Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Join the conversation
Speaker 1: and message Buck on Facebook, Instagram, or email Team bucket
Speaker 1: iHeartMedia dot com. He may read it on the show.
Speaker 1: It has been one year since the killing of George Floyd.
Speaker 1: We have a police officer who has been convicted of
Speaker 1: murder in that incident, and today the White House is
Speaker 1: meeting Joe Biden, the President of the United States, is
Speaker 1: meeting with the Floyd family. And we are told, and
Speaker 1: there are countless editorials, articles, commentaries, we're told that this
Speaker 1: is a moment that we're supposed to take a step
Speaker 1: back and think about how we could reform policing and
Speaker 1: the defund the police movement. We should consider that. That's
Speaker 1: where we are right. We're one year into this, and
Speaker 1: the narrative at the left, the Democrats want you to
Speaker 1: believe is that George Floyd's George Floyd's memory led to
Speaker 1: the BLM movement, which brought about greater justice. That's what
Speaker 1: they want you to think. That's the story, that's the
Speaker 1: dominant narrative. That there's racist policing in America where in
Speaker 1: a systemically racist society, and the BLM movement is addressing
Speaker 1: that and has for the last year, and there are
Speaker 1: things to point two to say we're successful in that regard. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: the reality of the BLM movement and its usage of
Speaker 1: the George Floyd incident as an inciting moment to go
Speaker 1: for BLM two point zero is that Black Lives Matter
Speaker 1: has made everything worse for everyone, which I was saying
Speaker 1: almost exactly a year ago, just a few weeks from now,
Speaker 1: if you were to go back and listen to this show,
Speaker 1: that was my assessment then as the riots tour through
Speaker 1: cities as police or being assaulted and mobbed and pelted
Speaker 1: and ridiculed spat on, this was going to be bad
Speaker 1: for America, and it would be bad for the black
Speaker 1: and black, black and brown communities that we are told
Speaker 1: are the whole reason for the defund the police movement, right,
Speaker 1: that it would actually make things worse for everyone, including
Speaker 1: in predominantly minority areas of the country where there is
Speaker 1: a high crime where there is sometimes a high crime rate. Right,
Speaker 1: That's what we are looking at right now. What has
Speaker 1: been the reality of the last year. And I have
Speaker 1: to point now as we are in this martyrdom worship
Speaker 1: of the Floyd memory, which is really what's going on here.
Speaker 1: They have elevated George Floyd as a symbol, a global symbol.
Speaker 1: In fact, this was a man who, yes, our courts
Speaker 1: found was the victim of police police excessive force and murder.
Speaker 1: That is where the process stands right now. There was
Speaker 1: a murder conviction, as we know. There may be an
Speaker 1: appeal we shall see. But that individual, George Floyd, was
Speaker 1: also somebody who pointed a loaded gun at the belly
Speaker 1: of a pregnant woman during a home invasion, had a
Speaker 1: long criminal history, and was someone used to resisting arrest.
Speaker 1: So that's not to say that what happened to him
Speaker 1: is in any way justified in that incident, but it
Speaker 1: is to say that picking this individual as a martyr
Speaker 1: for a movement is worthy of scrutiny, and I would
Speaker 1: say criticism. I would say, why is it that it
Speaker 1: is in these instances, these cases that we see, whether
Speaker 1: it's Mike Brown or George Floyd, where law enforcement interaction
Speaker 1: with somebody who was engaged in criminal activity and then
Speaker 1: there is a dispute over the level of force use.
Speaker 1: That's always the choice. It's not incidents where there actually
Speaker 1: is what seems to be a clear it's not always,
Speaker 1: at least focused on instance where there's a clear murder
Speaker 1: by police, which does happen, although very very rarely, which
Speaker 1: if we're going to have a serious and honest conversation
Speaker 1: about this, you have to look at the numbers, the facts,
Speaker 1: the figures. It is incredibly rare for anyone to be
Speaker 1: murdered by a police officer in this country. There are,
Speaker 1: and I'm telling you the truth, this is serious. There
Speaker 1: are more people killed every year by beastings then there
Speaker 1: are people who are unarmed and murdered by police in
Speaker 1: an incident where the police officer is not using force appropriately.
Speaker 1: I think there were unarmed black men in the last
Speaker 1: year for which we have statistics, which would be twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1: At this point, there were about nine or was it
Speaker 1: fourteen that were killed that entire year by police in
Speaker 1: an incident that may still have been lawful. But you
Speaker 1: can't look at the numbers and come away from the
Speaker 1: saying anything other than why so much exaggeration of this
Speaker 1: as a concern in society. Why is that we can't
Speaker 1: just treat each of those individual cases as worthy of
Speaker 1: due process and the legal system and let the facts
Speaker 1: bear out or any officer who exceeds exceeds the lawful
Speaker 1: use of force should be held to full account. No,
Speaker 1: it's a narrative, you see. The narrative is that cops
Speaker 1: are racist, cops are bad, and if only we would
Speaker 1: defund police, we would have a better society, a better country.
Speaker 1: That's madness, and we now see what's going on as
Speaker 1: a result of it all across the country. A really
Speaker 1: powerful editorial in the Wall Street Journal today from Heather McDonald,
Speaker 1: the author of The War on Cops, and she writes
Speaker 1: that nineteen children in Minneapolis have been shot this year.
Speaker 1: Remember Minneapolis is where the George Floyd incident happened, an
Speaker 1: increase of one hundred and seventy one percent over the
Speaker 1: same period in twenty twenty. Their relatives wonder where the
Speaker 1: protesters are. Quote, why ain't nobody mad about a ten
Speaker 1: year old my grandson fighting for his life, asked Sherry Jennings,
Speaker 1: Ladavian's grandmother at a May seventeenth mayoral event. Because a
Speaker 1: cop didn't shoot him? Is that why? Miss Jennings warned
Speaker 1: of a deadly summer for kids if the mayor and
Speaker 1: the police chief don't step up. Later that day, Anniah Allen, six,
Speaker 1: was caught in a shootout between rival gangs while in
Speaker 1: her mother's car. Annia died on May nineteenth. Minneapolis homicides
Speaker 1: Heather McDonald writes between January first and last week or
Speaker 1: up one hundred and eight percent with the same period
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty, shootings were up one hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: three percent and carjackings two hundred and twenty two percent.
Speaker 1: The crime increase began after Floyd's death and has never
Speaker 1: let up, nor has the assault on law enforcement that
Speaker 1: began with the arson destruction of the third Precinct building
Speaker 1: on May twenty eighth, twenty twenty. Officers are routinely punched, kicked,
Speaker 1: and hit with projectiles. There was a near riot in
Speaker 1: downtown Minneapolis in the early hours of May twenty second,
Speaker 1: following a shootout among club patrons. Two people were killed
Speaker 1: in that shootout and eight wounded. Responding officers called for
Speaker 1: backup across the Twin cities at what the department called
Speaker 1: an exceptionally chaotic scene. The previous weekend, officers were mason
Speaker 1: pelted with rocks and debris while trying to disperse orderly crowds,
Speaker 1: so there was a movement for justice that started in
Speaker 1: Minneapolis a year ago. Today, has it achieved any justice?
Speaker 1: Has it done anything to the system. George Floyd had
Speaker 1: a trial where there was a trial because of the
Speaker 1: killing of George Floyd. The officer was found guilty of
Speaker 1: his murder on all accounts. That was what happened. Why
Speaker 1: did we need riots, Why did we need mass destruction
Speaker 1: of property, arson and violence across the country as part
Speaker 1: of a movement. What did the movement achieve? Well, we're
Speaker 1: seeing what the movement achieved is more dead people are,
Speaker 1: more people raped, more people assaulted. This is just based
Speaker 1: on the data and numbers all across the country. And
Speaker 1: the Democrats use this for mobilization in an election year.
Speaker 1: The Democrats used this entire incident for the purposes of
Speaker 1: trying to win power, and it worked. All the pandering,
Speaker 1: all the nonsense, and people like Pelosi, Oh yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: she's really all about the struggle. She really cares a
Speaker 1: lot about what's going on in minority communities. No one
Speaker 1: believes that all the pandering about how cops are bad,
Speaker 1: cops are evil. Senior Democrats all across their apparatus, they
Speaker 1: don't actually think that stuff is true, but they say it.
Speaker 1: Why because it helps mobilize the Democrat base, activists and
Speaker 1: left wing voters. That there were people who suffered as
Speaker 1: a result, innocent people all across the country. Doesn't matter
Speaker 1: that good cops, which people like Joe Biden will say
Speaker 1: in passing you know, emotion of our cops are good.
Speaker 1: That good cops were defamed with all of this and
Speaker 1: assaulted and attacked and undermining their jobs never enters into
Speaker 1: the calculations of the left. They don't care. They simply
Speaker 1: don't care. What you see all across the country is
Speaker 1: what exactly what happened the last time after the Ferguson effect,
Speaker 1: which was coined by Heather McDonald as a phrase and
Speaker 1: who wrote this excellent piece in the Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 1: There's more violence, more death, more despair, and it is
Speaker 1: disproportionately in minority communities. And that is what has happened
Speaker 1: as a result of this movement. So as we sit
Speaker 1: here on the one year anniversary of George Floyd, and
Speaker 1: you've a bunch of frauds and liars, the activists claiming
Speaker 1: that this led to a movement that did anything other
Speaker 1: than make things worse. I just want you to know
Speaker 1: right away they're lying to you. They are lying. Here's
Speaker 1: what Heather rights. As lawless as Minneapolis has become, it
Speaker 1: is hardly atypical a drive by shooting. Our drive by
Speaker 1: shootings and homicides jump nationwide during and after the Floyd riots.
Speaker 1: Homicides rose fifty percent in Chicago in twenty twenty, forty
Speaker 1: six percent in New York City, and thirty eight percent
Speaker 1: in Los Angeles. The US are the largest annual percentage
Speaker 1: increase in homicides in recorded history in twenty twenty. That
Speaker 1: increase has continued in twenty twenty one. The number of
Speaker 1: shooting victims in Chicago is up forty three percent in
Speaker 1: the first three months of twenty twenty one compared with
Speaker 1: the same period in twenty twenty. Through May sixteenth, the
Speaker 1: number of shooting victims in New York City is up
Speaker 1: seventy eight point six percent over a year ago. In
Speaker 1: the Bronx, the number is up one hundred and seven
Speaker 1: one hundred and sixty five point seven percent. We are
Speaker 1: at the one year mark of George Floyd's killing and
Speaker 1: the movement that it spawned, and we look at that
Speaker 1: movement and the data is clear. It is a disaster
Speaker 1: built on misrepresentations and lies. What does the White House?
Speaker 1: What do the Democrats offer as the reason behind the
Speaker 1: huge spike? I mean, no one can hide this data anymore.
Speaker 1: They can't argue about it. Nationwide. What caused the nationwide
Speaker 1: increase in violence and homicides, home invasions, armed robberies, rapes, Well,
Speaker 1: what caused all of that? Oh, they'll they'll come up
Speaker 1: with something, I'm sure. And Jensaki among the most obviously
Speaker 1: inept members of this Biden White House. This is her explanation,
Speaker 1: the White House Press secretary for what caused the rise
Speaker 1: in crime? Play too? Is there a crime problem in
Speaker 1: this country? Well, I would say certainly there is a
Speaker 1: guns problem, and that's something the President would say. And
Speaker 1: there are communities where local violence and community violence is
Speaker 1: an issue, and that's one of the reasons that we
Speaker 1: have proposed and have now are implementing funding for community
Speaker 1: violence prevention programs across the country. I will say that
Speaker 1: we don't often highlight and you just gave me the
Speaker 1: opportunity to the fact that between mass shootings, mass shootings
Speaker 1: that get a lot of attention, that we lower the flags.
Speaker 1: There are hundreds thousands of people who lose their lives,
Speaker 1: and one of the reasons the President will continue to
Speaker 1: advocate for the Senate passing back universal background checks, but
Speaker 1: also advocate for actions and states where we have seen
Speaker 1: the greatest level of activism over the past of early
Speaker 1: years is community violence prevention. She sounds like a moron. Well,
Speaker 1: there's a reason for that. This is blather. This is
Speaker 1: the White House Press secretary saying that there's a there's
Speaker 1: not a crime problem, there's a gun problem. No, there's
Speaker 1: a crime problem. A lot of the crime Saki don't
Speaker 1: even involve guns. There is a crime problem in this
Speaker 1: country right now. It is all heading in the wrong direction.
Speaker 1: And the reason for that is Democrat pandering. It's Democrat
Speaker 1: pandering to victimology, identity politics, anti cop animus. That's why
Speaker 1: this is happening. We know why it's happening, but they
Speaker 1: won't say it. No, they'd rather live in this fantasy
Speaker 1: land of if only we had more social workers, if
Speaker 1: only the community violence was addressed differently. I got news
Speaker 1: for SAKI and all the rest of the lunatic libs.
Speaker 1: Violence that occurs in the context of crimes, it's not
Speaker 1: it's not a problem of the community. It's a problem
Speaker 1: for the community, as in it is done to people
Speaker 1: who aren't committing crimes. But there's no sympathy expressed here.
Speaker 1: There's no desire for immediate change, and that would mean
Speaker 1: change in policy to make the over ninety nine percent
Speaker 1: of people who live in even the most high crime neighborhoods,
Speaker 1: who aren't engaged in violence against the innocent. There's no
Speaker 1: consideration given for their plight, no more important. Let's just
Speaker 1: paint some George Floyd murals in places, put up some
Speaker 1: BLM hashtags, put up some BLM black squares on our
Speaker 1: instagrams or whatever. Let's do some virtue sigling. Let put
Speaker 1: let's put Black Lives Matter flags at US embassies. I
Speaker 1: saw that report from what was it, the National Pulse. Right,
Speaker 1: Let's let's tell the whole world that BLM is a
Speaker 1: movement that the United States government stands by. It's just propaganda.
Speaker 1: That's what really is going on with the government. They
Speaker 1: won't address the real problem here, which is that their
Speaker 1: undermining law enforcement because there is a narrative that is
Speaker 1: very apparent on the left. I mean, you see and
Speaker 1: hear it all the time that America is a systemically
Speaker 1: racist country, that our police are, in fact just the
Speaker 1: continuation of slave patrols. This is what is said that
Speaker 1: the historical precursor for police today, this is written about
Speaker 1: the New York Times, is slave patrols from the anti
Speaker 1: bellam era. It's a lie, it's historically ignorant, but they
Speaker 1: still say this, right, what do we want dead cops?
Speaker 1: That was a chant that I heard, pigs in a blanket,
Speaker 1: fry him like bacon. That was a chant that I
Speaker 1: heard from BLM protesters. And I've seen the posters, the
Speaker 1: placards that they hold up at these at these protests,
Speaker 1: and I'm not even talking about the riots. There is
Speaker 1: no honesty. The lib elites are total frauds on this issue.
Speaker 1: They know, they know that making it harder for cops
Speaker 1: to do their job, making sure that people aren't signing
Speaker 1: up to beat cops. That the ferguson effect of law
Speaker 1: enforcement officers unwilling to get involved to intervene because they
Speaker 1: don't want to risk their livelihoods and their freedom perhaps
Speaker 1: means that innocent, good people all across the country, black, brown, white, everybody,
Speaker 1: innocent people all across the country suffer as a result
Speaker 1: of this lie. We saw this all last year. It's
Speaker 1: appalling that there was such an unwillingness. People were running
Speaker 1: scared from the notion that BLM wasn't actually working out well.
Speaker 1: That defund the police is the dumbest slogan of any
Speaker 1: political movement in modern American history. Okay, I can't think
Speaker 1: of anything as stupid in my lifetime as defund the police.
Speaker 1: But this is said by people who think that they're astute,
Speaker 1: think that they're wise on this issue. Really, what would
Speaker 1: happen if we really defunded police? Oh, well, then they
Speaker 1: get into it. We don't really know what defund means yet,
Speaker 1: we're still figuring it out. Well, while they're figuring it out,
Speaker 1: kids are catching stray bullets. While they're figuring it out,
Speaker 1: places like Chicago and Memphis and New Orleans and New
Speaker 1: York and Los Angeles are having violence at unforeseen levels
Speaker 1: in decades and or rather unseen in decades. And what
Speaker 1: do they say in response to it. Let's just make
Speaker 1: some more George Floyd murals. That's going to solve the problem.
Speaker 1: Let's have some more professional athletes take a knee for
Speaker 1: George Floyd. That will solve the problem. When running a business,
Speaker 1: hr issues can kill you you've got wrongful termination suits,
Speaker 1: minimum wage requirements, labor regulations. An HR manager salaries are
Speaker 1: not cheap, an average of seventy thousand dollars a year.
Speaker 1: That's why you need Bambi. Bamby spelled b Ambee was
Speaker 1: created specifically for small business. It gives you a dedicated
Speaker 1: HR manager who can craft HR policy, maintain your compliance
Speaker 1: all for just ninety nine dollars a month. I mean,
Speaker 1: when you look at some of the customer testimonials for Bamby,
Speaker 1: it just becomes so clear what an enormous advantage this
Speaker 1: becomes for you and your business. Here's one quote. Andrea
Speaker 1: from Bambi HR has been our guardian angel. She's always
Speaker 1: there to answer any questions or concerns when it comes
Speaker 1: to anything HR related. She's helped me navigate how to
Speaker 1: best handle COVID nineteen sitys within the company, as well
Speaker 1: as any new policies, job descriptions, or compliance issues we
Speaker 1: may have. I would recommend Bamby to any small business
Speaker 1: who is lacking in the HR area. Here's another one quote.
Speaker 1: Patrese has been a great resource for our growing team.
Speaker 1: She's a source of calm when everything else around us
Speaker 1: is fast paced and hectic. I'm grateful for her guidance
Speaker 1: and direction. She helps keep me grounded and gives me
Speaker 1: great confidence that every HR decision we make is not
Speaker 1: only compliant but best practice end quote. Those are real
Speaker 1: Bamby customers. All right. With Bamby, you can change HR
Speaker 1: from your biggest liability to your biggest strength. Your dedicated
Speaker 1: HR manager will be available by phone, email, or real
Speaker 1: time chat from onboarding determinations. They customize your policies to
Speaker 1: fit your business, and they do this all for just
Speaker 1: ninety nine dollars a month. Think about it, ninety nine
Speaker 1: dollars a month, no hidden fees. Cancel anytime. Go to
Speaker 1: Bambi dot com slash buck right now to schedule your
Speaker 1: free HR audit. That's bambee dot com slash buck, Bamby
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck for your free HR audit. You
Speaker 1: didn't start your business because you wanted to spend time
Speaker 1: on HR compliance. Get Bambi today. We keep getting told
Speaker 1: by the media when we push back on some of
Speaker 1: this stuff, it's not about hating cops. We're not saying
Speaker 1: that the cops are the problem, but that is what
Speaker 1: they're saying. This is just gaslighting. That's what the BLM
Speaker 1: movement claims. That is at central premise that law enforcement
Speaker 1: is racist, that people have to be scared if they
Speaker 1: are black or brown because of law enforcement. This is
Speaker 1: not rooted in fact, it's not rooted in reason. It's
Speaker 1: an exaggeration of what is what are outlier events with
Speaker 1: the millions and millions of police law police civilian interactions
Speaker 1: that are happening every year, but get rid of qualified immunity.
Speaker 1: This is what we're you know, because because I actually
Speaker 1: do want to focus on, Okay, what does the BLM
Speaker 1: movement want? A lot of this is just people that
Speaker 1: are looking for a cause. You know, everything you've got,
Speaker 1: you know, white liberal nineteen year old girls driving around
Speaker 1: in you know, Daddy's range rover who are all BLM
Speaker 1: and you know, marching over there. There are a joke,
Speaker 1: I know people like this. You've got thirty year old
Speaker 1: trust fund kids living in Connecticut who were putting BLM
Speaker 1: on their Instagram page or BLM on their Facebook. It's
Speaker 1: virtue signaling, it's it's cool, it's a social We see that.
Speaker 1: That's obvious, right. This is unfortunately a very effective tactic
Speaker 1: of the modern left that they just create because they
Speaker 1: control so many the institutions of our culture. Cheap virtue
Speaker 1: out there for anyone. All you have to do is
Speaker 1: go along. All you have to do is be a
Speaker 1: mouthpiece for whatever the preferred slow and of the moment
Speaker 1: may be. And you're showing everybody you're one of the
Speaker 1: good people. Cost you nothing, you do nothing. Okay, so
Speaker 1: that's obvious, right, we know that that. You know, college
Speaker 1: students or people in their twenties and thirties gen Z
Speaker 1: millennials who risk nothing and do nothing and live in
Speaker 1: safe neighborhoods and put out on social media how much
Speaker 1: they care about BLM and George Floyd and in memory
Speaker 1: of George Floyd. We know they're a joke. They don't care,
Speaker 1: They don't deal with the reality. This is all about them.
Speaker 1: This is all self indulgence under the cover of altruism.
Speaker 1: But it's self indulgence. So let's look at what the
Speaker 1: actual policies are. Let's look at what people who are
Speaker 1: involved in the movement are actually saying should happen. Here
Speaker 1: here's Floyd family attorney Chris Stewart on Qualified Immunity Play
Speaker 1: twenty three. This is a phenomenal bill anybody that knows
Speaker 1: about policing, about civil rights, about how these actually work
Speaker 1: in court, they know that qualified immunity. Getting rid of
Speaker 1: that it's not going to make a bunch of lawyers
Speaker 1: like myself sue more cops. It's not. It's ridiculous because
Speaker 1: what really happens is in these cases in court, cities
Speaker 1: toss the officers away so they don't have any coverage anyway.
Speaker 1: So it's not going to make lawyers go out and
Speaker 1: sue more cops. It's semantics. It's because some people are
Speaker 1: just saying, I don't want to look like I'm allowing
Speaker 1: cops to be sued, when in reality it's not going
Speaker 1: to affect it at all of getting more officers sued.
Speaker 1: So getting rid of it will change the mentality of policing.
Speaker 1: It makes officers no, I can't go out there and
Speaker 1: do whatever I want, which is all the change that
Speaker 1: needs to happen. So getting rid of it has to happen.
Speaker 1: It's not going to hurt police officers. That's semantics. Oh sure, sure,
Speaker 1: it's semantics. This is not true. What he's saying is, yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: the law would then make it so that you could
Speaker 1: sue a cop personally for doing his job at any
Speaker 1: point in time. But that's not going to result in
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of lawyers suing cops unnecessarily unfairly. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is honestly, this this guy is, he's this is
Speaker 1: a joke. This is a joke. Qualify. Why does qualified
Speaker 1: immunity exist if it does not grant qualified immunity to
Speaker 1: the officers. The law is the law. But what he's
Speaker 1: saying is, well, sometimes they'll say that you went outside
Speaker 1: the scope of your employment and that you know you
Speaker 1: because of your misconduct. Yeah, that's because they've decided that
Speaker 1: there are limitations to qualified immunity. But the baseline standard
Speaker 1: is you can't just sue a cop directly for doing
Speaker 1: his job as a person in the course of his duties.
Speaker 1: There's a reason this exists. It creates an additional barrier
Speaker 1: to frivolous bs. But notice he says, yeah, it's just
Speaker 1: going to create a difference in perception law enforcement. Oh sure,
Speaker 1: this is the Floyd family attorney, So take you know,
Speaker 1: you know what's going on here. Sure, Now, cops will
Speaker 1: say I'm not going to use successive force and murder
Speaker 1: somebody because I don't have qualified immunity anymore. So, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's really going to change the thought process. This is
Speaker 1: just stupid. I mean, this is a stupid comment from
Speaker 1: a lawyer who's not very good at the law, but
Speaker 1: good at getting people upset, good at the narrative, good
Speaker 1: at making it seem like there's some intellectual merit to
Speaker 1: any any of these defund the police storylines or these
Speaker 1: ideas that we're gonna make everything better by getting rid
Speaker 1: of qualified immunity. It's stunning as this continues to play
Speaker 1: out that there's so little honesty in the press about this.
Speaker 1: But that's where we are as a country, as a society,
Speaker 1: and people suffer as a result. This is not just
Speaker 1: something that's rhetorical. This is not just some intellectual argument.
Speaker 1: There's been a huge surgeon crime in America, and it
Speaker 1: started right when the BLM movement got going, right when
Speaker 1: the winds of political change came through police precincts all
Speaker 1: across the country. As in the Democrats are ascendant, they're
Speaker 1: calling the shots, and they're going to feed you to
Speaker 1: the mob the moment that it is inconvenient for them
Speaker 1: to defend you as a law enforcement officer. That's what happened.
Speaker 1: They say, Oh, it's the pandemic that caused the surgeon violence. No,
Speaker 1: that doesn't stand up to a moment's scrutiny. The numbers
Speaker 1: all start to change dramatically right around now a year ago.
Speaker 1: It was the ascendency of the BLM movement and then
Speaker 1: narrative of bl that led to the change in policing
Speaker 1: that led to the huge increase in murders shootings. Remember,
Speaker 1: for every person who's shot, there's a family that's devastated,
Speaker 1: there's a community that's devastated, there's a neighborhood that's terrified.
Speaker 1: Every time that happens, there's a person who loses his
Speaker 1: or her life, and then there's also all the other victims,
Speaker 1: all the other people that have that loss. So when
Speaker 1: you're talking about thousands of additional homicides compared to what
Speaker 1: would have been a normal year in America, that's tens
Speaker 1: of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people directly affected and
Speaker 1: connected to that incident of violence. So the second order
Speaker 1: effects are much greater and or much broader, and that's
Speaker 1: something that you have to remember. So the other part
Speaker 1: of this, and Heather McDonald actually points this out in
Speaker 1: her excellent Wall Street Journal piece is that no other
Speaker 1: country in the world saw a huge surge in no
Speaker 1: other industrialized nations saw huge surgeon violence because the pandemic.
Speaker 1: In fact, if you just think about this for a second,
Speaker 1: it should be what you saw in Canada and the UK,
Speaker 1: and relative to their normal crime rates, big drops in crime,
Speaker 1: far fewer people interacting with each other, far fewer people
Speaker 1: in the streets, more people at home, right, And so yeah,
Speaker 1: there can be home invasions, but that's a that's a
Speaker 1: riskier proposition for criminals, especially in countries where anybody may
Speaker 1: be armed. Right, There's there's a whole less drug dealing
Speaker 1: disputes going on all of that because you have people
Speaker 1: interacting with each other, less people are locked at home.
Speaker 1: But the numbers, the data, the facts that don't that
Speaker 1: don't matter at all. This there's a storyline. The Democrats
Speaker 1: stick to it. The Democrats are the party of elevating victims.
Speaker 1: The Democrats are the party of helping the oppressed. The
Speaker 1: fact that they are creating more victims by adhering to
Speaker 1: this false narrative doesn't matter. And that's just the cost
Speaker 1: of Democrats doing business. That's just what we see happening,
Speaker 1: and pretending that police retraining or federal government oversight of
Speaker 1: police stations looking for racism in every police department that
Speaker 1: comes up on their radar, that that's going to make
Speaker 1: anything better for anybody is a fantasy. We know it
Speaker 1: is absurd, but people are scared of being called racist,
Speaker 1: They are scared of falling on the wrong side of BLM,
Speaker 1: and so so many, out of either just self advancement
Speaker 1: or cowardice, bend a knee at the altar of Saint
Speaker 1: George Floyd. Look, George Floyd was somebody who suffered from
Speaker 1: police excessive force, and an officer is now going to
Speaker 1: spend decades of his life in prison for that. I
Speaker 1: also know that there's plenty of plenty of real legal
Speaker 1: analysis out there that George Floyd, of the George Floyd
Speaker 1: case against Eric chovin the incident of George Floyd's killing,
Speaker 1: his murder is going to be appealed, and that we
Speaker 1: will see what ends up happening. But as of right now,
Speaker 1: we have a police officer convicted of murder, and that
Speaker 1: is the system has spoken. Yet look at all the
Speaker 1: rest of what has happened from BLM, what has the
Speaker 1: movement actually done all right. There was a trial, and
Speaker 1: if you believe that George Floyd was murdered, there was justice,
Speaker 1: at least as much justice as our system can give anyone.
Speaker 1: What then, for all the rest of it, Heather Macdonald'll
Speaker 1: just give you a little more from her Wall Street
Speaker 1: Journal piece here. Of the one hundred homicide victims in
Speaker 1: Minneapolis since May twenty five, twenty twenty, only one was
Speaker 1: killed by a cop. The victim was a suspected gun
Speaker 1: runner who had tried to run over officers before shooting
Speaker 1: at them through his car, win causing them to return fire.
Speaker 1: There is little evidence that the Minneapolis police department systemically
Speaker 1: violates black civil rights, but Attorney General Merrick Garland has
Speaker 1: opened a civil rights investigation into the Minneapolis police department. Anyway,
Speaker 1: if history is any guide, the resulting descent descent decree
Speaker 1: will cause crime to increase in the city as officers
Speaker 1: back off further proactive policing. The victims of that additional
Speaker 1: crime increase will, as always, be disproportionately black. At least
Speaker 1: three quarters of Minneapolis's homicide and shooting victims are black,
Speaker 1: though the city is less than a fifth black. Sharpton
Speaker 1: and Crump have no answers to that dilemma, so they
Speaker 1: ignore it. The reality of BLM policing in America and
Speaker 1: the epidemic of violence that we are seeing. Governor Hi,
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about the bill that you're
Speaker 1: signing here today. Here a loyal supporters former President Donald
Speaker 1: trumpp is now a resident in Florida, and Usk platform
Speaker 1: business bill for him. The bills for everyday Floridians is
Speaker 1: what we said, and it would allow any Floridians to
Speaker 1: be able to provide what they're doing. So but I think,
Speaker 1: I mean, I do think that's another issue that has
Speaker 1: been brought to bear when you de platform the president
Speaker 1: United States. But you let Ayatollah Homan need to talk
Speaker 1: about killing years is long ron decentis just just racking
Speaker 1: up those wins down in Florida. The governor of Florida,
Speaker 1: he's he's not tired of winning. He's not tired of winning,
Speaker 1: and I think we all need to understand that this
Speaker 1: is a guy who's showing us what can be done
Speaker 1: at the state level. He signed a bill prohibiting tech
Speaker 1: platforms from suspending or banning political candidates in the state,
Speaker 1: with possible finds about the two hundred and fifty thousand
Speaker 1: dollars per day if the candidate is seeking statewide office,
Speaker 1: twenty five thousand dollars per day at the candidate is
Speaker 1: seeking a non statewide office. This, I mean, this is
Speaker 1: so important to understand the implications of this. We already
Speaker 1: have all kinds of restrictions on the First Amendment that
Speaker 1: Democrats love. They want restrictions on money and politics. They
Speaker 1: want restrictions on it was it was the position of
Speaker 1: the Obama administration in Citizens United at the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: the Solicitor General for the Obama administration wanted the right
Speaker 1: to be able to ban books about political candidates before
Speaker 1: an election. That was the official position of the Democrat
Speaker 1: Party under Barack Obama's time in office. Citizens United. All
Speaker 1: the dark money and politics, Oh my gosh, what are
Speaker 1: we gonna do? Absurd? I work in radio. They are
Speaker 1: all kinds of restrictions on radio, you know, the FCC,
Speaker 1: what I can say, who I can talk to, equal time.
Speaker 1: There's all kinds of things there that are already regulated.
Speaker 1: But see, the Democrats want no regulation, no touch allowed
Speaker 1: on the shoulder of big tech. Because big tech is
Speaker 1: almost entirely a left wing pack. That's what we know.
Speaker 1: That's what we see happening all the time, and they
Speaker 1: don't want that to change. They don't want that to
Speaker 1: be any different because it is an enormous advantage for them,
Speaker 1: and look what they've been able to do. Meanwhile, you've
Speaker 1: got you know, Joe Scarborough, whose ratings are down on
Speaker 1: that show. He's just not a very smart or a
Speaker 1: good or ethical person. That's very apparent from what he
Speaker 1: says and does on TV all the time. But he
Speaker 1: also doesn't understand the law or the constitution. But this
Speaker 1: is the kind of crap you'll hear from leftists or
Speaker 1: whatever whatever. Scarborough is a whatever whatever my paymasters at MSNBC, whatever,
Speaker 1: whatever coins they throw at me, that's what he'll do.
Speaker 1: And whatever they tell him to do, that's what he'll say.
Speaker 1: Play nineteen. That's what's so cute about this political stunt,
Speaker 1: this political gesture. First of all, it's most likely unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: It violates the First Amendment and how a private company
Speaker 1: chooses to moderate content on their platform they've been Secondly,
Speaker 1: the hypocrisy of people like run To Santis and Josh
Speaker 1: Hally saying they're small government conservatives who believe in free
Speaker 1: market and free enterprise, and believe in the power of
Speaker 1: companies to run things the way they want to run,
Speaker 1: deciding they are going to be used the power of
Speaker 1: the state to tell Facebook or to tell Twitter how
Speaker 1: to run their First Amendment policies. It's just that's a
Speaker 1: bizarre thing for a small an alleged small government Republican
Speaker 1: to do. You know, yeah, we're just we're all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, he's a market absolutist, you know. Yeah, the
Speaker 1: free marts to do whatever they want. First Amendment rights,
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, sure, Oh okay, he's on a cable channel.
Speaker 1: There's all kinds of regulations out there about what you
Speaker 1: can do, indecency, there are all kinds of restrictions on
Speaker 1: transparency and political advertising. I mean to say, just the
Speaker 1: First Amendment means when when it comes to Facebook and Twitter,
Speaker 1: for obvious reasons, the left takes the position they can
Speaker 1: do whatever they want, they can do anything they want,
Speaker 1: no regular Oh okay, So these those are the companies
Speaker 1: that have no regulation all of a sudden, according to
Speaker 1: the Left, which Joe Scarborough is a part of. I mean,
Speaker 1: he's just a paid hack will do whatever they want
Speaker 1: him to. Do. And this is so interesting, but it's
Speaker 1: like I always tell you, it's just about power. There's
Speaker 1: no principle behind any of this. They'll say, what do
Speaker 1: they have to say to get what they want. That's
Speaker 1: the attitude of the left, that's the attitude of social
Speaker 1: justice warriors, that's the attitude of the commies that are
Speaker 1: increasingly obviously ascendant in American public and private life. We
Speaker 1: have people that want totalitarian left wing control of the government.
Speaker 1: They think that would be a better thing. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that we're there and that's what the country is in,
Speaker 1: but that's what they desire, and whatever they have to
Speaker 1: say to push in that direction, they will say. And
Speaker 1: people like Joe Scarborough will say it too, because you
Speaker 1: know they're paying him. We don't have enough data on
Speaker 1: information to jump to a conclusion at this point in time.
Speaker 1: They have repeatedly called for the WHO to support an
Speaker 1: expert driven evaluation of the pandemic's origins that is free
Speaker 1: from interference or politicization, and now we're hopeful that WHO
Speaker 1: can move into a more transparent, independent phase to investigation.
Speaker 1: I would say, in terms of the report, which was
Speaker 1: specifically about individuals being hospitalized we have no means of
Speaker 1: confirming that or denying that. I mean, it's not a
Speaker 1: report from the United States. The journals of the US
Speaker 1: Intelligence report, so that would have value US. Well, I
Speaker 1: don't have any I don't have anything more on a
Speaker 1: US intelligence report. Now, all of a sudden, it's not clear. Now,
Speaker 1: of a sudden, it's not obvious that the Wuhan coronavirus
Speaker 1: came from, oh, you know, a cave somewhere. Now, all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, it may it may in fact be
Speaker 1: the case that those who were saying all along that
Speaker 1: this could have been the result of an error in
Speaker 1: a lab that was studying it. That's not crazy, gosh.
Speaker 1: I know this is not surprising to you and me.
Speaker 1: But it is interesting, isn't it. How much changes and
Speaker 1: how much they the consensus fauci I had left, how
Speaker 1: much they've gotten wrong over and over again. Here's the
Speaker 1: former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on this play twenty
Speaker 1: Someone somebody will have worked in that laboratory and will
Speaker 1: decide they can stick out of China. I'll come tell
Speaker 1: the truth. I'm convinced, but sadly, I don't think that'll
Speaker 1: happen in a timely fashion. And so what can the
Speaker 1: world do, How can we hold China accountable? There are
Speaker 1: many for them that we could do this, And why
Speaker 1: on earth would you were join the World Health Organization,
Speaker 1: which were rewards of the Chinese for the exact partner
Speaker 1: that they joined in the cover up with right, it
Speaker 1: was doctor Tedros and Chi Chingping that colluded to keep
Speaker 1: this information out of the hands of the world, And
Speaker 1: so there are many things the United States government could
Speaker 1: do to impose real cost on the Chinese Communist Party
Speaker 1: until they come clean about what they know and what
Speaker 1: they did. We know for sure they covered up this virus.
Speaker 1: I am confident that we will find that the evidence
Speaker 1: that we have seen to data is consistent with a
Speaker 1: lab leak, and I'm convinced that's what we'll see. If
Speaker 1: I'm wrong, I hope the Chinese Communist Party will come
Speaker 1: forward and make a full oil. If they're going to
Speaker 1: hold back data, they're never going to give us full transparency.
Speaker 1: We all know that China won't even allow its own
Speaker 1: people basic freedoms. You think that they're really going to
Speaker 1: respond to a good faith of a good faith ask
Speaker 1: for data and information from the World Health organization, or
Speaker 1: the US for that matter. Now, I think that Mike Pompeo,
Speaker 1: I will tell you, is overstating the leverage that the
Speaker 1: US has to get answers here. The reality is that
Speaker 1: there is nothing that we are going to do. There's
Speaker 1: nothing we can do to force China to tell us
Speaker 1: things that would lead us to believe that they were
Speaker 1: that the Chinese Communist Party, that the regime was reckless
Speaker 1: in the original or in the outbreak of COVID nineteen
Speaker 1: and covered it up that effectively their negligence caused a
Speaker 1: global pandemic that has killed millions of people and cost
Speaker 1: trillions of dollars. They're never going to admit that. They're
Speaker 1: never going to give us the data to prove that
Speaker 1: or see that. They will always, always, always tell us
Speaker 1: that this was from bats, or we don't know, or
Speaker 1: you know, whatever it was. That's the way this will go.
Speaker 1: So I think that we need to understand that, yes,
Speaker 1: it is worth measuring China on this, but you know,
Speaker 1: there's only so much you can do for a situation
Speaker 1: like this, where China views this as not existential for
Speaker 1: its future, but certainly a high enough priority to cover
Speaker 1: this up that nobody is going to get them to
Speaker 1: do anything on this that they don't want to do.
Speaker 1: That's I think that much of it is obvious this point.
Speaker 1: But I remember when this was for conspiracy theorists and
Speaker 1: all the different news stories and all the people who
Speaker 1: were so quick to either fake certainty or to just
Speaker 1: why about this? You know, it's been pretty good. And
Speaker 1: I gotta say Governor rom De Santis once again desantists
Speaker 1: he's not tired of winning play twenty two. Now we
Speaker 1: have information that this very well may have emanated from
Speaker 1: the wu Han Lab. That it was it was a
Speaker 1: leak from the lab. But you remember when people last
Speaker 1: year were raising that has something that needed to be investigated.
Speaker 1: They were deplatformed for talking about the lab league, they
Speaker 1: were censored for having said that. And now even Fauci
Speaker 1: admits that this may be something that very well is
Speaker 1: the case. Are they going to now censor Fauci and
Speaker 1: pull him down of social media. That's one of the
Speaker 1: things that I will not forgive or forget that big
Speaker 1: tech shut down people for wrong think. But they said
Speaker 1: it was for you know, factual and accuracies. They brought
Speaker 1: these little, these little idiot sensor stormtroopers Oh, the fact
Speaker 1: checkers from places like PolitiFact an embarrassment of an organization
Speaker 1: and PolitiFact Media matters. These are places where only the lamest,
Speaker 1: slimiest human beings would ever want to spend time or
Speaker 1: draw paycheck. But that's that's what end up happening. They
Speaker 1: outsource their censorship to these so called fact checkers, and
Speaker 1: that was it, right if you were on the wrong
Speaker 1: side of them. Sorry, the fact checkers have spoken. That's
Speaker 1: the way that went. And now they're wrong. We see
Speaker 1: they're wrong on a lot of things. They weren't actually facts.
Speaker 1: They were just opinions with the veneer of scientific consensus,
Speaker 1: and that was all that was necessary to push the
Speaker 1: whole thing through and to shut you down, to shut
Speaker 1: me down. I still have it. I still have PolitiFact
Speaker 1: writing an article, Oh outdoor, I said, outdoor masking is stupid. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it is stupid. I was right. You know, it looks
Speaker 1: like the CDC. I saw some rumor reporting the CDC
Speaker 1: may change its outdoor mask guidance for kids at summer
Speaker 1: camps because it is so stupid and so unscientific and
Speaker 1: so idiotic on every level that the CDC is embarrassed
Speaker 1: enough to reconsider its position on that. But going back
Speaker 1: to the COVID origins fight, because you know that's getting
Speaker 1: a lot of attention this week, and we talked about
Speaker 1: it in detail yesterday in the show. What is the
Speaker 1: preferred the preferred rationale now for why they all turned
Speaker 1: on the lab league theory and believed the came from
Speaker 1: a cave theory or the wet market? Right, came from
Speaker 1: the wet market. If that were the case, why weren't
Speaker 1: all the cases that they initially established having some connection
Speaker 1: to that wet market. They didn't. Some of them had
Speaker 1: no connection. That doesn't make sense. But Maggie Haberman, Democrat
Speaker 1: at the Democrat New York Times, wants you to know
Speaker 1: that it's really Trump's fault play eleven. I do think
Speaker 1: it's important to remember that part of the issue when
Speaker 1: this was first being reported on and discussed back a
Speaker 1: few months after the pandemic had begun, was that then
Speaker 1: President Trump and Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State, both
Speaker 1: suggested they had seen evidence that this was formed in
Speaker 1: a lab and they also suggested it was not released
Speaker 1: on purpose, but they refused to release the evidence showing
Speaker 1: what it was. And so because of that that made
Speaker 1: this instantly political. I think that was you example one thousand,
Speaker 1: when the Trump administration learned that when you have burned
Speaker 1: your own credibility over and over again, people are not
Speaker 1: immediately going to believe you, especially in an election year. However,
Speaker 1: that does not mean it's not worth discussing. There has
Speaker 1: been a sort of persistent, albeit relatively quiet focus on
Speaker 1: whether that was the origin of the virus, and it
Speaker 1: is compounded by the fact that there have not been
Speaker 1: clear answers from Chinese officials about it, and that investigators
Speaker 1: trying to find out the origin have been stymiedd So
Speaker 1: I do think we're in a different period of this, John,
Speaker 1: But I also think it's important to remember because I
Speaker 1: think it's getting reframed in a way that's just not
Speaker 1: true to what happened. I don't mean here, I mean
Speaker 1: in this broader debate by Trump supporters about what happened
Speaker 1: when this was originally raised. Okay, let's let's unpack this
Speaker 1: for a second. Maggie Harman, in convincing and pretty you know,
Speaker 1: pretty fluid fashion here is really just making the case for, yeah,
Speaker 1: we got it wrong. The media got this wrong by
Speaker 1: and large, but we had to get it wrong because
Speaker 1: Trump's such a liar that the fact that Trump said
Speaker 1: that it came from a lab justified us going against him,
Speaker 1: which was the media's attitude about everything. If Trump said it,
Speaker 1: it must be wrong. But they believe it that's actually
Speaker 1: a sound rationale. They believe that's actually a reasonable justification
Speaker 1: for being wrong. If Trump said it, it has to
Speaker 1: be incorrect. Doesn't that tell you a lot about where
Speaker 1: they really were on this? Doesn't that tell you a
Speaker 1: lot about what the media? Well, you already know this.
Speaker 1: I mean, the media was psychotically opposed to Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: But even on something where there were other voices all along,
Speaker 1: there were experts who were saying, now, this actually looked
Speaker 1: like it probably came from a lab. They insisted on
Speaker 1: opposing that theory and discrediting. Not not just saying we
Speaker 1: don't think this is right. It's a conspiracy theory. You're
Speaker 1: a koup, you're a nut, don't believe it. They insisted
Speaker 1: on that because it was politically expedient. This is just
Speaker 1: another data point to show you why you cannot trust
Speaker 1: the corporate media. You cannot trust them. They are not
Speaker 1: about honesty and truth and transparency. They are propagandists. They
Speaker 1: are pushing a narrative, and they are seeking power for
Speaker 1: their side. The most important thing this is if you
Speaker 1: read between the lines what you are being told here,
Speaker 1: even by a celebrated New York Times journal. The most
Speaker 1: important thing here was opposing what Donald Trump said at
Speaker 1: the time, not getting it right because in an election year,
Speaker 1: having Trump look like one he's correct, but also pointing
Speaker 1: to China as the origin of this, a country that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump was much more willing to confront and deal
Speaker 1: with in a forceful way than his predecessors of either party.
Speaker 1: That wasn't a narrative they wanted to tell. It was
Speaker 1: Trump's buffoon. He's an idiot. He can't even he's making
Speaker 1: up things. Oh, he's making up things about the origins
Speaker 1: of the virus, like he makes up the injecting bleach
Speaker 1: into his veins. You are these other stupid things you
Speaker 1: hear from the journals all the time. And so they
Speaker 1: got this wrong, But they're not remorseful about getting it wrong.
Speaker 1: They just wished they hadn't gotten so blatantly caught. Because
Speaker 1: what was important to get this right, to understand the
Speaker 1: truth of this virus early on, because you can't stop
Speaker 1: the next pandemic. Really, if you don't know how this
Speaker 1: one started, right, that didn't matter as much. Bash Trump,
Speaker 1: that was always on everything, that was mission number one
Speaker 1: for the journos. Don't ever forget it. I'm surprised he
Speaker 1: took the long and he shouldn't have. And now he
Speaker 1: needs to call members of his own party and tell
Speaker 1: them it's time to stop this rhetoric. I mean, when
Speaker 1: you say things like calling Benjamin nitt Nahu an ethno
Speaker 1: nationalist on the floor of the United States Congress, when
Speaker 1: you call Israel an apartheid state, which Democrat members of
Speaker 1: Congress have done on the floor of the United States Congress,
Speaker 1: that's incendiary rhetori. Brian, and we've had almost two hundred
Speaker 1: incidents of violence reported now against Jewish Americans. Again, that's
Speaker 1: just reported. We don't know what else is out there.
Speaker 1: That's too many. That's too much, and this rhetoric is
Speaker 1: contributing to it. It's got to stop. The left has
Speaker 1: an anti Semitism problem. That's apparent to anyone who's paying attention.
Speaker 1: The left has got problems when it comes to the
Speaker 1: Jewish state, and I think we all know what that means. Now,
Speaker 1: not all Democrats, obviously, there are many Democrats who are
Speaker 1: very ardently pro Israel and are Jewish themselves, or are
Speaker 1: very pro Jewish themselves. But if you're looking for the
Speaker 1: real home base of anti Semitism in America today, it
Speaker 1: is on the political left. And to give you a
Speaker 1: sense of this, perhaps in a way that gives you
Speaker 1: a vision into what the future of this conversation looks like.
Speaker 1: Amy Horowitz, who is a friend of mine for many years.
Speaker 1: I've done Ammy now for almost ten years. He's a
Speaker 1: documentary filmmaker, a journalist, just a guy who makes content
Speaker 1: to expose some of the political absurdities out there of
Speaker 1: the left. He's been doing this for years. He does
Speaker 1: a lot of man on the street stuff. He has
Speaker 1: gone from he has gone to a college campus and
Speaker 1: he's asking people in this video, many people on this
Speaker 1: campus where I'm sure there's a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: anti Israel and bdsum or. I think that's what it's called, right,
Speaker 1: what is it? Boycott divest sanction? Yeah, BDSH A lot
Speaker 1: of that activity on the campus, that's on campuses all
Speaker 1: across the country. Amy goes and asks students if they
Speaker 1: will support hamas financially and the destruction of Israel. And
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, this is actually a Portland park. Pardon me.
Speaker 1: This is in a park in Portland, Oregon, not on
Speaker 1: a campus. It looked like a campus to me. A
Speaker 1: park in Portland, Oregon. But it's Portland, so you've got
Speaker 1: a lot of loons walking around here, he is. Play
Speaker 1: I remember to put this in two parts. First, Amy
Speaker 1: posing this to people, so you're here, I'm talking to
Speaker 1: a lot of different people, and then we'll play the
Speaker 1: responses from the people he's talking in the park. Play five.
Speaker 1: We're raising money for American Friends for CAMAS. So I
Speaker 1: work for American Friends for CAMAS. I work for American
Speaker 1: Friends for Hamas. Okay, we're not your father's terrace organization.
Speaker 1: We kind of evolved beyond that. If there still kind
Speaker 1: of what we do, but we've kind of rebuilt and
Speaker 1: rebranded ourselves. And you know, you know, Kamasa is where
Speaker 1: it's that we're raising money to do well, you know
Speaker 1: we do is CAMAS if you want to fund operations
Speaker 1: against Israel, and you know the type of tax talking
Speaker 1: about our cafes and schools and you know, soft targets
Speaker 1: type operations we're talking about against you know, soft targets,
Speaker 1: schools and cafes and that kind of thing to make
Speaker 1: them feel it, hospitals and destroying cafes, shopping malls and
Speaker 1: schools and place of worship. This is the kind of
Speaker 1: stuff we're talking about civilian populations, and this is the
Speaker 1: only way you can fight back. Really, the suicide bombers
Speaker 1: all have gotten. And that's kind of like because it's
Speaker 1: the poor man's F fifteen and fun operations. I guess
Speaker 1: that's well, that's the kind of thing we're doing. Okay, well, hey,
Speaker 1: thanks for time man. Yeah, of course, appreciate it, good luck,
Speaker 1: thank you. You know, when we're looking to white this
Speaker 1: role off the map. So he's making it very clear.
Speaker 1: I mean, I want to make sure that we understand
Speaker 1: before I play the responses from these various people. This
Speaker 1: is man on the street stuff. This is not a
Speaker 1: scientific study, This is not a scientific poll or anything
Speaker 1: like that. But it's you know, a nice day in
Speaker 1: Portland in a public park. He's walking around saying, hey,
Speaker 1: I'm raising money for American friends for must Now, in reality,
Speaker 1: I'm sure some of you are thinking if you were
Speaker 1: raising money for what is a designated terrorist organization, you
Speaker 1: could get into a whole lot of trouble. So he's
Speaker 1: clearly doing this as an active of parody and undercover journalism.
Speaker 1: But just to give a sense though for the people
Speaker 1: that are now, maybe they don't know this, but it's true.
Speaker 1: Material support to a terrorist organization is I think you
Speaker 1: can get ten years in federal prison for that, and
Speaker 1: raising money certainly constitutes material support. So he's even going
Speaker 1: around asking people. Now they may not know that, but
Speaker 1: I think they probably should. But he's going around asking
Speaker 1: people this, and he's making very clear what he's hoping
Speaker 1: with his fake friend American Friends of Hamassa organization, when
Speaker 1: he's hoping to accomplish. Here are the responses that my
Speaker 1: friend Ami horror It's got in this Portland park play six. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we want you know, we're looking to destroy Israel. We
Speaker 1: don't want dis guys that we want to have. I've
Speaker 1: actually been learning about last in this last school year,
Speaker 1: about everything's going on over there. So I like the
Speaker 1: sound of way you're doing. It sounds like the great
Speaker 1: thing to do. Yeah, totally again to see ISRAELI gain,
Speaker 1: it's like awesome, But we were going to get rid
Speaker 1: of Israel. Stay off drugs. We would love you check
Speaker 1: out our website. Good luck, Thank you. Do you feel
Speaker 1: like donating to help the cause to fight back and
Speaker 1: that'd be great, and maybe consider making a donation great,
Speaker 1: probably fifteen months, a few bucks, that'd be great, fifteen
Speaker 1: to twenty car ten dollars and maybe like ten dollars
Speaker 1: and ten bucks and ten dollars five or ten bucks,
Speaker 1: ten bucks, let's say twenty seven dollars, since that seems
Speaker 1: to be my Bernie donation. This is all about peace
Speaker 1: and love. We got to fight back as the oppressors
Speaker 1: see a. Brother. Yeah, I mean it's important to kind
Speaker 1: of fight back. And I'll let not to take it
Speaker 1: lying down, if you know what I mean. Piece and love, Yeah,
Speaker 1: piece of love yea love see man, Yeah, thanks bro,
Speaker 1: appreciate it, come us, Thanks you, I thank you, Thank you,
Speaker 1: Piece and love. You believe piece is important, right of course,
Speaker 1: of course. Yeah, but we got to get piece. You
Speaker 1: first got to destroy some stuff, you know, Hamas, thanks you,
Speaker 1: I thank you. Amy Horowitz says, oh man, I'll give
Speaker 1: the same donation I gave to Bertie Sanders. One of
Speaker 1: them says, now, a lot of this I know is ignorance,
Speaker 1: and that's a part of it too, and people just
Speaker 1: I get it. But some of these people have obviously
Speaker 1: heard things about Hamas that it's a resistance group, that
Speaker 1: it's equalling things out with Israel. Amy more great work
Speaker 1: for my friend Ami Horowitz. Do you want privacy and
Speaker 1: security when you're doing all of the stuff you do online?
Speaker 1: If the answer is yes, then you need a virtual
Speaker 1: private network because big tech is constantly spying on you
Speaker 1: and selling your information to other people. Every website, everything,
Speaker 1: get type, all the stuff you're doing online, Big tech
Speaker 1: is spying on you. It's their business model. So why
Speaker 1: not create privacy for yourself? Deny big tech the right
Speaker 1: to make money off of selling your every action online,
Speaker 1: and also at a layer of security for yourself with
Speaker 1: encryption of all your data. You need a VPN, and
Speaker 1: the best virtual private network. That's what a VPN is
Speaker 1: is Express VPN. Express VPN doesn't log your data like
Speaker 1: a lot of the other cheap competitors out there. Express
Speaker 1: VPN uses a technology called trusted server that makes it
Speaker 1: impossible for their servers to log any of your info
Speaker 1: and the speed is incredible. Whenever I use Express VPN,
Speaker 1: all of my connections are just as fast. Some of
Speaker 1: the other competitors out there slow you down a bit.
Speaker 1: And the last thing it really sets Express VPN apart
Speaker 1: from others is how easy it is to use. I
Speaker 1: know VPN, it sounds technical. All you enough to do
Speaker 1: is fire up the app, click one button and you're
Speaker 1: connected and you're good to go. It's so easy. Whatever
Speaker 1: generation you're random telling you grandparents you can use it,
Speaker 1: Millennials can use it, gen Z can use it. Express
Speaker 1: VPN is what you've got to have. Protect yourself with
Speaker 1: the VPN that I use and trust. Use my link
Speaker 1: right now go to Express vpn dot com slash book
Speaker 1: and get an extra three months free on a one
Speaker 1: year package. When you sign it for one year, you'll
Speaker 1: get three extra months free. Just go to this website.
Speaker 1: It's so easy and straightforward Express vpn dot com slash book.
Speaker 1: That's Express vpn dot com slash book to learn more.
Speaker 1: So what I'll say is that I'm not surprised, but
Speaker 1: I think his comments are really dangerous. I mean, we
Speaker 1: have data that about forty percent of people who identify
Speaker 1: as Republican don't want to get vaccinated. He could be
Speaker 1: considered a trusted messenger, and he's putting out inaccurate information
Speaker 1: on what we do know is that the immunity that
Speaker 1: you get from natural inspection it's not as strong or
Speaker 1: robust as the immunity that you receive from vaccines. Additionally,
Speaker 1: we also know that the immunity induced by vaccines covers
Speaker 1: the variants and that's also concerns, So people who have
Speaker 1: had previous COVID infection can potentially get reinfected with vary
Speaker 1: So it's incredibly dangerous that, especially as a physician, that
Speaker 1: he's giving out this information and which which is even
Speaker 1: pushes us more to want to get out accurate, responsible
Speaker 1: messaging about the vaccine. And people need to understand that
Speaker 1: a natural immunity is not sufficient to prevent reinfection. Natural
Speaker 1: immunity is not sufficient to prevent reinfection. This MSNBC guesses
Speaker 1: a doctor on MSNBC taking issue with what doctor rand
Speaker 1: Paul said recently about his natural immunity stats. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of things she says here that I want to
Speaker 1: pay attention to for a moment. Natural immunity is not
Speaker 1: sufficient to prevent reinfection. We know that there are breakthrough
Speaker 1: infections because they reported on them to terrify everybody a
Speaker 1: few weeks ago, for even the vaccinated. So the statement
Speaker 1: she made about natural immunity ken as a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: be made about vaccinated immunity as well. So that's not
Speaker 1: really an important day a point that doesn't really tell
Speaker 1: you anything, does it. Natural immunity is not perfect, or
Speaker 1: acquired immunity right from having the virus. Vaccinated immunity is
Speaker 1: not perfect. Two factual statements. Now, Okay, if she's going
Speaker 1: to say that vaccine immunity is better than naturally derived
Speaker 1: acquired immunity, is she talking about for COVID or in general?
Speaker 1: Because across the board that's not always true. So is
Speaker 1: it true specifically for COVID? I believe she would say yes, right,
Speaker 1: But I'm just saying, you know, we have to be
Speaker 1: very clear about what is being claimed here. No more
Speaker 1: can we hear these people say they're experts. I'm gonna listen.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna listen to the experts, because the experts, No,
Speaker 1: you gotta triple mask and you gotta put on goggles
Speaker 1: or else you're gonna get the rhona. And you know
Speaker 1: that's what us on CNN, And you know, no, no,
Speaker 1: That's not the way to go about this, as we
Speaker 1: all know. So you have to look at the specific
Speaker 1: facts and ask for the data, ask for the proof.
Speaker 1: How can they even know at this point whether natural
Speaker 1: immunity or vaccinated immunity is longer lasting. We've only had
Speaker 1: people getting vaccinated for a few months. We know that
Speaker 1: natural immunity has there are antibodies. We don't even really
Speaker 1: we're not even really able to know how much ch
Speaker 1: seal immunity. There is white blood seal immunity that your
Speaker 1: system maintains after an infection, but for at least ninety
Speaker 1: probably one hundred and eighty days. They expect you to
Speaker 1: have antibodies in your system, not always, but generally from
Speaker 1: a natural infection. I was infected, so I, based on science,
Speaker 1: have antibodies in my blood to COVID right now, that's
Speaker 1: that's the belief I should have them. So how long?
Speaker 1: And this is the question, this is I'm asking these
Speaker 1: questions for a reason. How long does vaccinated immunity last?
Speaker 1: Ask that question and you will get shut up and
Speaker 1: get vaccinated. Okay, we'll hold on a second. How long
Speaker 1: does vaccinated immunity last? In fact, if I right now
Speaker 1: type in to Google how long does vaccinated immunity last
Speaker 1: for COVID? The good news is that this is the
Speaker 1: first thing that comes up on Google. The good news
Speaker 1: is that there is reason I'm reading the quote here,
Speaker 1: there is reason to believe that immunity from COVID nineteen
Speaker 1: vaccines will last at least longer than six months. Natural
Speaker 1: immunity can last up to eight months, according to research
Speaker 1: published in Science. Okay, well, eight months is longer than
Speaker 1: six months. And this is the first thing that pops
Speaker 1: up on Google. And it's from the Global Alliance for
Speaker 1: what is this called GAVII, the Vaccine Alliance Okay, and
Speaker 1: it's all this different stuff. I'm just telling this is
Speaker 1: just so here I am. I'm trying to get informed, right,
Speaker 1: I'm trying to learn stuff because I just saw this
Speaker 1: woman on MSNBC, the doctor saying this. And yet the
Speaker 1: first answer that I get, and the featured snippet that
Speaker 1: comes up on Google of five hundred and ten million results,
Speaker 1: the number one result on Google tells me then, in fact,
Speaker 1: natural immunity lasts up to eight months, and vaccinated immunity
Speaker 1: is believed to be longer than six months. Well, which
Speaker 1: one of those sounds better. I'm just telling you exactly
Speaker 1: what I see here. Okay. I go to healthline dot Com.
Speaker 1: The next one that pops up new research finds that
Speaker 1: mRNA vaccines for COVID nineteen provide immunity for at least
Speaker 1: six months, but since COVID nineteen is so new, experts
Speaker 1: aren't sure if immunity will wane after that. Experts say
Speaker 1: more research will have to be done to understand if
Speaker 1: people will need regular booster shots for COVID nineteen. They
Speaker 1: don't know the answers to these questions that I imposing
Speaker 1: now on air. They do not know. And if they
Speaker 1: say they know, they are lying to you. Now, I
Speaker 1: think that's important. I think that's relevant information right now,
Speaker 1: because they are are promoting this stuff as if it's settled,
Speaker 1: which they do over and over again. They are running
Speaker 1: fast and loose with the facts. So if I'm thinking
Speaker 1: about this and I'm looking at this, they say that
Speaker 1: the vaccinated immunity is better than natural immunity. That is
Speaker 1: at best in analysis and extrapolation from data. It is
Speaker 1: not proven, it is not clear, and it may not
Speaker 1: even be true. But MSNBC puts a person on there
Speaker 1: to say rand Paul is doing. Rand Paul is saying
Speaker 1: dangerous things. You know, Rampaul just got like white powder
Speaker 1: sent to him or something because some moron in the
Speaker 1: entertainment industry I don't even know what the guy does,
Speaker 1: said that he loves the neighbor, that he would hug
Speaker 1: the neighbor that attacked Rampaul. They hate Rand Paul because
Speaker 1: he's smart, and he's principled, and he's not an authoritarian busybody,
Speaker 1: and he knows what they the authoritarian left they're really
Speaker 1: all about. But as you know, I don't always agree
Speaker 1: with Rand Paul, although I do a lot, but I've
Speaker 1: got a lot of respect for the guy and what
Speaker 1: he's been put through, almost beaten to death by a leftist,
Speaker 1: after almost being shot to death by a Bernie Sanders leftist. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's Senator Rampaul. Oh but all the political violence comes
Speaker 1: on the right. Oh, oh, shure, nonsense. Back to the
Speaker 1: vaccination and discussion here. They want someone like me, for example,
Speaker 1: to get vaccinated even though I have a confirmed COVID
Speaker 1: diagnosis and recovery, because they tell you it's not enough,
Speaker 1: you need vaccination too. They have no proof of that
Speaker 1: does not exist. They are thinking, they are surmising, they
Speaker 1: cannot prove that. And in fact, as I just told you,
Speaker 1: the first things you see when you do a Google
Speaker 1: search on they Now you can say, oh buck, that's Google, okay,
Speaker 1: but this is how people get their information. Now. The
Speaker 1: first hit I get on how long does does immunity
Speaker 1: from COVID vaccination last? The first hit I get tells
Speaker 1: me that natural immunity may well be better than longer
Speaker 1: lasting than vaccinated immunity, but natural immunity is not something
Speaker 1: anyone obviously makes any money off of. And then it
Speaker 1: also complicates the narrative of well, then does everyone really
Speaker 1: have to get the shot? Does everyone rand pose? A
Speaker 1: MD says he's not getting it? Does every have to
Speaker 1: get it? They simply don't. They simply don't know here
Speaker 1: how long this will last. And then there's that other
Speaker 1: part of it. They they're setting this up for you
Speaker 1: right now. And I hate to be the one to
Speaker 1: bring this up because I know it's a it's a
Speaker 1: bummer for all of us. They're setting this thing up,
Speaker 1: the whole narrative. And this comes at a time when
Speaker 1: we know that the origins of COVID all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: the narrative around that is changing. But their whole narrative
Speaker 1: is that you get the shot right right now. It's
Speaker 1: get the shot and you're pretty much done. Yeah, you
Speaker 1: still have to wear a mask for no good reason
Speaker 1: on an airplane orever, but get the shot and you're
Speaker 1: pretty much good to go. How can they tell us
Speaker 1: that if they don't know whether we're going to need
Speaker 1: booster shots for this, and if we're going to need
Speaker 1: booster shots for this, do you now have a situation
Speaker 1: where there will be a requirement for annual COVID nineteen
Speaker 1: shots for you to be considered, you know, one of
Speaker 1: the safe, one of the good ones who gets the shot.
Speaker 1: I think the answer to that is clearly, yes, you're
Speaker 1: going to have to get booster shots. And you can
Speaker 1: see that's why for a lot of people holding the
Speaker 1: line against vaccine passports and these government mandates are so
Speaker 1: important right now, and that's why you have states that
Speaker 1: are taking very different approaches to the Some states are
Speaker 1: saying you can't have vaccine passports. Others are saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, absolutely, we want we want there to be
Speaker 1: restrictions in place based on vaccination status. Private sector can
Speaker 1: do it, go for it. So I'm seeing here there
Speaker 1: are unanswered questions. They don't know when they're pretending they do.
Speaker 1: And that's all. Yeah, all you have to know to
Speaker 1: understand that something is up here. There's a problem. The
Speaker 1: answer to the question how long does vaccinated immunity last
Speaker 1: for COVID nineteen is they don't know. They think six months,
Speaker 1: that's the real answer. The answer for how long does
Speaker 1: naturally acquired immunity last is they don't know, but they
Speaker 1: think up to eight months, probably six. But they don't know.
Speaker 1: The answer to how many times are you gonna have
Speaker 1: to get a COVID vaccine if you think that vaccination
Speaker 1: should be effectively mandatory for all people is they don't know.
Speaker 1: They will let you know in time when they decide. Someone,
Speaker 1: please explain to me, Please write and tell me how
Speaker 1: I'm not seeing this right. Tell me what I'm missing here.
Speaker 1: But notice the certainty. They go on TV and they
Speaker 1: have Fauci and the other little little health policy fascists
Speaker 1: running around acting like they've got all the answers, when
Speaker 1: really they're making value judgments and they're using analysis and
Speaker 1: pretending it's fact. So I'll just say this, you know,
Speaker 1: I put out a same and I wrote that statement
Speaker 1: is you know, it was an honest mistake, and I
Speaker 1: have apologized for it. I think that we have specifically
Speaker 1: not gone forward and penalized businesses or they're trying to
Speaker 1: do the right thing. It's those that have flouted and
Speaker 1: put people's safety at risk that you know, are the
Speaker 1: most concerning. But you know, I don't know that there's
Speaker 1: a lot more for me to add at this point
Speaker 1: in time other than those former spartans or I guess
Speaker 1: you're spartan for life, who know, the establishment should be
Speaker 1: aware that is now a restaurant and they have pretty
Speaker 1: good pizza. Oh yeah, you know, you got good pizzia.
Speaker 1: And you know, I just do we mean a little
Speaker 1: mistake the area and oh, you know the governor and
Speaker 1: you know, I'm a humane and I like good pizza
Speaker 1: and I'm just like you, and you have been Whitmer
Speaker 1: of Michigan. The governor the biggest of lockdown tyrants, I mean,
Speaker 1: at the top five certainly in the country, probably top three.
Speaker 1: And it turns out that you break your own rule.
Speaker 1: And it's a stupid rule to begin with. It shouldn't
Speaker 1: even be there. But it never forces her to think, well,
Speaker 1: maybe I shouldn't be enforcing stupid rules. No, it's better
Speaker 1: to apologize for violating your own stupid rule than saying
Speaker 1: it was dumb in the first place. That is the
Speaker 1: approach of the Democrats here. That is their decision with
Speaker 1: all of this all across the board when it comes
Speaker 1: to COVID when I mean, obviously this is what Whitmer
Speaker 1: is saying. But we still have a long way to
Speaker 1: go here. Friends, I went flying. I was on a plane,
Speaker 1: not like I went flying on my own. I was
Speaker 1: on a commercial jet over the weekend. I'm gonna be
Speaker 1: in Miami this coming weekend on I love Miami. What
Speaker 1: can I tell you on a plane, I'm gonna have
Speaker 1: to wear a mask. We have all these stupid rules still,
Speaker 1: and this is not just going to go away. And
Speaker 1: if we allow it to linger, as it is just
Speaker 1: like a virus. If you allow some viral particles, if
Speaker 1: your system doesn't clear at all, it may come back.
Speaker 1: You need to actually clear the virus. You need to
Speaker 1: have it expelled from your system and lockdown arism and
Speaker 1: mask worship. These are like viry of the brain. And
Speaker 1: I think we have to continue to engage on these issues.
Speaker 1: What I'm saying, we're not done yet, because there's still
Speaker 1: stupid rules. That's why Governor Whitmer violated one of her
Speaker 1: own stupid rules. Oh, one more thing on vaccination. Stephen A.
Speaker 1: Smith is a sports commentator, and he is upset with
Speaker 1: I've seen him before on TV. I'm not really familiar
Speaker 1: with this work. As you all know, I don't care
Speaker 1: about professional sports commentary at all. I mean I care
Speaker 1: about professional sports commentary the way you know most people
Speaker 1: would care about, you know, professional poker commentary. Let's say,
Speaker 1: who never gamble like I just it doesn't appeal him
Speaker 1: at all. But I know who Stephen A. Smith is.
Speaker 1: He's upset with Lebron James because of not saying more
Speaker 1: about vaccination Plate twelve. He hasn't spoken about this nume,
Speaker 1: despite numerous opportunities that he's had to do so. Obviously,
Speaker 1: that'll raise an antenna and make you wonder why he
Speaker 1: insists on not speaking on such thing at all, particularly
Speaker 1: when he recognizes how it's ravaged donation, how it's ravaged
Speaker 1: the world globally, and what kind of profound impact it
Speaker 1: has had on our communities. That's why I said what
Speaker 1: I said, because optics matter, particularly when it comes to
Speaker 1: Lebron James. You put yourself in this position, you know
Speaker 1: what's going to conjure up questions and to give those
Speaker 1: weak answers that he gave the other day when asked
Speaker 1: about it before a playoff game against the Phoenix Suns.
Speaker 1: I just thought was beneath what we've come to know, appreciate,
Speaker 1: and fully expect from Lebron James, and in that particular instance,
Speaker 1: he was a flagrant disappointment. I think Lebron James is
Speaker 1: a flagrant disappointment for anything that does not involve putting
Speaker 1: a basketball into a cylinder. I don't understand. I don't
Speaker 1: think Lebron James is impressive in any capacity beyond his
Speaker 1: ability to play a sport. But I also understand he's
Speaker 1: got a lot of influence, which is troubling, especially for
Speaker 1: what he says about law enforcement, police and race relations
Speaker 1: in America. I think that's very troubling. But I've got
Speaker 1: a better idea. Instead of expecting athletes to weigh in
Speaker 1: on complicated topics like vaccination, because that's someone that we
Speaker 1: should all look to, I would much prefer if we
Speaker 1: would understand that athletes actors. Most politicians aren't very smart,
Speaker 1: don't know what the heck they're talking about. And not
Speaker 1: obviously all athletes or actors, but you know, most of
Speaker 1: the individuals who speak out of these issues don't know
Speaker 1: what the heck is going on. Let's not look to
Speaker 1: people just because they're famous for advice on complicated medical
Speaker 1: or policy issues. We like to talk solutions and action
Speaker 1: here on the show whenever possible. As you know, school
Speaker 1: boards are dominated in many places across the country by
Speaker 1: the leftists and they're trying to indoctrinate children. This results
Speaker 1: in further indoctrination down the line politicized people on the
Speaker 1: left all across the country, and we've got to put
Speaker 1: a stop to it. But what can we do. How
Speaker 1: do you get rid of critical race theory and other
Speaker 1: left wing dogma being brainwashed in a children. Well, my
Speaker 1: next guest here has an idea and he's doing something
Speaker 1: about it. Ryan Grdusky is with us now. He's the
Speaker 1: author of They're Not Listening How the Elites created a
Speaker 1: National Populous Revolution. He's a political consultant and he's got
Speaker 1: a new project to tell you all about. Ryan. Great
Speaker 1: to have you, Thank you for having me, Buck, I
Speaker 1: really appreciate it. So what's going on here? You have
Speaker 1: started a pack that's going to do some very interesting stuff.
Speaker 1: Tell everybody. So it's the first pack in America. It's
Speaker 1: called the seventeen seventy six Project Pack. I be found
Speaker 1: at seven and seventy six projectpack dot com. And it's
Speaker 1: the first pack that's going to focus on school board
Speaker 1: elections on a national level. It's a national superpack and
Speaker 1: I'm going to create fifty state packs, so you'll donate
Speaker 1: to the National superpacker you're got involved the National Superpack
Speaker 1: and it will filter to every state pack and campaigns
Speaker 1: across every state. And we are going to challenge school
Speaker 1: board members who are promoting critical race during the sixteen
Speaker 1: nineteen project throughout the entire country. And why I think
Speaker 1: that the school board elections are unique than other elections
Speaker 1: is that eighty nine percent of school board elections across
Speaker 1: the country are nonpartisan. Very few actually have an R
Speaker 1: or a D to their name, so it's very possible
Speaker 1: to compete in leaning blue or left wing areas that
Speaker 1: Republican politicians unfortunately don't find themselves succeeding in because they
Speaker 1: have an art attached to their name, so that's an advantage.
Speaker 1: They're also much much cheaper run than congressional campaigns or
Speaker 1: Senate campaigns or governorships. These are elections that are done
Speaker 1: you know, through mostly mailers and mail campaigns and and
Speaker 1: web ads, and can be done on a much, much
Speaker 1: much cheaper level. So your dollar will actually go much
Speaker 1: further to support as many candidates that we possibly can
Speaker 1: afford for this next upcoming election cycle to win over
Speaker 1: school board elections, and I'm hoping that this will be
Speaker 1: the start of a much bigger thing. I got it.
Speaker 1: I got a couple of questions, Ryan, I don't have kids,
Speaker 1: so I haven't really dealt with the school board right, No,
Speaker 1: but but I mean obviously you're working on this, so
Speaker 1: I just want to know, well, first off, actually, even
Speaker 1: taking a step further back, what does a pack really do?
Speaker 1: Forever we hear this, people to read about it, we
Speaker 1: talk about it. What does a pack do? So a
Speaker 1: super pack or a pack A pack and a super
Speaker 1: pac are a little different, but a superpack is what
Speaker 1: I started, is the political action committee that can campaign
Speaker 1: on behalf of candidates running for office. So you're not
Speaker 1: allowed to campaign with the candidate but you can campaign
Speaker 1: on their behalf, sending out mail, making commercial doing digital advertising,
Speaker 1: even having your own door knockers and phone bankers campaign
Speaker 1: on behalf of a candidate, as long as you don't
Speaker 1: coordinate with a campaign. So let's say you are running
Speaker 1: for office and I ran a pack for you, though
Speaker 1: I couldn't tell you talked about what your strategy is
Speaker 1: or what you're doing. I could raise independent funds and
Speaker 1: make mailers or commercials, support boarding you and or attacking
Speaker 1: your opponent. And so what is the advantage or what
Speaker 1: are we hoping to accomplish with this superpack at school boards?
Speaker 1: If you're successful, it will mean what. So the reason
Speaker 1: the pack is interesting is they'll be able to support one.
Speaker 1: You can have an unlimited amount of dollars, so you
Speaker 1: can give a dollar, you can give a million dollars,
Speaker 1: you can have anything in between. You even unlimited a
Speaker 1: number of money if you wanted to. It also is
Speaker 1: advantageous by the fact that I don't have to declare
Speaker 1: a single solitary candidate. It can be an issue oriented pack,
Speaker 1: which is what this is. So I can support school
Speaker 1: board members in Pittsburgh and then school board members over
Speaker 1: near Charlotte, North Carolina, and you know, in California and
Speaker 1: in upstate New York or wherever I want to. I
Speaker 1: don't need to be concentrated as opposed to just donate
Speaker 1: to a candidate, to a single person or place I
Speaker 1: could do, you know, as many or as few as
Speaker 1: I possibly can afford. Speaking to Ryan or Dusky, he's
Speaker 1: the author of They're not listening how the elites have
Speaker 1: created a national populist revolution, and he's telling us about
Speaker 1: his new pack. Ryan tell her in the name of
Speaker 1: the pack again, the seventeen seventy six Project Pack, seventeen
Speaker 1: seventy six projectpac dot com once in the first national
Speaker 1: school board pack in America. And you know, this is
Speaker 1: what the left has done very very well. As you
Speaker 1: saw back in twenty eighteen, George Soros put millions of
Speaker 1: dollars into district attorney's races. District attorney's races are local elections.
Speaker 1: There's something that most national people don't think about it.
Speaker 1: But he was very successful in putting people in place
Speaker 1: in Los Angeles and in in in Philadelphia and Chicago.
Speaker 1: And what that resulted in was as huge spike of
Speaker 1: spike in crime, as as district attorneys allowed prisoners to
Speaker 1: run free and cause massive chaos across the entire country,
Speaker 1: and that's why we've seen a spike in crime. I'm
Speaker 1: trying to get the head started. Want to be reactionary
Speaker 1: to a left left lingers are doing. I'm doing it
Speaker 1: ahead of time. I'm trying to invest money at the
Speaker 1: school board level to try to win over people to
Speaker 1: oppose critical race during the sixty nineteen project, and I
Speaker 1: also want to go one step further. For forty or
Speaker 1: fifty years, conservatives out there and said we have a
Speaker 1: problem with what they're teaching at schools, and then they
Speaker 1: push the critical race theory, and now we want to
Speaker 1: go back to what we just what we've hated for
Speaker 1: forty fifty years and not actually fundamentally alter it. I'm
Speaker 1: going to focus on even in places that have banned
Speaker 1: critical race theory, which is now at four states, Texas, Tennessee, Oklahoma,
Speaker 1: and Idaho. I want to focus on trying to move
Speaker 1: the conversation forward and create a conservative curriculum of history.
Speaker 1: There are simple things and little things that kids are
Speaker 1: being taught that are not critical race theory necessarily, but
Speaker 1: they're historically a little bit inaccurate or they portray American
Speaker 1: a negative light. I would like to sit there and
Speaker 1: stop it and portray American a positive light. These are
Speaker 1: national schools. They should promote a national um, community and
Speaker 1: national you know, uh state of pride for your nation.
Speaker 1: We shouldn't be our government should not be working against ourselves.
Speaker 1: So we're we're talking. What we're talking about here, Ryan
Speaker 1: would basically be instead of the sixteen nineteen project, which
Speaker 1: is the New York Times narrative of our history that
Speaker 1: has some major fact false narrative that it's a major
Speaker 1: factual inaccuracies that you instead of just saying we because
Speaker 1: I think this is this goes to some a fundamental
Speaker 1: issue of conservatism today, which is in a lot of
Speaker 1: cases the reaction from the riot is, well, let's just
Speaker 1: create a neutral space. And this this notion of a
Speaker 1: vacuum when it comes to curriculum is absurd. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's that's not going to work, just saying well, don't
Speaker 1: teaching as a neutral standpoint of history. History is a
Speaker 1: lot of times written in the eyes of the winners
Speaker 1: or in the people who have a critical view of it.
Speaker 1: You know, kids are taught nowadays things like slavery is
Speaker 1: the original sin of the United States. Well, slavery was
Speaker 1: an ugly point of our history. There's no contention about that. However,
Speaker 1: we didn't invent invent his slavery. Slavery is not an
Speaker 1: American idea. It's not solely, you know, just within this
Speaker 1: one country. We should children should not be taught that
Speaker 1: America must bear this entire burden for something that happens
Speaker 1: on a global scale, among all races, among all people,
Speaker 1: among all continents. It is a fault of human nature,
Speaker 1: not a fault of just being American, but that this
Speaker 1: over you know, intensified. Look at how we are at
Speaker 1: fault for anything that is, you know, innately human. Gives
Speaker 1: children a very negative plans and a negative view of history.
Speaker 1: They're taught to villainize people like George Washington and Christopher
Speaker 1: Columbus and celebrate people who don't have um, you know,
Speaker 1: the very good intentions. When it comes to the American state,
Speaker 1: of the American nation, that has to be reversed. It
Speaker 1: just has to. You should be if you go to
Speaker 1: a state school, you should be taught why the American
Speaker 1: nation the nation you will live in, you're probably born in,
Speaker 1: you grow up in is inherently the greatest place on earth,
Speaker 1: a very good nation that has done probably I would
Speaker 1: argue a majority of the great things over the last
Speaker 1: two hundred years that all of human life has experienced.
Speaker 1: And you know, kids are not taught that, and that
Speaker 1: is very very, you know, upsetting, And I think that
Speaker 1: coming at it from trying to get a neutral standpoint
Speaker 1: of history is not accurate because there is no neutral standpoint.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that that's ridiculous. Kids aren't don't
Speaker 1: sit there and learn data all day long. They learn stories.
Speaker 1: And I think we should tell stories in the positive
Speaker 1: light of the American nation, of American history, and that's
Speaker 1: especially while they're growing up in their most formative years
Speaker 1: when they're young. We're being Ryan Gurdusky and he is
Speaker 1: the founder of seventeen seventy six projectpac dot com. That's
Speaker 1: where the that's the website you can go to learn
Speaker 1: about the Superpack to teach the American founding in schools
Speaker 1: as something to be celebrated and so and an American
Speaker 1: history to be celebrated. And I want and I want
Speaker 1: to I just want to emphasize one important thing the
Speaker 1: sixteen nineteen project, which is pushed by The New York
Speaker 1: Times and created by that emphasizes falsehoods of American history,
Speaker 1: the sixteen nineteen uh project since there and says the
Speaker 1: American Revolution was fought over slavery, not the Civil War.
Speaker 1: The American Revolution is the British one to out out slavery,
Speaker 1: outset that Colin mccolliners didn't, the colonies didn't, which is
Speaker 1: in completely false, never happened, but that is taught in
Speaker 1: thirty five hundred classrooms in this country. This is not
Speaker 1: a blue state issue. This is not a just a
Speaker 1: you know, a blue city issue. This is in red cities,
Speaker 1: in red counties, you know, in publican stronghold. This is
Speaker 1: being propagated for children. And I understand that the Republican narrative,
Speaker 1: the conservative narrative for decades, it's been get your kids
Speaker 1: at a public school. I completely understand that. I agree
Speaker 1: with that. However, a majority of children will always go
Speaker 1: to public school in this country. There's I mean, that
Speaker 1: is that is the case we're in. So unless we
Speaker 1: fight over curriculum and what is actually being taught, we
Speaker 1: are we are conceding the entire next generation to these
Speaker 1: immense falsehoods and these characterizations that their country is a
Speaker 1: horrible places and horrible things and there is no redeeming qualities. Ryan,
Speaker 1: is there a committee of advisors for what the seventeen
Speaker 1: seventy six curriculum that your your superpack would want instituted
Speaker 1: in schools? I mean, can people see what the curriculum
Speaker 1: is ord they get So there's a couple of plays.
Speaker 1: We're not at that level yet. We just I mean,
Speaker 1: we just launched yesterday, so it's now we're not all
Speaker 1: fundraising and trying to find candidates who would even do it.
Speaker 1: And then there's a couple of places. Hillsdale College has
Speaker 1: a great education plan when it comes to history. Claremont
Speaker 1: University is trying to create their own curriculum. So I'm
Speaker 1: going to look at what's available. Probably I'm not writing
Speaker 1: the curriculum. I don't have the credentials to do that,
Speaker 1: but there are conservative thinkers who do have who have
Speaker 1: been writing that curriculum, who will that I will stem from,
Speaker 1: and then hopefully as I find candidates across the country,
Speaker 1: I will provide them without literature and say, look, this
Speaker 1: is what we want. Once you're elected, Ryan Gurdusky, everybody
Speaker 1: founder of the seventeen seventy six Project Pack. It's a
Speaker 1: superpack looking to do things on education. Or do you
Speaker 1: think Ryan, as we look at this issue, do you
Speaker 1: think that the the pushback on critical race theory is
Speaker 1: gaining steam because more and more people have been exposed
Speaker 1: to what it is like because they've been at home
Speaker 1: with Zoom learning, and you know, the parents are actually
Speaker 1: seeing it because it feels like there's a real there's
Speaker 1: a real wave going on now that I mean, that's
Speaker 1: how I became interested in my godson, who was ten
Speaker 1: years old. He was taught in a Zoom classroom that
Speaker 1: police cars only go after black cars, not after white cars.
Speaker 1: And it was incredibly racist story about how policing is
Speaker 1: and it's an inherently racist thing. I mean, he's ten
Speaker 1: years old. This is not a high school class, this
Speaker 1: is not a college class. This is where they're they're
Speaker 1: pushing this, and most Americans reject this narrative. Most Americans
Speaker 1: are every race reject this narrative. Because you are born
Speaker 1: white does not mean you are inherently born privilege or racist.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean you have a systemic racism flowing through
Speaker 1: your blood. Because you're born non white does not mean
Speaker 1: you're a victim or you have a crutch so you
Speaker 1: can't overcome anything. I mean, this is a ridiculous narrative
Speaker 1: that hurts children of any race that there is. And yeah,
Speaker 1: I think there is a tremendous pushback over a recent
Speaker 1: pole I read said over seventy five percent of Americans
Speaker 1: opposed this teaching in schools. Most incredibly oppose it. And
Speaker 1: it's just a matter of trying to win this from
Speaker 1: the activists who are who have ingratiated themselves in our
Speaker 1: public education discourse. Now seventeen seventy six, projectpac dot com
Speaker 1: founded by Ryan Grdusky, Ryan, good luck with this, comeback
Speaker 1: and tell us how it's going. Thank you. We'll do.
Speaker 1: The Fast and the Furious movies are absurd, and I
Speaker 1: think just I don't understand why anyone likes them. I really,
Speaker 1: I mean maybe the first, or the second, or the third,
Speaker 1: or maybe the fourth, fifth, six, I mean they're they're
Speaker 1: now at Fast and Furious nine. They made nine of
Speaker 1: these movies which are basically just about people going room
Speaker 1: room room room in cars and like driving around and
Speaker 1: doing crazy things that no one can actually do in cars.
Speaker 1: But I look at to each his own. If you
Speaker 1: enjoy that, fine, I don't care. That doesn't really matter.
Speaker 1: I'm not a film critic, although I do play one
Speaker 1: on radio sometimes. But this is this is important because
Speaker 1: of what it shows you about the power and reach
Speaker 1: of China in American society and when it comes to
Speaker 1: American public figures, actors, politicians. John Senna is it Sena
Speaker 1: or Senna Sena, John Sena whatever. I don't even know
Speaker 1: this guy relates. He's an actor, acts as a wrestler actor.
Speaker 1: He is in Fast and Furious nine. He was doing press,
Speaker 1: uh you know, press pieces promotion for Fast and Furious nine.
Speaker 1: But in an interview he said, while he was doing
Speaker 1: press for Fast and Furious nine, he called Taiwan a country.
Speaker 1: Now Taiwan is in fact a country, but China is
Speaker 1: very very sensitive about this. The Chinese Communist Party is
Speaker 1: just rabid about issues relating to Taiwan. And so John
Speaker 1: s had to go on uh signa wiebo and which
Speaker 1: is a website in China, social media platform in China,
Speaker 1: and say, uh, say in Chinese, this is I just
Speaker 1: want to hear this. This is John Sina speaking in
Speaker 1: Chinese with Chinese subtitles. Because from what I understand, his
Speaker 1: accent is, his intonation is not very good, so it's
Speaker 1: hard for Chinese speakers to really understand him. But he
Speaker 1: goes in Chinese, this American actor to apologize for calling
Speaker 1: Taiwan a country play a well bu shenzai us So
Speaker 1: he whoa your ego? I mean, my gosh, this guy
Speaker 1: talk about having to get up there and gravel. Okay,
Speaker 1: so he is a a pretty globally famous wrestler. Actor's
Speaker 1: obviously a multi multi millionaire, and you know, he is
Speaker 1: apparently a big Make a Wish Foundation guy. So he's
Speaker 1: doing something he's looking I'm sure he's a good guy,
Speaker 1: but this is just embarrassing. But he's probably being told, well,
Speaker 1: if you don't do this, China, make pull our film
Speaker 1: and everybody worked on the film and everybody who's put
Speaker 1: all this time and money into it and everything else.
Speaker 1: You know, this could cost jobs. So you know, I get,
Speaker 1: I understand there's pressure. I'm not you know, it's not
Speaker 1: as easy as as it can sometimes seem to take
Speaker 1: a take a stand here. I'm not bashing John Cena
Speaker 1: for this, although it is kind of the fifth It
Speaker 1: looks craven, right, but I'm not bashing John Cena so
Speaker 1: much as I'm trying to point out this is how
Speaker 1: much power China has. They the Chinese government can make
Speaker 1: a globally famous American multi millionaire bend the knee and
Speaker 1: beg forgiveness for saying something that is true. That's what's
Speaker 1: all they is saying something that is accurate China. Taiwan
Speaker 1: is a country, it is a nation state, it has
Speaker 1: its own government, it's recognized by the international community. And
Speaker 1: yet he has to say sorry, yes, say sorry. Absolutely absurd,
Speaker 1: but this is the situation. This is how powerful now
Speaker 1: China's sensitivities are. So just remember that as you're watching
Speaker 1: movies this summer. Okay, before we get into roll call,
Speaker 1: because I was just talking about this, I wanted to
Speaker 1: clarify a little bit. I said that Taiwan is a country,
Speaker 1: and it is, but it is a little complicated. If
Speaker 1: you look at this status of Taiwan, it's there's some
Speaker 1: weird stuff going on. Okay, So I mean, for example,
Speaker 1: the the occurred certain situations. Seventeen countries recognize Taiwan's democratic government,
Speaker 1: which is known as the Republic of China, but the
Speaker 1: United the United Nations believes that the People's Republic of
Speaker 1: China in Beijing speaks for the island of Taiwan. So
Speaker 1: you have a situation where twenty plus million Taiwanese citizens
Speaker 1: can travel anywhere in the world on a Taiwanese passport
Speaker 1: which says the Republic of China which is Taiwan, but
Speaker 1: they can't actually enter a UN building with them. So
Speaker 1: you know, there are some Now, Taiwan is a country,
Speaker 1: and I am very pro Taiwan for whatever that's worth,
Speaker 1: but I just wanted to know that there are some
Speaker 1: weird there's a it's a weird situation with the way
Speaker 1: the world treats it. So there are a number of
Speaker 1: countries that treat it as a full country, full diplomatic relations,
Speaker 1: but the US relationship, even with Taiwan, is a little
Speaker 1: more complete. Here here's how they wrote about it in
Speaker 1: the Atlantic. This was in twenty nineteen. After nine years
Speaker 1: of construction, more than four hundred American diplomats and staff
Speaker 1: have moved into new offices in Taipei, capital of Taiwan,
Speaker 1: a two hundred and fifty million dollar compound built into
Speaker 1: a lush hill with security provided by Marines. Employees will
Speaker 1: offer American citizens in Taiwan consular services and help Taiwanese
Speaker 1: obtain visas to visit the United States, just as they
Speaker 1: would anywhere else in the world. Yet this is not
Speaker 1: an embassy or a consulate, at least officially. Instead, it
Speaker 1: is the American Institute in Taiwan, a name that suggests
Speaker 1: a research center rather than a amatic mission, the result
Speaker 1: of a geopolitical compromise that, while far from the biggest
Speaker 1: of Taiwan's problems, illustrates the ludicrous situation Taiwan finds itself in.
Speaker 1: It is not recognized as a country by its most
Speaker 1: important ally, the United States. And so that anyway, end
Speaker 1: quote there, that's a piece by Chris Horton on Taiwan's status.
Speaker 1: So I mean we treated like a country, we give
Speaker 1: it many of the rights of a country, a separate country.
Speaker 1: But then there are these ways in which we do
Speaker 1: this sort of you know, bending the knee to the
Speaker 1: Chinese instead of the Republic of China, the People's Republic
Speaker 1: of China and Beijing storyline that Taiwan is a part
Speaker 1: of China, even though if you knowity history, you know
Speaker 1: about happened with the chen Kai Shek and you know
Speaker 1: what happened with the Chinese effective civil war with the
Speaker 1: Communis anyway, Yea, So I wanted to clarify all that because, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it is right to say Taiwan
Speaker 1: is a country, but there are some weird, some weird
Speaker 1: situations round. Okay, with that, we we have our before
Speaker 1: or no, let's let's get to roll call hit it.
Speaker 1: The show ain't over yet, folks, It's time for roll
Speaker 1: call producer Mark, what is going on with you? Man?
Speaker 1: We wanted to check in see how our buddy is doing.
Speaker 1: What's the latest and greatest in your world? Well, I'm
Speaker 1: just hoping to not get hurt because apparently anyone affiliated
Speaker 1: with the New York Mets is injured right now. Oh,
Speaker 1: what's going on? Eighteen players on the injured list eighteen eighteen.
Speaker 1: An active roster has twenty six on them. How does
Speaker 1: that happen? The backups to the backups or the are
Speaker 1: getting injured now? Yeah, So, if there was ever a
Speaker 1: time where Producer Mark might have to suit up for
Speaker 1: his favorite team in the whole wide world, this is
Speaker 1: probably the closest. Yeah, there's a possibility. I'm at first
Speaker 1: base later tonight. So that's that's wild. What's going on
Speaker 1: with all these guys. It's just freak injuries. Some guys
Speaker 1: have crash into walls. One guy got hit in the
Speaker 1: face with a baseball. I don't know. I don't know
Speaker 1: if you saw that last week. But a guy named
Speaker 1: Kevin Pollaro the Mets got hit directly in the face
Speaker 1: with a ninety nine mile per hour fastball and he
Speaker 1: looks like it but he's completely okay. He just needs
Speaker 1: to He broke his nose, he had surgery, but you know,
Speaker 1: other than that, he's fine. Wow. Crazy, m interesting all right, Well, um,
Speaker 1: crazy stuff going on, Producer Mark, I'm glad, he say, Look,
Speaker 1: if you have to suit up though, at least all
Speaker 1: of Team buck will be rooting for you all across
Speaker 1: the country. Absolutely. I'll make sure to send out the
Speaker 1: highlights to the buck Sexton Twitter account if that happens.
Speaker 1: There we go. Gina first up in Roll Call. Remember
Speaker 1: if you want to be a part of Roll Call,
Speaker 1: Facebook dot com, slashbuck Sexton or Team Bucket, iHeartMedia dot com. Um,
Speaker 1: let's let's get to it. She writes, what is going
Speaker 1: on with the Durham report? And that is a great
Speaker 1: question because yeah. Yeah, I hate to be the guy
Speaker 1: that's always like I told you so, but I've been
Speaker 1: say it all along here. Don't get your hopes up
Speaker 1: for there to be some big moment of justice and
Speaker 1: recognition of the deep state coup against Trump and all that. Nope. Um,
Speaker 1: they're they're gonna bear this Democrat administration. If there is
Speaker 1: anything that comes out of the Drham Report, they will
Speaker 1: bury it. They will bury it. Um. It's not gonna
Speaker 1: mean very much. There'll be something released and they'll just
Speaker 1: say we've seen the you know Merrick Garland, who showing
Speaker 1: what little partisan hackey is. He's saying the January sixth
Speaker 1: insurrection was, you know, like nine to eleven. I mean,
Speaker 1: Merrick Garland's a joke. That guy was gonna be in
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. Everybody a little hack Merrick Garland. Oh,
Speaker 1: but he's so moderate and freasonable. They all said, yeah, please,
Speaker 1: a bunch of liars. We all knew that. But yeah,
Speaker 1: as the Derm Report ever coming out, Gina, your guess
Speaker 1: is as good as mine. But if by coming out,
Speaker 1: you mean do anything while Biden's in office, the answers, No,
Speaker 1: it will not, it will do nothing. It will do nothing.
Speaker 1: So people who are telling you just wait, just wait,
Speaker 1: and you know, day after day, updates, updates, updates on
Speaker 1: all the information coming out about you know, the deep
Speaker 1: State's gonna get its come up ins. Nope, that did
Speaker 1: not happen. The deep state did not get its come
Speaker 1: up ins at all. I mean, you know, you could
Speaker 1: point to a couple of people that suffered minor, minor
Speaker 1: consequences for their attempted use of the federal government to
Speaker 1: essentially undo the twenty sixteen presidential election. So there you
Speaker 1: have it, all right, here we go, Debrah Oh Another
Speaker 1: satisfied customer. My husband has the radio on all day
Speaker 1: long in the car, and as I sat and listened
Speaker 1: to you, I became extremely agitated about your take on
Speaker 1: remote teachers being lazy. I do think you need to
Speaker 1: hear what is like being a remote Department of Education teacher.
Speaker 1: You have no idea what it is like to keep
Speaker 1: ten year olds engaged for five hours a day. You
Speaker 1: are dealing with their emotion, academic, and social needs while
Speaker 1: dealing with some parents that could care less about their achievements,
Speaker 1: while the large majority want the best for their kids
Speaker 1: and worry about their health. I work fourteen hours a
Speaker 1: day teaching, designing curriculum to enhance the horrendous curriculum for
Speaker 1: thirty regular education and special education students, marking their work
Speaker 1: as well as contacting parents. Please don't lump the teachers
Speaker 1: that do their job with a few bad apples. Many
Speaker 1: of us care about the kids. Every Friday, I stream
Speaker 1: movies or have a game night that the kids can socialize.
Speaker 1: I've gotten donations from home Depot Kids Building Kids, and
Speaker 1: driven to each child's house three time so far. I
Speaker 1: made sure they had Halloween, Christmas and Spring packages. I
Speaker 1: know I'm not the only Department of Education teacher that
Speaker 1: goes above and beyond. We love our kids and want
Speaker 1: them to succeed. All right, Deborah, First of all, thank
Speaker 1: you for the work you're doing and for making a
Speaker 1: difference for all those kids. This is one of the
Speaker 1: one of the challenges of doing commentary about things like
Speaker 1: the teachers unions at the situation of public schools across
Speaker 1: the country is I am effectively describing what is a
Speaker 1: widespread problem, but not on every case problem involving hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands of employees of the Department of Education across
Speaker 1: the country. So yes, I think I always try to say,
Speaker 1: and I think I have said, of course, there are
Speaker 1: great teachers out there, and it sounds like you are
Speaker 1: one of them, and so at some level I think
Speaker 1: you should know. Of course, I'm not talking to you, Deborah.
Speaker 1: I'm not telling you that you're not doing good job
Speaker 1: or you're being lazy. I know from many parents friends
Speaker 1: of mine who are parents, that the zoom teaching that
Speaker 1: their children are subjected to is like the equivalent of
Speaker 1: a DJ who presses play on the playlist and then
Speaker 1: goes and has a sandwich and just sort of lets it.
Speaker 1: I'll just go that there's very little effort to do
Speaker 1: the kind of things you're talking about. And the reason
Speaker 1: the teachers unions are fighting so hard for this is
Speaker 1: that for a lot of teachers, staying home and doing
Speaker 1: zoom is easier and less work. And I also know
Speaker 1: that from people who work for the Department of Education.
Speaker 1: So while I think while your note is well taken
Speaker 1: and I appreciate it and it adds necessary perspective, I
Speaker 1: would also still point out that not having to commute
Speaker 1: and show up in person is easier, is easier than
Speaker 1: having to do so, so zoom is going to be
Speaker 1: preferable for people who want to do less work and
Speaker 1: have an easier job. Do some teachers who zoom teach
Speaker 1: go above and beyond? Sure, of course, but kids, I
Speaker 1: mean I would ask you, Debra, and you can write
Speaker 1: and let us know, do you think that you'd be
Speaker 1: better able to do your job in person? I'm sure
Speaker 1: you would say yes, but I would want to hear
Speaker 1: it from you. I would guess the answers yes. So
Speaker 1: my point then still stands it should all be in person.
Speaker 1: The people who are fighting to continue Zoom teaching are
Speaker 1: people that want to be able to do their jobs
Speaker 1: with less work and less difficulty. You are being forced
Speaker 1: to do your job via Zoom and are going above
Speaker 1: and beyond. So I'm clearly not actually referring to you
Speaker 1: when I'm criticizing those who seek to stay at home
Speaker 1: and do Zoom forever. Or I mean, am I missing something?
Speaker 1: But hey, I appreciate it. Appreciate your husband listens to
Speaker 1: the show, your teaching, I'm not your perspective is valued,
Speaker 1: and I thank you for writing in Cody, Hello Bucking producer.
Speaker 1: Mark big fan of the show. I listened to the
Speaker 1: podcast every day. I enjoy all of it. From the
Speaker 1: history lessons to hammering Fauci and calling him from the
Speaker 1: beginning on what he is a tyrant. I work on
Speaker 1: a mine in Nevada, and it's upsetting to hear that
Speaker 1: because they shut down Vegas and lose that income. Now
Speaker 1: they're coming after the minds to make up the revenue.
Speaker 1: I hope the minds can withstand this and survive because
Speaker 1: they provide great paying jobs for a lot of people.
Speaker 1: My wife is a dog breeder and has doodles and cavapoos.
Speaker 1: They're a hardy, non shedding dog that will be the
Speaker 1: size of Tallulah. I heard you expressing interest in a
Speaker 1: dog and if these interests you let me know we
Speaker 1: can get a freedom hunt deal worked out. Thanks so
Speaker 1: much for the entertainment you provide me on a daily basis.
Speaker 1: Keep up the great Workshield Tide well, Cody, thank you
Speaker 1: so much, and thank you for the kind offer of
Speaker 1: a doodle or a cavapoo. I'm sure they are great.
Speaker 1: My brother has a cavapoo, so he loves it. I mean,
Speaker 1: cavapoo is adorable. And as for what else did we
Speaker 1: get into here entertaining you man the Cody, It is
Speaker 1: my honor and privilege, and for everyone who joins every day,
Speaker 1: whether on radio or listening on a podcast, thank you
Speaker 1: for giving us your time and for keeping producer Mark
Speaker 1: and me employed. All right, coming back here with some
Speaker 1: more roll call. We have Andy running hey Buck and
Speaker 1: master producer Mark listening to your Friday podcast about the
Speaker 1: nine level nine eleven style investigation. I would be one
Speaker 1: hundred percent five with it if they included the summer
Speaker 1: twenty twenty BLM riots and who was responsible for starting that.
Speaker 1: A summer of burning down buildings, having military style weapons,
Speaker 1: and causing the death or injury of dozens requires an
Speaker 1: investigation more than one hundred idiots rushing the capitol, does Andy,
Speaker 1: I can tell you this for sure. They absolutely will
Speaker 1: not and have no interest in including any of the
Speaker 1: BLM riots, any of the political violence of the left
Speaker 1: in a January sixth commission. That's why they're calling it
Speaker 1: the January sixth Commission. They want to make sure it
Speaker 1: focuses only on that day and no other days, no
Speaker 1: other events about political violence in America, because that would
Speaker 1: not go to the narrative and the Republicans that want
Speaker 1: to play along with this. I really don't think it's
Speaker 1: because they can't they can't understand what would happen here.
Speaker 1: I don't believe it's because they're so stupid that they
Speaker 1: don't see what this would really mean. I think it's
Speaker 1: because they're so in love with their own virtue and
Speaker 1: with the pad on the head they get from the
Speaker 1: elite media from the Democrats. There are some Republicans who,
Speaker 1: it seems really do just exist to get crumbs thrown
Speaker 1: to them from Democrats. There are some Republicans for whom
Speaker 1: whatever a little sliver of approval they can get from
Speaker 1: their political opponents, that seems to be their their primary motivator.
Speaker 1: On any given day. The thing that gets them the
Speaker 1: most excited is how can I get a pat on
Speaker 1: the head from the Libs? And it's it's a sad circumstance,
Speaker 1: but it's a very real one. And we have to
Speaker 1: be aware of who those people are and the kind
Speaker 1: of things that they say. And do you know Mitt
Speaker 1: Romney has said, for example, Mitt Romney has come out
Speaker 1: and said that he would vote for a commission. Yeah,
Speaker 1: of course he would. Of course he would vote for
Speaker 1: a commission. On January sixth, because Mitt Romney's favorite thing
Speaker 1: to do is to stick his thumb in the in
Speaker 1: the eye of his own side. That's something that gets
Speaker 1: Mitt Romney excited. He loves to be the one that
Speaker 1: shows Republicans how they are learning from his example, from
Speaker 1: Mitt Romney's example, and that's just a troubling circumstance. Do
Speaker 1: you want to make sure everyone also is going to
Speaker 1: Buck Sxton dot com and checking in there. We've got
Speaker 1: stories getting posted, We've got the ability to listen to
Speaker 1: the podcast there, and please do Oh guys, I've got
Speaker 1: a couple of a couple of things here that I
Speaker 1: meant to get to that I did not. Texas does
Speaker 1: constitutional carry, so you don't need any kind of a
Speaker 1: permit for a concealed weapon or training because you've got
Speaker 1: the second strongest, or rather the strongest Second Amendment bill
Speaker 1: in history. There. That's I meant to get that. And
Speaker 1: then Elizabeth Warren wants to triple the size of the IRS.
Speaker 1: I mentioned that the very very top of the show.
Speaker 1: We will have to get to this both of those
Speaker 1: stories tomorrow. Look, the notion of tripling the size of
Speaker 1: the IRS, just in general, should terrify any person with
Speaker 1: good sense who understands what the state the big s
Speaker 1: state wants to do. But these are those are I
Speaker 1: knew there are a couple of stories that I did
Speaker 1: not get to today and that I wanted to get
Speaker 1: to today, So we'll revisit some of those tomorrow. Those
Speaker 1: are we'll take mulligans like on the golf course. We'll
Speaker 1: hit those two stories tomorrow. In the meantime, please do
Speaker 1: pass the buck and send us some roll call. But
Speaker 1: tell people about this show and send in your thoughts
Speaker 1: Facebook dot com, slash buck Sexton. We will be back tomorrow,
Speaker 1: same time, same place, shield Hie