Speaker 1: This is Buck's first thoughts. The news you need to
Speaker 1: get for your day in forty five minutes. Make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe on the iHeart app or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. I've told you all along you cannot trust
Speaker 1: these bureaucracies. You cannot trust institutions in this country anymore
Speaker 1: because so many of them have been overtaken by left
Speaker 1: wing idealogues. That's the case when you talk about the
Speaker 1: news media has been for a long time. It's also
Speaker 1: now very apparent when you look at the major bureaucracies
Speaker 1: out there, you look at what's going on with institutions
Speaker 1: like the CDC right, So it's gone beyond just the
Speaker 1: private sector wokeness. It's gone beyond college campuses and universities
Speaker 1: that have Marxist running all over the place. Now what
Speaker 1: should be nonpartisan government federal government institutions are provinces of
Speaker 1: the left effectively and are working for progressive and woke
Speaker 1: ideology in whatever way they can. This is a major challenge.
Speaker 1: This is a threat to our freedoms and liberty. It's
Speaker 1: when we have to take very seriously. But you also
Speaker 1: have to focus on what's going on online these days,
Speaker 1: and as you know, the Internet never forgets, and there's
Speaker 1: never been a more important time to protect your Internet
Speaker 1: activity than right now, given all the politicization and all
Speaker 1: the ways that big tech are punishing people. That's why
Speaker 1: I urge you to get Express VPN. Everything you search, for,
Speaker 1: a watch, or click online can be tracked by big
Speaker 1: tech companies. They can match your activity to your true
Speaker 1: identity using your devices unique IP address. When I switch
Speaker 1: on Express VPN, my computer, my phone, whatever it is
Speaker 1: I'm using has a masked IP address. Makes it a
Speaker 1: lot harder for websites to identify me. Use Express VPN
Speaker 1: and up to five devices simultaneously. It's so easy to use.
Speaker 1: You download the app, you'll have it set up in
Speaker 1: a minute. Stop handing over your data to big tech companies.
Speaker 1: Go with the VPN I trust for online protection. Visit
Speaker 1: Express vpn dot com slash buck to get three months
Speaker 1: free on a one year package. That's Express vpn dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck to get three extra months free Express
Speaker 1: vpn dot com slash buck right now to learn more.
Speaker 1: I've been warning you all along that the CDC was
Speaker 1: going to get addicted to all the power and influence
Speaker 1: that it's had. This is an institution. This is an
Speaker 1: organization of the federal government that has been largely resigned
Speaker 1: to putting out flu advisory notices. You know, once in
Speaker 1: a while, they'll they'll be an ebola scare, or they'll
Speaker 1: be a haunt of virus outbreak somewhere, and they'll they'll
Speaker 1: call someone of the CDC for comment on the news.
Speaker 1: But generally speaking, the CDC was something that you mostly
Speaker 1: knew about because in zombie apocalypse movies or in some
Speaker 1: you know, some some sci fi thriller, the CDC would
Speaker 1: make an appearance, right. I like the show The Rain,
Speaker 1: for example, and the hero as a CDC scientist. It's
Speaker 1: actually a good show. I think it holds up pretty
Speaker 1: well for what it is. But now we see that,
Speaker 1: just like all the other federal bureaucracies, the CDC is
Speaker 1: involved in not just partisan politics, but in progressive politics,
Speaker 1: in Marxist identity politics, and it doesn't want to step away.
Speaker 1: As the COVID pandemic slowly fades, it's going to be
Speaker 1: a long, painful extrication from the overlords that we have
Speaker 1: now at the CDC telling us what we can do,
Speaker 1: where we can shop, whether we can go and breathe
Speaker 1: fresh air outside without some smelly rag across our face. Right,
Speaker 1: That's not going to be an easy process in and
Speaker 1: of itself, But the CDC wants to be involved in
Speaker 1: the national conversation. That's why they have Rachelle will Lenski
Speaker 1: as the director. Now, this is somebody who is a
Speaker 1: progressive and a leftist. I mean she is, I assure you,
Speaker 1: entirely in line with all of the political positions of
Speaker 1: a primetime MSNBC host. And if you were to sit down,
Speaker 1: Robin will Lenski of the CDC, I'm sorry, Rochelle Wilenski
Speaker 1: of the CDC is somebody who would believe and of
Speaker 1: course a woman's right to choose, meaning terminate a pregnancy
Speaker 1: for all nine months. She believes, I'm sure in all
Speaker 1: of the whole panoply of transgender rights, even the ones
Speaker 1: that are being created as I'm still sitting here speaking
Speaker 1: to you, I'm sure she believes in giving puberty blocking
Speaker 1: drugs to ten year olds who think that they're a
Speaker 1: different gender than they are. Whatever it may be, find
Speaker 1: a left wing issue, and the head of the CDC,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure all the people around her too, because
Speaker 1: these are science bureaucrats. Who do you think goes to
Speaker 1: work for the CDC, people that are really going to
Speaker 1: cure cancer, or people who want to be working in
Speaker 1: the government. You went to med school for four years
Speaker 1: into your residency, or you have a PhD in microbiology
Speaker 1: and you want to go work at this at the
Speaker 1: CDC so you can do what exactly if you're really good,
Speaker 1: generally speaking, aren't you going to go to big pharma?
Speaker 1: Aren't you gonna actually work at a place where they're
Speaker 1: coming up with new drugs that save people's lives, sup
Speaker 1: pointing the South folks as we all sit around worshiping
Speaker 1: Saint fauci As that this guy knows anything. But here
Speaker 1: they are weighing in today, we're still in the midst
Speaker 1: of this COVID pandemic. It's fading out, but there are
Speaker 1: a lot of cases still and people are dying every day,
Speaker 1: and you've had a real spike in cases in places
Speaker 1: like New York in Michigan, which we'll talk about more later.
Speaker 1: Yet they're immediately shifting focus because they don't want to
Speaker 1: lose the ability to be front and center in the
Speaker 1: public conversation. They're shifting focus here to racism. As an
Speaker 1: urgent public health threat. Now, there a lot of ways
Speaker 1: that we could tackle this conversation. You can get into this,
Speaker 1: but let me just give you a sense of This
Speaker 1: is the statement from Rachelle Wilenski, MDMPH, director of the
Speaker 1: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Here's what she writes.
Speaker 1: The COVID nineteen pandemic has resulted in the depth of
Speaker 1: over five hundred thousand Americans. Tens of millions have been infected,
Speaker 1: and across the country people are suffering. Importantly, these painful, etc. Etc. Okay,
Speaker 1: the disparities seen over the past year were not a
Speaker 1: result of COVID nineteen. Instead, the pandemic illuminated inequities that
Speaker 1: have existed for generations and revealed for all of America,
Speaker 1: unknown but often unaddressed epidemic affecting impacting public health Racism. Wow,
Speaker 1: the real public health epidemic, I guess is in COVID,
Speaker 1: the one that we're gonna have to struggle with for generations.
Speaker 1: The real public health epidemic is racism. Think about this,
Speaker 1: How is racism a public health epidemic? Where can we
Speaker 1: can we isolate racism in a petri dish? Can we
Speaker 1: actually do a test for you know, antibiotic resistance when
Speaker 1: it comes to racism, and what are we really talking
Speaker 1: about here. No, this is the transference of a supposed
Speaker 1: institution of science which is really just a massive government
Speaker 1: bureaucracy that's a tremendous amount of sloth, waste, and abuse,
Speaker 1: and it's been catastrophically inept during the COVID pandemic. Let's
Speaker 1: remind ourselves of that. Remember when in the early days
Speaker 1: messed up all the testing, the CDC messed up the testing.
Speaker 1: And also, who is telling you at the beginning, guys,
Speaker 1: testing for this disease is just one of a hundred
Speaker 1: steps to try to deal with this. But there was
Speaker 1: such a focus on it because it was it turned
Speaker 1: into it was Trump's fault that the tests in the
Speaker 1: early days weren't coming out and the numbers that they
Speaker 1: needed them to, meaning they weren't producing enough of these tests. Anyway,
Speaker 1: the CDC has been an abject failure. They were they
Speaker 1: didn't have the backbone, the institutional backbone to say, sorry,
Speaker 1: lazy teachers, unions, the schools should be open, all of
Speaker 1: them always, there's no reason to shut down K through
Speaker 1: twelve education. Ever, in this country. The data never supported it,
Speaker 1: It was never reasonable. CDC too cowardly to do that,
Speaker 1: because do do you think that if you took a
Speaker 1: poll of CDC employees, what ninety five percent of them
Speaker 1: voted for Joe Biden. That's what I would guess about
Speaker 1: ninety five percent. And if you wonder where I get
Speaker 1: these statistics from, if you look at the federal government
Speaker 1: and federal government bureaucrat donations in the Hillary Trump campaign,
Speaker 1: guess what, over ninety percent went to Hillary Clinton. So
Speaker 1: you've got a whole bunch of CNN watching leftists working
Speaker 1: at the CDC, and now they want to get in
Speaker 1: on the next big challenge, racism as a public health threat.
Speaker 1: And you know they cite for they cite in this
Speaker 1: health data about life expectancy, they cite that white Americans
Speaker 1: live longer than black, black, and Hispanic Americans on average,
Speaker 1: And so this is racism. It has to be racism,
Speaker 1: they say, Right, what's so fascinating is do you think
Speaker 1: that white Americans have the longest life expectancy because you know,
Speaker 1: white supremacy. When they talk about racism, the only races
Speaker 1: and they're fighting against, it's not black on Asian racism.
Speaker 1: It's not hispanic on black racism or or anything else.
Speaker 1: It's white supremacy. We all know that that's the only
Speaker 1: racism that concerns the left in this country. There is
Speaker 1: no other racism as far as they're concerned, even racism
Speaker 1: among other races. They will tell you, and you know
Speaker 1: this is true, is the result of white supremacy. So
Speaker 1: white people are the are the reason for all racism
Speaker 1: all over the world in fact, which is insane, but
Speaker 1: that's what the left believes. Somehow, Asian Americans have a
Speaker 1: a considerably higher life expectancy, I believe it's over eighty
Speaker 1: than white Americans do. Which is interesting, isn't it? Because
Speaker 1: Asian Americans also have higher average household income than white
Speaker 1: Americans do. But but the system of white supremacy cannot
Speaker 1: be We can't say that this is an exaggerated construct
Speaker 1: of the left. No, no, we all have to bow
Speaker 1: before the terrors of the white supremacist system that exists
Speaker 1: all over our country. Look, there's a tremendous amount uh,
Speaker 1: there's a there's there's a tremendous amount of misinformation out
Speaker 1: there about all of this. Right, there's a tremendous amount
Speaker 1: of people who are sitting around saying, hold on a second,
Speaker 1: maybe the CDC has actually got this right, and they
Speaker 1: and they and then, as I said, they have to
Speaker 1: they have to bow down to this notion that white
Speaker 1: supremacy is influencing all of our institutions. It's it's in everything,
Speaker 1: it's everywhere, it's all over the place. Maybe can we
Speaker 1: can we have a conversation as to whether that's actually
Speaker 1: exaggerated and that's harmful and that separates us and that
Speaker 1: that pulls us apart? Right? Can can we have a
Speaker 1: conversation about that? Or we're not allowed to. No, we're
Speaker 1: just supposed to accept their premise. We're supposed to accept
Speaker 1: their premise that even the health disparities from COVID are
Speaker 1: a function of white supremacy and racism. Structure, structural racism,
Speaker 1: white supremacy. These are the same things. They're used interchangeably
Speaker 1: now they didn't used to be white supremacy. Used to
Speaker 1: be guys with you know, neo Nazi tattoos and shaved
Speaker 1: heads who were you know, really bad people. Now white
Speaker 1: supremacy as well. There's disparate representation in the you know,
Speaker 1: MIT electrical engineering program among different ethnic groups. So that
Speaker 1: looks like white supremacy to me. I mean, it's it's
Speaker 1: abused all the time. It's abused all the time as
Speaker 1: a as just a concept now to silence people. And
Speaker 1: then that brings me to the CDC. I've been worried
Speaker 1: all along that the left has seen something here. The
Speaker 1: left has seen that if you can terrify people based
Speaker 1: upon their health, or if you can go for something
Speaker 1: what's really perhaps the most personal thing for all of us,
Speaker 1: our health, our ability to enjoy our day to day
Speaker 1: lives and to stay alive. And this is a really
Speaker 1: effective means of control. This is a really effective means
Speaker 1: of getting people to do whatever you want them to do.
Speaker 1: We've seen this during the pandemic. I've said they're going
Speaker 1: to go from the public health emergency to the climate
Speaker 1: change emergency. They're going to go from the They're going
Speaker 1: to go from the public health emergency to the gun
Speaker 1: violence emergency, which they've already done. And in fact, as
Speaker 1: you know, the CDC always wants to study gun violence
Speaker 1: as that the CDC has a role in this, but
Speaker 1: it's using a large federal bureaucracy under the guise of
Speaker 1: health to control you and they say that this is
Speaker 1: now all about racism, because then all these equity challenges
Speaker 1: all across the country, it turns into listen to the science.
Speaker 1: That's what they'll say, listen to the science. And as
Speaker 1: we all know, that hasn't been true about their approach
Speaker 1: to COVID, it's definitely not going to be true about
Speaker 1: their approach to what they call now white supremacy, which
Speaker 1: is it's almost hard, it's hard to define. It's whatever
Speaker 1: the left decides it is, and now it's whatever the CDC,
Speaker 1: the Centers for Disease Control decides it is. Perhaps we
Speaker 1: should call it the Centers for Racism Control. Now you
Speaker 1: got in this CDC statement put out by the director Wilenski,
Speaker 1: very political. Obviously, if she's going to get that job
Speaker 1: in the Bide administration, we will continue. Oh sorry, here
Speaker 1: you go. As the nation's leading public health agency, CDC
Speaker 1: has a critical role to play to address the impact
Speaker 1: of racism on public health. To say that there's racism
Speaker 1: in public health that they never will say who's committing
Speaker 1: the public health racism. That's what I want to know.
Speaker 1: I want to know who's actually doing the racism in
Speaker 1: public health. Now, if they want to argue that there
Speaker 1: is an economic disparity for health outcomes. That's absolutely true,
Speaker 1: and we should look at how that happens, why that happens,
Speaker 1: where that is. But if they're going to say that
Speaker 1: the racism requires action by individuals, that is immoral. That's
Speaker 1: what racism has to be premised on. That's what racism
Speaker 1: has to be based on. So who's doing it? Are
Speaker 1: doctors not treating minority patients because they're racist? Whose fault
Speaker 1: is it? If one community drinks more sugary soda, for example,
Speaker 1: and more foods that are likely to contribute to type
Speaker 1: two diabetes than another, do all ethnic groups in this
Speaker 1: country actually have the same risks from different diseases? It
Speaker 1: actually turns out, if you look at the numbers, there
Speaker 1: are some diseases that all of the world disparately affect
Speaker 1: certain populations based on ethnicity. That's just a genetic reality.
Speaker 1: Some people, some groups, ethnic groups, national groups are more
Speaker 1: susceptible to certain diseases. I mean, one that comes to
Speaker 1: mind is sickle cell anemia, for example. So there actually
Speaker 1: are some health disparities that are just there that aren't
Speaker 1: the result of racism. It's worth noting that. But how
Speaker 1: do they expect. How's the CDC going to say that
Speaker 1: we should tackle as well. You see an example of
Speaker 1: it in Vermont. This is from Scientific American Vermont to
Speaker 1: give minority residents priority for COVID vaccines. This was just
Speaker 1: just recently. States have tribe with limited success to get
Speaker 1: vaccines to people of color who have been disproportionately killed
Speaker 1: hospitalized by the virus. Starting Thursday, Vermont explicitly gave black
Speaker 1: adults and people from other minority communities priority status for vaccinations.
Speaker 1: It follows Montana, which in January announced that Native Americans
Speaker 1: other people of color, because they're at higher risk of
Speaker 1: complications from COVID nineteen, would be allowed to receive the vaccine.
Speaker 1: All Black, Indigenous residents and other people of color who
Speaker 1: are permanent Vermont residence and sixteen or older are eligible
Speaker 1: for the vaccine. Okay, so we're actually now prioritizing people
Speaker 1: for life saving for what we all understand as a
Speaker 1: life saving vaccine based upon skin color that is happening
Speaker 1: in America today. You think that this is the beginning
Speaker 1: of this, or you think that this is just a
Speaker 1: one off, You think that they're going to do more
Speaker 1: of this, or they're going to do less of this
Speaker 1: going forward. Right this. When I say this, I mean
Speaker 1: using race as a means of making distinctions about health
Speaker 1: that really matter, distinctions about public health authorities and state
Speaker 1: resources and ways that really matter. You know, what, would
Speaker 1: it have been fair? I mean I had to help
Speaker 1: my family members. I had to help my parents get vaccinated.
Speaker 1: They're both seniors or my mom's close to being a senior.
Speaker 1: I had to help them get appointments and figure out
Speaker 1: and it was not easy for them at all. Would
Speaker 1: I resent the idea that people who are younger than
Speaker 1: my parents but are of a of a preferred by
Speaker 1: the CDC racial category would go ahead of them, even
Speaker 1: though the risk, as we know, is first and foremost
Speaker 1: determined by age. Yeah, I think that that's a problem.
Speaker 1: I think that's racism. But that's not the way that
Speaker 1: the left sees us at all. They are pulling us apart.
Speaker 1: They are Marxist identity politics obsessed. That's what's happening now
Speaker 1: across the country, and that's what's happening with the CDC's
Speaker 1: involvement in all of this. And you know they're they're
Speaker 1: they're doing things at CDC like here's here's how they're
Speaker 1: tackling this. Right, let's ask about they really doing. We're
Speaker 1: expanding our internal agency efforts to foster greater diversity and
Speaker 1: create an inclusive and affirming environment that's going to save
Speaker 1: a lot of lives. Yeah, I'm sure the CDC is
Speaker 1: going to be really successful in that. We're launching a
Speaker 1: new web portal, Racism and Health as part of our
Speaker 1: ongoing commitment to serve as a catalyst for public and
Speaker 1: scientific discourse around racism and health and to be accountable
Speaker 1: for our progress. Oh, I'm sure they're going to be
Speaker 1: really accountable. Here's how they finish off this statement. Confronting
Speaker 1: the impact of racism will not be easy. I know
Speaker 1: we can meet this challenge. I know we can create
Speaker 1: an America where all people have the opportunity to live
Speaker 1: a healthy lifestyle when we each take responsibility and work together.
Speaker 1: I am committed to this work. I certainly hope you
Speaker 1: will lean in and join me. This is all just
Speaker 1: this is all just the same stuff that you see,
Speaker 1: the kind of you know, Marxist equity babble that you
Speaker 1: see from college and university admissions offices. I mean, they're
Speaker 1: they're really pushing very hard. This notion that America is
Speaker 1: this really evil racist country and that there is no
Speaker 1: in fact equal protection under the law. The law has
Speaker 1: to be making constant distinctions between people based upon race.
Speaker 1: This is an enormous moral regression. This is absolutely wrong.
Speaker 1: This is absolutely going in the wrong direction. And it
Speaker 1: started with smaller things like, oh, a little bit of
Speaker 1: affirmative action in school is a little bit of firmative
Speaker 1: action and hiring. Now you've got states that are saying, oh,
Speaker 1: you're a black or Latino, you get priority access to
Speaker 1: a vaccine over other people, including other people who are
Speaker 1: at high risk because of their age and comorbidities. Because equity.
Speaker 1: It's actually happening in this country right now in America.
Speaker 1: The Biden administrations, of course pushing all this stuff as
Speaker 1: much as they possibly can. That's right, rich old white
Speaker 1: guy Joe Biden is trying to convince America he's so
Speaker 1: concerned with equity. Sure he is. It's a fraud, friends,
Speaker 1: but unfortunately it's when we're going to have to fight
Speaker 1: back against because this is just the beginning. The CDC
Speaker 1: as a woke agency is a reality. You really got
Speaker 1: to fight to get to the truth. These days, the
Speaker 1: media is lying to you all the time, more than ever,
Speaker 1: but it is worse. I just want to say that
Speaker 1: it's worse than it's ever been. And also, people are
Speaker 1: more politically locked into their beliefs and they've ever been before.
Speaker 1: People are more certain that whatever they're whatever they're saying
Speaker 1: is the only proper way of and I'm talking about
Speaker 1: even the words they use, but just their positions as well.
Speaker 1: We are in a polarized and ossified political environment unlike
Speaker 1: anything that's ever been before in my lifetime. It's existed
Speaker 1: in the past, but it's gotten worse. It keeps getting worse.
Speaker 1: And you see this even over the gun control issue,
Speaker 1: in the way that Joe Biden is talking about gun
Speaker 1: control and you say, hold on a second, why is
Speaker 1: he coming up with this stuff? And he's had so
Speaker 1: much time with all these different advisers and people that
Speaker 1: are actually writing these speeches and the legislation in Congress,
Speaker 1: and he lies about stuff, and we're supposed to think
Speaker 1: that that's not a big problem, like it's not an
Speaker 1: issue that when it comes to a constitutionally protected right,
Speaker 1: you have the President of the United States saying things
Speaker 1: that are just not true. And then if you bring
Speaker 1: that up, people yell at you like you're a bad person.
Speaker 1: The truth will get you in trouble. Well, the good
Speaker 1: news is there are other people out there like you
Speaker 1: who share your beliefs and you know this. But if
Speaker 1: you've tried to share your political opinions on social media lately,
Speaker 1: it's hard to have a civil conversation. Luckily, there's Caucus
Speaker 1: Room dot coms, a social media network exclusively for conservatives.
Speaker 1: Caucus Room is an online community for conservatives to gather
Speaker 1: and engage locally. Only real people who are verified conservatives
Speaker 1: can become Caucus remembers, but Caucus Room will never share
Speaker 1: your information with anyone ever. Sign up process ensure as
Speaker 1: you're communicating with real conservatives in your neighborhood, no bots
Speaker 1: or trolls. It's a great way to get engaged on
Speaker 1: issues where you can make the biggest difference locally. At Caucusroom,
Speaker 1: you can participate in live virtual meetings that are so
Speaker 1: secure the platform played host over a dozen virtual Republican
Speaker 1: Party conventions over the past year. Caucus Room is made
Speaker 1: by conservatives for conservatives to get organized and make a difference.
Speaker 1: Join the Buck Sexton Listeners group on Caucus room dot
Speaker 1: com that c au cus r oom dot com to
Speaker 1: interact with other listeners just like you again, Caucus room
Speaker 1: dot com. C au Cus r Oom caucusroom dot com
Speaker 1: join the buck Sexton Listeners group and interact with others
Speaker 1: just like you. Most people don't know. And you walk
Speaker 1: into a store and you buy a gun, you have
Speaker 1: a background check, but you go to a gun show,
Speaker 1: you can buy whatever you want, no background check? Not true?
Speaker 1: Does anybody care anymore when things are not true when
Speaker 1: Joe Biden says them, or when a Democrat says them,
Speaker 1: or oh, I know, we can apply the Don Lemon standard,
Speaker 1: which is well Trump lied so much that no lies
Speaker 1: matter anymore. Now I don't I don't agree with that.
Speaker 1: I don't agree with any of that, but that's the
Speaker 1: standard they're trying to apply now to cover up for Amtrak.
Speaker 1: Joe Yo here, I am them. I'm just gonna you know,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna say the stuff. And you know, I'm
Speaker 1: no joke, friends, you know, just kind a little breathy,
Speaker 1: a little a little bit of stop and start listen
Speaker 1: to me. I'm so earnest, such a such a straight shooter,
Speaker 1: not like a gun shooter, like a different kind of shooter.
Speaker 1: It's not true that you can go to a gun
Speaker 1: show and buy a gun without a background check. As
Speaker 1: a matter of policy, that's not the case. If you're
Speaker 1: a federally licensed firearms dealer at a gun show, you
Speaker 1: will run a background check. So when Joe Biden says
Speaker 1: that you can just go to a gun show and
Speaker 1: buy one, that's not true. There are some wiggle room
Speaker 1: in the law for hobbyists and enthusiasts who aren't engaged
Speaker 1: in selling guns as a as their business who are
Speaker 1: at a gun show, but the overwhelming majority turns out
Speaker 1: of people that go to gun shows and buy a
Speaker 1: gun will actually have to pass a background check. There's
Speaker 1: a whole other part of this argument too that I
Speaker 1: think is worth noting, and that's a lot of really
Speaker 1: bad people can pass background checks. If somebody has a
Speaker 1: criminal background, they're going to know that and they're very
Speaker 1: likely to ignore whatever the gun laws are if they
Speaker 1: want to get a gun. But a lot of other people,
Speaker 1: including people that have severe mental illness or are going
Speaker 1: to go on some kind of a shooting spree, they
Speaker 1: when you look at it, they would pass They do
Speaker 1: pass background checks. A lot of the time. So I
Speaker 1: understand that there are a lot of security measures. I'm
Speaker 1: not one of these people that's going to pretend that
Speaker 1: there's no need for things that aren't one hundred percent effective, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is what the left does with vaccines. Now,
Speaker 1: well it's not one hundred percent, so you still have
Speaker 1: to mask up what that's crazy? Sorry, not one hundred percent?
Speaker 1: All right, they're playing games here. Yes, vaccines are incredibly
Speaker 1: effective at preventing the virus from being spread as well
Speaker 1: as individuals from getting it. It's not perfect. I understand
Speaker 1: that you can make a case that background checks are
Speaker 1: are going to work sometimes, and they do work sometimes
Speaker 1: in stopping people from getting farms. But let's also not
Speaker 1: overstate the fact that a lot of mass shooters pass
Speaker 1: background checks. So you know, you're you're throwing a bunch
Speaker 1: of things at this in the hopes that it's going
Speaker 1: to reduce violence in a meaningful way. And what you
Speaker 1: really get with the background check stuff, for the most part,
Speaker 1: is going to be the if it saves just one
Speaker 1: life mentality, which is not how we make policy. If
Speaker 1: it saves one life is the base is for a
Speaker 1: truly tyrannical government, because think of all the ways anyone
Speaker 1: who's going to argue with me on this one. The
Speaker 1: speed limits should be ten miles an hour. We would
Speaker 1: save tens of thousands of lives a year. It's true,
Speaker 1: ten mile an hour. What you have to go so fast?
Speaker 1: What your business wouldn't function anymore? Too bad? It'll save lives.
Speaker 1: We don't do that, do we? Although I worry these
Speaker 1: days that the mentality in the era of COVID has
Speaker 1: changed so much that people would say, yeah, actually, you know,
Speaker 1: we probably should have a ten mile a ten mile
Speaker 1: per hour speed limit. You know, I think we actually
Speaker 1: should have that. So the gun show thing is not true.
Speaker 1: But more importantly, you get to the underlying philosophy of
Speaker 1: Joe Biden and his underlying philosophy of the Constitution. Here's
Speaker 1: what he says, play too their phony arguments suggesting that
Speaker 1: these are Second Amendment rights at stake for what we're
Speaker 1: talking about. But no amendment, no amendment to the Constitution
Speaker 1: is absolute. Isn't that so interesting? Because the only amendment
Speaker 1: to the Constitution, and this is just obvious, the only
Speaker 1: amendment to the Constitution that Democrats believe is absolute is
Speaker 1: the right to an abortion, which is not in an amendment,
Speaker 1: nor is it in the Constitution, but there can be
Speaker 1: no restrictions on it whatsoever, no limitations whatsoever. They will
Speaker 1: fight any number of things that have come forward, that
Speaker 1: including making abortion centers have doctors with admitting privileges at
Speaker 1: a hospital. Democrats, they left, will fight against that like crazy,
Speaker 1: including saying that you need to have a surgical grade
Speaker 1: medical center to be performing abortions. Democrats will fight against that.
Speaker 1: So even what we would call safety measures for abortions,
Speaker 1: never mind stopping of abortions, they will do everything they
Speaker 1: can to stop. They'll do everything they can to shut
Speaker 1: that down, and unfortunately they're very successful in it. They
Speaker 1: are abortion absolutists. That is true of Democrats, that is
Speaker 1: true of the left. So that's one thing they do
Speaker 1: believe in. And it's just ironic that the only amendment
Speaker 1: that they believe is absolute is the one that doesn't exist,
Speaker 1: or the only constitutional right, which is the right to
Speaker 1: an abortion, which does not exist. And they can continue
Speaker 1: with this lie as long as they want, but it's absurd.
Speaker 1: And then you have something else that I thought about
Speaker 1: where Biden pulled the fire in a crowded theater line.
Speaker 1: It's remarkable. Democrats keep doing this. I mean a lot
Speaker 1: of politicians and Republicans will do this too. Sometimes fire
Speaker 1: in a crowded theater comes from a Supreme Court decision
Speaker 1: Shank v. United States, where the Supreme Court wrongly held
Speaker 1: that a person passing out flyers, a socialist pacifist who
Speaker 1: was opposed to the First World War, passing out flyers
Speaker 1: against the draft and against Woodrow Wilson, who was a
Speaker 1: tyrant by the way, against Woodrow Wilson's desire to enter
Speaker 1: the US in the First World War, clearly protected political
Speaker 1: speech that that was quote, the equivalent of yelling fire
Speaker 1: in a crowded theater. So Democrats think this is clever.
Speaker 1: Biden thinks this is clever to say, well, there are
Speaker 1: limitations on rights like yelling fire in a crowded theater,
Speaker 1: and he actually cites a a pseudo intellectual justification for
Speaker 1: the tyrannical shutdown of speech, because that's what that actually
Speaker 1: refers to. But you just never you never expect democrats
Speaker 1: when they speak, when they speak about the Constitution, I
Speaker 1: will just say this, it's a little bit like when
Speaker 1: Democrat politicians speak about the Bible. You can they're always
Speaker 1: they're always a little uncomfortable. There's always a little bit,
Speaker 1: you know, you know, a little blue collar Joe here.
Speaker 1: I'm just you know, doing my thing, and you know,
Speaker 1: I get kind of folks see and uh, you know what,
Speaker 1: Gil little breath here and I know something, you know,
Speaker 1: four score and on the seventh day, and the thing,
Speaker 1: you know, they just kind of mutter off into nonsense
Speaker 1: because ultimately Democrats believe that the Constitution is a question
Speaker 1: of utility. They actually don't think that they're you know,
Speaker 1: they don't think that there are universal truths that the
Speaker 1: Founding fathers saw in those documents and in the document
Speaker 1: the Constitution, and in the Bill of Rights that are
Speaker 1: more important than whatever the Democrat agenda of the moment
Speaker 1: may be. Shared principle doesn't matter. Look at how we've
Speaker 1: switched from a country that wants equality to a country
Speaker 1: that now wants equity, which is just this is just
Speaker 1: a pathway to Marxism. If this means the same ends,
Speaker 1: you get what the state says, you can have as
Speaker 1: much as possible. Make that true. Not the state will
Speaker 1: treat you and another person equally under the law. You
Speaker 1: have the same recourse to the law. You will have
Speaker 1: the same protections under law, and then it's let the
Speaker 1: best man win. We have a great society because we
Speaker 1: are willing to have an unequal society. We are not
Speaker 1: equal in terms of talents. We are not equal in
Speaker 1: terms of hard work, of intelligence, of beauty, of health,
Speaker 1: of all kinds of things. It's not fair. Life is
Speaker 1: never going to be fair. But a government that tries
Speaker 1: to create a utopian society by having absolute control, we
Speaker 1: see what this does, and it results in misery. It
Speaker 1: results in the shared shared misery. As a Churchill and
Speaker 1: it is always a Churchill quote, there's always a Churchill
Speaker 1: quote when you need one. Capitalism is the unequal sharing
Speaker 1: of blessings, and socialism is the unequal sharing of misery,
Speaker 1: or rather the equal sharing of misery. You can't mess
Speaker 1: up your Churchill quoth. That's not good. But here we
Speaker 1: have one of these times where you see very clearly
Speaker 1: the Democrat agenda laid before you, and on guns, on health,
Speaker 1: on all of these things. It doesn't matter what argument
Speaker 1: we make. They've decided they want these things. They have
Speaker 1: an emotional impulse to get it, to get it done,
Speaker 1: and that's why you just you see that it all
Speaker 1: all the facts and figures that you can put forward.
Speaker 1: It falls on deaf ears, doesn't matter, it's already decided
Speaker 1: in their minds. So it's very, very challenging to see
Speaker 1: this as anything other than a power grab when you
Speaker 1: actually get into the facts and figures with Democrats on
Speaker 1: gun control, and it's not going to save us, meaning
Speaker 1: it's not going to save a lot of lives, it's
Speaker 1: not going to deal with the enormous gun violence surge
Speaker 1: last year. The gun violence surge was the result of
Speaker 1: undermining law enforcement and emboldening criminals, which was all part
Speaker 1: of a left wing narrative that America is a racist
Speaker 1: place and the cops are racist, and that there's a
Speaker 1: justification for the destruction of businesses and rioting in neighborhoods
Speaker 1: because of that, that's what led to the worst murder
Speaker 1: rates we've seen in this country in over twenty years.
Speaker 1: But no, instead, we're going to talk about ghost guns.
Speaker 1: We're going to talk about how we can have some
Speaker 1: change made to to guns at gun shows. I mean
Speaker 1: all this stuff. Oh, we've got a new ATF director
Speaker 1: who doesn't like the Second Amendment. Okay, that's really going
Speaker 1: to help, right, This is garbage thinking. But the Biden
Speaker 1: administrations you've seen there there's a lot of not just
Speaker 1: bad policy approaches, but bad faith in the way they
Speaker 1: talk about this and the way they view the other side.
Speaker 1: This all again with the disdainful narrative of everyone who
Speaker 1: voted for Donald Trump was somehow a part of the
Speaker 1: January sixth insurrection, which wasn't an insurrection. And the more
Speaker 1: we found out about it, the more we realized it was.
Speaker 1: You know, it was a mob that got out of control,
Speaker 1: didn't actually kill any cops, and is being treated like
Speaker 1: it was some kind of militia effort to overthrow the
Speaker 1: United States government when it was really a bunch of
Speaker 1: misled losers who did something very very stupid and very foolish.
Speaker 1: But that was the beginning narrative, you see, because the
Speaker 1: Democrats now they view you and me through that lens.
Speaker 1: So they're not going to listen to us on guns,
Speaker 1: they're not gonna listen to us on COVID, not listen
Speaker 1: to us on anything. We just get pushed aside, swept
Speaker 1: away one of those January six insurrection supporters. Even though
Speaker 1: we've been condemning that thing the whole time, it doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: they don't care. President said ago quote, you go to it,
Speaker 1: you could buy whatever you want, no background check. Is
Speaker 1: there a special exemption in federal law that he was
Speaker 1: referring to? Or just do FLA dealers not have to
Speaker 1: do background checks when our kind a gun show? All?
Speaker 1: Are you asking me if he was referring it's okay?
Speaker 1: Were you asking me if he was referring to like
Speaker 1: a specific circumstance or I'm sorry to tell me a
Speaker 1: little bit more about your question. I mean, is it
Speaker 1: the president's belief that you do not have to undergo
Speaker 1: a background check when you are a gay gun show? No,
Speaker 1: it's not his belief. He believes that gun that background
Speaker 1: checks should be universal, right, he says, no background check. Well,
Speaker 1: we know what his position is, right, so let me
Speaker 1: reiterate that, which is that gut background checks or something
Speaker 1: that should be universal. They're supported by more than eighty
Speaker 1: percent of the public. He's supported legislation, advocated for that,
Speaker 1: and advocated against loopholes as well. So that's his position,
Speaker 1: and I appreciate you asking for the clarification. Yeah, Well
Speaker 1: that's really interesting. Jen Saki. Another sake bomb dropped here
Speaker 1: because he said very clearly, we all heard Joe Biden
Speaker 1: before he said that you can go to a back
Speaker 1: you can go to a gun show no background check.
Speaker 1: That was no background check, that was the quote. Not
Speaker 1: pretty much always a background check, but maybe under some
Speaker 1: circumstances you might be able to get a FIM without
Speaker 1: a background check. That's not what he said. So when
Speaker 1: she says, we know his position, okay, but what he
Speaker 1: said isn't true, and it should matter what the President
Speaker 1: of the United States says on a policy issue like this,
Speaker 1: where the facts are really what we are talking about.
Speaker 1: The facts are really what's at issue here. Vice President
Speaker 1: Harris is also out there on the push for gun control.
Speaker 1: Here she is played nine. Over the course of my career,
Speaker 1: I have seen gun violence up close. I've looked at
Speaker 1: autopsy photographs. I've seen with my own two eyes what
Speaker 1: a bullet can do to the human body. I've held
Speaker 1: hands with the hands of parents who have lost a child.
Speaker 1: I have seen children who are traumatized by the loss
Speaker 1: of a parent or sibling. And I have fought my
Speaker 1: entire career to end this violence and to pass reasonable
Speaker 1: gun safety laws. Time and again, as progress has stalled,
Speaker 1: we've all asked, what are we waiting for? Because we
Speaker 1: aren't waiting for a tragedy. I know that we've had
Speaker 1: more tragedy than we can bear. We aren't waiting for
Speaker 1: solutions either, because the solutions exist, They already exist. People
Speaker 1: on both sides of the aisle want action. Real people
Speaker 1: on both sides of the aisle want action. Okay, what
Speaker 1: action do we supposedly want? The panning of ghost guns?
Speaker 1: Is the banning of ghost guns? I'm just wondering if
Speaker 1: we went down this list, Let's let's take a look
Speaker 1: at a city like oh Chicago, which had a massive
Speaker 1: increase in shootings last year, and it's already far too
Speaker 1: violent as a city. With the banning of ghost guns,
Speaker 1: or the background check provision changes that they want, or
Speaker 1: anything that Biden's talking about, classifying modifications to a pistol,
Speaker 1: so that'll be a short barrel rifle and you'll have
Speaker 1: to register it under the National Firearms Act. Would any
Speaker 1: of that stop a single one of the shootings in
Speaker 1: Chicago last year? Let's just take that as a as
Speaker 1: as one point here. Would any of them do that?
Speaker 1: I don't have the answer. I bet the answer is
Speaker 1: less than one percent of those shootings would have been
Speaker 1: affected by those things. But this is the action we
Speaker 1: have to take. This is what we have to do.
Speaker 1: It's about so much more than that. There's a fundamental
Speaker 1: philosophical difference between the left and the right on the
Speaker 1: issue of guns. They think that guns are a little
Speaker 1: private rebellion in the hands of individual American citizens and
Speaker 1: they cannot abide it. And we think that that little
Speaker 1: private rebellion that each one of us has by essentially
Speaker 1: having the opportunity to tell the state there is a
Speaker 1: line that you shall not cross. There is a break
Speaker 1: against tyranny. There's a bulwark against tyranny that as an
Speaker 1: individual hands, which is the right to bear arms. That's
Speaker 1: very important to this country. You know, advanced sophisticated democracies
Speaker 1: in the past, with a high standard of living and
Speaker 1: have gone fully tyrannical. They did not have an armed population.
Speaker 1: We have an armed population, and we wanted to stay
Speaker 1: that way. Democrats want to create registries and harass lawful
Speaker 1: gun owners and every way they can change the culture,
Speaker 1: change everything about the gun ownership reality in this country
Speaker 1: so that they put it on a glide path to eradication.
Speaker 1: That's what's really separating the two sides. Sarsani time, Our
Speaker 1: friend David Harsani from National Review dot com is joining
Speaker 1: us right now to talk about guns and maybe even
Speaker 1: some Hunter Biden stuff if we've got the time, David,
Speaker 1: great to have you. Let's jump right to this man.
Speaker 1: This seems to me like it is absolutely as predictable
Speaker 1: as anything could be the Biden administration. We're a few
Speaker 1: months in and we're having it's the same gun control
Speaker 1: debate we had under the Obama administration. Time and again.
Speaker 1: They never give up. I'll give them credit for that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I was thinking about that about that the other day,
Speaker 1: about how I'm constantly I feel like I'm writing the
Speaker 1: same thing over and over again. But it's really not
Speaker 1: my fault because they keep coming back with the same
Speaker 1: exact arguments, the same exact policy proposals. Actually they're getting
Speaker 1: a little worse. Like Biden said a lot of ridiculous
Speaker 1: things the other day that are completely false. I mean,
Speaker 1: their lies about gun shows, you know, not having to
Speaker 1: have a background check when you buy guns at gun shows,
Speaker 1: about are fifteens about everything. So I'm not sure exactly
Speaker 1: why they're doing this, because it seems unlikely the legislation
Speaker 1: will pass, but it definitely will rile up gun owners.
Speaker 1: Will probably see another huge spiking gun owner you know,
Speaker 1: people buying guns. If if the manufacturers can keep up
Speaker 1: with it, I'm not sure. And what do you think
Speaker 1: they really hope to accomplish by this? I mean, if
Speaker 1: we were we were able to sit in in a
Speaker 1: meeting in the Oval, let's say, with Kamala and Joe
Speaker 1: and you know the ron Klain. Is this to drive
Speaker 1: up the Democrat bases enthusiasm for this administration and just
Speaker 1: to drive up donations or do you think that they
Speaker 1: really believe that they're gonna because I mean my thing is,
Speaker 1: even if they got these things, no one who understands
Speaker 1: the numbers and the statistics thinks that a change in
Speaker 1: ghost guns is going to bring down the violence rate
Speaker 1: or you'd be able to show how this is actually
Speaker 1: saving lives. So what do they think they accomplish with this? Well?
Speaker 1: I think it's two things. First of all, I think
Speaker 1: there's a lot of pressure from left wing groups to
Speaker 1: do something, so they decide to, you know, pretend they're
Speaker 1: doing something ghost guns. You know, when you're when you're
Speaker 1: going the executive order route, there's only so much you
Speaker 1: can do. It's unconstitutional to limit people, you know, AAR
Speaker 1: fifteens or whatever. So they're trying to sort of nibble
Speaker 1: at the edges to allow people to get excited about
Speaker 1: them doing something. The second part is if they do something,
Speaker 1: if they somehow get something through the point. You know,
Speaker 1: AAR fifteens are used in only a small fraction of
Speaker 1: murders in the United States. But if they get something through,
Speaker 1: it's incrementalism, and then they want to take your guns.
Speaker 1: I have zero doubt about that. And they're just trying
Speaker 1: to figure out ways in which they can move forward, constantly,
Speaker 1: move forward. I am. You know, I'm against any like
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter what I'm forward, but I'm against any
Speaker 1: legislation that moves forward more gun control. We have forty
Speaker 1: thousand gun laws on the books. We don't need anymore.
Speaker 1: We need enforcement of gun laws we have. We need
Speaker 1: someone to investigate Hunter Biden, see why he had a
Speaker 1: weapon and why he led on his background check form
Speaker 1: and a gun was stored out in a garbage near
Speaker 1: a school, for instance. Well, can you, David, we dive
Speaker 1: into that, because I actually haven't covered that yet on
Speaker 1: the show, and so I want this audience to know
Speaker 1: exactly what you're and we're going to talk about Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden in general and all the stuff that's come out,
Speaker 1: But tell everybody what happened with a Hunter Biden gun situation. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, when you buy a gun, you signed a
Speaker 1: background check. A lot of people don't know that because
Speaker 1: Democrats always lie about it, but you know, eight ninety
Speaker 1: nine percent of people buy guns have to go through
Speaker 1: a background check. Every gun has gone through a background check,
Speaker 1: and Hunter Biden has a I believe it was just
Speaker 1: some kind of semi automatic gun that he bought at
Speaker 1: a gun shop. But he lied on his background check
Speaker 1: form because he said that he wasn't I don't know
Speaker 1: how it's phrased, but it's diding drugs, right, Yeah, using
Speaker 1: drugs that he wasn't doing crack so um and he was,
Speaker 1: which is fine, I mean not fine. But maybe he's
Speaker 1: getting over it, maybe he's in rehab. I don't know
Speaker 1: what he is. But he lied on his form, which
Speaker 1: is I believe it might I think it's a felony.
Speaker 1: So he's lying to the FBI. So a lot of
Speaker 1: people lie on those forms, and there are very few
Speaker 1: prosecutions let's go after people lying on those forums. Let's
Speaker 1: go after let's tighten up the system. Like in Charleston,
Speaker 1: the local police hadn't informed the FBI that there was criminality,
Speaker 1: you know, but that shooter had done drugs as well.
Speaker 1: So anyway, so I think, you know, there are plenty
Speaker 1: of laws in the books. We need to tighten those up.
Speaker 1: I'm all for, you know, going after people who lying
Speaker 1: on background checks, but we don't need any more laws.
Speaker 1: And what was the disposing of the gun hunter Biden
Speaker 1: near a school or something? What's that? I don't know
Speaker 1: the particulars exactly, but something like I think it feels
Speaker 1: like this is just how it feels like after reading
Speaker 1: it to me. Or what seems like is that his girlfriend,
Speaker 1: I guess it is, felt that he was a danger
Speaker 1: to himself or a danger to others and took the
Speaker 1: gun and just threw it out in a nearby garbage
Speaker 1: which happened to be across the street from a school,
Speaker 1: which is and you can it's it's I'm not sure
Speaker 1: in Delaware what the laws are, but you're not supposed
Speaker 1: to throw out guns in in that way. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: that's not a safe I mean, if you're not supposed
Speaker 1: to dispose of your any biotics in the trash, you know,
Speaker 1: or or any prescripture. I'm pretty sure you're not supposed
Speaker 1: to throw a glock in the trash and just hope
Speaker 1: that nobody finds it. But um, I'm speaking of David
Speaker 1: Harsani of National View here and David on the Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden stuff. So so here's my thing, and I think
Speaker 1: you will you alluded to this, this feeling, or just
Speaker 1: just a couple of moments ago. Yeah, addiction is a
Speaker 1: very very serious crippling thing, and it ruins families, and
Speaker 1: it is quite sad. I think it's perfectly fine. I
Speaker 1: think it's actually just being fair minded to say that, Yeah,
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden is an addict, and that's something that we
Speaker 1: can sympathize with. Hunter Biden is also a really narcissistic, spoiled,
Speaker 1: destructive scumbag. And and if if he were Donald Trump's son,
Speaker 1: or even any Republican son for that matter, he wouldn't
Speaker 1: be going on a book tour right now where Jimmy
Speaker 1: Kimmel is basically giving him a BackRub on TV. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean I never, or very rarely were write about
Speaker 1: stories that have to do with like infidelity or drug
Speaker 1: use of politicians, like I just don't do it because
Speaker 1: we don't really know what the situation is all usually,
Speaker 1: but here's the thing. This is the This is now
Speaker 1: the president's son, the vice president son who only made
Speaker 1: a you know, who made fifty k for a Ukrainian
Speaker 1: energy firm because of his last name. And we're not
Speaker 1: allowed to talk about this sort of thing because it
Speaker 1: makes the president look bad and it's just insane. I mean, if,
Speaker 1: like you said, if this was Don Junior or any
Speaker 1: of Trump's kids, it would be all over the front
Speaker 1: pages of every newspaper. He's a bad guy. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: You know, the things he's done are immoral. It's not
Speaker 1: just the drug use that I know addicts and I
Speaker 1: know that people make mistakes and etc. But that's not
Speaker 1: the case here. He doesn't seem to have any much
Speaker 1: remorse about him. But moreover, he is benefiting from it still.
Speaker 1: Now he is a book um and he's and he's
Speaker 1: playing himself as the victim where you know, a major
Speaker 1: media institutions aren't investigating what he was up to in China,
Speaker 1: in Ukraine and et cetera. They would just not be
Speaker 1: the same for any other president's son. I mean, any
Speaker 1: at least any Republicans. It's remarkable as well, David, to
Speaker 1: see Chris Hayes, for example, over at MSNBC. Who's he's
Speaker 1: I guess if you're like a Brooklyn Liberal, you know,
Speaker 1: he's your, He is your your, your great champion of
Speaker 1: progressive causes. I don't know. I've never understood how this
Speaker 1: guy is someone that people listen to about anything, but
Speaker 1: that's me. Uh. He had some tweet about you know,
Speaker 1: maybe maybe is it possible that Hunter Biden's laptop was
Speaker 1: actually real? And I look at that and I honestly
Speaker 1: can't come to a conclusion. I can't analyze with certainty
Speaker 1: in my own head. Is he just really not smart
Speaker 1: and so he he doesn't believe that the laptop was
Speaker 1: it's clearly real. There's more information that's come out about it.
Speaker 1: It's obviously Hunter Biden's laptop. If it wasn't, they would
Speaker 1: have been able to bunk it right away. Or is
Speaker 1: this now kind of a game? I mean, is gas
Speaker 1: lighting on something like this for people who have large
Speaker 1: platforms and the media on the left part of the
Speaker 1: fun I don't know. I think that many times people
Speaker 1: convinced themselves of things like the Russians are you know,
Speaker 1: the Russians planted Hunters laptop with the New York Post.
Speaker 1: I sty'll see people say stuff like that, it's just
Speaker 1: in saying that story. Those stories had far more journalistic integrity,
Speaker 1: and the people who did them at far more journalistic
Speaker 1: integrity the most stories you see on MSNBC about Russia
Speaker 1: or whatever else. So I don't I don't know what
Speaker 1: the answer to that is, but it's it's increasingly clear
Speaker 1: now we you and I knew this, and we talked
Speaker 1: about it at the time, that those stories were censored
Speaker 1: on purpose to help one, you know, one candidate when
Speaker 1: the presidency it's corrupt, the media erupt. I refuse to
Speaker 1: say things as a matter of course, even if it
Speaker 1: will benefit my my you know, I'm a registered Republican,
Speaker 1: even from will benefit the Republican Party, it'll I refuse
Speaker 1: to say things that make me feel like I'm a moron.
Speaker 1: And I don't see that among very prominent people on
Speaker 1: the left. I mean, I went on on Ontario recently
Speaker 1: because on Joe Scarborough show on MSNBC in the morning,
Speaker 1: he went on this whole thing about how you know,
Speaker 1: vaccine denialism is for moron Trump supporters, and like they're
Speaker 1: a bunch of you know, toothless rubes who are drinking
Speaker 1: their you know, Budweiser at Nascar. I mean it is
Speaker 1: just he clearly makes us about anybody who was a
Speaker 1: question about or vaccine hesitancy is some idiot Trump supporter,
Speaker 1: when I mean, in reality, the biggest vaccine hesitancy bulge
Speaker 1: in the demographics is among minorities. But you know, it's
Speaker 1: like he's not embarrassed to say something that's just so
Speaker 1: very stupid because it serves the purpose in the moment. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, it depends. So I think that a lot
Speaker 1: of people on the left who are smart, you know,
Speaker 1: as far as our IQ goes, or will do anything
Speaker 1: because they feel like Republicans are evil and anything is
Speaker 1: fine to say as long as it, you know, helps
Speaker 1: them achieve the goals that they want. I think there
Speaker 1: are other people like Joe Scarborough who's just not very
Speaker 1: bright to begin with, but also it will say anything
Speaker 1: for ratings and will say anything that people want to
Speaker 1: hear wherever he is. I mean, when he was running
Speaker 1: in Florida, you know, he pretended to be this one
Speaker 1: type of person, and now he's up in wherever what
Speaker 1: is it in New Jersey or wherever ms MSNBC films.
Speaker 1: He pretends to be whatever is good there. When Trump,
Speaker 1: when Trump was bringing him ratings, he said whatever Trump
Speaker 1: wanted to hear. And now that you know, Trump was
Speaker 1: unpopularly said, so he'll say whatever he wants. But so
Speaker 1: it depends where you're talking about. But I think there's
Speaker 1: a lot of ends justify the means stuff there, and
Speaker 1: people sort of are in bubbles and they repeat things
Speaker 1: and they start to believe them, or if they don't,
Speaker 1: if they just want you know, it's propaganda. It's basically
Speaker 1: a propaganda work. So they just keep repeating it. And
Speaker 1: you know, I can't bore into the souls of some
Speaker 1: of these people to know if they actually believe what
Speaker 1: they're saying. I'm embarrassed for them. Quite often, Like Jennifer
Speaker 1: Rubins of the World, I just think it's a sort
Speaker 1: of emotionally driven hatred of certain kind of people. Or
Speaker 1: Tom Nichols at The Atlantic, I think he just hates
Speaker 1: the aesthetic of people who wear America shirts or too
Speaker 1: flag wavy, you know what I mean, Or people who
Speaker 1: live in places that he doesn't visit. So I think
Speaker 1: that's a problem too. So I think it's a bunch
Speaker 1: of different sorts of sort of you know, they're different
Speaker 1: sorts of trends going on. Is this Biden administration at
Speaker 1: this stage more left wing even than what we saw
Speaker 1: in the first year of the Obama administration in two
Speaker 1: thousand and nine. First, Buck, I just want to say,
Speaker 1: I love that you let you team me up to
Speaker 1: go after my least favorite people in the media. So
Speaker 1: I just wanted to quickly say I appreciate that. But
Speaker 1: moving forward, let to displace my anger on this show.
Speaker 1: So the second thing is yes, I mean, obviously I
Speaker 1: think the party the policy wise, they're far left. I
Speaker 1: mean they're they're far left of Obama. And this is
Speaker 1: just accelerated in ways that are incredible. So today I
Speaker 1: saw Joe Biden is going to have a study group
Speaker 1: to look into packing the courts. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: why would he do that. It's not popular among the
Speaker 1: normal people. It's not probably even popular among most Democrats.
Speaker 1: It's popular on the far left. Because the far left
Speaker 1: is the loudest, the most activist, the most you know,
Speaker 1: the people who raise the money the people are out
Speaker 1: there marching and he has to placate them. So I
Speaker 1: think that. I think Joe Biden's not left or right.
Speaker 1: I think Joe Biden is wherever he thinks the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party is. It's been that way his whole life, from
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy three when he was posing up to segregation
Speaker 1: as to now. But I think that yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: policy wise, it's it's it's incredible the language they use,
Speaker 1: the racial identitarian sort of things that he says, the
Speaker 1: anti gun rhetoric. You know, it's just all far, far
Speaker 1: to the left. So I don't know how that's going
Speaker 1: to work out for them in the elections. But I mean,
Speaker 1: like this gun thing, what was the point of that,
Speaker 1: just to rile up right wingers and make yourself look
Speaker 1: even farther to the left. I don't know. I don't
Speaker 1: know what they're doing. David Arsani, everybody Nashreview dot com
Speaker 1: go check out his peace there and David always a pleasure.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Buck