speaker 1: This is Buck's first thoughts. The news you need to
Speaker 1: get for your day in forty five minutes. Make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe on the iHeart Act or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. How many times have we talked about how
Speaker 1: Governor Cuomo of New York has the worst results, has
Speaker 1: been the biggest failure, the most egregious buffoon, and caused
Speaker 1: the most unnecessary suffering and death of any governor in America.
Speaker 1: We've been saying it for many months. You're on the
Speaker 1: show because it's obvious, because we know it's true. But
Speaker 1: he was important for a while to Democrats. Now why
Speaker 1: was he important Because he was turning on Trump as
Speaker 1: soon as things got tough with COVID, and so he
Speaker 1: was useful. He became a tool for the other side.
Speaker 1: He decided that the way to get the media to
Speaker 1: back him up, including of course his brother who has
Speaker 1: a prime time show at CNN, way to get him
Speaker 1: to back him up. The way to get the media
Speaker 1: aligned behind him was to go all out on Trump trashing.
Speaker 1: And then it's like you have a cloak of invincibility.
Speaker 1: Then you can do anything, say anything, and the media
Speaker 1: will debase themselves to lie for you. Well, Now we
Speaker 1: have the proof we need that this wasn't even just
Speaker 1: something that went awry, but that there was an active
Speaker 1: cover up of the disastrous nursing home order from Governor Cuomo,
Speaker 1: Democrat of New York, at one point talked about as
Speaker 1: a possible last minute presidential candidate before Biden had even
Speaker 1: won the primary. Remember that there were people who were
Speaker 1: buying Cuomo underwear. There was a there was a trend
Speaker 1: on social media of people referring to themselves as Cuomo
Speaker 1: sexuals because he was so hot. This is real, that's true,
Speaker 1: because he was doing such a great job in those
Speaker 1: press conferences. He got an Emmy, that's right, an Emmy
Speaker 1: for his COVID press conferences. And now we find out
Speaker 1: that they were hiding the nursing home data so that
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, so the Department of Justice last year,
Speaker 1: couldn't look into anything, couldn't figure out what had really happened.
Speaker 1: And of course this was all about the twenty twenty election.
Speaker 1: More information suppressed that the public should know about on
Speaker 1: behalf of Democrats doing an awful job. It shouldn't be
Speaker 1: surprising to anybody. Now we have the proof. I'd also
Speaker 1: say it feels good to be right. A lot of
Speaker 1: being right this week for the Buckster, gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: and with Cuomo, this as yet another one we have
Speaker 1: to put on that list. Here's the story, Cuomo aid,
Speaker 1: Melissa de Rosa admits they hid nursing home data so
Speaker 1: feds wouldn't find out. God. This is in the New
Speaker 1: York Post. Governor Cuomo's top aide privately apologized to Democratic
Speaker 1: lawmakers for withholding the state's nursing home death toll from
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen, telling them, quote, we froze out of fear
Speaker 1: that the numbers, the true numbers, would be used against
Speaker 1: us by federal prosecutors. The stunning admission of a cover
Speaker 1: up was made by Secretary to the Governor Melissa de
Speaker 1: Rosa during a video conference call with state Democratic leaders,
Speaker 1: in which she said the Cuomo administration had rebuffed a
Speaker 1: legislative request for the tally in August because right around
Speaker 1: the same time, then President Donald Trump turns this into
Speaker 1: a giant political football. According to an audio recording of
Speaker 1: the two hour plus meeting, exactly what I've been telling
Speaker 1: you is what happened here. They lie about the deaths
Speaker 1: in the nursing homes because the number was so huge
Speaker 1: and so catastrophic and so much higher than anywhere else
Speaker 1: in the country that they knew it would be politically disastrous.
Speaker 1: So Cuomo hid the numbers and kept having his press conferences.
Speaker 1: Let's think about this too. Was this a tough called
Speaker 1: to make when you have a disease that is overwhelmingly
Speaker 1: dangerous to people who are over sixty five? By far,
Speaker 1: the single biggest risk factor here is age. When you
Speaker 1: have a disease that's so dangerous to people who who
Speaker 1: are older like that, and you have people who already
Speaker 1: have the disease in that age bracket, so their immune
Speaker 1: system is very taxed, and they probably have a large
Speaker 1: viral load, and while they're still active with the virus,
Speaker 1: you send them back into nursing homes. I mean, this
Speaker 1: was the executive order equivalent of a mass casualty attack.
Speaker 1: Nine thousand seniors. That's the number. Nine thousand seniors believed
Speaker 1: to be still recovering from COVID, still have active virus,
Speaker 1: still shedding that virus, sent back into nursing homes where
Speaker 1: they were a huge infection risk to their fellow high
Speaker 1: at risk population. And as we know in New York
Speaker 1: about twelve thousand seniors in nursing homes alone died died
Speaker 1: twelve thousand, seven hundred and forty three as of January nineteenth.
Speaker 1: That came from the State Attorney General, Leticia James. Now,
Speaker 1: this is one of the biggest stories about COVID from
Speaker 1: the last twelve months. I mean, this is massive, major mouthfeasance,
Speaker 1: intentional hiding of critical data from the public. This is fraudulent,
Speaker 1: it's so dishonest, and yet the media let him get
Speaker 1: away with it every step of the way. Why did
Speaker 1: they do that? Anything to beat Trump, anything that is
Speaker 1: useful for attacking Trump has to be protected. Any story
Speaker 1: that attacked the former president was justified. It didn't matter
Speaker 1: how dishonest, it didn't matter how many lies or what
Speaker 1: was at stake for the Democrats, for the lib power apparatus,
Speaker 1: nothing was more important than defeating Donald Trump. And it's
Speaker 1: terrible that they managed to accomplish that, but they did.
Speaker 1: They were rewarded for this kind of behavior. The mainstream
Speaker 1: media may have a day or two here where some
Speaker 1: people open their eyes. I mean, you and I understand
Speaker 1: who they are already. Some people open their eyes to
Speaker 1: how disastrously partisan they are. And how they're just so
Speaker 1: full of it. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: do you think that any of them would really change.
Speaker 1: They would they really change what they did? Know? Trump lost,
Speaker 1: That's all that matters to them. Sure, they lied about
Speaker 1: a mass casualty event in New York. People lost mother's
Speaker 1: father's grandparents, huge numbers, unnecessarily because of writ because of
Speaker 1: reckless policy. And it was all off the order of
Speaker 1: a governor who was a pompous jerk at every step
Speaker 1: of this thing. But people were terrified, and he knows
Speaker 1: how to manipulate emotions. Have your press conference, sit there,
Speaker 1: have the slides, tell people how much you care, Tell
Speaker 1: the people that you have family too, and my grandmother,
Speaker 1: your grandmother is not disposable. Well, it turns out he
Speaker 1: was actually disposing of a lot of people's grandparents an
Speaker 1: executive order to send COVID pos their patients back into
Speaker 1: nursing homes. You could not have come up with a
Speaker 1: more disastrous public health policy than that. This was going
Speaker 1: after the single most vulnerable part of our population. Remember,
Speaker 1: almost half of all COVID deaths nationwide came in nursing homes,
Speaker 1: which was a very small percentage of the population. Nursing
Speaker 1: homes were the weak point here in our war against COVID.
Speaker 1: Nursing homes were the Achilles heel, and we did not
Speaker 1: do enough to protect them. And one of the reasons
Speaker 1: we did not do enough to protect them was that
Speaker 1: people were lying about what was going on in the
Speaker 1: early days, and they were trying to shift blame, and
Speaker 1: they were pushing panic, and they made it about an
Speaker 1: anti Trump movement instead of what's going to save the
Speaker 1: most lives, and they pushed for lockdown and they wanted control,
Speaker 1: and they fed the panic. You can look back now
Speaker 1: and see the Great Barrington Declaration which dates that there
Speaker 1: should have been There should have been extreme measures to
Speaker 1: protect the at risk and minimal to no measures for
Speaker 1: the rest of us. If you want to save lives,
Speaker 1: that would have been the approach to take. But instead
Speaker 1: we had the fauciism of arbitrary and near endless lockdowns
Speaker 1: throughout twenty twenty. That was the path they took on
Speaker 1: people like Cuomo. We're taking a bow getting Emmy's for
Speaker 1: a disastrous, a simply incomprehensibly awful performances as essentially a
Speaker 1: COVID dictator, which is what Governor Cuomo and other governors
Speaker 1: became the state legislature gave Cuomo power to do whatever
Speaker 1: he wanted. He took all that authority into his hands.
Speaker 1: He must be held to account. We don't have a
Speaker 1: recall mechanism in New York State like they do in California.
Speaker 1: For Gavin Newsom. We should. There should be a tsunami
Speaker 1: of pressure on a Governor Cuomo to resign, but that
Speaker 1: won't happen. Do you think they'll do a lot of
Speaker 1: really hard hitting coverage on CNN? Do you think that
Speaker 1: Fredo is going to really dig deep into this one?
Speaker 1: I don't think so. The news media failed you on this.
Speaker 1: They lied to you about this, they helped in the
Speaker 1: cover up, and now it finally comes out through a leak,
Speaker 1: not through dogged investigative journalism, not because the mainstream the
Speaker 1: corporate media wanted you to find out, because somebody was
Speaker 1: so disgusted on that call that they leaked the information
Speaker 1: to news outlets that would actually tell the story. You
Speaker 1: think that journalists now are going to be more honest
Speaker 1: in their coverage of the Biden administration. You think they
Speaker 1: have all of a sudden discovered honor or integrity. No, No,
Speaker 1: as far as they're concerned. And this is the party
Speaker 1: you have to really remember. They pretty much got away
Speaker 1: with this. It doesn't really matter. Trump is gone, Trump lost,
Speaker 1: Quomo still in power, and the lockdowners are now talking
Speaker 1: about how we have to extend for months and months more.
Speaker 1: Governor Quobo was the single worst governor in the entire
Speaker 1: country during the COVID pandemic, and you should never forget
Speaker 1: that the Democrat Party, the corporate media celebrated him. They
Speaker 1: went in the exact opposite direction of the truth, and
Speaker 1: they pretended they held him up as a hero while
Speaker 1: people were dying because of his order, and he was
Speaker 1: lying to the public about the very numbers of those
Speaker 1: who died. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Follow
Speaker 1: fuck on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. You know will people
Speaker 1: have asked me about there was some type of report
Speaker 1: about potential travel restrictions on Americans and on Floridians, and
Speaker 1: I just I think it's an absurd report that they
Speaker 1: would be doing that. I think it would be unconstitutional,
Speaker 1: It would be unwise, and it would be unjust. And
Speaker 1: if you think about it, restricting the right of Americans
Speaker 1: to travel freely throughout our country while allowing illegal aliens
Speaker 1: to pour across the southern border unmolested would be a
Speaker 1: ridiculous but very damaging farce, so we will oppose it one.
Speaker 1: It would not be based in science. It would purely
Speaker 1: be a political attack against the people of Florida. Why
Speaker 1: would the Biden administration even consider taking actions specifically against
Speaker 1: the state of Florida. We all know the answer, but
Speaker 1: we need to keep saying this out loud. Why would
Speaker 1: the Biden administration do that? Because Florida proves that the Democrats,
Speaker 1: the lockdowners, the Fauciites, are a bunch of buffoons. The
Speaker 1: Democrats prove that they were not right by the actions,
Speaker 1: by the numbers now that we've seen, and they hate
Speaker 1: what Florida has done. They hate what Florida has shown
Speaker 1: the country, which is, yes, there was no perfect answer.
Speaker 1: There's a pandemic. We didn't have a cure. We're still
Speaker 1: getting the vaccine out there. But arbitrary and capricious lockdowns
Speaker 1: were not the answer. They were not worth it. They
Speaker 1: did not work. That's why everyone's fleeing to Florida, not
Speaker 1: even just from the northeastern corridor, where you got a
Speaker 1: ton of people from New York and New Jersey, but
Speaker 1: from California, from the West coast. They're headed out of
Speaker 1: Florida too. They've they've had enough. It's fascinating. There's a
Speaker 1: piece in the New York Times as Recline, who's just
Speaker 1: a dogmatic orth the docs left winger. All he does
Speaker 1: is tell people on the left exactly what they want
Speaker 1: to hear. Never has an independent, are interesting thought ever,
Speaker 1: and puts the sheen of he looks like a nerd,
Speaker 1: so he must be smart on it all, but not impressed.
Speaker 1: The whole thing, though, is if if progressivism can't work
Speaker 1: in California, how can it work anywhere else? And of
Speaker 1: course he comes up with a million different rationalizations, and
Speaker 1: ultimately it's that California is it's kind of governed in
Speaker 1: a conservative way, even though totally run by progressives. Oh
Speaker 1: look at that. Look at that. Isn't that amazing? Isn't
Speaker 1: that a stunning reversal? Who would have ever thought it's
Speaker 1: so liberal, it's conservative, it's so left wing, it's right
Speaker 1: wing or something like that. Right, I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: it's so dumb. But they're worried. They're worried. They know, Okay,
Speaker 1: we've we've been forced to give them the keys to
Speaker 1: the car. Biden's in charge. He looks like he could
Speaker 1: fall asleep or take a nap at any moment. This
Speaker 1: is the guy that we were waiting for. This is
Speaker 1: who's going to fix the country, bring us together. The Democrats,
Speaker 1: who at least look away, are going on and on
Speaker 1: about how Trump supporters are terrorists and basically we need
Speaker 1: to send them to Gitmo. Great, that's really helping, really
Speaker 1: uniting the country. They shut down the Keystone Xel pipeline
Speaker 1: cost a bunch of actual Americans who are working hard
Speaker 1: jobs so that they could make donors to environmentalist groups
Speaker 1: and other left wing causes in Malibu and Brooklyn feel
Speaker 1: good about themselves for a day or two. Yeah, fighting
Speaker 1: climate change. The border has been kicked wide open. All
Speaker 1: the old games are being played again. You show up,
Speaker 1: you say the lines. The cartels are going to be
Speaker 1: making tons of money off of this. This is what
Speaker 1: we get. Trump was worse than Hitler, and Biden will
Speaker 1: be amazing. And this is really where we are now. Huh,
Speaker 1: Governor de Santists is the beacon of light in all
Speaker 1: of this. Right now, there is a better way. There's
Speaker 1: a different way. There's good governance. There's making wise decisions,
Speaker 1: measured action based upon data and what a reasonable person
Speaker 1: thinks is fair to ask people in society to do.
Speaker 1: That's one way to go. Or we have the newsome
Speaker 1: Quomo Whittemer lockdown, lockdown, harder, put on one, mass, put
Speaker 1: on two, put on three, maybe five, don't go outside,
Speaker 1: mask up alone in the woods with your dog. They
Speaker 1: actually say this stuff. They banned people from exercising alone
Speaker 1: at UC Berkeley. There is no, let me say, zero
Speaker 1: scientific basis for this, none, none, whatsoever. This should be
Speaker 1: like telling telling people to avoid STDs. Don't stand in
Speaker 1: the same room with anybody for ten minutes. What does
Speaker 1: one have to do with the other? Whatever, it'll work, okay. Science.
Speaker 1: People are power mad imbeciles, and they think that the government,
Speaker 1: They think the state exists to make all problems disappear.
Speaker 1: What they never stopped to think is maybe the state
Speaker 1: is actually the cause of a lot of problems. Maybe
Speaker 1: the reason that America has worked out so well is
Speaker 1: that it's a government first and foremost built upon individual
Speaker 1: liberty and the limitations of state power to infringe upon
Speaker 1: those liberties. Maybe that's a better approach I don't know.
Speaker 1: A couple of hundred years of history seems to suggest
Speaker 1: that's better than what we see in other places around
Speaker 1: the world, where the government can do anything to you
Speaker 1: at once. This has been a stress test on our republic,
Speaker 1: on our freedom, this whole COVID nightmare. And I'm starting
Speaker 1: to think finally the lockdowners have gone so nuts and
Speaker 1: so overboard that enough Americans are waking up to this
Speaker 1: that we're going to start pushing back. You're in the
Speaker 1: freedom hunt. Thanks for listening to the buck Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 1: Get the latest from Buck at buck Sexton dot com.
Speaker 1: Isn't to relax these lockdowns now, you know, if you
Speaker 1: do it gradually, George, without turning a light switch on
Speaker 1: and off. Remember we had that conversation months and months
Speaker 1: ago when we were trying to open up America again
Speaker 1: for the economic reasons. You want to do it. You
Speaker 1: want to do it gradually and safely, as opposed to
Speaker 1: just turning it on an off right away. There's still
Speaker 1: going to be the important need to wear masks. I
Speaker 1: think we still need to do that. You want to
Speaker 1: avoid congregate settings, but you can gradually get to the
Speaker 1: situation where you might open up restaurants with limited seating
Speaker 1: and things like that. But it's got to be done
Speaker 1: prudently and gradually. And when you say need for masks,
Speaker 1: you mean for quite some time into the foreseeable future. Year,
Speaker 1: two years, three years. I'm not so sure it's measured
Speaker 1: in years, George, but I think until we get the
Speaker 1: level of virus to such a low level into community.
Speaker 1: And I had said a projection, and it's only a
Speaker 1: projection that hopefully, by the time we get all the
Speaker 1: people vaccinated and let's say seventy to eighty five percent
Speaker 1: of the people vaccinated, the level of virus in the
Speaker 1: community could be so low that you could start pulling
Speaker 1: back a bit on what are stringent public health measures.
Speaker 1: You don't want to do it all at once. But
Speaker 1: I think we're going to be wearing masks for several
Speaker 1: several months into the future. He's actually telling you that
Speaker 1: we're going to be wearing masks until at least the
Speaker 1: end of this year and probably this time next year.
Speaker 1: And I would wager they're not going to really the
Speaker 1: mask chambers. The people. Where aren't you marrying three masks?
Speaker 1: Where are your three masks? Those people are not going
Speaker 1: to calm down until next June, not this June. Next June.
Speaker 1: So if you're in a blue state, I know a
Speaker 1: lot of you in red states, you're like stinks for you, buck,
Speaker 1: I know. But if you're in a red state, you'll
Speaker 1: be okay. If you're in a blue state, they're going
Speaker 1: to be people, remember, because it's all about whether they
Speaker 1: think them the mob would be on their side. That's
Speaker 1: really what it comes down to. Are you in a
Speaker 1: part of the country where someone masks shaming you? You know,
Speaker 1: people that are standing around or that are watching this
Speaker 1: would say it's just one person. They're probably fine. You're
Speaker 1: not near them, stop being crazy, leave them alone? Or
Speaker 1: would they all run up to you? Why aren't you
Speaker 1: wearing a mask? Where is your mask? Because I can
Speaker 1: tell you here in New York City that's what it
Speaker 1: would be right away. How dare you not wear your
Speaker 1: mask all the time all the time. I can't tell
Speaker 1: you how many people I see the mask is down,
Speaker 1: their nose exposed. And I don't care what I'm gonna saying.
Speaker 1: This is it's the whole thing is so absurd, it
Speaker 1: all in its face now it's double masking. You know,
Speaker 1: I had I put a video on TikTok. I got
Speaker 1: suspended from TikTok because I put a video up arguing
Speaker 1: that we shouldn't have to mask and social distance after
Speaker 1: Any individual should not have to do that after they're vaccinated,
Speaker 1: because we at that point you've hit an acceptable risk
Speaker 1: to other people. If I get vaccinated and I get
Speaker 1: sick and I die, that's on me. I want to
Speaker 1: live my life. If the rest of society gets vaccinated
Speaker 1: and then one or two people out of ten thousand
Speaker 1: or fifty thousand give the virus to somebody else, eventually
Speaker 1: there may be one person who dies because of COVID
Speaker 1: that wouldn't have otherwise. But is the speed limit ten
Speaker 1: miles an hour or not. I know they hate this argument,
Speaker 1: but that's because it's true. The people who go, oh,
Speaker 1: look at seat belts. Masks are like seat belts. Really,
Speaker 1: you gotta wear a seatbelt when you're going for a
Speaker 1: walk alone in the woods. Gott to wear a seatbelt
Speaker 1: every time you're outside your home. Gott to wear a
Speaker 1: seatbe No, it's not the same. One is super annoying
Speaker 1: and tyrannical and dehumanizing, and the other is a minor inconvenience.
Speaker 1: For the duration of time that you were in a vehicle.
Speaker 1: And yeah, quite honestly, the government probably shouldn't be able
Speaker 1: to make you wear a seatbelt. If we're really being
Speaker 1: honest there, we say it's because, oh, because you could.
Speaker 1: I've heard the argument that you could become a projectile.
Speaker 1: It hits somebody else, right, They make it about someone
Speaker 1: else so that they can control you, which has been
Speaker 1: the nightmare of COVID all along. You know, if it
Speaker 1: were just about you taking individual risks, that would be
Speaker 1: harder for them. But they say, oh, but you're putting
Speaker 1: all these other people at risk, so then they can
Speaker 1: control you. David Leonhardt over at The New York Times
Speaker 1: wrote on COVID absolutism, and I'm starting to say, oh,
Speaker 1: the New York Times will publish something about how this
Speaker 1: has gone too far. The people who are saying listen
Speaker 1: to the experts, obey the science, they are now officially
Speaker 1: emotionally unhinged about this. For anyone who's paying attention, there's
Speaker 1: a balance here. I've never said, oh, there's there's nothing
Speaker 1: we should do at all, there's no reason for worry, none,
Speaker 1: none of that stuff. But they always pretend they create
Speaker 1: this massive straw man of yeah, whatever, just live your life,
Speaker 1: go out there, go to bars, breathing people's faces, or
Speaker 1: you can't leave your home, you can't be outside. You
Speaker 1: can't do anything until they say so. And they'll say so.
Speaker 1: Not in a couple of days, not in a couple
Speaker 1: of weeks. Now we're going on a year. It's wondering,
Speaker 1: you know, you start to see this with the government.
Speaker 1: Where does this ability to protect the public from the
Speaker 1: possibility of disease stop? You know, I mean, if the
Speaker 1: government wanted to indefinitely, indefinitely quarantine a whole state, could
Speaker 1: they do that? Would would that be okay? Would you
Speaker 1: be all right with the federal government saying, oh, sorry,
Speaker 1: we've had a lot of cases. Of course, it would
Speaker 1: be Florida. They would pick on right now, a lot
Speaker 1: of cases in Florida. So no one's allowed to leave
Speaker 1: a state of Florida. And they put, you know, troops
Speaker 1: on the border and shut down all the airports. No
Speaker 1: one can leave Florida. Public health, public safety. I think
Speaker 1: there's a lot I know this is just a thought experiment,
Speaker 1: but there's a lot of people in America right now
Speaker 1: who have Fauci said, that's what we need, they would
Speaker 1: do it, they'd go along with it. I would be
Speaker 1: at the point where I would have to say it
Speaker 1: is time to take up arms. We cannot allow that.
Speaker 1: That is the kind of tyranny that was warned about
Speaker 1: in the Constitution. That is the kind of tyranny that
Speaker 1: was the basis for the Second Amendment. Right, you can't
Speaker 1: go anywhere you didn't do anything wrong because the public
Speaker 1: because the public health authorities say so, for how long?
Speaker 1: How long can they lock you in your home? I mean,
Speaker 1: is this communist China you started to see? I understand
Speaker 1: we're not at that point. I know that we have
Speaker 1: not yet gotten there, but we've been moving in that direction,
Speaker 1: and there's been far too little willingness to have a
Speaker 1: discussion about what are the red lines here. Finally, it
Speaker 1: seems the New York Times. Finally, The New York Times
Speaker 1: has published something where they're saying, you know what, this
Speaker 1: has gone too far, and they liken it to the
Speaker 1: overreaction to the AIDS crisis, which is interesting on many levels,
Speaker 1: but one of them is that doctor Fauci was one
Speaker 1: of the people who was just stunningly, horrifically wrong about
Speaker 1: who is really at risk from HIV and what public
Speaker 1: health measures would help contain that virus. You can go
Speaker 1: back and say this is all public record, because that's
Speaker 1: that's how long Fauci is running the CDC or an
Speaker 1: IAH or whatever. That's how long Faucci has been in
Speaker 1: public health. Since he's been there since the eighties. Think
Speaker 1: about this. This guy has been in this game a
Speaker 1: very long time. Terribly wrong on HIV. But let me
Speaker 1: go to this, this piece in the New York Times.
Speaker 1: In a public health emergency, absolutism is a very tempting response.
Speaker 1: People should cease all behavior that creates additional risk. That
Speaker 1: instinct led to calls for gay men to stop having
Speaker 1: sex during the AIDS crisis, and has also spurred campaigns
Speaker 1: for teen abstinence to reduce STDs and to fight obesity.
Speaker 1: People have been drawn to fads like the elimination of
Speaker 1: trans fats. These days, there is a new absolutist health fad,
Speaker 1: the discouragement or even prohibition of any behavior that seems
Speaker 1: to increase the risk of coronavirus infection. Even minutely. People
Speaker 1: continue to scream at joggers, walkers, and cyclists who are
Speaker 1: not wearing masks. The University of California, Berkeley this week
Speaker 1: banned outdoor exercise masked or not, saying the risk is real.
Speaker 1: The University of Massachusetts Amherst has banned outdoor walks. It
Speaker 1: encouraged students to get exercise by accessing food and participating
Speaker 1: in twice weekly COVID testing. A related trend is hygiene theater.
Speaker 1: As Derrick Thompson of the Atlantic described it. The New
Speaker 1: York City subway system closes every night, for example, so
Speaker 1: that workers can perform a deep cleaning. There are two
Speaker 1: big questions to ask about these actions. How much are
Speaker 1: they doing to reduce the spread of the virus and
Speaker 1: do they have any downside? The answer to the first question,
Speaker 1: according to many experts, is they seem to do little good.
Speaker 1: Prohibiting outdoor activity is unlikely to reduce the spread of
Speaker 1: the virus, nor is urging people always to wear a
Speaker 1: mask outdoors. End quote. Who has been saying this? I
Speaker 1: don't mean to this, I told you so thing, but
Speaker 1: I've been telling you this along and I know you
Speaker 1: listen to me because you grieve me, because you're smart
Speaker 1: and you understand what's going on. So we've been saying
Speaker 1: this for how many months. You and I we've been
Speaker 1: telling anybody who listens for how long outdoor masking is crazy.
Speaker 1: There is no data to support this. There's no reason
Speaker 1: to believe people need to do this unless you are
Speaker 1: up close to people so that your breath is actively
Speaker 1: hitting them in the face for ten or fifteen minutes
Speaker 1: at a time. So yes, you know, should you go
Speaker 1: shoulder to shoulder one hundred people in a protest, Probably not,
Speaker 1: But walking around on the street, I mean I want
Speaker 1: to bang the table. There is no science or data
Speaker 1: to support outdoor masking. Why won't Fouchi say that? Why
Speaker 1: won't Fouchie say it? Because he's a little coward, that's why.
Speaker 1: Because he wants the establishment. He wants the Democrats to
Speaker 1: like him. He wants to be the man of science.
Speaker 1: If they were reasonable, I would give greater leeway for
Speaker 1: them to be wrong on things where they're wrong, based
Speaker 1: in good faith. Do I think, for example, that the
Speaker 1: you know that masking is an is an exaggerated defense
Speaker 1: against this virus because the Left has politicized this, I
Speaker 1: think it's exaggerated. Yes, I think you can work in
Speaker 1: certain circumstances, in certain times, or in a hunt, if
Speaker 1: you wear it one hundred percent of the time correctly
Speaker 1: a friend mask? Can it help somewhat? Not a lot?
Speaker 1: Go look at go look at the data on measles,
Speaker 1: aerosolized virus. Go look at the data on measles, and
Speaker 1: you'll see if you go into a room and you've
Speaker 1: got a cloth mask on you and you're susceptible, you're
Speaker 1: you're still getting measles basically if you're there for more
Speaker 1: than twenty minutes. So it's not one hundred percent, it's
Speaker 1: not even close to one hundred percent, and no one
Speaker 1: knows what the real percentage is. But just based on
Speaker 1: the observations we have of places where there's widespread masking,
Speaker 1: it's clearly not as effective as they said, which is
Speaker 1: why they're demanding double masks now. And I told you
Speaker 1: they would six months ago, nine months ago. They're going
Speaker 1: to claim double masking needs to happen. Why would they
Speaker 1: say if a mask is so effective, why is it
Speaker 1: double masks now? Because they have to go to the
Speaker 1: next thing. The logic of the absolutism here is, oh,
Speaker 1: we just dot didn't do it enough. It's like the
Speaker 1: logic of supporting communism. Oh my god, it's ruined society. Oh,
Speaker 1: this wasn't the right kind of communism, right, this wasn't
Speaker 1: the right kind of fauciism we've suffered through in this country.
Speaker 1: That's why we didn't stop the virus in its tracks.
Speaker 1: But you know, if they were willing to be fair
Speaker 1: and say things like no, there was no reason to
Speaker 1: mask outdoors. There was never any reason to shut down gyms.
Speaker 1: That that was also crazy. There was never enough of
Speaker 1: a risk in restaurants where people are seated at different
Speaker 1: tables with decent ventilation to shut down all these restaurants.
Speaker 1: New York City thought that one percent. This is the
Speaker 1: most restaurants, the densest city in the country. They thought
Speaker 1: that about one point six percent of COVID cases were
Speaker 1: coming from restaurants. One point six percent, and you're shutting down,
Speaker 1: you know, Can we focus on the other eight ninety
Speaker 1: eight point four percent? Oh no, because that's harder, that's
Speaker 1: harder to get compliance over. You see, they're wrong. They've
Speaker 1: been wrong a lot, and some people are starting even
Speaker 1: Notice that if you don't tell the crazies to stop
Speaker 1: being crazy, it keeps going. It keeps going. Get exercise
Speaker 1: when you leave your room for your twice weekly COVID test,
Speaker 1: they say at the University of Massachusetts. I mean that
Speaker 1: place is now effectively an insane asylum. And now I
Speaker 1: also have to think about how much real and serious
Speaker 1: and honest mental health destruction is going on across the
Speaker 1: country because of this, and it almost becomes a self
Speaker 1: fulfilling prophecy. Make people terrified, lonely and depressed, and tell
Speaker 1: them the only way things will get better is if
Speaker 1: they do the things that are making them more terrified,
Speaker 1: lonely and depressed. That is our COVID policy. In a nutshell.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. More on this COVID absolutism
Speaker 1: in the New York Times. Finally, some sanity appearing in
Speaker 1: the pages of the New York Times when it comes
Speaker 1: to COVID quote. Worldwide, scientists have not documented any instances
Speaker 1: of outdoor transmission unless people were in close conversation. According
Speaker 1: to doctor Mooge Savic, an infectious disease specialist at the
Speaker 1: University of Saint Andrews in Scotland, the small number of
Speaker 1: cases where outdoor transmission might have occurred. We're associated with
Speaker 1: close interactions, particularly extended duration or settings where people mixed
Speaker 1: indoors alongside an outdoor setting, ie. Extreme close contact outside.
Speaker 1: You know, yeah, if someone spittle is hitting you in
Speaker 1: the face, you can get COVID from them. Obviously, if
Speaker 1: you are walking out in open air, there is no
Speaker 1: risk of COVID to people not next to you. None. Okay,
Speaker 1: We've had millions and millions and millions of cases around
Speaker 1: the world. We've had a year of this. Why can't foucy,
Speaker 1: Why can't the experts come out and say this, Because
Speaker 1: once they start to release some control and people see
Speaker 1: it's okay, then they might start to think for themselves
Speaker 1: in other areas that might think, Wow, maybe I shouldn't
Speaker 1: be under so much control for all these other things
Speaker 1: going on too. The new variants of the virus are
Speaker 1: more contagious, but there is no evidence to suggest they
Speaker 1: will change this pattern with regard to outdoor transmission. As
Speaker 1: my colleague Tara Parker Pope puts it, avoid breathing the
Speaker 1: air that other people exhale. A student walking across campus,
Speaker 1: let alone a masked student, he writes, presents little risk
Speaker 1: to another student who remains six feet away. The same
Speaker 1: goes for joggers in your neighborhood. The story is similar
Speaker 1: for deep cleaning. Scientists increasingly say there's little to no
Speaker 1: evidence that contaminated surfaces can spread the virus. The one
Speaker 1: surface that is important to wash frequently and vigorously is
Speaker 1: the human hand. That's right, because your human hand goes
Speaker 1: in your eye, let's be honest, in your mouth, in
Speaker 1: your nose, and that's why your hand washing does make
Speaker 1: it difference is helpful. But I mean they have they
Speaker 1: have a photo here of a guy who's deadlifting with
Speaker 1: a face mask on, and that hits home because I'm
Speaker 1: doing that now as often as I can, and it's moronic.
Speaker 1: I'm usually alone in the gym with a mask on,
Speaker 1: exercising because they say so, because Cuomo and the morons
Speaker 1: and the Faucii cowards say so. Taking every possible precaution
Speaker 1: back to this piece is unrealistic. Human beings are social
Speaker 1: creatures who crave connection and pleasure and cannot minimize danger
Speaker 1: at all times. Despite the risks, we eat carbs, drink wine,
Speaker 1: go sledding, even rideing automobiles. We enjoy taking outdoor walks
Speaker 1: and drinking a cup of coffee on a public bench. Peep.
Speaker 1: Many people who find exercise of exercise find it difficult
Speaker 1: to do so in a mask. It feels a bit
Speaker 1: like suffocating. You're damn right. The lockdowners need to stop
Speaker 1: being crazy. The science is not on their side. This
Speaker 1: is Buck's first thoughts, the newsy to get through your
Speaker 1: day in forty five minutes. Make sure you subscribe on
Speaker 1: the iHeart ASP before wherever you get your podcasts. We
Speaker 1: got our friend Jack Potsobic from One America News with
Speaker 1: us now. He's a correspondent and he's a former intelligence analyst.
Speaker 1: So he's my ic brother from another mother. Jack. Good
Speaker 1: to see you, Block, always a pleasure man. So you're
Speaker 1: in DC and we still have this National Guard deployment
Speaker 1: going on here? What what's happening with this? Why is
Speaker 1: this continuing on even when it seems any reasonable expectation
Speaker 1: of threat from the Trump mob or something whatever they
Speaker 1: were saying before is gone. Right, So and to give
Speaker 1: people a sense of what this is like, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm right here on Constitution Avenue in Washington, DC. That's
Speaker 1: where our studios are. That's public and can whip it up,
Speaker 1: but in this building directly in front of it. For
Speaker 1: the last month, now over a month, we've had a
Speaker 1: chain link steel fence top by razor wire put directly
Speaker 1: on top of our sidewalk, so we can't even got
Speaker 1: into the street. You know in Camven parked your car there.
Speaker 1: Immediately behind that are armed troops National Guard, still on
Speaker 1: a daily basis positioned. It's at least throughout the workday.
Speaker 1: I would be surprised to note if they weren't there
Speaker 1: at night. That's where we're seeing some of these parking
Speaker 1: lot images. They're still coming out. These guys are marching,
Speaker 1: they're on foot patrol, and they have been doing absolutely
Speaker 1: nothing other than create a security presence a theater all
Speaker 1: the way since about January eighth. I because when they
Speaker 1: really first got everything out here, and it's incredible to
Speaker 1: me to see these guys. It kind of reminds me
Speaker 1: of the old Monty Python sketch marching up and down
Speaker 1: the square right for no reason. There's been no credible
Speaker 1: threat told to us, but we now hear from the
Speaker 1: headlines that the being gowners have come down on all
Speaker 1: of this. They're looking at a five hundred million dollar
Speaker 1: price tag for this deployment. And keep in mind, this
Speaker 1: is National Guard. These are people who have other jobs,
Speaker 1: they have families, they have wive, kids, etc. And yet
Speaker 1: they're being told to be out here for what. We
Speaker 1: don't know. The latest that we're hearing is that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump himself, when he was president, actually requested ten thousand
Speaker 1: National Guard, not for the inauguration, but for the events
Speaker 1: of January sixth, because he wanted the Capitol we would
Speaker 1: be safe. Apparently his request was denied. I didn't know
Speaker 1: that the commander in chief made requests, by the way,
Speaker 1: but that's another story. Secondly, Ted lew in the well
Speaker 1: of the Senate yesterday made a statement that this deployment
Speaker 1: is going to continue. Why not because there are credible
Speaker 1: and active threats to our capital, and thank god there aren't,
Speaker 1: But he said they are going to stay there until
Speaker 1: Donald Trump concedes the election. What is that? What are
Speaker 1: you doing with our national securities? Head? What are you
Speaker 1: doing with our country? Is this all just a struggle
Speaker 1: session for Trump and Trump supporters? And are you really
Speaker 1: telling us that you're abusing the power of the United
Speaker 1: States military for political purposes? Because I gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: it sure feels an awful lot like that, you know.
Speaker 1: I spoke Jack to House House Intelligence Committee member Devin
Speaker 1: Nuness earlier this week, interviewed him, and I asked him
Speaker 1: straight up, I said, have you seen any intelligence at
Speaker 1: all that indicates that there's a need for a continuing
Speaker 1: National Guard presence in DC? He said, absolutely not. And
Speaker 1: he said, in addition to that, why are we having
Speaker 1: a trial right now for Trump based on an incitement
Speaker 1: to an insurrection? Where there are still very important questions
Speaker 1: that need answers and therefore that require investigation, like who
Speaker 1: was in the chain of command on the day of
Speaker 1: January sixth, for how many security personnel we're going to
Speaker 1: be there, what decisions were made? Why can't how can
Speaker 1: we have a real answer about this if we don't
Speaker 1: know to what degree was this planned in advance, what
Speaker 1: decisions were made on the day of These are all
Speaker 1: things that you would need to know. But it feels
Speaker 1: a bit like Jack, the Democrats are just planning to
Speaker 1: run with the narrative irrespective of what holes there are
Speaker 1: in the actual story. We'll see, But this is where
Speaker 1: your background and my background come into play, because when
Speaker 1: we look when there's been a tactical event. We want
Speaker 1: to know everything that happened, Blue force, red force, right,
Speaker 1: We want to know what type of planning was there,
Speaker 1: where where did these pipe bombs come from? That we
Speaker 1: still haven't identified the perpetrator. You know, we can see
Speaker 1: their hoodie and their shoes, you know, the Nike Air Maxes,
Speaker 1: but we can't tell when those pipe bombs were put.
Speaker 1: Oh wait, was it the sixth or was it the
Speaker 1: fifth because originally the FBI said it was January sixth.
Speaker 1: Later we find out that they were actually in place
Speaker 1: the night before. Who was that? Why were they placed
Speaker 1: the night before? Obviously this was you know, it goes
Speaker 1: to the heart of the question. But you know, we
Speaker 1: don't want to know this stuff for political purposes. We
Speaker 1: want to know if there actually are domestic terrorists that
Speaker 1: are trying to bomb the United States capital, regardless of
Speaker 1: their reasons or political ideology. Right, this is a national
Speaker 1: security matter obviously. Second, we want to know what was
Speaker 1: the chain in command breakdown? Where was the intelligence failure?
Speaker 1: Where was the operational fail We've seen the eight page
Speaker 1: letter now from the former Capitol Police chief chiefs Sons,
Speaker 1: and he wrote that he requested National Guard multiple times.
Speaker 1: He was denied that by the now former sergeant Arms
Speaker 1: the House and Senate clearly was denied by Mayor Bowser,
Speaker 1: who still has her tweet up bragging about how she's
Speaker 1: denying Trump's request for National Guard to be deployed because
Speaker 1: there was this you know, people forget because it's gone
Speaker 1: so far and the gas lighting is so strong from
Speaker 1: this eachment. And that's really the point of everything here
Speaker 1: is that there was a narrative in sort of like
Speaker 1: the left wing media universe that Trump was going to
Speaker 1: deploy the National Guard. He wanted to in order to
Speaker 1: kind of enact his own coup of the government, to
Speaker 1: stop Congress, to suspend their operations and stay in office.
Speaker 1: I'm sure you remember, like like they were talking about
Speaker 1: that on MSNBC. Yes, it was. MSNBC has had all
Speaker 1: kinds of theories out there. I Mean, the one thing
Speaker 1: that's that's astonishing to me is to this day we
Speaker 1: have seen an MSNBC pretending that there was a credible
Speaker 1: threat of overthrow of the government from the so called insurrection.
Speaker 1: How was that going to happen. The people that were
Speaker 1: the so called insurrectionists weren't even arm Jack. So the
Speaker 1: guy with the body pains and the plastic Viking horns
Speaker 1: and the face you know, the face paint was actually
Speaker 1: going to try to throw over the US government. It's
Speaker 1: it just completely flies in the face of reason. Look,
Speaker 1: we all know that the events were terrible, but we
Speaker 1: also have to be serious and sober about what actually happened.
Speaker 1: And we're they're bad actor elements that went in to
Speaker 1: try to incite this violence, to try to actually make
Speaker 1: this this what was purported to be a peaceful protest
Speaker 1: was planning to be a peaceful protest, which, by the way,
Speaker 1: ninety nine percent of the people remained peaceful and stood outside.
Speaker 1: I was I was there across the street watching the
Speaker 1: entire thing. Um, you know, I was on the roof
Speaker 1: right here again, right across the street from the Capitol Dome.
Speaker 1: And for the most part you stood. You saw people
Speaker 1: just standing around the lawn who didn't know what was
Speaker 1: going on. Even funny enough, I was there outside. I
Speaker 1: didn't know what was going on inside the Capitol until
Speaker 1: one of my producers called me and said, have you
Speaker 1: seen these videos on Twitter? I said, no, I'm outside.
Speaker 1: There's no signal what's going on. And they're they're telling
Speaker 1: me about this and I said, really, because outside it's
Speaker 1: it's it's dead. People are just kind of standing around.
Speaker 1: Nobody knows what's going on. Jack, I want to switch
Speaker 1: gears for we're speaking of Jack Posobic of one American
Speaker 1: news network, and Jack, and tell everybody. I like to
Speaker 1: tell everybody that you're not only former Intel analyst, but
Speaker 1: you're a China specialist and a Mandarin speaker. So this
Speaker 1: is right in the center of your wheelhouse. What are
Speaker 1: we seeing from she and what are we seeing from
Speaker 1: Shijinping a Chinese communist party? With this new Biden administration
Speaker 1: that you find troubling and explain to people why, you know,
Speaker 1: a lot of foreign policy just sounds like an intellectual
Speaker 1: exercise when it comes to China. It affects everybody. Everyone
Speaker 1: who's listening to this. If they don't care about China,
Speaker 1: China cares about them, well, I would point it to
Speaker 1: everybody else that you know, if you're in one of
Speaker 1: these states that's still locked down, if you're going into
Speaker 1: a restaurant or a movie theater, or you can't go
Speaker 1: into a restaurant or a movie theater staring a mask,
Speaker 1: if your kids are stuck at home because there's no school.
Speaker 1: That's because of China, and that's because of the leadership
Speaker 1: of the Chinese Communist Party shi Jinping and their mafia
Speaker 1: regime that they have controlling their country that's been there
Speaker 1: for almost a hundred years. Now, this is the regime
Speaker 1: that's responsible for it. Now. Look, we don't know yet
Speaker 1: if this thing came from the Wuhan lab or this
Speaker 1: thing came from the wet market there and the pangolins
Speaker 1: and the bats. But what we do know is that
Speaker 1: when the WHO spends a couple of days going into
Speaker 1: that lab a year after the fact, after they had
Speaker 1: a year to clean up everything that they were doing there,
Speaker 1: and sure Jong Lee, the batwoman of China and the
Speaker 1: gain of function experiments that she was working on, and
Speaker 1: then they come out and say we're not going to
Speaker 1: look at the lab anymore. Within just a couple of
Speaker 1: days of this, it really makes you want to start
Speaker 1: asking questions how much power does the CCP and how
Speaker 1: much influence do they have over these international institutions. That's
Speaker 1: the same thing we're seeing now with the Biden administration,
Speaker 1: where you saw that in that interview with sixty Minutes,
Speaker 1: he was deferential to Chijin pink. He said, I don't
Speaker 1: want to insult him. I think he's undemocratic, but I
Speaker 1: don't mean it as an insult. What kind of a
Speaker 1: statement is for an American president to make. We were
Speaker 1: Tony Blanket during his confirmation, the new Secretary of State say,
Speaker 1: we wanted to exercise strategic patients. Strategic patients really while
Speaker 1: they're encroaching on the Taiwan Strait, while they're pushing through
Speaker 1: the South China see it, through international waters and building
Speaker 1: militarized islands. But we want to be patient with them.
Speaker 1: This is all a turn back to the Obama Bush
Speaker 1: Clinton era of allowing China to get away with whatever
Speaker 1: they want to turn over this massive the keys to
Speaker 1: this massive economic engine that is US capital to have
Speaker 1: that continue to flow into Chinese coffers in Shanghai and
Speaker 1: Beijing and of course in Wuhan, and then also to
Speaker 1: put up this sort of I would almost call it
Speaker 1: like a like a fake opposition, you know, like a
Speaker 1: controlled opposition. You know. So I was in the Navy
Speaker 1: as a Navy officer, right, and we constantly would run
Speaker 1: these freedom of operation or freedom of navigation operations in
Speaker 1: South China. See, we just ran one again through the
Speaker 1: Taiwan straight. That's what they call it, when two carriers
Speaker 1: will operate or destroyer. We'll go through the Taiwan straight.
Speaker 1: Here's and we make such a big deal out of it.
Speaker 1: The Navy makes a huge deal about it. The Pentagon
Speaker 1: makes a huge deal. We're standing up to the Chinese.
Speaker 1: We're standing up to Chinese expansionism of the PLA. And
Speaker 1: and here's the thing. The People's Republic of China could
Speaker 1: care less. They say, Great, you can watch us as
Speaker 1: we're building our fleets. You can watch us as our
Speaker 1: aircraft carrier capability expands. You can watch us as we
Speaker 1: steal your technology and then use it against you. You
Speaker 1: can watch as our cybersecurity or as our cyber operations
Speaker 1: move to dismantle your ships and disrupt your operations. Right
Speaker 1: and again, you saw this on that phone call, the
Speaker 1: readout we got from Chijin Pingham Joe Biden, he wishes
Speaker 1: him happy Chinese New Year. He's talking about, Wow, you
Speaker 1: know we care so much about these, about the human
Speaker 1: rights abuses, Shinjong. It's all very very bad. Bringing the hands,
Speaker 1: no discussion whatsoever at the economic levers of power that
Speaker 1: can be used that is something that you know, regardless
Speaker 1: of you know you want to be a Trump supporter
Speaker 1: and not a Trump supporter. But he understood that economic
Speaker 1: leverage is America's best and really only level of influence
Speaker 1: with the People's Republic of China. Now you're seeing that
Speaker 1: is that failed policy from beforehand, which really is their
Speaker 1: intention to allow China to expand, to allow this economic
Speaker 1: and financial engine to be fueled and financed by who
Speaker 1: us in many cases, and then really to just put
Speaker 1: up this sort of well I puffed my chest and
Speaker 1: I beat my hands and rattled my sabers, but in
Speaker 1: the end, China is still one. What do you think
Speaker 1: China is going to do? We only got about a
Speaker 1: minute or two here, Jack, But what do you think
Speaker 1: China is going to do in order to win against
Speaker 1: this Biden administration. Well, we need to be very careful
Speaker 1: about in the next one to two years, coming up
Speaker 1: to twenty twenty two, is looking at Shijin Ping and
Speaker 1: his interest in Taiwan. If he feels that his position
Speaker 1: is threatened. Twenty twenty two is ear he was supposed
Speaker 1: to step down as president. He then declared himself the
Speaker 1: Chairman for Life General Secretary of the Party. If he
Speaker 1: feels threatened, if he feels his positioned his threatened, I
Speaker 1: guarantee you he will institute a naval blockade of Taiwan,
Speaker 1: and he will try to force Taiwan and the West
Speaker 1: into a Hong Kong style turnover agreement to solidify his
Speaker 1: position within the Pologro Standing Committee as that Secretary Chairman
Speaker 1: of the Chinese Communist Party. Jack Bosobic One American News, Jack,
Speaker 1: my friend. Always good to see you, always going to
Speaker 1: talk to you. Thanks so much. Thanks block always a pleasure.