Speaker 1: This is Buck's first thoughts, the news you need to
Speaker 1: get through your day in forty five minutes. Make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe on the iHeart app or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. So I'm here in Florida. Everybody, I've been
Speaker 1: telling you this, I'm at sea. Pack you can hear.
Speaker 1: And so I know the show doesn't sound like it
Speaker 1: always does, but that's because we have thousands and thousands
Speaker 1: of conservatives gathered around me. And I'm very appreciated for
Speaker 1: all of those who come up to talk to me,
Speaker 1: who want to have a chat, tell me they're part
Speaker 1: of Team Buck. But for those of you across the country,
Speaker 1: we have some things to get to today, as well
Speaker 1: as a number of just excellent guests. It'll be kind
Speaker 1: of a surprise, a whole variety. You know, I rarely
Speaker 1: do a lot of guests here on the show, but
Speaker 1: today because so many of my favorite conservatives are gathered
Speaker 1: to one place. I mean to be honest with you,
Speaker 1: we have so many people that want to come on
Speaker 1: the show. Our biggest problem is who can we allow
Speaker 1: on the show. Well, let's first jump into what is
Speaker 1: it exactly that is in peril right now? What is
Speaker 1: it that's at stake. This CEPAC is about conservatism uncanceled.
Speaker 1: But I think one thing that brings us all together
Speaker 1: is the recognition that no matter who you are, no
Speaker 1: matter where you are in the country, you two face
Speaker 1: the threat of cancelation. It doesn't matter if you're a
Speaker 1: public person or not, it doesn't matter what you say.
Speaker 1: I've had the social media companies, some of the most
Speaker 1: powerful organizations corporations in the world, coming after me, censoring me,
Speaker 1: trying to deep platform and undermine a message that I
Speaker 1: put my life into. I mean, I'm doing everything I
Speaker 1: can to bring the best information to the people who
Speaker 1: listen to this show every day, and yet Facebook and
Speaker 1: Twitter and others decide we don't like what you've said,
Speaker 1: or rather, we're going to outsource the decision about what
Speaker 1: you've said to somebody else. We're going to make determinations
Speaker 1: about this through a third party, which is even more
Speaker 1: troubling because now there's less accountability. They launder their censorship.
Speaker 1: You see, that's the whole point. That's the decision that
Speaker 1: they're making for all the rest of us. And if
Speaker 1: you have an unpopular opinion right now, even if it's
Speaker 1: popular by the numbers, in America. But if you believe
Speaker 1: things that are outside the liberal orthodoxy, outside the liberal consensus,
Speaker 1: you find yourself subject to destruction in the public square.
Speaker 1: Well actually defenestration in a sense, first being kicked out
Speaker 1: of the public square, and then perhaps also the annihilation
Speaker 1: of your ability to be considered a person in this
Speaker 1: country and good standing. Liberty is in greater peril right
Speaker 1: now in America than at any time in my life.
Speaker 1: And you know, if you've been listening to this show
Speaker 1: for years, that when things were good with Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: when we were in twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen, twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: I would stop and tell you all to smell the roses.
Speaker 1: I told you this country was as good as you
Speaker 1: were going to see it for a long time. That
Speaker 1: was the truth. And I know a lot of you
Speaker 1: now appreciated it because I said, go out se see
Speaker 1: your family, you know, have a great cookout, see your buddies,
Speaker 1: have some drinks in celebration, or however you celebrate, because
Speaker 1: enjoy the good times. So I tell you the truth
Speaker 1: about where we are in the country. You know that
Speaker 1: I'm not a catastrophist. I don't run around saying how awful.
Speaker 1: Everything is all the time so I can get attention.
Speaker 1: And I'm here telling you that liberty is under greater
Speaker 1: threat right now in America than at any time in
Speaker 1: my lifetime, including after nine to eleven. Remember we had
Speaker 1: a Republican president after nine to eleven, but there was
Speaker 1: that threat of overreach. There was that considerable concern that
Speaker 1: they would go too far. And now we see already
Speaker 1: with the schism within the Republican Party, the possibility of
Speaker 1: the military industrial complex trying to make a comeback. But
Speaker 1: that's a conversation we'll continue to have here for the
Speaker 1: years to come, I can assure you. But liberty is
Speaker 1: under threat because the left believes that they can cancel Conservatism,
Speaker 1: that they can actually undermine and destroy us in a
Speaker 1: way where we will not be able to come back.
Speaker 1: And their version of this is not that we all
Speaker 1: go away. It's that we change what we say. It's
Speaker 1: that we no longer have the beliefs that we hold dear.
Speaker 1: We moderate them, we shift them. They're able to move
Speaker 1: the realm of acceptable conversation to something that's much more
Speaker 1: to their liking. This alone is catastrophic for us because
Speaker 1: once they can force you to bend the knee. Then
Speaker 1: they can force you to start to mouth the preferred slogans,
Speaker 1: to say the things that you know are untrue, but
Speaker 1: that if you don't say them, you can be destroyed.
Speaker 1: And that brings me to the extreme Equality Act as
Speaker 1: I'm calling it. Now. Let me first say one of
Speaker 1: the central tenets of this show has always been and
Speaker 1: will always be, to treat people, all people, with dignity
Speaker 1: and decency, our fellow human beings. There is a love
Speaker 1: of your fellow human beings, as people made in the
Speaker 1: eye of God. There's a love that you must have
Speaker 1: to be a true Conservative, and it must extend, of course,
Speaker 1: without any reference to a person's sexuality, ethnicity, religion. You
Speaker 1: must love your fellow human beings, or else you are
Speaker 1: failing as a conservative, because our whole constitution, the natural
Speaker 1: law that it is rooted in, the universal and endless
Speaker 1: truth that is rooted in, are undermined without that love,
Speaker 1: without that sense of commonality and understanding. On this bill,
Speaker 1: though assessing this purely from a policy perspective, there are
Speaker 1: real there are real areas of concern, and I know
Speaker 1: that because they say it's an LGBTQ bill, we are
Speaker 1: all supposed to view this as an extension of the
Speaker 1: Civil Rights Act, but what it is actually doing to
Speaker 1: women's sports, what it actually would do to separation of
Speaker 1: the sexes, is both very concerning. I'm still also an
Speaker 1: open question. We have to find more of what's really
Speaker 1: going to happen here. I want to share with you now.
Speaker 1: Now the Democrats in the House have already passed this bill,
Speaker 1: but I want to share with you what Senator rand Paul,
Speaker 1: who is an MD himself, which I like to note
Speaker 1: because people say, oh, what does he know about science? Well,
Speaker 1: he went to medical school and it's been a practicing
Speaker 1: doctor for decades. He was speaking to Rachel Levine, supposed
Speaker 1: to be a senior HHS official, and he asked Rachel
Speaker 1: Levine about what the full scope and scale of the
Speaker 1: Equality Act would be for children, for teenagers when it
Speaker 1: comes to policy, now, federal government policy around transgender issues.
Speaker 1: Here is how that exchange went. Let it go into
Speaker 1: the record that the witness refused to answer the question.
Speaker 1: The question is a very specific one. Should minors be
Speaker 1: making these momentous decisions? From most of the history of medicine,
Speaker 1: we wouldn't let you have a cut sewn up in
Speaker 1: the er. But you're willing to let a minor take
Speaker 1: things that prevent their puberty, and you think they get
Speaker 1: that back. You give a woman testosterone enough that she
Speaker 1: grows up beard, you think she's gonna go back looking
Speaker 1: like a woman. When you stop the testosterone, you have
Speaker 1: permanently changed them infertilities of another problem. None of these
Speaker 1: drugs have been approved for this. They're all being used
Speaker 1: off label. I find it ironic that the left that
Speaker 1: went nuts over a hydroxy chloric when being used possibly
Speaker 1: for COVID are not alarmed that these hormones are being
Speaker 1: used off label. There's no long term studies. We don't
Speaker 1: know what happens to them. We do know that there
Speaker 1: are dozens and dozens of people been through this who
Speaker 1: regret that this happening, and a permanent change happened to them.
Speaker 1: And you know, if you've ever been around children, fourteen
Speaker 1: year olds can't make this decision. In the gender dysphoria
Speaker 1: clinic in England, ten percent of the kids are between
Speaker 1: the age of three and ten. We should be outraged
Speaker 1: that someone's talking to a three year old about changing
Speaker 1: their sex. I can't thank you so much, Senator Levine.
Speaker 1: Thank you for Levine's response, which we could also play
Speaker 1: for you, but I can just tell you what it
Speaker 1: was was to say that there's a lot of complexity here,
Speaker 1: that there's a lot of stuff that you have to
Speaker 1: think about, a lot of considerations that you have to have,
Speaker 1: and wouldn't actually say anything, wouldn't actually speak to what
Speaker 1: was going on, wouldn't give an answer to the question
Speaker 1: at all should children be allowed to have full gender
Speaker 1: transition as part of what they can do without parental consent,
Speaker 1: without any change whatsoever. Should children be able to do that?
Speaker 1: The answer from somebody who'll be a top public health
Speaker 1: official and the Biden administration is it's really complicated. I
Speaker 1: don't think it's really complicated. I think that we need
Speaker 1: to have a much more honest discussion about the fact
Speaker 1: that the very medical procedures, the science that they're advocating
Speaker 1: for here doesn't have any long term studies, that it's
Speaker 1: all being made up really on the fly, and there's
Speaker 1: tremendous damage, there's tremendous risk from all of this, and
Speaker 1: that we need to be much more serious as a
Speaker 1: country about the risks we're putting children through. Because of
Speaker 1: what the activists class and the extreme left wants to achieve.
Speaker 1: And that's just one example here. We can talk about
Speaker 1: what it does to sports, we can talk about what
Speaker 1: it does in schools and a separation of the sexes.
Speaker 1: But let's be very very clear here. The reality of
Speaker 1: what we are seeing from this Biden administration is a
Speaker 1: left wing, far progressive Biden administration that is nothing like
Speaker 1: what we were promised in the election cycle. And we
Speaker 1: knew it and we saw it coming. But how different
Speaker 1: would it really be if you had had a President
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders at this point, or even a president AOC.
Speaker 1: Look at what they're doing, look at what they're focusing on.
Speaker 1: We need to understand the stakes here. Friends are high.
Speaker 1: You're in the freedom height. Thanks for listening to a
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show podcast to get the latest from Buck
Speaker 1: at buck sexton dot com. All right, I'm here at
Speaker 1: sea pack. You probably get that sense. You can hear
Speaker 1: the many, many folks all around me, but I'm joined
Speaker 1: by the man himself. I think that's how we have
Speaker 1: to refer to you. I don't know if we call
Speaker 1: you the czar, you know, the we know you're the chairman,
Speaker 1: the old man from Yo man Matt slap of the
Speaker 1: American Conservative Union. He's the chairman of the ACU. He's
Speaker 1: here with me right now. Matt, thanks so much, Thanks Buck,
Speaker 1: thanks for being here. It's a lot to a lot
Speaker 1: of people. It is great and it's sunny and we
Speaker 1: didn't close down. That's a big deal. Yeah. I got
Speaker 1: dragged to my first Sea pack by random friends. I
Speaker 1: think it was now almost fifteen years ago. I was
Speaker 1: a CIA officer and I was like, and they knew,
Speaker 1: they knew that I was a stealth conservative, you know,
Speaker 1: and they brought me in DC and I was like,
Speaker 1: this is awesome. So here I am not fifteen years later,
Speaker 1: actually presenting a sepac Buck Sexton, not hiding anymore. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you are what you are. Yeah, you can actually tell
Speaker 1: people that you're patriotic, you love your country. Once you
Speaker 1: work in the federal government, you know, you know you
Speaker 1: got to keep that on the download sometimes from the
Speaker 1: libs that are lurking behind the sea. Well that's not true.
Speaker 1: If you work for HHS, they love you. But but
Speaker 1: you know, Bucks X and I have developed quite a
Speaker 1: close bond at Seapack. I held his phone yesterday. You
Speaker 1: seemed a little nervous as I had your phone. You
Speaker 1: wondered where I was gonna go with that. You give
Speaker 1: them in your phone, you give them your life pretty much.
Speaker 1: So we got people that are all across the country
Speaker 1: list that they're gonna be watching the live stream. Matt,
Speaker 1: tell me this, what is what is uh this year?
Speaker 1: The thing that is setting the seapack apart? Well, I
Speaker 1: do think it's a big deal that the title is
Speaker 1: America uncanceled because we didn't say Conservatism uncanceled because I
Speaker 1: you know, yeah, I run a group that has conservative
Speaker 1: in the title. But it's not really about being a conservative.
Speaker 1: It's like I don't believe in communism. I think Marxism
Speaker 1: is bad. Like our coalition could be so much bigger,
Speaker 1: Like you can disagree with this on all kinds of issues,
Speaker 1: but do you think like we should have constitution? How
Speaker 1: about that one? Right? Like there are on our side now,
Speaker 1: you know? So uh, And then they we physically were canceled.
Speaker 1: We were told by the state of Maryland, which has
Speaker 1: a you know, one of these Republican governors who's not
Speaker 1: so good, is uh, it's not safe to do this,
Speaker 1: Like no matter how many masks you where, it's not safe.
Speaker 1: And just because I thought masks are highly effective and
Speaker 1: you have social distancing as we really are in masks
Speaker 1: as we do. A really good point. I thought it
Speaker 1: was supposed to be highly Not only is the mask
Speaker 1: apparently not enough to make you safe. Now we're told
Speaker 1: that even when you get the vaccine, which I haven't gotten.
Speaker 1: My mother's gotten it and she's going to be here
Speaker 1: if parents got them the apparently that doesn't keep you
Speaker 1: safe because even when you get the vaccine, you have
Speaker 1: to stay locked into your freezer, your basement. Do you
Speaker 1: know when you're safe, Matt, it's actually when doctor Fauci says, yes,
Speaker 1: that's actually the science. Actually you would have been safe
Speaker 1: is after he threw out that pop fly at the
Speaker 1: at the game at the Gnats. You would have been
Speaker 1: safe if you sat by him in the stands when
Speaker 1: he took off his mask. There you go. Yeah. And
Speaker 1: also not much of a heater or across home plate,
Speaker 1: let's be honest. So if you were getting hit by
Speaker 1: that one heater, that was a cooler, that was not
Speaker 1: a heater. Yeah. So I'm so glad to be down
Speaker 1: here in Florida. You know, one of the things we
Speaker 1: talk about a lot on the show and we've got,
Speaker 1: you know, a number of big stations in Miami and
Speaker 1: Tampa and elsewhere across the state. One of the things
Speaker 1: that we discuss is just what it's like to go
Speaker 1: from the unfree state of whatever, New York, California, to
Speaker 1: the free state of Florida. How much credit do you
Speaker 1: think Ronda Santist really deserves for this. I call him
Speaker 1: America's governor. He's great on opening up, he's great on
Speaker 1: using common sense. On covid or Corona. He doesn't like
Speaker 1: say it doesn't exist or it's a Matthew says, no,
Speaker 1: it's real. But think about Florida. He's got an aged
Speaker 1: population because it's a place where people come to retire.
Speaker 1: He's got better numbers than all the governors who shut
Speaker 1: things down. I said on the stage a few moments
Speaker 1: ago that some of his colleagues got an Emmy for acting.
Speaker 1: He deserves the people Choice People's Choice Award because he's
Speaker 1: just conservatism. Even if you don't like the word constitutionalism,
Speaker 1: Americanism is just common sense. That's really what it comes
Speaker 1: down to. You get to make your decisions. If you
Speaker 1: make bad decisions, you're probably gonna have a crappy life
Speaker 1: and then don't turn to me to fix all your problems.
Speaker 1: So the only other person that could also be referred
Speaker 1: to perhaps as the big guy or you know, the
Speaker 1: chief or whatever that's a seapack would be here on Sunday.
Speaker 1: I believe, Yeah, I thought that, mister Donald Trump. Right,
Speaker 1: It's it's either it's either mister Schlab or mister Trump.
Speaker 1: That's the way it goes at seapack. So Trump's gonna
Speaker 1: be here. What are we expecting him to say? I know,
Speaker 1: we don't know, and no one knows until the words
Speaker 1: actually come out of his mouth. But what are you thinking?
Speaker 1: You know? I think it's interesting. I think he's trying
Speaker 1: to figure out, like what his political role is, you know,
Speaker 1: how he's gonna do endorsements, How does he play this
Speaker 1: game as a former president. I talk to someone who's
Speaker 1: a close intimate of his. I won't I won't say
Speaker 1: who he or she is, but I do think everyone
Speaker 1: who's had interactions with him he's really at peace. He
Speaker 1: seems like a happy guy, maybe even a happier guy.
Speaker 1: You know, he's a little a few steps removed from
Speaker 1: like this constant attacking that would happen. And and I
Speaker 1: expect that to come through, just like he's he's at
Speaker 1: ease with the situation. I think the left believes that
Speaker 1: he's like a bad evil, almost demonic person when they
Speaker 1: don't believe in the devil, but a bad evil guy.
Speaker 1: And he doesn't recycle, so that means yeah, And he
Speaker 1: doesn't have a fake dog, so that that too. But
Speaker 1: they really do think that, like he's a devious person.
Speaker 1: And you know, people are a combination of virtue's and vices.
Speaker 1: They're a cocktail of interesting things. And there's so much
Speaker 1: good and decent and wonderful about the guy. He's such
Speaker 1: a great guy. Everybody would love to have a beer.
Speaker 1: He of course wouldn't because he doesn't drink with him.
Speaker 1: And so I think that's gonna come through on the stage.
Speaker 1: I think you and I talked about this. Conservatives don't
Speaker 1: overly emotionalize, We don't think with our passions by and large,
Speaker 1: but I do think this is a kind of an
Speaker 1: emotional moment. They silenced the man. It's it's disgusting, it's outrageous,
Speaker 1: and he's gonna be unplugged. And I think that's gonna
Speaker 1: be a really important moment. Yeah, because of the Twitter
Speaker 1: band and the other social media platforms that have taken
Speaker 1: the former leader of the free world and said that
Speaker 1: you don't have access to the digital public square. This
Speaker 1: will be the first. While the Ayatola can have his.
Speaker 1: Of course, terrorists can have theirs, and Black Lives Matter
Speaker 1: can have theirs, and all these people get to have
Speaker 1: theirs who are who have done terrible things, but this
Speaker 1: president can. And do you think it's fair to say,
Speaker 1: as we're having sepac here, that free speech is under
Speaker 1: the greatest threat in your lifetime? I always say in
Speaker 1: my lifetime, but I can't speak for others right now
Speaker 1: in this country. And do you also feel like liberty
Speaker 1: is in more duress? Yeah? I just talked to Senator
Speaker 1: Langford who gave great remarks on think about this. How
Speaker 1: crazy is it that the Abraham Accords, this great accomplishment
Speaker 1: of President Trump. These Muslim countries agreed to have religious
Speaker 1: freedom in their countries as a part of those accords,
Speaker 1: while the United States Senate and the United States House
Speaker 1: is literally taking away our religious freedoms in this Equality Act.
Speaker 1: It literally says, specifically, you can't use your faith or
Speaker 1: anything to do with your faith as a reason not
Speaker 1: to be compelled by the government has never happened in
Speaker 1: this country. Matt, thanks so much for putting this all together.
Speaker 1: Thanks for being here, well here working folks who are
Speaker 1: curious to be able to watch this on a stream
Speaker 1: or on YouTube, well you can go to our website
Speaker 1: at conservative dot org. That's the best place to go.
Speaker 1: But I'll be honest with you, Buck, we've had some
Speaker 1: issues already. I hope the center holds and that conservatives
Speaker 1: when they come together and liberals. We talked about Alex
Speaker 1: Barnson being here, formerly of the New York Times. Everyone
Speaker 1: should be able to speak on that stage. And if
Speaker 1: any of these companies throttle us, stop us, cancel us,
Speaker 1: there is going to be hell to pay. And that
Speaker 1: is what's going to rip this country apart. In the end.
Speaker 1: It'll be these people with power from the left who
Speaker 1: say that conservatives must be silenced. They will rip America
Speaker 1: apart and it'll be irrevocably. And so let's hope that
Speaker 1: the center holds and they do the right thing. Matt
Speaker 1: Lap Chairman of the ACU. Matt goodness, Buck talk to
Speaker 1: you on stage. You're listening to the Buck Sexton Shoe podcast.
Speaker 1: Make sure you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeart
Speaker 1: radio app or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm at Seedpack.
Speaker 1: But China is on a lot of people's minds given
Speaker 1: the challenge they post the United States and what it
Speaker 1: means for our economy, for national security. I'm gonna be
Speaker 1: on a panel talking about the Russian I'm actually speaking
Speaker 1: abot the Russian side of it, and Chinese cyber threats
Speaker 1: and big tech threats to the US. What I've got
Speaker 1: the man himself here to talk to us about what's
Speaker 1: going on with China in all regards. Gordon Chang is
Speaker 1: with us and he is the author of the Great
Speaker 1: US US China Tech War. Gordon is always good to
Speaker 1: see you. Thank you so much, Buck and Gordon G.
Speaker 1: Chang is his Twitter folks, You should follow him and
Speaker 1: read his latest research and analysis on these topics. Gordon,
Speaker 1: what is right now for the Biden administration The biggest
Speaker 1: challenge that they have with China that you're worried they're
Speaker 1: gonna fail, Well, probably it's gonna be the South China.
Speaker 1: See in Taiwan. You remember on January twenty three, China's
Speaker 1: H six K bombers. They're nuclear capable. While they were
Speaker 1: threatening Taiwan by going through its air defense identification zone.
Speaker 1: They also simulated an attack on the Theodore Roosevelt Carrier
Speaker 1: Strike Group, which was in the vicinity. So that was
Speaker 1: a message not only to Taipei, but certainly an extremely
Speaker 1: pointed message to the Biden administration. Now, if somebody asks
Speaker 1: you to gauge the biggest challenge we have from China
Speaker 1: on the cyber front, something that's getting talked about a
Speaker 1: bit here at CEPAC, how do you view that Going
Speaker 1: from the US perspective right now, I think the problem is,
Speaker 1: you know, China's cyber criminals. I get that, But the
Speaker 1: most the biggest threat is that we're not defending ourselves.
Speaker 1: This is our country. We know that they've been doing
Speaker 1: this for decades. We don't do enough about it, and
Speaker 1: so it's really I think a problem of American inability
Speaker 1: to defend our own networks. Just give you one example,
Speaker 1: and this is the one that really sticks in my
Speaker 1: craw and this goes back to twenty fourteen. That was
Speaker 1: the time of the cyber attack on Sony Pitchers Entertainment
Speaker 1: obviously came from North Korea, but those North Koreans were
Speaker 1: actually on Chinese soil. When they launched that attack, they
Speaker 1: were launched from Chinese IP addresses. Now, the FBI at
Speaker 1: the time was asked, is any other country involved? The
Speaker 1: answer was no, that is just impossible because China maintains
Speaker 1: the Great Firewall. It is the world's most sophisticated set
Speaker 1: of Internet controls. The Chinese knew, of course about the
Speaker 1: North Grand hackers, that they're permanently on Chinese soil, but
Speaker 1: they launched it went through the Great Firewall. They Chinese
Speaker 1: obviously saw it go out. They saw the hundreds of
Speaker 1: terabytes of data exfiltrated from Sony that came back into
Speaker 1: the China, and yet the FBI was saying no, no
Speaker 1: other country involved. That shows you this is a failure
Speaker 1: of the United States to defend our networks when the
Speaker 1: f B I wasn't willing to tell the truth. Gordon,
Speaker 1: In terms of the tech race that we have right
Speaker 1: now with China, five g comes to mind. There are
Speaker 1: a number of areas. I mean, if the US is
Speaker 1: going to maintain its position as the global leader really
Speaker 1: in all senses, but but particularly in a commercial and
Speaker 1: economic sense, technology is absolutely critical. You mentioned that there's
Speaker 1: cyber that the Chinese Communist Party has a vast network
Speaker 1: of cyber theft going on has for a long time.
Speaker 1: How far ahead are we when it comes to Chinese
Speaker 1: technology and where are areas where we may even be
Speaker 1: at risk of falling behind? Well, there are areas where
Speaker 1: we are behind, and we're years behind. So, for instance,
Speaker 1: quantum communications, the Chinese have it, we do not. And
Speaker 1: this is particularly galling because it was an American who
Speaker 1: discovered really the principles that that permit quantum communications, Albert Einstein.
Speaker 1: He talked about the spooky phenomena of particles at distances
Speaker 1: moving in tandem that permits quantum communications. Yet the Chinese
Speaker 1: were able to develop this with a lot of resources
Speaker 1: and also bringing in a lot of foreign talent, and
Speaker 1: it's unhackable. So they've got it, we do not. You know,
Speaker 1: artificial intelligence, we probably are still ahead, maybe by a
Speaker 1: few years. Quantum computing where maybe ahead by a couple
Speaker 1: of years. But there are a lot of things where
Speaker 1: you know, it's really very very close. How should we
Speaker 1: look at the changes that are already happening that you
Speaker 1: expect to happen, which in the US approach to China,
Speaker 1: I mean, I know there was this almost maniacal focus
Speaker 1: on Russia during the Trump administration. Now we're in the
Speaker 1: Bide administration, there seems to be a broader recognition because
Speaker 1: of the politics having shifted here that China is a
Speaker 1: much bigger concern challenge across the board for America than
Speaker 1: Russia is. Russia still has stuff they can do, but
Speaker 1: China is a bigger concern. How is the Biden administration
Speaker 1: doing things differently so far? And where do you expect
Speaker 1: them to do even more things differently going forward? Well,
Speaker 1: we have as executive orders, and that tells us what
Speaker 1: he's been doing, and that is particularly distressing. So, for instance,
Speaker 1: just a little background. May first, twenty twenty, President Trump
Speaker 1: issues an EO executive Order which says, no, you American
Speaker 1: utility or grid operator can buy equipment from China because
Speaker 1: it could be sabotaged. What does Biden do, first hours
Speaker 1: of his presidency on January twenty, he issues an executive
Speaker 1: order that repeals that prohibition. Now, I understand every administration
Speaker 1: wants to review the China policy of its predecessor, but
Speaker 1: leave the protections in place. What Biden did was indefensible.
Speaker 1: It's leaving America vulnerable to sabotage. I can't explain why
Speaker 1: he would do that. Now we've seen also similar moves
Speaker 1: on the part of the Biden administration to take down
Speaker 1: Trump era protections, and so that gives you a sense,
Speaker 1: you know, trumpet Biden administration officials sometimes save some very
Speaker 1: good things music to the ears of people who are
Speaker 1: concerned about China. But we got to see what they
Speaker 1: were doing, and so far this is a big giveaway.
Speaker 1: And one more thing, Buck, I'm sorry, no, go forward.
Speaker 1: What Biden did with regard to China and his executive
Speaker 1: orders were giveaways. They were unilateral decisions and actions. We
Speaker 1: didn't get anything in return. How do you think the
Speaker 1: Chinese economy is going to do? Given that they have
Speaker 1: seemed to at least try to get out of the
Speaker 1: get out of the lockdown situation faster than we have
Speaker 1: here in the US. That's at least been a goal.
Speaker 1: Are you expecting China to go back to a year
Speaker 1: of major economic growth in part because they view this
Speaker 1: as an opportunity to get ahead of the US right
Speaker 1: to close that gap a little bit more coming out
Speaker 1: of COVID, Well, they certainly view it that way. In
Speaker 1: the Chinese state media and their friends say eight percent
Speaker 1: growth for Beijing this year. That's really unlikely. And the
Speaker 1: reason is that no economy is going to do well
Speaker 1: unless a country has safe and effective vaccines and they've
Speaker 1: been able to put them into the arms of people.
Speaker 1: You know, we've got three vaccines now, Fiser, Maderna, and
Speaker 1: Johnson and Johnson, which was recently given FDA approval a
Speaker 1: couple of days ago. China doesn't have any vaccine that
Speaker 1: is both safe and proven to that has proven safe
Speaker 1: and to be effective. There are vaccines, you know, have
Speaker 1: had trials of thirty five percent effective, you know, up
Speaker 1: ale to fifty percent effective, maybe some sixty five percent,
Speaker 1: but they haven't been proven safe and we haven't seen
Speaker 1: the data. And countries will only accept Chinese vaccines if
Speaker 1: they can't get Maderna, Johnson and Johnson. What is the
Speaker 1: what do we know at this stage about the Wuhan
Speaker 1: lab facility theory? Right? Where are we in that investigation?
Speaker 1: Bring us into the COVID discussion here, what's the latest
Speaker 1: and what do we know about where this thing actually
Speaker 1: came from? Well, the World Health Organization mission to Wuhan,
Speaker 1: which wrapped up about two weeks ago, said that it
Speaker 1: was extremely unlikely that it was a lab leak. But
Speaker 1: also we also know that the Trump administration felt that
Speaker 1: it was the most credible likely source of the disease.
Speaker 1: You gotta remember just just put everything aside for the moment.
Speaker 1: We know that the lab was looking at coronaviruses, we
Speaker 1: know that they were engineering to make them more dangerous.
Speaker 1: We know it wasn't endeering to safety protocols, and this
Speaker 1: virus just happens to start twenty miles from that lab.
Speaker 1: So I think it's certainly the most credible source, and
Speaker 1: there's a lot of more scientific evidence to shows that's
Speaker 1: the case. What are you going to be looking for
Speaker 1: if you were if you were sitting on the other
Speaker 1: side of the chess board and looking to see two two,
Speaker 1: I should say get ahead of what Shijin Ping would
Speaker 1: like to do. Would like to accomplish visa VUS policy
Speaker 1: in the next two years. He wants to overthrow our government.
Speaker 1: Whether he can do that this year or next year,
Speaker 1: or maybe five years down the road, that's what he's
Speaker 1: trying to do. You have to look at what he's
Speaker 1: doing to incite violence on American streets, which is what
Speaker 1: China did last year and what China did in January
Speaker 1: of this year. Gordon Chang. Everybody follow him Gordon g.
Speaker 1: Chang dot com. Also on Twitter Gordon g. Chang, and
Speaker 1: you can check out the Great US China Tech War. Gordon.
Speaker 1: I always appreciate it. Thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Buck, You're in the Freedom Height.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Get
Speaker 1: the latest from Bucket buck Sexton dot com. All right
Speaker 1: here at SEPAK with Senator Mike Lee of the Great
Speaker 1: State of Utah, Sally. Good to see. It's been a while.
Speaker 1: Good to see. So I am angry about something that's
Speaker 1: going on in America right now. I want to ask
Speaker 1: you about looks. I'm hoping you're going to try to
Speaker 1: help fix them. I believe that's part that's part of
Speaker 1: your job, part of your mandate. Right in the Senate,
Speaker 1: I want to start with big tech. The suppression of
Speaker 1: ideas and speech that's going on right now is unlike
Speaker 1: anything we've ever seen before in this country. Big tech
Speaker 1: is now effectively acting as an arm of the DNC.
Speaker 1: You're trying to deal with the legislative side of this.
Speaker 1: You get a lot of pushback from people saying you're
Speaker 1: either not doing it the right way or not doing enough.
Speaker 1: You're telling me you have a bill right now to
Speaker 1: deal with big tech. How do we tackle this giant
Speaker 1: so that we have free speech again in America. We
Speaker 1: tackle it by identifying what the problem is. We've had
Speaker 1: at the outset some challenge and the fact that when
Speaker 1: government acts to restrict free speech, we've got one set
Speaker 1: of tools, the First Amendment tools when a non government
Speaker 1: actor does it, ironically, it's the same thing, the First
Speaker 1: Amendment that serves as a tool against that. But the
Speaker 1: way we should address this is by recognizing that, well,
Speaker 1: anyone has the power to start a company, start a
Speaker 1: business and be liberal hacks, be liberal shills, you know,
Speaker 1: to do whatever they want to get their message out there.
Speaker 1: They can do that if they won't. But what they
Speaker 1: can't do is defraud people in the process of doing it,
Speaker 1: deceive people into thinking they're offering one service when they're
Speaker 1: in fact offering another. The bill I have introduced recently
Speaker 1: in the Senate, it's called the Promise Act, would give
Speaker 1: the Federal Trade Commission the authority to pursue aggressive enforcement
Speaker 1: action against any online provider, including an especially social media
Speaker 1: companies who say one thing about their content moderation policies,
Speaker 1: say one thing on their policies themselves or through their CEOs,
Speaker 1: who say, oh, we're not going to tip the political
Speaker 1: scales one way or another, and then do the opposite,
Speaker 1: where they facilitate leftist speech but they suppress and deep
Speaker 1: platform conservative speech. That's what's been happening. Would that open up,
Speaker 1: then the lawsuits that seem to be necessary to get
Speaker 1: these big tech companies to stop the obvious suppression of
Speaker 1: some ideas they don't like me. What would be actions?
Speaker 1: What would be the teeth in the bill? Okay, so
Speaker 1: the action would be an order from the Federal Trade Commission,
Speaker 1: which would then have the power to issue heavy fines
Speaker 1: and otherwise punish companies that do this. There was another
Speaker 1: proposal that we considered a few months ago that I
Speaker 1: still think has some potential of we could get enough
Speaker 1: votes on it that we were working on the Senate
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee on which I sit. It would itself open
Speaker 1: up a private right of action for aggrieved persons against
Speaker 1: some of these individuals. This bill deals with it from
Speaker 1: the government end, and it gives the government the enforcement
Speaker 1: authority to go after companies that deceive there would be customers.
Speaker 1: What about Section two thirty in all of this, it
Speaker 1: got a lot of attention in the last year of
Speaker 1: Trump's presidency. Obviously Democrats aren't talking about it a lot
Speaker 1: right now, what's your position now on it? And would
Speaker 1: it be enough or would it be wise even to
Speaker 1: remove Section to thirty protection from these companies so that
Speaker 1: forever when listening. This is the publisher versus platform dichotomy
Speaker 1: that's allowed them to, as people say, have their cake
Speaker 1: and eat it two on this issue where they're not
Speaker 1: liable for pretty much anything posted on their sites, which
Speaker 1: is understandable because third parties have to be able use
Speaker 1: them and interact with them. But then they also decide, well,
Speaker 1: we're going to actually act as publisher in an editorial
Speaker 1: sense as well. Yeah, so how do you view this?
Speaker 1: We don't want them to have their cake and eat
Speaker 1: it two, and I think significant reform to two thirty
Speaker 1: is necessary, and that's one of the things that we
Speaker 1: were undertaking in the Judiciary Committee last year, where we
Speaker 1: cobbled together various reforms to make them actually accountable under it,
Speaker 1: and in some cases even to subject them to civil liability.
Speaker 1: A third party and not just by government. If they
Speaker 1: want to have this advantage to operate online, they need
Speaker 1: to be clear about what their policies are, and they
Speaker 1: need to be honest and consistent and not political hacks
Speaker 1: about how they dispense with it. We do have a
Speaker 1: unique feature today in that most people on any given
Speaker 1: day might well get substantial share or even a majority,
Speaker 1: of their information from some online source. Many of them
Speaker 1: get it almost exclusively through social media. A small handful
Speaker 1: of individuals are now sort of imbued with the power
Speaker 1: to decide what information people get access to in which
Speaker 1: they don't. This came to a head and I had
Speaker 1: a moment of real alarm. Starting in September and October,
Speaker 1: as we got closer to the November election, we saw
Speaker 1: even more aggressive, blatant action by these They suppressed the
Speaker 1: New York Post story about Hunter Biden's last for example,
Speaker 1: on Twitter. I mean that is clear. That's really effectively
Speaker 1: an incon donation to the Democrats in an election cycle
Speaker 1: from Twitter. Likewise, with Facebook, with the American Principles Project
Speaker 1: advertisement that was revoked taken down from their website because
Speaker 1: it went after Joe Biden and went after one of
Speaker 1: the Democrats in the Senate based on a piece of
Speaker 1: legislation that they support, and Facebook took it down, saying
Speaker 1: we had to take it down because it lacked context.
Speaker 1: I asked them, in what respect does that differentiate it
Speaker 1: from any other political advertisement, or for that matter, any
Speaker 1: other advertisement at all. When Cooke runs an ad, are
Speaker 1: you gonna say it lacks context because in that same
Speaker 1: ad there wasn't a line about pepsi or about some
Speaker 1: other beverage. Now you wouldn't do that. I later sat
Speaker 1: through two hearings with Jack Dorrissey of Twitter and with
Speaker 1: Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, and I asked them about these questions,
Speaker 1: and they said, well, look, we've got Democrats unhappy with
Speaker 1: us and Republicans so we're even handed, so we're all good.
Speaker 1: And I said, no, no no, no, no, you're not understanding me.
Speaker 1: Everyone can rattle of five, ten, fifteen, twenty examples of
Speaker 1: conservative interests or candidates or individuals who have been deep
Speaker 1: platformed or whose speech has been suppressed. Can you name
Speaker 1: me one corresponding example on the left? Even one? They couldn't. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's very clear that this is ideologically motivated, and anybody
Speaker 1: who knows people as I do who work in some
Speaker 1: of these Silicon Valley giants will tell you that the
Speaker 1: wokeness has really overtaken it. I mean, they're even people
Speaker 1: that under stand that this might not be long term
Speaker 1: and long term smart for their business model, are afraid
Speaker 1: of getting mobbed by the by the PC police inside
Speaker 1: their own institution. We're speaking to Senator Mike Lee of
Speaker 1: Utah for everybody who's joining us at Senator Lee, at
Speaker 1: the state level, I know you're you're handlings at the
Speaker 1: federal level, but you're also men who understands the law
Speaker 1: and the constitutionality of these issues. Is there much that Utah,
Speaker 1: perhaps Texas, other states can do to deal with this?
Speaker 1: I know, I know Governor DeSantis of Florida had said
Speaker 1: that he's trying to provide state level protections. How do
Speaker 1: you see their role in this? Because while you're in
Speaker 1: the Senate right now, as we know, the Democrats have
Speaker 1: a day facto majorities, you have to you might have
Speaker 1: to wait a little while before this bill can get
Speaker 1: through that you're proposing, what can states do to protect
Speaker 1: people so that they actually have free speech rights in
Speaker 1: the digital public square? Okay, So, first and foremost, it's
Speaker 1: at the state level, where most law enforcement should happen,
Speaker 1: rather than at the federal government. We can't ever allow
Speaker 1: it to be constant traded so much at the federal
Speaker 1: level that states don't have authority. It is also worth
Speaker 1: pointing out here that when someone is defrauded within their
Speaker 1: own state, when someone is lured in with one set
Speaker 1: of promises, it turns out to be false as can
Speaker 1: as can be the case with digital online service providers
Speaker 1: of one sort or another, including social media companies, that
Speaker 1: can also be a state offense. Yeah. In fact, most
Speaker 1: criminal offenses, most nearly all torts our state offenses. So
Speaker 1: if we analogize this to a state tort of some
Speaker 1: sort of deceptive trade practice, yeah, that ought to be
Speaker 1: something that states can and should enforce on their own,
Speaker 1: independently of anything Congress is able to put in place.
Speaker 1: I want to pose to you something, just a general question.
Speaker 1: I want your reaction to it. The statement that the
Speaker 1: constitution and individual liberty seem to be under more direst
Speaker 1: more threat for the last twelve months in this country,
Speaker 1: basically since the start of the pandemic than in living memory.
Speaker 1: What do you think of that? And why haven't courts
Speaker 1: stepped up. Why hasn't there been more of an effort
Speaker 1: to restore liberty, whether it's religious freedom, whether it's freedom
Speaker 1: of assembly, areas where there's a clear constitutional violation and
Speaker 1: overreached by these lockdown policies. It's because this effort has
Speaker 1: arisen during an emergency. And this is one thing that
Speaker 1: we've got to be clear about every single time we talk.
Speaker 1: There is no country on earth that has moved in
Speaker 1: a socialistic direction or towards any type of totalitarian regime
Speaker 1: in the absence of a purported emergency. The existence of
Speaker 1: an emergency, including a global pandemic, is not a reason
Speaker 1: to disregard the protections of the Constitution. It's quite to
Speaker 1: the contrary, are a reason to be more vigilant about
Speaker 1: them than we ever have been. People have assumed that
Speaker 1: it's somehow okay to restrict the freedom of assembly during
Speaker 1: the pandemic. People can choose to do that if they want,
Speaker 1: and they may want to consider that for one or
Speaker 1: more healthful reasons that they may have. That always has
Speaker 1: to be up to the individual or to the organization
Speaker 1: in the private sphere. My reading of the Constitution, my
Speaker 1: reading of that portion of the First amendment says that
Speaker 1: that's not an option for the government. We should never
Speaker 1: let it be. Senator mike lea Utah, appreciate you coming by.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for joining us today. Thank you, Buck.
Speaker 1: This is bucks first thoughts the news you need to
Speaker 1: get through your day in forty five minutes. Make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe on the iHeart app or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. The man himself live and in person for
Speaker 1: the first time here on the Buck Sexton Show. We
Speaker 1: got Alex Barrenson, author of several books on Amazon of
Speaker 1: unreported truths about COVID nineteen. Also, please go by his
Speaker 1: latest thriller novel you support his work on COVID nineteen
Speaker 1: truth go by The Power Couple or one of his
Speaker 1: other excellent spy thrillers. Alex good to see in person,
Speaker 1: minut Buck. It's nice to media face. Yeah, how are
Speaker 1: we doing here? Man? It feels to me like we're
Speaker 1: not We're not learning the lessons we need to about
Speaker 1: COVID and now we're really descending into crazy town with
Speaker 1: even after the vaccine, things have to stay the same. Yes,
Speaker 1: I mean, why is that? And if we are, you know,
Speaker 1: close to herd immunity, which By the way, that was
Speaker 1: a phrase you were not allowed to use in the
Speaker 1: media until Joe Biden became the president. It was, you know,
Speaker 1: equivalent to saying that Grandma was going to die. Now,
Speaker 1: you know, people are acknowledging that perhaps one hundred million,
Speaker 1: perhaps one hundred and fifty million Americans have already been
Speaker 1: infected and recovered from this. The official count is way low,
Speaker 1: and yet somehow nothing is going to change. I don't
Speaker 1: I don't understand the public health logic of it. I
Speaker 1: don't understand the political logic of it, and I don't
Speaker 1: understand why people are putting up with it. I have
Speaker 1: to wonder, at what point does it become clear you
Speaker 1: think to everybody that the answer to the question we
Speaker 1: get to try to achieve normalcy Again. First of all,
Speaker 1: they're tending that they don't know what normal is. Now
Speaker 1: I'm sure you've seen that what is normal really and
Speaker 1: so normal has has has shifted as a term. But
Speaker 1: beyond that, we can stop wearing masks. When Fauci says
Speaker 1: so that really seems to be the actual policy, I'm
Speaker 1: being serious. Yeah, I mean, who who died and made
Speaker 1: him king? Um? You know this is always one of
Speaker 1: the signal mistakes we made at the beginning here was
Speaker 1: giving public that public health establishment much too much power
Speaker 1: their technicians. Okay, their job is to present various courses
Speaker 1: of action. Here's what it might look like if you
Speaker 1: shut down, Here's what it might look like if you
Speaker 1: if you stay the course. And here's what beds we
Speaker 1: might need. And for our leaders, whose job it is
Speaker 1: to represent the interests of everybody, not just people who
Speaker 1: might get very sick from COVID, but children who might
Speaker 1: be affected by school closures, business owners, these are these
Speaker 1: are decisions that shouldn't be left to the public health
Speaker 1: establishment any more than the question of whether or not
Speaker 1: to drop the atomic bomb on Japan and nineteen forty
Speaker 1: five should have been left to Robert Oppenheimer. Right, Truman
Speaker 1: made that decision. That's a that's a political choice based
Speaker 1: on balancing various needs. Instead, we anointed you know, Anthony Faucci,
Speaker 1: a bureaucrat, really a mid to upper level bureaucrat, as
Speaker 1: our boss. And guess what he likes it and does not?
Speaker 1: Is there no hurry to give back this power? Now?
Speaker 1: How would you assess how the Biden administration has acted
Speaker 1: since taking taking the White House and taking over after
Speaker 1: the inauguration. On COVID policy so far, I mean, how
Speaker 1: do you score them based on what we've actually seen?
Speaker 1: What have they done? They you know that they they've
Speaker 1: supposedly improved vaccine distribution, the results of which you know,
Speaker 1: basically that's a state level issue. Anyway, They've now said
Speaker 1: they're going to send twenty five million masks to you know,
Speaker 1: people who live in senior homes, and they keep every
Speaker 1: day they come out with a new warning. You know,
Speaker 1: today things are terrible, Tomorrow things will be great. The
Speaker 1: next day things will be terrible again. Their messaging has
Speaker 1: been sort of completely inconsistent. And on schools, which to
Speaker 1: me is the most important issue of all, they have
Speaker 1: not really stood up to the teachers unions in any
Speaker 1: meaningful way. They have this, they have this sort of
Speaker 1: you know, roadmap to open schools, which would actually result,
Speaker 1: if it were followed closely, in schools being closed. Okay,
Speaker 1: in Florida's schools are open right now. Florida would have
Speaker 1: to close many of those schools if it followed the roadmap.
Speaker 1: It doesn't even seem like there's an argument when you're
Speaker 1: talking about whether schools should be open or not. There
Speaker 1: are schools opens many that they are fine. That's there's
Speaker 1: no problems. So what are we even talking about? What
Speaker 1: are we what? How is there even a conversation about
Speaker 1: schools not being open in New York? They're talking about
Speaker 1: where in person learning will be next fall. That's right,
Speaker 1: it's what are we talking about. We're talking about a
Speaker 1: bunch of frightened teachers, unfortunately, who are being led by
Speaker 1: a bunch of the most cynical union leaders in history,
Speaker 1: and who I guess see this as a chance to,
Speaker 1: you know, chisel out some more concessions. And meanwhile they're look,
Speaker 1: I don't understand it. If, unfortunately, schooling is not you know, Unfortunately, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: schooling is mostly a local issues, so this battle has
Speaker 1: to be fought locally over and over again. But if
Speaker 1: it were a national level issue, and if you know,
Speaker 1: anybody reasonable, we're in charge the responsibility. We are opening
Speaker 1: all our schools, not K through five, not K through eight.
Speaker 1: We are opening all our schools. And if you don't
Speaker 1: want to teach, that's fine. You don't have to show
Speaker 1: up for work. You'll be fired. That's what should happen,
Speaker 1: and unfortunately it has not happened. Why should grocery store
Speaker 1: workers and people delivering the mail and I just went
Speaker 1: to the DMV, for heaven's sakes in New York. Why
Speaker 1: shouldn't they have to show up for their jobs? And
Speaker 1: many of them have been doing it really from the beginnings, right,
Speaker 1: But teachers don't. Don't. I don't understand that. I don't
Speaker 1: understand it either. It's yeah, it makes you wonder if
Speaker 1: they can really keep the title essential for those teachers
Speaker 1: that refuse to go and teach. And why should teachers
Speaker 1: in all almost every other country be showing up for work?
Speaker 1: You know, in France, okay, France has strong unions. They
Speaker 1: like to strike, and they like to strike. The teachers
Speaker 1: knew that in person's schooling was important and they insisted
Speaker 1: on it. And the French schools are open, you know,
Speaker 1: come the false surge, the schools stayed open. Our schools
Speaker 1: should be open. Are people reaching out to you now
Speaker 1: in back channel? Who we're you know, we're either very
Speaker 1: critical in the beginning. I mean, if I if on
Speaker 1: the scale of heat for one's COVID beliefs, you know,
Speaker 1: if we're on like a ten point scale, I think
Speaker 1: I get like a six you're in a nine point
Speaker 1: five right about twenty eighth. You're way off at the
Speaker 1: top of the scale of the heat you get for
Speaker 1: telling people things that you always do back up with
Speaker 1: research in facts that we're speaking Alex Parentson and folks
Speaker 1: get his book The Power Couple, but also unreported Truths
Speaker 1: about COVID power couples a novel. But support people who
Speaker 1: are doing good work on issues where they're getting a
Speaker 1: lot of pushback. Are people starting to say, finally, you
Speaker 1: know what, you actually were right about this? Not so
Speaker 1: much that it's not that those people, those people will
Speaker 1: never admit they're wrong. What I am hearing about is physicians,
Speaker 1: a lot of physicians, a lot of scientists saying, you know,
Speaker 1: I had you know, I've done some research and I'm
Speaker 1: sort of afraid to share it anywhere else. Can you
Speaker 1: publish this for me? You know, there's something it could
Speaker 1: be in sort of several different domains that has happened recently.
Speaker 1: And on the one hand, that's great for me as
Speaker 1: a journalist that you know, like there's nobody else to approach,
Speaker 1: so they're approaching me. On their hand, it's terrible. There
Speaker 1: should be ten people like me or fifty people like
Speaker 1: me out there, speaking loudly and getting the truth out,
Speaker 1: and that, you know, instead instead there's like four of us.
Speaker 1: It's really bad, Alex. Where do you think this goes?
Speaker 1: I mean, I would hope that, you know, assuming that this,
Speaker 1: you know, that the decline in cases and hospitalizations continues,
Speaker 1: we will be at a place where everybody's eyes are
Speaker 1: open to the fact that this is almost over and
Speaker 1: people just stop listening to the nonsense that's coming out
Speaker 1: of Fauction's or other people's mouths. Whether or not that happens,
Speaker 1: I don't know, but that's what I hope. Do you
Speaker 1: think there's a level at which everybody will realize that
Speaker 1: it's it's really time. I start to worry that this
Speaker 1: has now become a mindset and almost a religion for people. Well,
Speaker 1: it's the Emperor has no clothes, right, you know, when
Speaker 1: the little boy pointed it out, everyone finally admitted it.
Speaker 1: I hope that's what happens. We'll have to see go
Speaker 1: get unreported truths about COVID nineteen on Amazon as long
Speaker 1: as Amazon still, but you could definitely get The Power Couple,
Speaker 1: which is a great novel written by Alex Barnson Alex
Speaker 1: in person, we get to shake hands. Thanks so much,