Speaker 1: You're in the Freedom Hunt. This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show podcast. Get more from Buck by following him on
Speaker 1: social media at buck Sexton on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Speaker 1: Welcome friends, Great to have you here with me on
Speaker 1: The Buck Sexton Show. I am very concerned, as you know,
Speaker 1: about this trend of censorship that's happening all across social media,
Speaker 1: because you have to remember, they're not going to be
Speaker 1: judicious in the application of this. They're not going to say, okay,
Speaker 1: only the really bad people on the right, and there
Speaker 1: are certainly some only those people are going to be punished. No,
Speaker 1: there's going to be mass purges not only of individuals,
Speaker 1: but also of ideas, in some cases, ideas that are
Speaker 1: really central policy debates. We should have seen this coming
Speaker 1: because it wasn't the election. You have to remember, it
Speaker 1: wasn't the election that was the original reason for online censorship.
Speaker 1: It was COVID nineteen lockdowns and mask effectiveness, right, And
Speaker 1: that's a different thing, isn't it than just saying anything
Speaker 1: outright about masks if you even question the effectiveness of them,
Speaker 1: something that in the beginning of twenty twenty, as you've
Speaker 1: no doubt heard me talk about many times, doctor Fauci
Speaker 1: suggested there was essentially no effectiveness. That was what Fauci said.
Speaker 1: They can pretend he didn't. But now if you even
Speaker 1: question it, you are d platformed, you're attacked, you are banned,
Speaker 1: you're censored. And we have been led to believe through
Speaker 1: four years that the real threat of authoritarianism, and the
Speaker 1: heart of authoritarianism, is the concept of you must obey.
Speaker 1: It is not about your consent. You must obey, and
Speaker 1: there are there are threats. There is eventually the threat
Speaker 1: of force attached to this, But even in the earlier stages,
Speaker 1: it's obey or you can't speak out without fear of
Speaker 1: being censored by platforms. Obey or maybe you can't even
Speaker 1: conduct your business anymore. You'll be boycotted. Obey or you
Speaker 1: won't be able to use banking services, You'll be kicked
Speaker 1: out of essential parts of day to day life until
Speaker 1: you submit. You must submit or else. We've been told
Speaker 1: for four years that the big threat of this came
Speaker 1: from Donald Trump and the right when all along, and
Speaker 1: there's really no serious disagreement about this. All along, there
Speaker 1: has been a complete opposition to this president from the media,
Speaker 1: from Silicon Valley and from much of corporate America. Look
Speaker 1: at what happened during the BLM riots and protests. There
Speaker 1: were lawful BLM protests, to be sure, but there were
Speaker 1: also a lot of riots, a lot of destruction of property,
Speaker 1: a lot of assaults on police. Corporate America was almost
Speaker 1: uniformly supportive of those protests. Corporate America was sending them money,
Speaker 1: and there was no condemnation of political violence or riots.
Speaker 1: Social media allows you to say things like racist cops
Speaker 1: murdered this person, and then when we find out more
Speaker 1: facts and we know that it's not actually not a
Speaker 1: murder and it was not motivated by racism based on
Speaker 1: anything that we know, there's no fact check run on that.
Speaker 1: There's no additional context that's put out there. So we
Speaker 1: know that there is a capricious application of the terms
Speaker 1: of service, whether it's about COVID lockdowns or BLM and
Speaker 1: political violence. They're playing games, folks. They're not applying these
Speaker 1: standards honestly. In fact, they're weaponizing the standards against one side.
Speaker 1: Where does the greatest concern of authoritarianism come from? Look
Speaker 1: show me a regime around the world, either today or
Speaker 1: in history that was truly an authoritarian state. And ask
Speaker 1: yourself this question. Was the press such as it was
Speaker 1: in complete opposition to the ruling party or totally doing
Speaker 1: the bidding of the ruling party, And you'll come to
Speaker 1: a very straightforward conclusion. Now, there may be some opposition
Speaker 1: papers here and there, a little bit there may be.
Speaker 1: But do you ever have the entirety of the corporate
Speaker 1: establishment and the information establishment and the intellectual class, so
Speaker 1: to speak, completely united against a truly authoritarian regime. No,
Speaker 1: because you couldn't have. You couldn't have such a governing
Speaker 1: a governing system. You couldn't have somebody in total control
Speaker 1: with so many powerful forces arrayed against them. I bring
Speaker 1: this up between because my concern now is that we're
Speaker 1: heading toward what is supposed to be a benevolent authoritarianism
Speaker 1: of the left and the Democrat Party, but will end
Speaker 1: up just being the authoritarianism. That's what we're actually going
Speaker 1: to get. They think it's for our own good. We
Speaker 1: have to censor bad ideas. Got to keep you safe,
Speaker 1: so you can't question lockdowns or masks. Got to get
Speaker 1: rid of political violence. But we're only going to do
Speaker 1: it from the right. And by the way, I support
Speaker 1: the elimination of political violence, but I do think it
Speaker 1: should be supported in all kinds of politics and from
Speaker 1: all sides of the aisle, and from American political conversation
Speaker 1: and discourse. So notice how there's there's just a complete
Speaker 1: lack of understanding of what will really happen, what we're
Speaker 1: facing when you have a government that's coming into power
Speaker 1: here that is almost messianic. I mean, it has a
Speaker 1: zeal to do things in your life. Save what you
Speaker 1: all about Trump, much of his governing philosophy, whatever however
Speaker 1: you want to describe it, involved letting people do what
Speaker 1: they were going to do, and he wasn't trying to
Speaker 1: get all up and everything that your life is about
Speaker 1: day in and day out. That's about to change your choices.
Speaker 1: Your freedoms are going to be under assault in unprecedented
Speaker 1: ways from people who believe that even if they're not
Speaker 1: helping you, they're helping society. You see, they're assisting, they're
Speaker 1: advancing the collective. And so whatever whatever downfall this this creates,
Speaker 1: whatever downside this creates for you, is irrelevant, and they're
Speaker 1: going to be echoed by everything. Everything you're seeing in
Speaker 1: the mainstream media, everything you're going to be seeing from
Speaker 1: Silicon Valley. I mean, if you wanted to create an
Speaker 1: authoritarian America having Silicon Valley and nine five percent of
Speaker 1: the journalistic establishment and a truly angry and emboldened Democrat Party,
Speaker 1: it's it is a concern. It's a worry because they're
Speaker 1: not saying this would be a perfect opportunity for Joe
Speaker 1: Biden and the Democrats to say, everybody, we are reconciling
Speaker 1: as a nation. The election is over. Joe Biden one,
Speaker 1: he will be president, Kamala Harris will be vice president,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna be a good administration for all Americans. No,
Speaker 1: we're not purging, we're not settling scores, We're not doing
Speaker 1: any of that stuff. And I tell you this, it
Speaker 1: would be if a lot of people would be very
Speaker 1: receptive of that message, including I think a lot a
Speaker 1: lot of people who are Republicans. They would say, okay,
Speaker 1: and if they took those actions in good faith, Wow,
Speaker 1: wouldn't it be nice. I would rather actually live in
Speaker 1: America where we can debate policy issues, but by and large,
Speaker 1: politics as much less an obsession of individuals where and
Speaker 1: it has to be for some folks because you've seen
Speaker 1: I mean, they've the lockdown mentality has destroyed countless lives
Speaker 1: this year, and so politics, even if you didn't care
Speaker 1: about it before, it cares about you. So it's been unavoidable.
Speaker 1: I would prefer us to go to a place where
Speaker 1: it's more of a of an intellectual and curiosity hobby. Right, oh,
Speaker 1: what's going on in politics today? Right before you check
Speaker 1: out the sports section or look at what soap operas
Speaker 1: you're gonna watch. I don't know how many of you
Speaker 1: watch soap operas, but you get the idea. I think
Speaker 1: that would be a healthier place for us to be
Speaker 1: as a country, where you know, yes, we have our politics,
Speaker 1: but we have these other areas of public life where
Speaker 1: we don't have to always be an R or a
Speaker 1: D or whatever else people are. But here's my warning
Speaker 1: to all of us. I don't think that's where we're
Speaker 1: heading at all. I think everything is going to be
Speaker 1: even more political because the people that think that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump was a fascist and that they believe that his
Speaker 1: supporters have to also pay a price, and that price
Speaker 1: is not just losing the election, which is very very disconcerting.
Speaker 1: And yeah, he lost. It's done, it's over, Okay, it's finished,
Speaker 1: and that hurts to say for a lot of people's
Speaker 1: that makes them pretty depressed. But that's not sufficient in
Speaker 1: the eyes of the left. There has to be a
Speaker 1: whole other level here. They want a repudiation not only
Speaker 1: of Trump ideas, but of one's former support for this president.
Speaker 1: That's where this is all going. They want total and
Speaker 1: complete submission and the acceptance of our tech overlords and
Speaker 1: their view of what is acceptable speech. This is the
Speaker 1: biggest threat to day to day individual freedom i've in America,
Speaker 1: certainly since the darkest days of nine to eleven and
Speaker 1: the the lockdown and crackdown afterwards on a whole host
Speaker 1: of activities and ideas. But with this one, it's not
Speaker 1: that out. There's not that there's al Qaeda, there's some
Speaker 1: external enemy. The enemy that the Democrat sy is is internal,
Speaker 1: and they're they're pushing this with an increase in domestic
Speaker 1: terror investigations and prosecutions, referring to not just people that
Speaker 1: broke the law and storm the Capitol and the rioters,
Speaker 1: but referring to anyone running around DC as a terrorists
Speaker 1: or terrorists in waiting. They're going to be very broad
Speaker 1: with how they apply these definitions and They're going to
Speaker 1: be very ruthless with the way they try to exact revenge.
Speaker 1: So I want us all to be prepared for this.
Speaker 1: This is going to be a challenging time for those
Speaker 1: of us who do not agree with whatever the Biden
Speaker 1: Harris agenda is going to be, and who fight against
Speaker 1: the lockdowns, who fight against the digital tyranny that is
Speaker 1: upon us. Now we are on We are on defense
Speaker 1: big time, and a lot of us got used to
Speaker 1: being on political offense for a few years, but the
Speaker 1: pendulum has swung far to the other side. Now. This
Speaker 1: is not a cause for despair. It's just a cause
Speaker 1: for looking at the reality and preparing for it, understanding
Speaker 1: who you trust, who you're alongside, and how we move
Speaker 1: forward together. And a big part of this is the
Speaker 1: battle over tech and over social media and the Internet,
Speaker 1: which is the biggest advancement in human communication certainly since electricity,
Speaker 1: and before that, you'd have to say the printing press, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is enormous and we cannot allow this
Speaker 1: to become dominated by one set of beliefs. And I
Speaker 1: believe that it'll really tear the country apart if that's
Speaker 1: allowed to continue, or if that's allowed to continue on
Speaker 1: its current trend, and with that, I'm glad to see
Speaker 1: that there's the beginnings at least of a resistance and
Speaker 1: a pushback to the crackdown from Facebook and others. Let's
Speaker 1: dive into that. Thanks for listening to The Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show podcast. Get the latest news and information from book
Speaker 1: by heading to buck Sexton dot com. Well, we know
Speaker 1: this was organized online. We know that we again took
Speaker 1: down qan on Croud Boys, stop this deal, anything that
Speaker 1: was talking about possible violence last week. Our enforcements never perfect,
Speaker 1: so I'm sure there were still things on Facebook. I
Speaker 1: think these events were large organized on platforms that don't
Speaker 1: have our abilities to stop hate, and don't have our
Speaker 1: standards and don't have our transparency. But certainly to this day,
Speaker 1: we're working to find any single mention that might be
Speaker 1: meaning to and making sure we get it down as
Speaker 1: quickly as possible. This is just not true. That's the
Speaker 1: Facebook CEO Cheryl Sandberg when she says that this can't
Speaker 1: be done on Facebook, or that this wasn't done on Facebook,
Speaker 1: or that there have not been violent riots planned and
Speaker 1: executed using platforms like Twitter and Facebook. That's just not accurate.
Speaker 1: I mean, you look back at news stories stretching back
Speaker 1: for years. There's been all kinds of horrible stuff, horrible
Speaker 1: stuff that has transited the the servers and platforms and
Speaker 1: put on your screen, from Facebook, from Twitter, from these
Speaker 1: because their platforms, and they have this Section two thirty
Speaker 1: protection that allows them to be platforms, but they are
Speaker 1: now acting as publishers because they're taking editorial lines and
Speaker 1: they're not they're not applying standards without politicization. So they
Speaker 1: want to have it both ways, and that's the fundamental
Speaker 1: issue here, and they're getting away with it. They're getting
Speaker 1: away with it. When she says that the Capitol Hill
Speaker 1: riots we're not organized on Facebook, that's a very you
Speaker 1: know that, that's a very interesting position for it to to take.
Speaker 1: How would they how would they even know? And how
Speaker 1: quickly are they taking things off? You're really going to
Speaker 1: tell me that Facebook, with its billions of users and
Speaker 1: all the people that gathered together and went to DC
Speaker 1: and anybody who was talking about criminal activity, they didn't
Speaker 1: they didn't use Facebook. It was all on parlor. That's
Speaker 1: the allegation. They better prove that one. I want to
Speaker 1: see the proof, because I know that Facebook has been
Speaker 1: used to plan geehottest terror attacks. I mean, you look
Speaker 1: at these other platforms. There's all kinds of horrible stuff
Speaker 1: going on. But we don't hold the phone companies responsible
Speaker 1: for what any lunatic, you know, if a if a
Speaker 1: mafia boss calls in an assassination, you know, a hit
Speaker 1: on somebody using a phone, we don't blame the cell
Speaker 1: phone company. Oh I didn't you want to stop this?
Speaker 1: It's impossible to have perfect moderation, and that seems to
Speaker 1: be the standard that they're holding Parlor to where they
Speaker 1: pulled down violent content or incendiary content. Maybe they're not
Speaker 1: as efficient as Facebook, but they haven't said, well, let's
Speaker 1: just increase your efficiency. You know, when you're talking about
Speaker 1: Amazon Web Services AWS pulling Parlor off the Internet, it
Speaker 1: isn't Oh, we'll work with you so that you guys
Speaker 1: we can all agree. I want the rules of the
Speaker 1: road here, and you're going to enforce them. It's no, sorry,
Speaker 1: you're done. We think there's too much violent stuff on
Speaker 1: your site. Twitter is full of horrible stuff. Horrible stuff
Speaker 1: they've got, uh, you know, Iranian politicians and and and
Speaker 1: you know Russian dictator and they've got all kinds of
Speaker 1: wacko awful propaganda on there calling for genocide against human beings.
Speaker 1: I the Chinese commun his party can spee whatever nonsense
Speaker 1: they want on Twitter, and they don't get any you know,
Speaker 1: push back from these authorities. So we know that the
Speaker 1: standard is a let's crush conservative standard. And it reminds
Speaker 1: me right now. It reminds me a little bit of
Speaker 1: how conservatives were completely you know, put on their back
Speaker 1: feet and scared after the shooting, the shooting of I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: the incident with George Floyd. It wasn't a shooting where
Speaker 1: where the knee was on his neck, in his back,
Speaker 1: and then blm, riots happened and all of a sudden
Speaker 1: everybody was WHOA, you know, I maybe maybe cops are
Speaker 1: racist and maybe we should do some big legislative effort
Speaker 1: here to address this and new training everything, and said,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, this is one incident. Let's look
Speaker 1: at all We didn't have all the facts, as you know,
Speaker 1: we only saw half that video. The other half of
Speaker 1: the video was important, important to see. But people were scared.
Speaker 1: And the left is they're very adeptit this. They're very good.
Speaker 1: They go after people intentionally in bad faith on the right,
Speaker 1: if they just wanted to purge the crazies. A lot
Speaker 1: of people that sit around and say, all right, I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, Q is a bunch of wackos. I you know,
Speaker 1: I don't even I don't even know what Q believes,
Speaker 1: and Q is insane, So don't you know that's not
Speaker 1: my problem. A lot of people sit around and say, well,
Speaker 1: what's the but no, for them to really gain political power,
Speaker 1: for the left, for the Democrats to fully leverage what's
Speaker 1: going on, they gotta go after some people that they
Speaker 1: know are opposed to any kind of political violence, that
Speaker 1: they know denounced immediately and would always going forward denounce
Speaker 1: a riot in the Capitol building. They got to get
Speaker 1: some of those people, because that sends a message to everybody,
Speaker 1: To the vast majority of conservatives, to the ninety nine
Speaker 1: point nine percent of conservatives who would never raise their
Speaker 1: hand in anger against a police officer over a political issue,
Speaker 1: the left sends a message to all of them, and
Speaker 1: get you too. You think, just because you're ethical and
Speaker 1: honorable and don't support political violence and don't support breaking
Speaker 1: laws because of election discontent, that you're safe or that
Speaker 1: you'll be allowed to speak. No, No, friends, authoritarians always
Speaker 1: have to make an example of the compliant as well
Speaker 1: as well as those who disobey. Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Get the latest news and
Speaker 1: information from Buck by heading to buck Sexton dot com.
Speaker 1: Do you have any concerns that Congress will be distracted
Speaker 1: if this trial goes forward instead of focusing on the
Speaker 1: cabinet and coronavirus? Yes, I do have concerns, but so
Speaker 1: does Speaker Pelosi. Misforcome is a pretty good legislator, and
Speaker 1: he is doing what he thinks he needs to do
Speaker 1: to be disruptive of President Biden. But I will send
Speaker 1: him McConnell uh nex Belos is smarter than that. We'll
Speaker 1: take the vote that we should take in the House,
Speaker 1: and she will make the determination as win as the
Speaker 1: best time to get that vote, to get the managers
Speaker 1: upon it and move that legislation over to the Senate.
Speaker 1: It's just so happens that if it didn't go over
Speaker 1: there for one hundred days, it could. Let's give President
Speaker 1: and LEC Biden the hundred days he needs to get
Speaker 1: us the gender off and run in and maybe we'll
Speaker 1: send the articles sometimes after that. It's not even gonna
Speaker 1: be done when Trump leaves. They're already the Democrats already
Speaker 1: signaling this to you, not not going to let this go.
Speaker 1: And I've I've read that the Attorney General Bill Barr
Speaker 1: had advised the President not to pardon himself, and I
Speaker 1: understand the legal rationale for that. And I'll say I
Speaker 1: became worried about the President's about how the president was
Speaker 1: doing when when he started to turn on Bill Barr,
Speaker 1: which as you know, I would I would not do,
Speaker 1: and I did not. I did not agree with that,
Speaker 1: and I became even more worried. We returning on Mike Pence,
Speaker 1: who I think is has been an amazing case study
Speaker 1: and somebody who has maintained his composure and his dignity
Speaker 1: and his decency through just a maelstrom. I don't mean
Speaker 1: just recently, I mean for all four years, all the
Speaker 1: attacks on the left and everything to put against Mike Pence.
Speaker 1: Let's not forget Mike Pence. Everything he's shown us so
Speaker 1: far is that he's a good man who's trying his
Speaker 1: best in a very difficult job. I believe the same
Speaker 1: thing is true of attorney Attorney General Barr, and I
Speaker 1: said all along, maybe he didn't appoint a special counsel
Speaker 1: on Hunter Biden because he had already looked at what
Speaker 1: was going on there and he didn't see he didn't
Speaker 1: see any federal crimes to investigate. It's possible. Friends, I
Speaker 1: know this stuff does not get This doesn't get a
Speaker 1: lot of a lot of clicks, a lot of love
Speaker 1: and conservative media. But I'm telling you the truth. I'm
Speaker 1: telling you the truth because I am your friend, i
Speaker 1: am your ally. I'm here with you shield's eye, and
Speaker 1: you know, the continuation of the persecution of Trump, you
Speaker 1: can bet on that that's going to happen. I mean
Speaker 1: here there you had when we started this out at
Speaker 1: Congressman Clyburn saying that they want to do this after
Speaker 1: the hundred days of Biden's agenda. I'm also going to
Speaker 1: tell you right now be prepared for this. There was
Speaker 1: a lack because of some of the personnel decisions. There
Speaker 1: was a lack of focus and efficacy when Trump came
Speaker 1: into office to pursue I'm talking about the very beginning
Speaker 1: in twenty seventeen after the inauguration, to pursue agenda items
Speaker 1: that needed to get done. You know, we did not
Speaker 1: have a repeal and replace of a bomacare we did
Speaker 1: not get. We got fifteen miles of new fence or
Speaker 1: wall at the border, hundreds of miles of upgraded fence
Speaker 1: or wall, but we needed more new wall. There were
Speaker 1: things that were left undone because there was a lack
Speaker 1: of focus. All we really got where tax cuts and deregulation,
Speaker 1: which is great, and I praised them, and I don't
Speaker 1: walk back from that at all. I still think those
Speaker 1: were very good moves. But understand that the Biden administration
Speaker 1: is going to undo all of that now and then
Speaker 1: some So what do I see happening here? They're going
Speaker 1: to pursue as the Democrats do, remember with Obamacare twenty
Speaker 1: starting two thousand and nine, going all the way through.
Speaker 1: They're going to pursue with ruthless efficiency, a transformational agenda
Speaker 1: that the left approves of. It won't be as radical,
Speaker 1: I think as some of this stuff we're concerned about
Speaker 1: right now, not yet at least, because they're going to
Speaker 1: use this moment in time to run up the scoreboard.
Speaker 1: For sure, that's what's going to happen. And they're they're
Speaker 1: also going to continue to go after Trump and they
Speaker 1: will not be satisfied. Until he and I I believe
Speaker 1: his family as well are in legal jeopardy, and also
Speaker 1: that his supporters. But I mean supporters, I don't just
Speaker 1: mean his voters. I mean there's seventy five million Trump voters.
Speaker 1: I think it's gonna be hard to you know, to
Speaker 1: go after all of them, but I mean the top
Speaker 1: people in his White House. There there are there's going
Speaker 1: to be ramifications for them from the left professionally once
Speaker 1: they once they leave this White House. I think that's
Speaker 1: also very much going to be the case. So with
Speaker 1: all of that, I would say that there was one
Speaker 1: thing that Jim Kleibern mentioned when he was going into
Speaker 1: his whole Donald Trump, how We're going to get Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and wait one hundred days, and that is there
Speaker 1: needs to be a renewed national focus on just what
Speaker 1: exactly is going on here with coronavirus and what a
Speaker 1: complete debacle the vaccine rollout has been so far, and
Speaker 1: people who are trying to blame the federal government are delusional.
Speaker 1: It is not. The federal government has delivered the vaccine
Speaker 1: at a five to one rate of the actual distribution
Speaker 1: the vaccine, and the distribution has been left up to
Speaker 1: the states. That was the decision that was made. And
Speaker 1: I remember this, Governor Newsom in California, Governor Cuomo in
Speaker 1: New York was saying that he wouldn't even distribute the
Speaker 1: vaccine until his own state health authorities had approved it.
Speaker 1: So he was taking not even just the right to
Speaker 1: determine who gets this and how quickly, he was going
Speaker 1: a step beyond that to taking this end and saying
Speaker 1: that he might delay it. That's the kind of power
Speaker 1: that he said he had. So it's up to the state.
Speaker 1: And some states West Virginia comes to mind, there are
Speaker 1: others have been really efficient at this, Others have been
Speaker 1: a disaster. It's going to be very difficult for us
Speaker 1: to talk about freedom as a general political issue when
Speaker 1: we do not have individual day to day freedom in
Speaker 1: our lives because of their response to COVID nineteen. We
Speaker 1: all need to understand that we've got to get this
Speaker 1: country reopened. And a huge part of that. I've been
Speaker 1: telling this all along. You know, they all you're anti science,
Speaker 1: and this is what they always say with people question lockdowns. No,
Speaker 1: I think I'm a big advocate for people who are
Speaker 1: at risk, who who are at high risk getting the
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen vaccine as soon as possible. I want family
Speaker 1: members of mine who are at the age where they're
Speaker 1: in a risk category. You know, everybody in my family
Speaker 1: who's at a high risk, I want them getting the vaccine.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to figure out how they can get it
Speaker 1: as soon as possible. But like a lot of other
Speaker 1: people across the country, always is more bureaucratic bullcrap and
Speaker 1: red tape and slowdowns. Why aren't we getting this into
Speaker 1: the arms of people that it will save with just
Speaker 1: incredible speed. That's what it should be. You know, it
Speaker 1: was warp speed to get this thing approved. It is
Speaker 1: not warp speed to get it distributed. And there are
Speaker 1: some pretty clear reasons as to why. There are government
Speaker 1: officials who think that the most important thing is the
Speaker 1: equity of the distribution of this. They've taken a social
Speaker 1: justice approach to the distribution of a vaccine, and there's
Speaker 1: all these other considerations. Here's how this should be done.
Speaker 1: Every state should set up the resources to put out
Speaker 1: information about where to go if you're sixty five or
Speaker 1: over to get this vaccine quickly and safely. The end,
Speaker 1: I mean that that should be the focus and the
Speaker 1: CDC has just updated its guides. I mean, the CDC
Speaker 1: has been a doominable with so much of its guidance
Speaker 1: along the way. Here should schools stay open? Eh? You know,
Speaker 1: they didn't really know, and then a lot of schools
Speaker 1: shut down. Tell me why not? Why why a single
Speaker 1: school in America should be closed at this point for
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen What what sense does that make when we
Speaker 1: know that it's a very minimal threat to children, It
Speaker 1: is a smaller threat. This is a fact I want.
Speaker 1: I can't even be falsely fact checked by Facebook or
Speaker 1: any of these others on this one. It is less
Speaker 1: dangerous to children under the age of twelve than the
Speaker 1: flu on a per capita infectious basis. That's that's just true.
Speaker 1: That's a that's a fact. So why aren't Why are
Speaker 1: our kindergartens and you know, grammar schools across the country
Speaker 1: in a lot of schools are open, but in some
Speaker 1: places they're still closed or they're only doing you know,
Speaker 1: partial openings, whatever it may be. Well, it's because everyone
Speaker 1: in the bureaucracy just wants to take the position of
Speaker 1: maximum safety and minimum risk in what they're saying. And
Speaker 1: that same approach to the vaccines. Distribution has meant that
Speaker 1: there are a lot of people who are waiting for this.
Speaker 1: This is costing lives. You know, they keep saying, oh,
Speaker 1: if only we masked up better, and you know, we
Speaker 1: have people on Capitol Hill I've seen are saying, oh,
Speaker 1: Republicans refuse to wear a mask indoors with them and
Speaker 1: so and then there are a couple of members of
Speaker 1: Congress have tested positive and one of them there's photos
Speaker 1: of her in Congress indoors without a mask on. And
Speaker 1: this is always my point. If you wear a mask
Speaker 1: ninety percent or ninety nine percent of the time and
Speaker 1: taking photos and look at how much I mask up.
Speaker 1: You know that one minute period where you don't have
Speaker 1: your mask on you might get infected, and so the
Speaker 1: rest of it doesn't. The rest of the time, but
Speaker 1: the mask doesn't matter. This is people don't seem to
Speaker 1: really understand we're talking about this as a policy. The
Speaker 1: second you take that thing off, you have no protection now,
Speaker 1: so the fact that you were wearing it, that's why
Speaker 1: I get so angry about, Oh, you got to wear
Speaker 1: a mask in a plane, Oh you gott to wear
Speaker 1: a mask in a restaurant. You have no protection, so
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter if you get infected. And they'll say, well,
Speaker 1: but maybe it's less likely you'd get infected. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you're being exposed to COVID, how much less likely?
Speaker 1: They can't answer that question. But the point here being
Speaker 1: that we have to demand accountability from government authorities, and
Speaker 1: we're gonna be also pushing increasingly for red states to
Speaker 1: be taking a more active, a more active role in
Speaker 1: the protection of our rights, and also to show more
Speaker 1: of our fellow Americans that places like Texas and Florida,
Speaker 1: which are governed by Republicans are outperforming in every important metric,
Speaker 1: places like New York and California. Yeah, you're going to
Speaker 1: see a big focus and it's true on COVID for sure.
Speaker 1: I think it's going to be true on everything though.
Speaker 1: You're going to see a big focus on this in
Speaker 1: the months ahead, and also a continued outflow of anyone
Speaker 1: who doesn't want to live in a crazy blue state. Unfortunate.
Speaker 1: There'll be some Democrats also then go and vote Democrat
Speaker 1: in Texas or Florida, but that's going to be happening.
Speaker 1: And in the vaccine changes, something the vaccine distribution change
Speaker 1: is something that we have to be looking at and
Speaker 1: advocating for very very closely. You're in the Freedom Hut.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Get more from
Speaker 1: Buck by following him on social media at buck Sexton
Speaker 1: on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. We must plan our economic resurgence.
Speaker 1: We simply cannot stay closed until the vaccine hits critical mass.
Speaker 1: The cost is too high. We will have nothing left
Speaker 1: to open. We must reopen the economy, but we must
Speaker 1: do it smartly and safely. We will have nothing left
Speaker 1: to open. Who does that sound like? Who those of
Speaker 1: you listening to the show, you say, wait a second,
Speaker 1: if we stay locked down through the whole winter, there'll
Speaker 1: be nothing left to open, at least for independently owned
Speaker 1: and small businesses. You know. Walmart will be fine, Starbucks
Speaker 1: will be fine. But for the millions and millions of
Speaker 1: people who don't own a Walmart or shares in it
Speaker 1: for that matter, what happens to them? Oh? You mean
Speaker 1: their livelihoods are ruined, and they're bankrupted, and their communities
Speaker 1: are devastated. I thought, if you brought this up, you
Speaker 1: were putting a price on human life, because that's what
Speaker 1: Cuomo used to say about this. But now as we see,
Speaker 1: here's what's really happening. They have a very hard time
Speaker 1: showing people who are approaching this with an open mind.
Speaker 1: How is it that we have benefited exactly in large
Speaker 1: in large urban centers, right, so Los Angeles and New
Speaker 1: York City? And how have we benefited from the most
Speaker 1: draconian lockdown stuff? It has been really effective. And that's
Speaker 1: a very hard case to make. I mean, what do
Speaker 1: we really think our cases reduced twenty percent month the month,
Speaker 1: forty percent month? Maybe is that the claim? Because Florida
Speaker 1: doesn't lockdown, and Florida is not ten times the cases,
Speaker 1: five times the cases, double the cases. No, No, their
Speaker 1: businesses are open. There are some restrictions in place, but
Speaker 1: their businesses are open. So why are all restaurants in
Speaker 1: New York City and Los Angeles shut down? What's the
Speaker 1: upside of this? Oh? Okay, they're not locked down in Miami,
Speaker 1: they're not locked down in Tampa. And this is why
Speaker 1: they're trying to say, well, you know, maybe we should
Speaker 1: start to think about reopening even though we're not through
Speaker 1: the pandemic yet. Oh wow, you don't say this is
Speaker 1: the Cuomo chorus, This is the Fauciites. Finally coming to
Speaker 1: the conclusion that I came to a long time ago,
Speaker 1: which is that you can't just have a zero some
Speaker 1: approach to this whole thing, where you either go extreme
Speaker 1: lockdown or you want everyone to die in your terrible
Speaker 1: person which is which is the way they framed this
Speaker 1: issue when Trump was making the initial decisions back in
Speaker 1: April and May. That's what they're in March April and May.
Speaker 1: That's what they were saying. You either were in favor
Speaker 1: of these severe lockdowns or you were a bad person.
Speaker 1: There was there was no middle ground. And I trust me,
Speaker 1: I know because people were saying horrible things to me.
Speaker 1: As if I wasn't a New York City resident with
Speaker 1: my entire family here, all of us in the epicenter
Speaker 1: of the initial COVID outbreak in New York still the
Speaker 1: highest number of deaths per capita New York and New
Speaker 1: Jersey of any state in the country, as if I
Speaker 1: wasn't as concerned as anybody else about this. But I
Speaker 1: also was trying to think about what the policy trade
Speaker 1: offs would be and looking at how much do we
Speaker 1: really gain from remember lockdown? Is they act like what
Speaker 1: they're telling you is everyone stay home and everyone mask
Speaker 1: up one hundred percent, and that's the benefit we're going
Speaker 1: to get from this, But that's not how it happens.
Speaker 1: You still have essential workers, you still have people going
Speaker 1: to medical appointments, you still have people go to the
Speaker 1: grocery store, if people going to big box stores to
Speaker 1: go get a new TV. And so the virus continues
Speaker 1: to spread and you lock down things like restaurants. In
Speaker 1: New York, they thought one percent of cases were happening
Speaker 1: in restaurants. One percent, So you're going to destroy the
Speaker 1: entire restaurant industries to not even eradicate, but to slow
Speaker 1: one percent of cases. When you start to think this through,
Speaker 1: it just doesn't make sense. It always made sense to say,
Speaker 1: if we have too many cases at once, we cannot
Speaker 1: treat people in the hospitals. They're more people will die
Speaker 1: as a result of that, so we have to slow
Speaker 1: them for hospital capacity. That was a fair point to make.
Speaker 1: That was an honest point to and that's why so
Speaker 1: many people went along with it. We have to this
Speaker 1: day not had a major hospital system in a US
Speaker 1: city unable to give treatment to anyone with COVID. But
Speaker 1: that's still the framework that we're all using. It's either
Speaker 1: agree with me, or people die in the emergency room
Speaker 1: without any without anyone able to even look at them,
Speaker 1: without anyone with the able to provide the medical attention.
Speaker 1: That's not the reality of what we're seeing to this day.
Speaker 1: And that's why there's finally, it seems the beginnings of
Speaker 1: an opening to have a real conversation about this, the
Speaker 1: beginnings of an opening that I hope we will continue
Speaker 1: to push on. Even Governor Cuomo sang it. You're in
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hut. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast
Speaker 1: from More Bucked. Head to Bucksexton dot com and remember
Speaker 1: to subscribe to the podcast. Harsany time, everybody. Our friend
Speaker 1: back from a your stint of book writing. So we
Speaker 1: haven't had him on in the new year yet. Our
Speaker 1: friend David Harsani back in the mix here. He is
Speaker 1: a senior writer at National Review, and he's going to
Speaker 1: have a great book to talk about at some point soon,
Speaker 1: but for right now it's still getting written. David. Great
Speaker 1: to have you, always a pleasure to be here. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right, man, we haven't had you weigh in on
Speaker 1: just the state of things right now. What is what
Speaker 1: is top of mind for you in the political scene
Speaker 1: as we as we talked today, Um well, I am
Speaker 1: very concerned about its generally a free speech issues. So
Speaker 1: for me, I am, you know, concerned about how Twitter
Speaker 1: and Google and Amazon are acting just in general. So
Speaker 1: that's a big topic for me. Obviously, I am concerned
Speaker 1: for the country in general when you look at the
Speaker 1: anger and the violence that was generated last week over
Speaker 1: the election, which I you know, which I think was
Speaker 1: pretty horrible and perpetuated by a mythology that the entire
Speaker 1: election was stolen. And so I guess those are the
Speaker 1: two big things. And then you know, we haven't even
Speaker 1: really been able to really sort of get our minds
Speaker 1: around at least I haven't you know, what a Biden
Speaker 1: administration means for us on a number of issues. But
Speaker 1: I think obviously we'll have enough time for that. Let's
Speaker 1: let's take some of these one by one. Let's let's
Speaker 1: start with the free speech issue. I've been talking a
Speaker 1: lot on the show about what it means for big
Speaker 1: tech censorship, and I do think that that, particularly among
Speaker 1: conservatives on on the right, there there is a you know,
Speaker 1: people say, oh, does it really matter know Twitter does
Speaker 1: this or Facebook does that? Doesn't really matter now, and
Speaker 1: that that had been the attitude. You know, people that
Speaker 1: work in Media Week care a lot about it because
Speaker 1: it affects our ability to speak to our readers and listeners.
Speaker 1: But I think the general public is getting an understanding now. No,
Speaker 1: this is this is the entire Internet architecture that is
Speaker 1: being used to silence. This is if your business is
Speaker 1: selling products of any kind that you know, who knows
Speaker 1: you mean, you might be selling Maga hats, and all
Speaker 1: of a sudden Amazon decides you're shut down, and not
Speaker 1: just we won't sell your stuff, we'll take your website
Speaker 1: off the internet, right or credit card companies say we're
Speaker 1: not going to sell you know, and you can't use
Speaker 1: us to buy you know, guns or whatever it is.
Speaker 1: So it's very problematic. I struggle with it because I'm
Speaker 1: a big believer in the free market and a big
Speaker 1: believer in people being able to make choices in that
Speaker 1: market on their own. I do find it funny that
Speaker 1: the same people who are pro individual mandate and Obamacare
Speaker 1: and want to force you to buy health insurance, who
Speaker 1: want to sue nuns to buy condoms, who want to
Speaker 1: you know, involve themselves and essentially everything that's done by
Speaker 1: the by the free market. Sorry, that's my dog barking.
Speaker 1: That's okay, it's the world we're in now. We gotta
Speaker 1: do hits from home. You get a dog, I love
Speaker 1: you know, I love dogs, So I got no problem
Speaker 1: go ahead. So in any event, so I find it
Speaker 1: funny that they pretend to care about, you know, these choices,
Speaker 1: which I think they're just happy to be able to
Speaker 1: shut people up who they disagree with. So in my
Speaker 1: contention on this, in my argument is, listen, there's a
Speaker 1: value behind the First Amendment and free expression. It's not
Speaker 1: just about the right. If even if the right wasn't
Speaker 1: codified of it, it wasn't written down, we would still
Speaker 1: believe in the ideals of it. So when you're just
Speaker 1: so happy to shut down millions of people because they're
Speaker 1: saying something that you don't like and I don't even
Speaker 1: like most of the time, I think that that's an
Speaker 1: illiberal attitude. And when that becomes normalized as it is now,
Speaker 1: this is even beyond like sort of the practical parts
Speaker 1: of it. When you chip away at that and people
Speaker 1: feel like it's fine to shut down millions of voices
Speaker 1: that they don't agree with, I think that boats very
Speaker 1: poorly for the First Amendment moving forward as well. And
Speaker 1: I'll just use this as an example the term and
Speaker 1: because I've been speaking at this really for all of
Speaker 1: Trump's presidency, the term white supremacy. I mean, I remember
Speaker 1: there was that Norton movie American History Acts, which I
Speaker 1: never actually really I saw pieces of it here and
Speaker 1: there on HBO and such, but you know they're there,
Speaker 1: are movies, or you know, when people talked about white
Speaker 1: supremacists in the nineties the other two thousands, immediately, you know,
Speaker 1: you had this image of a very bad person who
Speaker 1: was of course a racist but also an anti Semite.
Speaker 1: And you know, neo Nazi, white supremacist, shaved head, swastika
Speaker 1: tattoo guys. You know, this was what you would see
Speaker 1: in your mind with white supremacy, and everyone in agree
Speaker 1: these are bad guys. The term white supremacy now is
Speaker 1: used routinely by the left for you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: if you oppose if you support the Asian American guy
Speaker 1: who sued Harvard for discriminating it, people say, well, this
Speaker 1: is this is perpetuating white supremacy. It's like the term
Speaker 1: white So I bring this up just because I feel
Speaker 1: like everyone needs to understand, well, even if they are
Speaker 1: saying their own gonna go after bad people for saying
Speaker 1: for wrong think online or for for evil thing that
Speaker 1: is apps, they're gonna they're gonna expand this so that
Speaker 1: they'll go after people who just oppose an idea and
Speaker 1: is and it's a completely legitimate opposition. Yeah. I mean
Speaker 1: you make a very good point. People who want to
Speaker 1: shut down a bad voice, and we say if we
Speaker 1: give in and say, hey, yeah, you know, if we
Speaker 1: if we treat free speech is not a neutral value
Speaker 1: but just simply something that protects a good speech that
Speaker 1: never ends. As you mentioned, everyone's a white supremacist, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, anyone who's you know, behind a tax cut
Speaker 1: is a white supremacist because it's unfair or whatever it is.
Speaker 1: It's funny that you mentioned American history acts. I'm probably
Speaker 1: getting this somewhat wrong, but this that movie is a
Speaker 1: perfect example of how they do this. There's a scene
Speaker 1: where he's at the table being all Nazi like, right,
Speaker 1: He's saying, you know, I hate black people, I hate
Speaker 1: choose and then all of a sudden he's like an
Speaker 1: affirmative action is terrible, you know, Like, so they fold
Speaker 1: in things that are reasonable to disagree with into the
Speaker 1: larger you know, context of hatred and stuff like that.
Speaker 1: You know, oh, you want to close the border. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, the Naziki wants to close the border. So
Speaker 1: they're essentially saying anyone who wants to close the border
Speaker 1: is also a Nazi. Where they you know, they intimate that.
Speaker 1: So that's why you know, I told you I hadn't
Speaker 1: I hadn't seen the movie. I just I don't want
Speaker 1: to cut you off on what do you continue your point?
Speaker 1: But I just say I mean so, so it's even
Speaker 1: even it's even apparent that tendency to take what is
Speaker 1: objectively and objectively clearly wrong, immoral evil, but then use
Speaker 1: that sort of universal moral revulsion to then start going
Speaker 1: after things that clearly aren't that right, like like if
Speaker 1: you oppose tax guys, but go ahead. Yeah, it's like
Speaker 1: saying I really you know, making a creating a fictional
Speaker 1: characters and Nazi and then saying I'm really for you know, uh,
Speaker 1: medicare for all, because you know, you know, Germans had
Speaker 1: that kind of system long, you know, long before anyone
Speaker 1: and and and Richard Spencer or is it Richard Spencer
Speaker 1: or I forgot whatever the naziga's name is, um you
Speaker 1: know is for it as well, so then you must
Speaker 1: be for it. So, I mean, it's just an expansive
Speaker 1: view of these things and it never ends. And that's
Speaker 1: why you have to worry about speech. Like, let me
Speaker 1: just say saying the people who were getting banned or
Speaker 1: saying that the election was stolen, right, I disagree with them,
Speaker 1: But that's a complete that's just a viewpoint. It's not
Speaker 1: an inciting you know, you're not inciting violence by having
Speaker 1: that viewpoint, just because some people acted by Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: still has Nancy Pelosi still has a tweet up David
Speaker 1: from twenty seventeen saying our election was hijacked. That's the
Speaker 1: same thing as saying stolen, and it's still up there.
Speaker 1: There are there were people on CNN who essentially and
Speaker 1: on MSNBC who are no better than Lynnwood or anyone
Speaker 1: else who had conspiracy theories that were just as bad. Now,
Speaker 1: do I want elected officials to act better than the
Speaker 1: than the talk show person. Yeah, I do, but that
Speaker 1: but still as far as speech goes, they were saying
Speaker 1: the same thing. I would ask any of these people,
Speaker 1: do you believe that the twenty sixteen election was or
Speaker 1: is not stolen, or if the Russians were involved, and
Speaker 1: this they'll still tell you the Russians were, So I
Speaker 1: don't understand why they get to I mean, I do
Speaker 1: understand why they get to speak, but obviously the standards
Speaker 1: not the same. It's being a David Harsani, senior writer
Speaker 1: at National Review, and you can read his latest at
Speaker 1: nastionalview dot com. David, where do you think conservatism goes now?
Speaker 1: It feels very we were uncertain. A lot of people
Speaker 1: are really worried, and there doesn't seem to be any
Speaker 1: anything offering much in the way of answers about you
Speaker 1: know what the movement is, What do you think happens?
Speaker 1: I don't know what the movement is. I mean, obviously
Speaker 1: I have serious disagreements with many people on the right
Speaker 1: over you know, trade policy or policy with big tech,
Speaker 1: and obviously there's going to be some big disagreements. But frankly,
Speaker 1: you know, people who think the Republican Party's finished or
Speaker 1: this or that, I think they misjudge the situation. I
Speaker 1: think what's going to happen is you will have the
Speaker 1: Biden administration doing all kinds of things that conservatives hate
Speaker 1: as a collective, and then that will unite them, as
Speaker 1: it did unite the you know, the left when Trump
Speaker 1: became president. So that's typically what happens because you have
Speaker 1: big consensuses on the right and left. Not a multi
Speaker 1: party state, you know, meaning more than two that are
Speaker 1: always fighting. So I don't know that it's going to
Speaker 1: be all you know, Rosie and there'll be a friendship
Speaker 1: among all those folks. Um. I mean, I'm not a
Speaker 1: big fan of like Howeley or where others you know,
Speaker 1: who are more a populist, But I think that in
Speaker 1: the end, you have if you have a common and
Speaker 1: I use the word not you know, a common enemy,
Speaker 1: but I don't mean it in the in the warlike sense.
Speaker 1: But if you have a common political opponent, you you
Speaker 1: sort of rally around the try to stop them. And
Speaker 1: on the big tech issue, that's one area where people
Speaker 1: keep saying, Okay, well what do we do? And I
Speaker 1: don't have a great answer other than everyone's got to
Speaker 1: understand what this really means. And you know, the answer
Speaker 1: that I had been thinking of was, well, we'll build
Speaker 1: our own stuff. But you got to go a whole
Speaker 1: lot deeper. Now we've seen to build your own stuff
Speaker 1: and actually have it withstand a left wing purge. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I used to say, you know, I get mocked for
Speaker 1: saying build your own, you know, build your own institutions,
Speaker 1: build your own platform. I still think you can. I mean,
Speaker 1: Parlour probably would have been somewhat successful on its own,
Speaker 1: even though I think I don't like the echo chamber
Speaker 1: aspect of it. But whatever, you know, it is what
Speaker 1: it is. But now you have, you know, sites purging
Speaker 1: the ability of people to even have a site. And
Speaker 1: I don't know if you remember a few months ago
Speaker 1: Google Ads threatened to shut down The Federalist because people
Speaker 1: are saying things in their comment section. You essentially are
Speaker 1: given this power to arbitrarily have rules and then pick
Speaker 1: and choose who you want to shut down. I mean,
Speaker 1: I've worked at a number of websites in my life,
Speaker 1: and policing a comment section is possible. Right, There's always
Speaker 1: gonna be someone saying something, so you could just pick
Speaker 1: any of them and decide you want to shut them down,
Speaker 1: and for any reason. I don't know how to deal
Speaker 1: with that. I think giving government more power and trying
Speaker 1: to you know, empower government to decide what speech should
Speaker 1: look like or fair speech should look like. I think
Speaker 1: that's a dangerous turn as well. You see, the people
Speaker 1: are in government. I wouldn't I don't trust them with
Speaker 1: much certainly wouldn't want to trust them with deciding who
Speaker 1: gets free speech and who doesn't or more speech. So
Speaker 1: I'm with you. I don't have a solution for it.
Speaker 1: Also explains to be section section two thirty of the
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety six Communications Decency Act, whatever it is. Section
Speaker 1: two thirty gives people who run these kinds of you know,
Speaker 1: Facebook and you know all these big internet companies that
Speaker 1: have a platform effect where you can write comments. As
Speaker 1: you said, it means that they're not liable for that.
Speaker 1: But Parlor, according to Amazon, is being taken has been
Speaker 1: taken off their servers because of what third part we're
Speaker 1: writing on parlor, you know. So it's that does seem
Speaker 1: highly arbitrary, doesn't it. I mean, if you if the
Speaker 1: whole point is that they're supposed to be this legal protection,
Speaker 1: but then Amazon says, oh, well, even though you got
Speaker 1: this legal protection, you're not doing a good enough job
Speaker 1: of moderating comments that you're not legally You see what
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, they're acting like a like a shadow
Speaker 1: government on most of the Internet, right, and they have
Speaker 1: these rules, like I think it was Twitter, but I'm
Speaker 1: not exactly sure. I might be wrong that said that.
Speaker 1: You know, we're shutting this down for safety reasons. Now, obviously,
Speaker 1: guarding people from speech as a matter of safety is
Speaker 1: the oldest excuse for censorship. It's as oldest censorship itself.
Speaker 1: But the idea that they have some kind of we've
Speaker 1: created this, We've normalized the idea that they have some
Speaker 1: sort of responsibility to keep us safe from words, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's a dangerous that's a dangerous road to
Speaker 1: go down, I think. And you know, people get mad
Speaker 1: at me, they say, like, at least on Twitter, you know,
Speaker 1: you care more about the speech issue than the Capital riot,
Speaker 1: you know, the insurrection, the armed insurrection and coup in etc. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And in some sense, I do, I think that that
Speaker 1: was a terrible and embarrassing moment in American history. But
Speaker 1: I don't think it has any long term effect on
Speaker 1: how we live our life, unless, of course Biden passes
Speaker 1: some kind of domestic terrorism Act or some kind of
Speaker 1: you know, intrusive thing like that. But the speech issue
Speaker 1: that is with us now. We've created new norms that
Speaker 1: are with us now moving forward. It's you know, the
Speaker 1: day after Trump gave them an excuse, they've literally shut
Speaker 1: down half of conservative you know, interactions on social media
Speaker 1: just like that. I mean, I've lost a lot of followers.
Speaker 1: I don't know what that's about, but it's clearly some
Speaker 1: kind of coordinated and conservative effort. And also I think
Speaker 1: that the the way that the dragnet that they're going
Speaker 1: to be using here so to speak, is going to
Speaker 1: take it. There's so many people who you know, I
Speaker 1: remember even for a while it was like people were
Speaker 1: worried if they were looking at you know, al Qaeda's
Speaker 1: statements to be terrorism researchers, and they turn out, yeah,
Speaker 1: some of them were getting all of a sudden, they
Speaker 1: were popping up on some radars for people that are
Speaker 1: you know, understanding the you know, the Arabic videos that
Speaker 1: would be released by inspiring some of these groups that
Speaker 1: were meant to bring people to geatism. I mean, so
Speaker 1: at this point, if you use hashtag stop the Steal
Speaker 1: and you're mocking it. Let's say, even are people to
Speaker 1: believe that your Twitter account or whatever it's going to
Speaker 1: be safe from I don't think so. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think that they're just they're just nailing people all over
Speaker 1: the place and they don't care. Yeah, I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't understand why someone can have the opinion that the
Speaker 1: election was stolen. It's not, it's not it's not even
Speaker 1: hate speech or anything. They think the election was stolen,
Speaker 1: just as most sixty seven percent of Democrats believed about
Speaker 1: to twenty sixteen. So, like, I don't even understand. I
Speaker 1: do understand. I mean, it's just the pretext to try
Speaker 1: to shut people up and anyone, any journalists, especially, which
Speaker 1: is what they do now most of the time, who
Speaker 1: works to shut down the voices of people who is
Speaker 1: excited about shutting down people who they don't like are
Speaker 1: a liberal old people. They are not believers in the
Speaker 1: First Amendment. And just because they through a technicality, can say,
Speaker 1: you know, you don't have the right to say whatever
Speaker 1: you want. You can't scream fire in a theater and
Speaker 1: that kind of nonsense in a crowded theater, they are illiberal.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter that if it's legal or not. In
Speaker 1: my opinion, I don't know if that makes sense. I
Speaker 1: just know, man absolutely matter. There's a culture of the
Speaker 1: first rama too. It's not just about the constitutional protection
Speaker 1: from government interference and the law. So I completely agree
Speaker 1: with you, But I've been saying this and a lot
Speaker 1: of journalists got you know, journalists got mad at me.
Speaker 1: The biggest, the biggest advocates these days publicly of suppression
Speaker 1: or free speech are people who make a living based
Speaker 1: on the principle of free speech, which is journalists. And
Speaker 1: I think that should be noted. I mean, there are
Speaker 1: a lot of the biggest censors are people who work
Speaker 1: at CNN and work at the New York Times. But
Speaker 1: we gotta leave it there for today. David Harsani, everybody
Speaker 1: check out as latest at nationalview dot com. David, thanks
Speaker 1: so much anytime. Thanks for having me