Speaker 1: Why from vall Hartbeiner and the Crossroads of America. It's
Speaker 1: Tony Katz today. The vast majority of people in America
Speaker 1: know nothing about the Great Barrington Declaration. And the reason
Speaker 1: they don't know about it is because, well, it didn't
Speaker 1: get much play. Oh it was outrageously important. It was
Speaker 1: doctors and health professionals and scientists saying, you know what
Speaker 1: we're doing regarding COVID. This was in the middle of COVID,
Speaker 1: in the heat of COVID. This is not in any
Speaker 1: way smart or proper or good. This is a horrible
Speaker 1: way to go about things. We don't know what doctor
Speaker 1: Fauci or doctor Bergs or any of these other people
Speaker 1: pretend that they are doing, but they're going to hurt
Speaker 1: a lot of people. There's a better way to do this.
Speaker 1: And as you know, and I know, and we know,
Speaker 1: many of those messages got silenced, whether it be from
Speaker 1: some of the leading doctors and scientists and health professionals,
Speaker 1: or whether it be you asking a basic question on
Speaker 1: social media. Tony, Tony Katz today, good to be with you. Well.
Speaker 1: In the Treasure Trove of Things, the Senator Ran Paul
Speaker 1: released from the Diary of Anthony Fauci, Doctor Anthony Fauci emails, etc.
Speaker 1: Was this notification? You can find it. I've got it
Speaker 1: over at tonykats dot com. This email that Fauci sent
Speaker 1: to doctor Deborah Burks, you know, the one who wears
Speaker 1: the scarves, asking her to come out against the Great
Speaker 1: Barrington Declaration. Phil Magnus joins me right now. His work
Speaker 1: is at the Independent Institute, where he is a Senior
Speaker 1: Fellow and the David J. Threaux Chair in Political Economy.
Speaker 1: He also works with the American Institute for Economic Research,
Speaker 1: where he was formerly the fa Hiak Share in Economics
Speaker 1: at Economic History, which means he knows a lot of
Speaker 1: things that we don't, which is good because this does
Speaker 1: have a lot of economic connotations to it. He is
Speaker 1: also the author of the sixteen nineteen project Myth and
Speaker 1: Cracks in the Ivory Tower The Moral Mess of Higher Education,
Speaker 1: both of which touch on the concept of what it
Speaker 1: is we are told versus what it is that is.
Speaker 1: Phil Magnus, thanks for taking the time. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: You got a heck of a resume there. But I
Speaker 1: want to discuss the Great Barrington Declaration. Let's start where
Speaker 1: we start, which is what is the Great Barrington Declaration.
Speaker 2: Absolutely so I was one of a very small number
Speaker 2: of people that was actually in the room when the
Speaker 2: thing was signed in October twenty twenty. And this was
Speaker 2: a document basically challenging the idea that lockdowns were the
Speaker 2: way to deal with the pandemic, that pointed out that
Speaker 2: lockdowns not only were on a very swim evidentiary basis
Speaker 2: they didn't work, but on top of that, they cost
Speaker 2: all sorts of social harms, economic harms. They put people
Speaker 2: out of work, caused mental health issues, kept kids out
Speaker 2: of schools. And this was a document that came together
Speaker 2: during the second wave of COVID. If you remember, in
Speaker 2: fall twenty twenty, the cases were ticking up again and
Speaker 2: all of the people who had locked us down back
Speaker 2: in the spring started revisiting those ideas, and in some
Speaker 2: cases many states and many countries are in the world,
Speaker 2: they did re enact lockdowns again in the fall of
Speaker 2: twenty twenty. But what happened is we got a group
Speaker 2: of scientists together, and this was Jay Bodicheria, who's now
Speaker 2: Fauci's replacement boss figure at the NIH. Donald Trump appointed
Speaker 2: him in part because of his reputation entered this Martin
Speaker 2: Koldorf of Harvard at the time, and Sinetric up to
Speaker 2: of Oxford. So three physicians came together, we held a
Speaker 2: conference on the case against lockdowns, and they articulated those
Speaker 2: principles in a short to say summary statement to challenge
Speaker 2: the return of this policy that Fauci and Berks and
Speaker 2: some of the other figures in the so called public
Speaker 2: health establishment were pushing at the time.
Speaker 1: One of the things the Great Barrington Declaration states, and
Speaker 1: Great Barrington is where air is located. Correct, that's the
Speaker 1: specific town that it's in. It reads coming from both
Speaker 1: the left and right, and around the world, we have
Speaker 1: devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are
Speaker 1: producing devastating effects on short and long term public health.
Speaker 1: The result, to name a few, include lower childhood vaccination
Speaker 1: rates worse than cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings, and
Speaker 1: deteriorating mental health lead into greater excess mortality in years
Speaker 1: to come, with the working class in younger members of
Speaker 1: society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school
Speaker 1: is a grave injustice. When we think of the time
Speaker 1: October twenty twenty as you're describing it, sir. This was
Speaker 1: a very near radical thing to say everything we're hearing
Speaker 1: from on high is wrong. It's a danger. Let us
Speaker 1: say so it gets signed. What was the reaction and
Speaker 1: the response to the Great Barrington Declaration.
Speaker 2: Initially it was very positive. It kind of went viral
Speaker 2: on the internet, got picked up in some major news
Speaker 2: media sources. I think the Wall Street Journal covered it.
Speaker 2: Fox News picked it up, and they pointed out that
Speaker 2: this says, finally somebody is challenging Anthony Fauci and this
Speaker 2: policy that he has been pushing for several months now
Speaker 2: that doesn't seem to be working, doesn't seem to be
Speaker 2: addressing the pandemic, and oh, by the way, it has
Speaker 2: all these other costs and consequences. So that was the
Speaker 2: initial reactions, generally positive, kind of recognizing, hey, we could
Speaker 2: finally have the scientific debate we were denied in the spring.
Speaker 2: And then all of a sudden, this is probably about
Speaker 2: three or four days after the decoration was signed, the
Speaker 2: media turned outright hostile against it, attacks on the authors,
Speaker 2: calling them frings, epidemiologists. We got deboosted on the Google links,
Speaker 2: Google searches from it. It used to appear on the
Speaker 2: top page along with news media coverage of it, and
Speaker 2: then suddenly, all of a sudden, it's on page four
Speaker 2: behind crazy conspiracy blogs announcing the Great Bearington Declaration is
Speaker 2: going to kill us all. So very rapid switch in
Speaker 2: the public discussion around it, and it was kind of
Speaker 2: mystifying at the time of why that had happened, because
Speaker 2: all we were asking for was a public debate over
Speaker 2: the science, a public debate over whether lockdowns actually did
Speaker 2: what they promised to do.
Speaker 1: Talking to Phil Magnus, Senior fellow at the Independent Institute,
Speaker 1: David J. Throwhare and political economy and his work with
Speaker 1: Aier the American Institute for Economic Research, where he was
Speaker 1: formerly the Fa Hyak Chair in Economics and Economic History,
Speaker 1: and we could certainly tie in a lot of what
Speaker 1: we saw in the COVID days to what we have
Speaker 1: seen in economic reality today. But there's also an economic
Speaker 1: reality of what we have done to generations and what
Speaker 1: it is we were doing in trying to from other
Speaker 1: groups silencing this kind of talk you talk about, all
Speaker 1: of a sudden it was removed from search engines, etc.
Speaker 1: This brings us to this email that doctor Fauci sent
Speaker 1: out to Deborah Burks saying, so, just a heads up.
Speaker 1: Over the past week, I've come out very strongly publicly
Speaker 1: against the Great Barrington Declaration. This was from October sixteenth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, and asking her to do the same. To
Speaker 1: come out against this. In a world of so called science,
Speaker 1: people can be hey, I disagree. What was it like
Speaker 1: for him to come out against it? How did that
Speaker 1: play out?
Speaker 2: Well, we found out after the fact. You know, all
Speaker 2: this sudden explosion of hate and demonization that was occurring
Speaker 2: around the Great Bearrington Declaration, it actually had a cause,
Speaker 2: and Anthony Fauci was a major player in that cause.
Speaker 2: Filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the NIH
Speaker 2: office where Fauci worked, way back in twenty twenty one,
Speaker 2: and it actually kind of opened the door to looking
Speaker 2: into this. So all the committee investigation that Ran Paul
Speaker 2: has pursued ever since then, a couple of the lawsuits
Speaker 2: around it. Kind of the starting point was the discovery
Speaker 2: of an email, and this is an email from Fauci's
Speaker 2: boss at the time, Francis Collins, to him saying, this
Speaker 2: Great Barrington Declaration things going around. It has all these
Speaker 2: fringe epidemiologists that are challenging lockdowns and colins ordered Fauci said,
Speaker 2: I want you to write and publish a devastating published
Speaker 2: takedown of these authors and basically as a directive to
Speaker 2: get this underway because we need to counter it. And Fauci,
Speaker 2: it turns out, is that new email we got from
Speaker 2: Rand Paul's committee and new foyas that have come true.
Speaker 2: He actually engages in a very coordinated campaign to smear
Speaker 2: the Great Marrington Declaration in the media, in the press,
Speaker 2: behind the scenes in the White House. He is a
Speaker 2: consummate political actor, not a scientist, is what all these
Speaker 2: emails tend to confirm. He's not looking at the evidence
Speaker 2: on lockdowns or the arguments that were being made. He's
Speaker 2: circulating political editorials in favor of lockdowns and calling friends
Speaker 2: in the White House to try to suppress anti lockdown voices.
Speaker 2: So one of the members of the COVID task force
Speaker 2: that was a skeptic of lockdowns is doctor Scott Atlas,
Speaker 2: who's from Stanford University. He was brought in to kind
Speaker 2: of be a counter voice to Fauci, and it turns
Speaker 2: out right around the time of the Great Bearrington Declaration, Atlas,
Speaker 2: who had been favorable to it gets on Fauci's bad side,
Speaker 2: and Fauci starts this campaign with Burks to try to
Speaker 2: get him fired and removed from the COVID Task Force
Speaker 2: because they don't want any dissent internally. That's pushing for
Speaker 2: a document like the Great Bearrington Declaration. They wanted be
Speaker 2: able to call the shots on lockdowns. So, rather than
Speaker 2: this being Fauci the science, as he often declared himself
Speaker 2: to be, it's actually Tauci the political operative who is
Speaker 2: trying to maintain control of the narrative and control over
Speaker 2: the policy and steer it toward lockdowns.
Speaker 1: So the reason I speak to you certainly your connection
Speaker 1: to the Great Barrington Declaration. But this view of this
Speaker 1: in terms of the economics, right economics we think of
Speaker 1: his dollars and cents, But economics is taking a look
Speaker 1: at a situation and asking ourselves, how can we predict
Speaker 1: the consequences right this? Now, Milton Friedman would describe economics,
Speaker 1: how do you predict the consequences of changes in circumstances?
Speaker 1: And I do find myself to be a Milton Friedman guy,
Speaker 1: Thomas Sowell guy. I would be more of an fa
Speaker 1: Hiat guy. But just the reading is so incredibly boring.
Speaker 1: It's so just if he could write the way he
Speaker 1: would think, I would be a happy man. But the
Speaker 1: writing was just tedious. Is I'll get out? But we
Speaker 1: talk about the economic consequences, to which there were none
Speaker 1: that came into the thinking. And it seemed to me
Speaker 1: that the Great Barrington Declaration dealt with all of the
Speaker 1: potential consequences, and doctor Fauci, doctor Burke's mainstream media cared
Speaker 1: not about consequences, but cared about fear for a purpose.
Speaker 1: Is that the correct assessment in your view?
Speaker 2: I think it is absolutely the case. You know, as
Speaker 2: you mentioned, incentives matter, secondary and tertiary effects of decisions
Speaker 2: we make. They matter. And one of the things that
Speaker 2: happened with the lockdowns, it's not just shutting society down
Speaker 2: to keep this disease supposedly contained, although we find out
Speaker 2: that doesn't work either under lockdowns, like the whole theory
Speaker 2: behind it was wrong. Shutting down society also means that
Speaker 2: people can't go to work. They also can't go out
Speaker 2: to the store unless they're wearing a mask and walking
Speaker 2: in the direction of the stickers on the floor. Hours
Speaker 2: non essential businesses are shut down, and you start thinking
Speaker 2: about this, What are some of the consequences of that.
Speaker 2: That means that if I'm living paycheck to paycheck and
Speaker 2: suddenly my job, my business, my restaurant that I work at,
Speaker 2: is no longer allowed to be open, that means I
Speaker 2: no longer have a paycheck coming in. And if you're
Speaker 2: sitting there in COVID and you say you're a reporter
Speaker 2: for the New York Times, you can do your job
Speaker 2: at home on a laptop. You can watch Netflix, you
Speaker 2: can get Uber Eats or door Dash or something to
Speaker 2: deliver your meals, and life is actually pretty good. It's
Speaker 2: not disrupted. But if you're just working, you know, paycheck
Speaker 2: to paycheck and a service industry job, and you're basically
Speaker 2: being told you're no longer essential, you're out of work,
Speaker 2: and maybe you have a rent payment or a car
Speaker 2: payment due next month, well you're out of luck. This
Speaker 2: is a real economic strain, and we saw it early
Speaker 2: in the pandemic. The states that had the more restrictive
Speaker 2: lockdown policies shot up in unemployment. You had very clear
Speaker 2: state level measures of this that the worst the lockdown
Speaker 2: state was the higher the unemployment rate, and states that
Speaker 2: remained relatively open or that ended the lockdowns early on,
Speaker 2: like Florida Will their economies rebounded and this has tangible
Speaker 2: effects on the quality of life and the ability to
Speaker 2: even get by for working class Americans, and those were
Speaker 2: completely disregarded by Fauci and people I would call the
Speaker 2: laptop class who could have the luxury of working from
Speaker 2: home and ordering Uber eats and sitting there on their
Speaker 2: laptops while the service industry suffered.
Speaker 1: Is there concrete data you can point to regarding we
Speaker 1: did this and here's the results we see it. We
Speaker 1: take a look at inflation right now, which certainly I
Speaker 1: could have with you the conversation regarding whether or not
Speaker 1: tariffs are still leading to that as an increase in
Speaker 1: cost and keeping too much cash in the system. We
Speaker 1: could take a look at specific job sectors and see
Speaker 1: whether or not they've recovered and whether or not it
Speaker 1: has been investment in AI that's actually been leading to
Speaker 1: certain issues as opposed to damage done. We could take
Speaker 1: a look at education outcomes as well. What can be
Speaker 1: pointed to as this is the result of this shutdown
Speaker 1: and here is the damage done, or maybe you can
Speaker 1: tell me the other way, Well, here's a surprising success
Speaker 1: that came from it, and if the damage is done,
Speaker 1: what does it take to get out of it?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Yeah, I guess there's two direct implications of COVID,
Speaker 2: and one was the immediate I sort of mentioned, is
Speaker 2: like the shutting down of the economy caused people to
Speaker 2: lose their jobs. And yes, when we reopened those jobs
Speaker 2: came back, but we were more or less operating in
Speaker 2: an enforced recession for about a year during COVID. That
Speaker 2: means people are worse off regardless. That means that not
Speaker 2: only is it gnomic arm to disruption to their everyday lives,
Speaker 2: and we saw that in the unemployment data. We saw
Speaker 2: that in the economy essentially crashed in early twenty twenty
Speaker 2: and it took a while to rebound. The second, the
Speaker 2: longer term effect is what did we do in response? Well,
Speaker 2: politicians of course panicked when the economy was shut down,
Speaker 2: when people were closed out of their job, says well,
Speaker 2: we need to pass stimulus checks. We need to create
Speaker 2: all these government programs to hold people over. If we're
Speaker 2: going to lock them down, let's throw them a bone. Basically,
Speaker 2: so we had the succession of these stimulus checks that
Speaker 2: were payouts essentially done on debt from the US government.
Speaker 2: There wasn't any revenue to pay for it, but it
Speaker 2: was just to hold people over. And those stimulus checks
Speaker 2: basically get absorbed into the macroeconomic situation of the federal
Speaker 2: government and become one of the major impetuses in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty two. So a couple of years later, in the
Speaker 2: inflationary crisis, we dumped a bunch of money to the economy,
Speaker 2: and we pretended as if it was, you know, basically
Speaker 2: a new big deal and it would take care of
Speaker 2: itself and work its way through the system. Well, Joe
Speaker 2: Biden mismanaged the inflationary crisis because it was all supposed
Speaker 2: to be transitory and passed through. And here we are,
Speaker 2: you know, four years later, still dealing with the repercussions
Speaker 2: of that, which traces back to the stimulus checks, traces
Speaker 2: back to policies that we had to enact during COVID
Speaker 2: as a result of the fact that we shut down
Speaker 2: the entire economy.
Speaker 1: Phil Magnus he is senior fellow at the Independent Institute
Speaker 1: David J. Throw Share and Political Economy, and his work
Speaker 1: at AIRE, the American Institute for Economic Research, where he
Speaker 1: was the fa Hiak at chair. I appreciate you taking
Speaker 1: the time to be with us, give us the breakdown.
Speaker 1: We'll talk economics in the future. I hope more to
Speaker 1: get to keep it here. This is Tony kats today.
Speaker 1: Low key. So that's where we're at. Now we're at
Speaker 1: we're at having a war with Iran, but it's you know,
Speaker 1: slow key, which is different than keeping it on the
Speaker 1: down low. Maybe possibly, I mean, nobody knows what it means,
Speaker 1: so it can mean anything you wanted to mean. Tony Katz,
Speaker 1: Tony Katz today, good to be with you. The president,
Speaker 1: as reported by the people at Axios, saying that you know,
Speaker 1: the war with Iran will continue, but it's gonna be
Speaker 1: low key. We're just gonna keep the economic pressure on.
Speaker 1: We're not gonna worry about bombings and this and that
Speaker 1: and what have you, and that's it now. Axios says
Speaker 1: that Trump expresses no anger or frustration about the fact
Speaker 1: that a deal hasn't been signed with Iran and they're
Speaker 1: getting all tough about the strait. It was the Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal that reported that Trump's losing interest in the
Speaker 1: war and Iran's wants hundreds of billions of dollars in
Speaker 1: order to keep the strait open, and that Iran has
Speaker 1: the advantage over Trump because Trump needs the oil prices down.
Speaker 1: He doesn't have the stomach for this. Oh, he's getting
Speaker 1: tired of this whole thing, and the Iranians believe that
Speaker 1: they could just weight him out. I believe that the
Speaker 1: Iranians do believe they can wait him out. They believe
Speaker 1: they could wait anybody out, which is why no negotiation
Speaker 1: with them will ever work, which is why one should
Speaker 1: not negotiate with them, One should end them. Also, we
Speaker 1: have it clear and understood that there is no way
Speaker 1: to negotiate with You're dealing with the IRGC, which is
Speaker 1: working in different factions, all to their own interests, not
Speaker 1: too necessarily. And this is a solid point that I
Speaker 1: saw somebody else Makeing them like that is a various
Speaker 1: two to observation. It's not even to the Islamist point
Speaker 1: of view, right although they want Israel, Gon and America
Speaker 1: gone because those things are the things that keep them
Speaker 1: from moving forward as pushing the caliphate, but rather they
Speaker 1: are also things that keep them moving forward from being
Speaker 1: the power in the region, which is why they want
Speaker 1: a nuclear weapon. If you think Iran is a problem
Speaker 1: now ran with a nuclear weapon is impossible. Anybody who
Speaker 1: doesn't believe in ending this regime and stopping this threat
Speaker 1: is in no way America. First, I say it about
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson, I say that about Thomas Massey. I say
Speaker 1: that about Marjorie Taylor Green. They're laughable, But so is
Speaker 1: the idea that a deal can be made. Can't be made.
Speaker 1: So if you want to use economic opportunity to in
Speaker 1: sanctions to choke them off, it's the siege mentality, which
Speaker 1: we discussed with a military analyst, Mike Lyons on this
Speaker 1: show weeks ago. Fine, that's what we're doing. That's what
Speaker 1: we're doing. Great, terrific and wonderful. But when they don't
Speaker 1: give you're gonna have to throttle them. You got to
Speaker 1: stop talking about a deal can be made, you know it.
Speaker 1: Can't stop saying. This is Tony Katz today, Else I
Speaker 1: had wins, I will not vote Democrat.
Speaker 3: I'll switch over and I'll vote for a candidate with character, whoever.
Speaker 1: That might be. That's a Democrat talking. That's a Democrat
Speaker 1: talking in Michigan. Just as the election was taking place,
Speaker 1: and Dula ed, I'm sorry. Dull rock on El sayed, oh,
Speaker 1: if you don't say his whole name, you can't to
Speaker 1: keep his name out of your mouth. He's such a
Speaker 1: pseudo tough guy. Oh what a punk Tony Katz. Tony
Speaker 1: Katz today Abduled gives all the vibes of a guy
Speaker 1: who peepes sitting down. He really does the tough guy stuff.
Speaker 1: He's been doing boring, He's done it a couple times now.
Speaker 1: It's it just doesn't play at all. But this was
Speaker 1: a Democrat saying he'll vote for He'll vote for someone else,
Speaker 1: He'll vote for someone with character. And this perfectly brings
Speaker 1: us into the midterms because as much as we may
Speaker 1: like it or not like it, you know, it's sometimes
Speaker 1: things happen whether we like them or not. We are
Speaker 1: in the full on election mode, ladies and gentlemen. We
Speaker 1: are in election season.
Speaker 2: My god.
Speaker 1: Okay, it's happening on what's a procedure. That's it. We
Speaker 1: are here, and it is horrifying. This is us from
Speaker 1: now until November third. It's not my fault. Oh please,
Speaker 1: don't get me wrong. I have plenty of other things
Speaker 1: to talk about, plenty of other things to get to.
Speaker 1: But we're in it. We are in it and One
Speaker 1: of the things that I noticed was that the generic
Speaker 1: ballot Democrats versus Republicans congressional generic ballot has Democrats up
Speaker 1: by seven. Now that it's a little higher than where
Speaker 1: they were, they were up plus four. I'm like, this
Speaker 1: is nothing. Plus seven, you can see is something. And
Speaker 1: the last five one, two, three, four, five, the last
Speaker 1: five polls plus seven, plus eight, plus eleven, plus six
Speaker 1: and plus six. Get rid of the plus eleven, get
Speaker 1: rid of the plus six, right the bottom score, and
Speaker 1: you're left with a plus seven advantage over the last
Speaker 1: couple of weeks. I can't tell you why that is.
Speaker 1: What I can tell you is this is happening while
Speaker 1: conversation like that one you just heard. It is happening
Speaker 1: where someone's like, I'm just gonna switch over. Then there's
Speaker 1: the story of this guy. This was a Democrat, a
Speaker 1: former chief counsel for the House Judiciary Democrats, and he
Speaker 1: makes a video. His name is Julian Epstein. I don't
Speaker 1: think there's any relation on the Epstein side. He is
Speaker 1: a guy. I think he's in Michigan, and this is
Speaker 1: his conversation.
Speaker 3: I have been criticizing the Democratic Party for a long
Speaker 3: time as being far to the left of the median voter. So,
Speaker 3: just as a matter of practical politics and pragmatism, I
Speaker 3: think the party has gone way too far left. But
Speaker 3: I think the party has also lost its moral center.
Speaker 3: I'm Julian Epstein. I'm a longtime Democrat. I was formerly
Speaker 3: the chief counsel of the House Judiciary Committee and the
Speaker 3: staff director of the House Oversight.
Speaker 1: Committee for the Democrats.
Speaker 3: I'm the former CEO of the consulting firm LMG, which represented,
Speaker 3: amongst other people, Hillary Clinton for president. If this is
Speaker 3: where the party's going, this is not a party I
Speaker 3: want to have any anything to do with now.
Speaker 1: I want to be clear that you could find Republicans
Speaker 1: who are like I don't want anything to do with
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. You can find that, of course it exists.
Speaker 1: So in that regard, there's nothing necessarily new here, except
Speaker 1: it is something to hear Democrats come out and say
Speaker 1: this party has gone too far to the left. Abdul
Speaker 1: say Ed was too much for that Michigan voter. The
Speaker 1: Democrats in Toto too far to the left. I had stated,
Speaker 1: with this goes back to February. I had done the
Speaker 1: event Trump one year later, and a fantastic event we
Speaker 1: did in Indianapolis, and I laid out the plan for
Speaker 1: how Republicans can win in November. Because I saw the opening.
Speaker 1: I understood the opening, and the opening involved a series
Speaker 1: of things going right. But and this, I did the
Speaker 1: event just as we had heard of the first attacks
Speaker 1: on around by the United States. I mean, I've got
Speaker 1: this ballroom in downtown Indianapolis, and we're setting it up
Speaker 1: and we're getting the information. And there I am while
Speaker 1: people are setting up, and I'm rewriting the presentation to
Speaker 1: give the update and what just happened and how it's
Speaker 1: going to play out and how do you prognosticate in
Speaker 1: six hours. I didn't do bad. I didn't do bad
Speaker 1: at all. But one of the things I said was
Speaker 1: was that oil will need to settle and you're going
Speaker 1: to need low gas prices because people make their decision
Speaker 1: about the midterms. I don't think sex necessarily in the
Speaker 1: days before they set their sale where they think they're
Speaker 1: going to go in the summer. And I had said
Speaker 1: this on the show, so you guys know this that
Speaker 1: by the summer, it's going to dictate what's going to happen.
Speaker 1: And if I were a guy just taking a look
Speaker 1: at oil prices and taking with the economy, Republicans are
Speaker 1: going to get salacked, get their stuff handed to them
Speaker 1: in a massive, massive way. Except that's not where I
Speaker 1: see it. And part of the story is that the
Speaker 1: oil prices, while they've been higher, I don't actually believe
Speaker 1: they've got everybody as upset as the media wants to
Speaker 1: believe it is. I just don't. They're higher, but they're
Speaker 1: not the thing that's really bothering. They're not the everyday
Speaker 1: things being discussed by friends. Grocery prices are, insurance prices
Speaker 1: are the basics. It isn't so much gas prices, which
Speaker 1: I found kind of unique that it has gone that way.
Speaker 1: It hasn't been in the anecdotal the big story. It's
Speaker 1: been a media big story, but still it matters. I'm
Speaker 1: surprised it hasn't moved more. But when I was doing
Speaker 1: this this presentation, I said, the problem with the left
Speaker 1: is that they're nuts, and nobody wants the nuts. And
Speaker 1: that is more and more starting to show up. That's
Speaker 1: becoming more and more of a story and more and
Speaker 1: more of a wild card conversation. Does America think the
Speaker 1: left is crazy? Do they think that they are these
Speaker 1: wild radical communists, which they are unquestionably, unquestionably are, which
Speaker 1: brings us back to this guy, Julian Epstein and the
Speaker 1: argument he's making. This is from Fox News.
Speaker 3: My piece in the New York Post today basically says
Speaker 3: that I'm jumping ship, that I am going over to
Speaker 3: the Republican side in the Michigan Senate race, and I'm
Speaker 3: supporting Mike Rogers. And this is because I think the
Speaker 3: Democrats have gone off the deep end. I think the
Speaker 3: lunatics are in charge of the asylum. I think that
Speaker 3: there is no room in the tent for people that
Speaker 3: want to destroy our constitution. There's no room in the
Speaker 3: tent for people that want to align themselves with radical Islam.
Speaker 3: There's no room in the tent for people that want
Speaker 3: to align themselves with anti Semitism. And there's no room
Speaker 3: in the tent, I think, in my view, for people
Speaker 3: that don't have any interest in building for the next generation,
Speaker 3: but only want to redistribute what others have created.
Speaker 1: Now that is something that you and I would wholeheartedly
Speaker 1: agree with. They don't want to build, they don't want
Speaker 1: to create, They actually have no plan for building, no
Speaker 1: plan for creating. They only have a plan for taking.
Speaker 1: And we've discussed this before. These DSA people are children,
Speaker 1: They're little boys and little girls. They're violent little boys
Speaker 1: and girls. But when it comes to mentality, they can't
Speaker 1: back up their own statements, they can't back up their
Speaker 1: own actions. They just want to win so they can
Speaker 1: utilize the power to take from you. Everything about them
Speaker 1: is force. They don't believe in togetherness, they don't believe
Speaker 1: in unity. They don't believe in the collective. They never have,
Speaker 1: they never will. They believe that they have to get
Speaker 1: what it is that they want. They have to get it,
Speaker 1: and they will get it by any means necessary. They
Speaker 1: do not care what force has to be used. They
Speaker 1: don't care who they have to hurt. It means absolutely
Speaker 1: nothing to them, nothing at all. So this is in
Speaker 1: a stude observation that they don't create. And that was
Speaker 1: this guy Julian Epstein and I found the article there
Speaker 1: at the New York Post. I'm a longtime Democrat fighting
Speaker 1: for gops, Mike Rogers and my party's sole in Michigan.
Speaker 1: I wonder if this applies to other Democrats, and does
Speaker 1: it apply to justin Michigan. Democrats who have no interest
Speaker 1: in voting for this rabbid anti American abdul l si
Speaker 1: ed does it apply in other parts of the country.
Speaker 3: And want to basically tear down the free market that
Speaker 3: has been the most effective anti poverty liberation machine that
Speaker 3: human beings have ever invented. If you want to start
Speaker 3: taking these lunatic positions, then I'm.
Speaker 1: Just not going to be part of it. And I
Speaker 1: suspect more this isn't about me.
Speaker 3: I suspect you're going to see a large group of
Speaker 3: Democrats starting to defect. And I think this is what
Speaker 3: you're watching in real time. Here is a party that
Speaker 3: is jumping off a cliff.
Speaker 1: Now let's say that that is true. We then take
Speaker 1: a look at the generic ballot and we say these
Speaker 1: two things are in conflict. No, I don't believe one poll.
Speaker 1: I'm looking at an amalgam of poles. If I take
Speaker 1: a look at the last eleven polls, Democrats at the
Speaker 1: least are up by three, at the very very least.
Speaker 1: In all the generic polls, the Democrats are up. What
Speaker 1: I had argued when it was plus three, plus four,
Speaker 1: plus five is that that's not enough. That is not
Speaker 1: enough to guarantee control of the House of Representatives. It's
Speaker 1: just not I think Democrats have given up on the
Speaker 1: idea of control of the Senate. I really do. They're
Speaker 1: not in a great place. But if I take a
Speaker 1: look at all of it, up plus seven is in
Speaker 1: a better place. And that is in conflict, direct conflict
Speaker 1: with what it is. Julian Epstein as saying here, So
Speaker 1: what's right? In what's wrong? I'll point you to two things.
Speaker 1: Number One, if we take a look at the polling
Speaker 1: in Michigan, right, we take a look at that Senate race, right,
Speaker 1: the primary race in Michigan, they had Abdul el Sayed
Speaker 1: up massive. Let me give it to you. This was
Speaker 1: El Sayed versus Haley Stevens. Right, primary, we just saw
Speaker 1: this was the last three one, two, three, four, five, six,
Speaker 1: last seven, No, last six. In the last six polls,
Speaker 1: Stevens was up in one of them, and then El
Speaker 1: Sayed was up in five by double digits, which led
Speaker 1: to the real Clear Politics average having l Sayed up
Speaker 1: ten point two. Right, never, you can throw out the
Speaker 1: top and bottom one. We could do that again. It
Speaker 1: was l Sayed up by double digits by ten points
Speaker 1: was the average. He won by one point. Do you
Speaker 1: know how off you have to be?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: No, no, never mind it, never mind anybody's politics. We
Speaker 1: agree on things, we disagree on things. Who cares. Let's
Speaker 1: take a look at the pollsters, a series of different
Speaker 1: polling outfits. They all had l saied up by double digits.
Speaker 1: He won by a point. That is missing the mark
Speaker 1: up thirteen, up, sixteen, up ten, up, fifteen, up fourteen.
Speaker 1: That's without that poll that Steven's up by seven, which
Speaker 1: in that average they had l saied up by thirteen
Speaker 1: points and he won by a point. Is it possible
Speaker 1: that the polling on the generic numbers that have the
Speaker 1: Democrats up by seven are equally skewed, equally flawed, equally wrong,
Speaker 1: Because if that's the case, Republicans take the House. I
Speaker 1: can't guarantee that, though all I can do is look
Speaker 1: at the numbers, and very often a number needs to
Speaker 1: be looked at multiple ways. The people who want the
Speaker 1: story that they want will read the top line. The
Speaker 1: people who want to understand the story will actually dig in.
Speaker 1: I have got Democrats who have a story writing in
Speaker 1: the New York Post that they're leaving the Democrat Party,
Speaker 1: and I've got numbers from the last big race where
Speaker 1: everybody was paying attention and El Sied wins by a
Speaker 1: point when he was supposed to win according to the
Speaker 1: last five polls by thirteen. That's a story. So the
Speaker 1: first question is do we believe the polls at all?
Speaker 1: Not necessarily, but now the same question gets askedce the
Speaker 1: part two, do we believe the people? This guy putting
Speaker 1: the video out there with Fox News writing the article
Speaker 1: in the New York Post. Okay, that's his story? Is
Speaker 1: that all the stories? Well I did have a second
Speaker 1: guy who said he wasn't going to vote for El
Speaker 1: si ed. Well, that's Michigan and that's the center race.
Speaker 1: Is that the story and Toto that they won't vote
Speaker 1: for the bigotry, they won't vote for the jew hate,
Speaker 1: they won't vote for the America hate, they won't vote
Speaker 1: for the communists, they won't vote for this stuf. Is
Speaker 1: that the story across the board. And I can't answer
Speaker 1: that yet, but that could very well be the difference
Speaker 1: maker that I was correct in the thing that is
Speaker 1: most motivating in this election won't actually be the economy. Okay,
Speaker 1: it wasn't correct about that part. The economy usually is
Speaker 1: the most motivating factor. It's the fact that these leftists
Speaker 1: are nuts and nobody trusts them. Is that becoming the
Speaker 1: main motivator. That's what we're gonna start watching for. Keep
Speaker 1: it here. It's Tony Katz Today, the Senate avoids the shutdown.
Speaker 1: I am as shocked as anyone else. Tony Katz. Tony
Speaker 1: Katz today an absolute pleasure. Will see what the House does.
Speaker 1: But the Senate, they decided over the weekend to allow
Speaker 1: for funding of the government until December eleventh, averting the
Speaker 1: shutdown before the midterms. They send the bill to the House,
Speaker 1: they go on a five week recess, which sounds lovely
Speaker 1: right about now, Tony Katz, Tony Katz today, I don't
Speaker 1: know what the House is gonna do. The story here
Speaker 1: is that Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats didn't want the fight,
Speaker 1: and the only reason they didn't want the fight is
Speaker 1: that it was not going to benefit them. They don't
Speaker 1: they don't actually care about the things. They care about
Speaker 1: the power, and they wouldn't mind shutting it down and
Speaker 1: hurting a whole lot of people if they thought it
Speaker 1: was going to get them some power. Not because they're
Speaker 1: really opposed. There is no real opposition to any of
Speaker 1: these things. But the fact that there wasn't tells you
Speaker 1: a story that this shutdown thing didn't work for them.
Speaker 1: Didn't work for them, and just like we're talking about
Speaker 1: the midterms, they made the calculation that would be valueless,
Speaker 1: as a matter of fact, harmful the so government stays
Speaker 1: open at least for another couple months. Find everything it's own,
Speaker 1: cats dot com. I'll catch you tomorrow. Everyone, take care,