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. It has been one year since the killing
Speaker 1: of George Floyd. We have a police officer who has
Speaker 1: been convicted of murder in that incident, and today the
Speaker 1: White House is meeting Joe Biden, the President of the
Speaker 1: United States, is meeting with the Floyd family. And we
Speaker 1: are told, and there are countless editorials, articles, commentaries, we're
Speaker 1: told that this is a moment that we're supposed to
Speaker 1: take a step back and think about how we could
Speaker 1: reform policing and the defund the police movement. We should
Speaker 1: consider that. That's where we are right. We're one year
Speaker 1: into this, and the narrative at the left, the Democrats
Speaker 1: want you to believe is that George Floyd's George Floyd's
Speaker 1: memory led to the BLM movement, which brought about greater justice.
Speaker 1: That's what they want you to think. That's the story.
Speaker 1: That's the dominant narrative. That there's racist policing in America
Speaker 1: where in a systemically racist society, and the BLM movement
Speaker 1: is addressing that and has for the last year, and
Speaker 1: there are things to point two to say we're successful
Speaker 1: in that regard. Unfortunately, the reality of the BLM movement
Speaker 1: and its usage of the George Floyd incident as an
Speaker 1: inciting moment to go for BLM two point zero is
Speaker 1: that Black Lives Matter has made everything worse for everyone,
Speaker 1: which I was saying almost exactly a year ago, just
Speaker 1: a few weeks from now, if you were to go
Speaker 1: back and listen to this show, that was my assessment
Speaker 1: then as the riots tour through cities as police or
Speaker 1: being assaulted and mobbed and pelted and ridiculed spat on,
Speaker 1: this was going to be bad for America, and it
Speaker 1: would be bad for the black and black, black and
Speaker 1: brown communities that we are told are the whole reason
Speaker 1: for the defund the police movement, right, that it would
Speaker 1: actually make things worse for everyone, including in predominantly minority
Speaker 1: areas of the country where there is a high crime
Speaker 1: where there is sometimes a high crime rate. Right, That's
Speaker 1: what we are looking at right now. What has been
Speaker 1: the reality of the last year. And I have to
Speaker 1: point now as we are in this martyrdom worship of
Speaker 1: the Floyd memory, which is really what's going on here.
Speaker 1: They have elevated George Floyd as a symbol, a global symbol.
Speaker 1: In fact, this was a man who, yes, our courts
Speaker 1: found was the victim of police police excessive force and murder.
Speaker 1: That is where the process stands right now. There was
Speaker 1: a murder conviction, as we know. There may be an
Speaker 1: appeal we shall see. But that individual, George Floyd, was
Speaker 1: also somebody who pointed a loaded gun at the belly
Speaker 1: of a pregnant woman during a home invasion, had a
Speaker 1: long criminal history, and was someone used to resisting arrest.
Speaker 1: So that's not to say that what happened to him
Speaker 1: is in any way justified in that incident, but it
Speaker 1: is to say that picking this individual as a martyr
Speaker 1: for a movement is worthy of scrutiny, And I would
Speaker 1: say criticism. I would say, why is it that it
Speaker 1: is in these instances, these cases that we see, whether
Speaker 1: it's Mike Brown or George Floyd, where law enforcement interaction
Speaker 1: with somebody who was engaged in criminal activity and then
Speaker 1: there's a dispute over the level of force use. That's
Speaker 1: always the choice. It's not incidents where there actually is
Speaker 1: what seems to be a clear it's not always, at
Speaker 1: least focused on instance where there's a clear murder by police,
Speaker 1: which does happen, although very very rarely, which if we're
Speaker 1: going to have a serious and honest conversation about this,
Speaker 1: you have to look at the numbers, the facts, the figures.
Speaker 1: It is incredibly rare for anyone to be murdered by
Speaker 1: a police officer in this country. There are, and I'm
Speaker 1: telling you the truth, this is serious. There are more
Speaker 1: people killed every year by beastings. Then there are people
Speaker 1: who are unarmed and murdered by police in an incident
Speaker 1: where the police officer is not using forcer appropriately. I
Speaker 1: think there were unarmed black men in the last year
Speaker 1: for which we have statistics, which would be twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1: At this point, there were about nine or was it
Speaker 1: fourteen that were killed that entire year by police in
Speaker 1: an incident that may still have been lawful. But you
Speaker 1: can't look at the numbers and come away from the
Speaker 1: saying anything other than why so much exaggeration of this
Speaker 1: as a concern in society. Why is that we can't
Speaker 1: just treat each of those individual cases as worthy of
Speaker 1: due process and the legal system and let the facts
Speaker 1: bear out and any officer who exceeds exceeds the lawful
Speaker 1: use of force should be held to full account. No,
Speaker 1: it's a narrative, you see. The narrative is that cops
Speaker 1: are racist, cops are bad, and if only we would
Speaker 1: defund police, we would have a better society, a better country.
Speaker 1: That's madness, and we now see what's going on as
Speaker 1: a result of it all across the country. A really
Speaker 1: powerful editorial in the Wall Street Journal today from Heather McDonald,
Speaker 1: the author of The War on Cops, and she writes
Speaker 1: that nineteen children in Minneapolis have been shot this year.
Speaker 1: Remember Minneapolis is where the George Floyd incident happened, an
Speaker 1: increase of one hundred and seventy one percent over the
Speaker 1: same period in twenty twenty. Their relatives wonder where the
Speaker 1: protesters are. Quote, why ain't nobody mad about a ten
Speaker 1: year old my grandson fighting for his life, asked Sherry Jennings,
Speaker 1: Ladavian's grandmother at a May seventeenth mayoral event. Because a
Speaker 1: cop didn't shoot him? Is that why? Miss Jennings warned
Speaker 1: of a deadly summer for kids if the mayor and
Speaker 1: the police police chief don't step up. Later that day,
Speaker 1: Anniah Allen, six, was caught in a shootout between rival
Speaker 1: gangs while in her mother's car. Annia died on May nineteenth.
Speaker 1: Minneapolis homicides Heather McDonald writes between January first and last
Speaker 1: week were up one hundred and eight percent with the
Speaker 1: same period in twenty twenty. Shootings were up one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty three percent and carjackings two hundred and twenty
Speaker 1: two percent. The crime increase began after Floyd's death and
Speaker 1: has never let up, nor has the assault on law
Speaker 1: enforcement that began with the arson destruction of the third
Speaker 1: Precinct building on May twenty eighth, twenty twenty. Officers are
Speaker 1: routinely punched, kicked, and hit with projectiles. There was a
Speaker 1: near riot in downtown Minneapolis in the early hours of
Speaker 1: May twenty second, following a shootout among club patrons. Two
Speaker 1: people were killed in that shootout and eight wounded. Responding
Speaker 1: officers called for backup across the Twin Cities at what
Speaker 1: the department called an exceptionally chaotic scene. The previous weekend,
Speaker 1: officers were mas im pelted with rocks and debris while
Speaker 1: trying to disperse orderly crowds, so there was a movement
Speaker 1: for justice that started in Minneapolis a year ago. Today,
Speaker 1: has it achieved any justice? Has it done anything to
Speaker 1: the system? George Floyd had a trial where there was
Speaker 1: a trial because of the killing of George Floyd. The
Speaker 1: officer was found guilty of his murder on all accounts.
Speaker 1: That was what happened. Why did we need riots, Why
Speaker 1: did we need mass destruction of property, arson and violence
Speaker 1: across the country as part of a movement. What did
Speaker 1: the movement achieve? Well, we're seeing what the movement achieved
Speaker 1: is more dead people are, more people raped, more people assaulted.
Speaker 1: This is just based on the data and numbers all
Speaker 1: across the country. And the Democrats use this for mobilization
Speaker 1: in an election year. The Democrats used this entire incident
Speaker 1: for the purposes of trying to win power, and it worked.
Speaker 1: All the pandering, all the nonsense from people like Pelosi,
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, sure, she's really all about the struggle. She
Speaker 1: really cares a lot about what's going on in minority communities.
Speaker 1: No one believes that all the pandering about how cops
Speaker 1: are bad, cops are evil. Senior Democrats all across their apparatus,
Speaker 1: they don't actually think that stuff is true. But they
Speaker 1: say it, why because it helps mobilize the Democrat base,
Speaker 1: activists and left wing voters. That there were people who
Speaker 1: suffered as a result, innocent people all across the country.
Speaker 1: Doesn't matter that good cops, which people like Joe Biden
Speaker 1: will say in passing, you know, most of our cops
Speaker 1: are good. That good cops were defamed with all of
Speaker 1: this and assaulted and attacked and undermining their jobs never
Speaker 1: enters into the calculations of the left. They don't care.
Speaker 1: They simply don't care. What you see all across the
Speaker 1: country is what exactly what happened the last time after
Speaker 1: the Ferguson effect, which was coined by Heather McDonald as
Speaker 1: a phrase and who wrote this excellent p in the
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal. There's more violence, more death, more despair,
Speaker 1: and it is disproportionately in minority communities. And that is
Speaker 1: what has happened as a result of this movement. So
Speaker 1: as we sit here on the one year anniversary of
Speaker 1: George Floyd, and you've a bunch of frauds and liars,
Speaker 1: the activists claiming that this led to a movement that
Speaker 1: did anything other than make things worse. I just want
Speaker 1: you to know, right away. They're lying to you. They
Speaker 1: are lying. Here's what Heather rights. As lawless as Minneapolis
Speaker 1: has become, it is hardly atypical a drive by shooting.
Speaker 1: Our drive by shootings and homicides jump nationwide during and
Speaker 1: after the Floyd riots. Homicides rose fifty percent in Chicago
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty, forty six percent in New York City,
Speaker 1: and thirty eight percent in Los Angeles. The US are
Speaker 1: the largest annual percentage increase in homicides in recorded history
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty. That increase has continued in twenty two
Speaker 1: twenty one. The number of shooting victims in Chicago is
Speaker 1: up forty three percent in the first three months of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one compared with the same period in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Through May sixteenth, the number of shooting victims in New
Speaker 1: York City is up seventy eight point six percent over
Speaker 1: a year ago. In the Bronx, the number is up
Speaker 1: one hundred and seven one hundred and sixty five point
Speaker 1: seven percent. We are at the one year mark of
Speaker 1: George Floyd's killing and the movement that it spawned, and
Speaker 1: we look at that movement and the data is clear.
Speaker 1: It is a disaster. Built on misrepresentations and lies. What
Speaker 1: does the White House? What do the Democrats offer as
Speaker 1: the reason behind the huge spike? I mean, no one
Speaker 1: can hide this data anymore. They can't argue about it nationwide.
Speaker 1: What caused the nationwide increase in violence in homicides, home invasions,
Speaker 1: armed lobberies, rapes, Well, what caused all of that? Oh,
Speaker 1: they'll they'll come up with something, I'm sure. And Jensaki
Speaker 1: among the most obviously inept members of this Biden White House.
Speaker 1: This is her explanation, the White House Press secretary for
Speaker 1: what caused the rise in crime? Plate too? Is there
Speaker 1: a crime problem in this country? Well, I would say,
Speaker 1: certainly there is a guns problem, and that's something the
Speaker 1: President would say. And there are communities where local violence
Speaker 1: and community violence is an issue, and that's one of
Speaker 1: the reasons that we have proposed and have now are
Speaker 1: implementing funding for community violence prevention programs across the country.
Speaker 1: I will say that we don't often highlight and you
Speaker 1: just gave me the opportunity to the fact that between
Speaker 1: mass shootings, mass shootings that get a lot of attention,
Speaker 1: that we lower the flags. There are hundreds thousands of
Speaker 1: people who lose their lives, and that's one of the
Speaker 1: reasons the President will continue to advocate for the Senate
Speaker 1: passing back universal background checks, but also advocate for actions
Speaker 1: and states where we have seen the greatest level of
Speaker 1: activism over the past of early years is community violence prevention.
Speaker 1: She sounds like a moron. Well, there's a reason for that.
Speaker 1: This is blather. This is the White House Press secretary
Speaker 1: saying that there's a there's not a crime problem, there's
Speaker 1: a gun problem. No, there's a crime problem. A lot
Speaker 1: of the crime Saki don't even involve guns. There is
Speaker 1: a crime problem in this country right now. It is
Speaker 1: all heading in the wrong direction. And the reason for
Speaker 1: that is Democrat pandering. It's Democrat pandering to victimology, identity politics,
Speaker 1: anti cop animus. That's why this is happening. We know
Speaker 1: why it's happening, but they won't say it. No, they'd
Speaker 1: rather live in this fantasy land of if only we
Speaker 1: had more social workers, if only the community violence was
Speaker 1: addressed differently, I got news for SAKI and all the
Speaker 1: rest of the lunatic libs. Violence that occurs in the
Speaker 1: context of crimes, it's not it's not a problem of
Speaker 1: the community. It's a problem for the community, as in
Speaker 1: it is done to people who aren't committing crimes. But
Speaker 1: there's no sympathy expressed here. There's no desire for immediate change,
Speaker 1: and that would mean change in policy to make the
Speaker 1: over ninety nine percent of people who live in even
Speaker 1: the most high crime neighborhoods, who aren't engaged in violence
Speaker 1: against the innocent. There's no consideration given for their plight,
Speaker 1: no more important. Let's just paint some George Floyd murals
Speaker 1: in places, put up some BLM hashtags, put up some
Speaker 1: BLM black squares on our instagrams or whatever. Let's do
Speaker 1: some virtue signaling. Let's put let's put Black Lives Matter
Speaker 1: flags at US embassies. I saw that report from what
Speaker 1: was it, the National Pulse. Right, let's tell the whole
Speaker 1: world that BLM is a movement that the United States
Speaker 1: government stands by. It's just propaganda. That's what really is
Speaker 1: going on with the government. They won't address the real
Speaker 1: problem here, which is that their undermining law enforcement because
Speaker 1: there is a narrative that is very apparent on the left.
Speaker 1: I mean, you see and hear it all the time
Speaker 1: that America is a systemically racist country that our police
Speaker 1: are in fact just the continuation of slave patrols. This
Speaker 1: is what is said that the historical precursor for police today,
Speaker 1: this is written about the New York Times, is slave
Speaker 1: patrols from the anti bellam era. It's a lie, it's
Speaker 1: historically ignorant, but they still say this, what do we
Speaker 1: want dead cops? That was a chant that I heard.
Speaker 1: Pigs in a blanket, fry him like bacon. That was
Speaker 1: a chant that I heard from BLM protesters. And I've
Speaker 1: seen the posters, the placards that they hold up at
Speaker 1: these at these protests, and I'm not even talking about
Speaker 1: the riots. There is no honesty. The lib elites are
Speaker 1: total frauds on this issue. They know, they know that
Speaker 1: making it harder for cops to do their job, making
Speaker 1: sure that people aren't signing up to beat cops. That
Speaker 1: the ferguson effect of law enforcement officers unwilling to get
Speaker 1: involved to intervene because they don't want to risk their
Speaker 1: livelihoods and their freedom perhaps means that innocent, good people
Speaker 1: all across the country, black, brown, white, everybody, innocent people
Speaker 1: all across the country suffer as a result of this lie.
Speaker 1: We saw this all last year. It's appalling that there
Speaker 1: was such an un willingness people were running scared from
Speaker 1: the notion that BLM wasn't actually working out well. That
Speaker 1: defund the police is the dumbest slogan of any political
Speaker 1: movement in modern American history. Okay, I can't think of
Speaker 1: anything as stupid in my lifetime as defund the police.
Speaker 1: But this is said by people who think that they're astute,
Speaker 1: think that they're wise on this issue. Really, what would
Speaker 1: happen if we really defunded police? Oh well, then they
Speaker 1: get into it. We don't really know what defund means
Speaker 1: yet we're still figuring it out. Well, while they're figuring
Speaker 1: it out, kids are catching stray bullets. While they're figuring
Speaker 1: it out, places like Chicago and Memphis and New Orleans
Speaker 1: and New York and Los Angeles are having violence at
Speaker 1: unforeseen levels in decades and or rather unseen in decades.
Speaker 1: And what do they say in response to it. Let's
Speaker 1: just make some more George Floyd murals. That's going to
Speaker 1: solve the problem. Let's have some more professional athletes take
Speaker 1: a knee for George Floyd. That will solve the problem.
Speaker 1: When running a business, hr issues can kill you. You've
Speaker 1: got wrongful termination suits, minimum wage requirements, labor regulations, and
Speaker 1: HR manager salaries are not cheap an average of seventy
Speaker 1: thousand dollars a year. That's why you need Bambi. Bambi
Speaker 1: spelled Bambee was created specifically for small business. It gives
Speaker 1: you a dedicated HR manager who can craft HR policy,
Speaker 1: maintain your compliance all for just ninety nine dollars a month.
Speaker 1: I mean, when you look at some of the customer
Speaker 1: testimonials for Bamby, it just becomes so clear what an
Speaker 1: enormous advantage this becomes for you and your business. Here's
Speaker 1: one quote. Andrea from Bambi HR has been our guardian angel.
Speaker 1: She's always there to answer any questions or concerns when
Speaker 1: it comes to anything HR related. She's helped me navigate
Speaker 1: how to best handle COVID nineteen situations within the company,
Speaker 1: as well as any new policies, job descriptions, or compliance
Speaker 1: issues we may have. I would recommend Baby to any
Speaker 1: small business who is lacking in the HR area. Here's
Speaker 1: another one quote. Patrese has been a great resource for
Speaker 1: our growing team. She's a source of calm when everything
Speaker 1: else around us is fast paced and hectic. I'm grateful
Speaker 1: for her guidance and direction. She helps keep me grounded
Speaker 1: and gives me great confidence that every HR decision we
Speaker 1: make is not only compliant but best practice end quote.
Speaker 1: Those are real Bambi customers all right. With Bamby, you
Speaker 1: can change HR from your biggest liability to your biggest strength.
Speaker 1: Your dedicated HR manager will be available by phone, email,
Speaker 1: or real time chat. From onboarding determinations. They customize your
Speaker 1: policies to fit your business, and they do this all
Speaker 1: for just ninety nine dollars a month. Think about it,
Speaker 1: ninety nine dollars a month, no hidden fees. Cancel anytime.
Speaker 1: Go to Bamby dot com slash buck right now to
Speaker 1: schedule your free HR audit. That's bamb ee dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck Bambi dot com slash buck for your free
Speaker 1: HR audit. You didn't start your business because you wanted
Speaker 1: to spend time on HR compliance. Get Bambi today. We
Speaker 1: keep getting told by the media when we push back
Speaker 1: on some of this stuff, it's not about hating cops.
Speaker 1: We're not saying that the cops are the problem, but
Speaker 1: that is what they're saying. This is just gaslighting. That's
Speaker 1: what the BLM movement claims. That is at central premise
Speaker 1: that law enforcement is racist, that people have to be
Speaker 1: scared if they are black or brown because of law enforcement.
Speaker 1: This is not rooted in fact, it's not rooted in reason.
Speaker 1: It's an exaggeration of what is what are outlier events
Speaker 1: with the millions and millions of police law police civilian
Speaker 1: interactions that are happening every year, but get rid of
Speaker 1: qualified immunity. This is what we're you know, because because
Speaker 1: I actually do want to focus on, Okay, what does
Speaker 1: the BLM movement want? A lot of this is just
Speaker 1: people that are looking for a cause. You know that
Speaker 1: everything you've got, you know, white liberal nineteen year old
Speaker 1: girls driving around in you know, Daddy's range rover who
Speaker 1: are all BLM and you know, marching over there. There
Speaker 1: are a joke. I know people like this. You've got
Speaker 1: thirty year old trust fund kids living in Connecticut who
Speaker 1: were putting BLM on their Instagram page or BLM on
Speaker 1: their Facebook. It's virtue signaling, it's it's cool, it's a
Speaker 1: social We see that. That's obvious, right. This is unfortunately,
Speaker 1: a very effective tactic of the modern left that they
Speaker 1: just create because they control so many the institutions of
Speaker 1: our culture, cheap virtue out there for anyone. All you
Speaker 1: have to do is go along. All you have to
Speaker 1: do is be a mouthpiece for whatever the preferred slogan
Speaker 1: of the moment may be. And you're showing everybody you're
Speaker 1: one of the good people. Cost you nothing, you do nothing. Okay,
Speaker 1: So that's obvious, right, we know that that. You know,
Speaker 1: college students or people in their twenties and thirties, gen
Speaker 1: Z millennials who risk nothing and do nothing and live
Speaker 1: in safe neighborhoods and put out on social media how
Speaker 1: much they care about BLM and George Floyd and in
Speaker 1: memory of George Floyd. We know they're a joke. They
Speaker 1: don't care, They don't deal with the reality. This is
Speaker 1: all about them. This is all self indulgence under the
Speaker 1: cover of altruism. But it's self indulgence. So let's look
Speaker 1: at what the actual policies are. Let's look at what
Speaker 1: people who are involved in the movement are actually saying
Speaker 1: should happen. Here here's Floyd family attorney Chris Stewart on
Speaker 1: qualified Immunity Play twenty three. This is a phenomenal bill.
Speaker 1: Anybody that knows about policing, about civil rights, about how
Speaker 1: these actually work in court, they know that qualified immunity.
Speaker 1: Getting rid of that, it's not going to make a
Speaker 1: bunch of lawyers like myself sue more cops. It's not.
Speaker 1: It's ridiculous because what really happens is in these cases
Speaker 1: in court, cities toss the officers away so they don't
Speaker 1: have any coverage anyway. So it's not going to make
Speaker 1: lawyers go out and sue more cops. It's semantics. It's
Speaker 1: because some people are just saying, I don't want to
Speaker 1: look like I'm allowing cops to be sued, when in
Speaker 1: reality it's not going to affect it at all of
Speaker 1: getting more officers sued. So getting rid of it will
Speaker 1: change the mentality of policing. It makes officer no, I
Speaker 1: can't go out there and do whatever I want, which
Speaker 1: is all the change that needs to happen. So getting
Speaker 1: rid of it has to happen. It's not going to
Speaker 1: hurt police officers. That's semantics. Oh sure, sure, it's semantics.
Speaker 1: This is not true. What he's saying is, yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: the law would then make it so that you could
Speaker 1: sue a cop personally for doing his job at any
Speaker 1: point in time. But that's not going to result in
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of lawyers suing cops unnecessarily unfairly. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is honestly, this this guy is, he's this is
Speaker 1: a joke. This is a joke. Qualify. Why does qualified
Speaker 1: immunity exist if it does not grant qualified immunity to
Speaker 1: the officers. The law is the law. But what he's
Speaker 1: saying is, well, sometimes they'll say that you went outside
Speaker 1: the scope of your employment and that you know you
Speaker 1: because of your misconduct. Yeah, that's because they've decided that
Speaker 1: there are limitations to qualified immunity. But the baseline standard
Speaker 1: is you can't just sue a cop directly for doing
Speaker 1: his job as a person in the course of his duties.
Speaker 1: There's a reason exists. It creates an additional barrier to
Speaker 1: frivolous bs. But notice he says, yeah, it's just going
Speaker 1: to create a difference in perception law enforcement. Oh sure,
Speaker 1: this is the Floyd family attorney, So take you know,
Speaker 1: you know what's going on here. Sure, Now, cops will
Speaker 1: say I'm not going to use successive force and murder
Speaker 1: somebody because I don't have qualified immunity anymore. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's really going to change the thought process. This is
Speaker 1: just stupid. I mean, this is a stupid comment from
Speaker 1: a lawyer who's not very good at the law, but
Speaker 1: good at getting people upset, good at the narrative, good
Speaker 1: at making it seem like there's some intellectual merit to
Speaker 1: any any of these defund the police storylines or these
Speaker 1: ideas that we're gonna make everything better by getting rid
Speaker 1: of qualified immunity. It's stunning as this continues to play out,
Speaker 1: that they're so little honest in the press about this.
Speaker 1: But that's where we are as a country, as a society,
Speaker 1: and people suffer as a result. This is not just
Speaker 1: something that's rhetorical. This is not just some intellectual argument.
Speaker 1: There's been a huge surgeon crime in America, and it
Speaker 1: started right when the BLM movement got going, right when
Speaker 1: the winds of political change came through police precincts all
Speaker 1: across the country. As in the Democrats are ascendant, they're
Speaker 1: calling the shots, and they're going to feed you to
Speaker 1: the mob the moment that it is inconvenient for them
Speaker 1: to defend you as a law enforcement officer. That's what happened.
Speaker 1: They say, Oh, it's the pandemic that caused the surgeon violence.
Speaker 1: Now that doesn't stand up to a moment's scrutiny. The
Speaker 1: numbers all start to change dramatically right around now a
Speaker 1: year ago. It was the ascendency of the BLM movement
Speaker 1: and then narrative of BLM that led to the change
Speaker 1: policing that led to the huge increase in murders shootings. Remember,
Speaker 1: for every person who's shot, there's a family that's devastated,
Speaker 1: there's a community that's devastated, there's a neighborhood that's terrified.
Speaker 1: Every time that happens, there's a person who loses his
Speaker 1: or her life, and then there's also all the other victims,
Speaker 1: all the other people that have that loss. So when
Speaker 1: you're talking about thousands of additional homicides compared to what
Speaker 1: would have been a normal year in America, that's tens
Speaker 1: of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people directly affected and
Speaker 1: connected to that incident of violence. So the second order
Speaker 1: effects are much greater, and that we're much broader, and
Speaker 1: that's something that you have to remember. So the other
Speaker 1: part of this, and Heather McDonald actually points this out
Speaker 1: in her excellent Wall Street Journal piece is that no
Speaker 1: other country in the world saw a huge surge in violence,
Speaker 1: no other industrialized nation and saw a huge surgeon violence
Speaker 1: because of the pandemic. In fact, if you just think
Speaker 1: about this for a second, it should be what you
Speaker 1: saw in Canada and the UK and relative to their
Speaker 1: normal crime rates, big drops in crime, far fewer people
Speaker 1: interacting with each other, far fewer people in the streets,
Speaker 1: more people at home, right, And so yeah, there can
Speaker 1: be home invasions, but that's a that's a riskier proposition
Speaker 1: for criminals, especially in countries where anybody may be armed. Right,
Speaker 1: There's there's a whole less less drug dealing disputes going
Speaker 1: on all of that because you have people interacting with
Speaker 1: each other, less people are locked at home. But the numbers,
Speaker 1: the data, the facts that don't that don't matter. In
Speaker 1: all this, there's a storyline. The Democrats stick to it.
Speaker 1: The Democrats are the party of elevating victims. The Democrats
Speaker 1: are the party of helping the oppressed. The fact that
Speaker 1: they are creating more victims by adhering to this false
Speaker 1: narrative doesn't matter. And that's just the cost of Democrats
Speaker 1: doing business. That's just what we see happening. And pretending
Speaker 1: that police retraining or federal government oversight of police stations
Speaker 1: looking for racism in every police department that comes up
Speaker 1: on their radar, that that's going to make anything better
Speaker 1: for anybody is a fantasy. We know it is absurd,
Speaker 1: but people are scared of being called racist, They are
Speaker 1: scared of falling on the wrong side of BLM, and
Speaker 1: so so many, out of either just self advancement or cowardice,
Speaker 1: bend to knee at the altar of Saint George Floyd. Look,
Speaker 1: George Floyd was somebody who suffered from police excessive force,
Speaker 1: and an officer is now going to spend decades of
Speaker 1: his life in prison for that. I also know that
Speaker 1: there's plenty of real legal analysis out there that George Floyd,
Speaker 1: the George Floyd case against Eric choven the incident of
Speaker 1: George Floyd's killing, his murder, is going to be appealed,
Speaker 1: and that we will see what ends up happening. But
Speaker 1: as of right now, we have a police officer convicted
Speaker 1: of murder, and that is the system has spoken. Yet
Speaker 1: look at all the rest of what has happened from BLM,
Speaker 1: what has the movement actually done all right. There was
Speaker 1: a trial, and if you believe that George Floyd was murdered,
Speaker 1: there was justice, at least as much justice as our
Speaker 1: system can give anyone. What then, for all the rest
Speaker 1: of it, Heather macdonaldoll just give you a little more
Speaker 1: from her Wall Street Journal piece here. Of the one
Speaker 1: hundred homicide victims in Minneapolis since May twenty five, twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: only one was killed by a cop. The victim was
Speaker 1: a suspected gun runner who had tried to run over
Speaker 1: officers before shooting at them through his car window, causing
Speaker 1: them to turn fire. There is little evidence that the
Speaker 1: Minneapolis police department systemically violates black civil rights, but Attorney
Speaker 1: General Merrick Garland has opened a civil rights investigation into
Speaker 1: the Minneapolis police department. Anyway, if history is any guide,
Speaker 1: the resulting descent descent decree will cause crime to increase
Speaker 1: in the city as officers back off further proactive policing.
Speaker 1: The victims of that additional crime increase will, as always,
Speaker 1: be disproportionately black. At least three quarters of Minneapolis's homicide
Speaker 1: and shooting victims are black, though the city is less
Speaker 1: than a fifth black. Sharpton and Crump have no answers
Speaker 1: to that dilemma, so they ignore it. The reality of
Speaker 1: BLM policing in America and the epidemic of violence that
Speaker 1: we are seeing. Governor Hi, I want to ask you
Speaker 1: about the bill that you're signing here today. Here, a
Speaker 1: loyal supporter former President Donald Trump, Nentrept is now a
Speaker 1: resident in Florida, and he was the platform. Is the
Speaker 1: bill for him? Bills for everyday Floridians. This is what
Speaker 1: we said, and it would allow any Floridians to be
Speaker 1: able to provide what they're doing. So but I think,
Speaker 1: I mean, I do think that's another issue that has
Speaker 1: been brought to bear when you de platform the President
Speaker 1: United States. But you let I a toll of Homema
Speaker 1: need to talk about killing years. That is Ron Decantis
Speaker 1: just just racking up those wins down in Florida, the
Speaker 1: governor of Florida. He's he's not tired of winning. He's
Speaker 1: not tired of winning. And I think we all need
Speaker 1: to understand that this is a guy who's showing us
Speaker 1: what can be done at the state level. He signed
Speaker 1: a bill prohibiting tech platforms from suspending or banning political
Speaker 1: candidates in the state with possible finds about the two
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty thousand dollars per day if the candidate
Speaker 1: is seeking statewide office twenty five thousand dollars per day
Speaker 1: at the candidate is seeking a non statewide office. This,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is so important to understand the implications
Speaker 1: of this. We already have all kinds of restrictions on
Speaker 1: the First Amendment that Democrats love. They want restrictions on
Speaker 1: money and politics. They want restrictions on it was. It
Speaker 1: was the position of the Obama administration in Citizens United
Speaker 1: at the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General for the Obama
Speaker 1: administration wanted the right to be able to ban books
Speaker 1: about political candidates before an election. That was the official
Speaker 1: position of the Democrat Party under Barack Obama's time in office.
Speaker 1: Citizens United. All the dark money in politics, Oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: what are we gonna do? Absurd? I work in radio.
Speaker 1: They are all kinds of restrictions on radio. You know,
Speaker 1: the FCC, what I can say, who I can talk to,
Speaker 1: equal time. There's all kinds of things there that are
Speaker 1: already regulated. But see, the Democrats want no regulation, no
Speaker 1: touch allowed on the shoulder of big tech. Because Big
Speaker 1: Tech is almost entirely a left wing pack. That's what
Speaker 1: we know, that's what we see happening all the time,
Speaker 1: and they don't want that to change. They don't want
Speaker 1: that to be any different because it is an enormous
Speaker 1: advantage for them, and look what they've been able to do. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: you've got you know, Joe Scarborough, who's the ratings are
Speaker 1: down on that show. He's just not a very smart
Speaker 1: or a good or ethical person. That's very apparent from
Speaker 1: what he says and does on TV all the time.
Speaker 1: But he also doesn't understand the law or the constitution.
Speaker 1: But this is the kind of crap you'll hear from
Speaker 1: leftists or whatever whatever. Scarborough is a whatever whatever my
Speaker 1: paymasters at MSNBC, whatever, whatever coins they throw at me,
Speaker 1: that's what he'll do. And whatever they tell him to do,
Speaker 1: that's what he'll say. Play nineteen. That's what's so cute
Speaker 1: about this political stunt, this political gesture. First of all,
Speaker 1: it's most likely unconstitutional. It violates the First Amendment and
Speaker 1: how a private company chooses to moderate content on their
Speaker 1: platform they've been Secondly, the hypocrisy of people like Run
Speaker 1: De Santis and Josh Hawley saying they're small government conservatives
Speaker 1: who believe in free market and free enterprise and believe
Speaker 1: in the power of companies to run things away they
Speaker 1: want to run, deciding they are going to be used
Speaker 1: the power of the state to tell Facebook or to
Speaker 1: tell Twitter how to run their First Amendment policies. It's
Speaker 1: just that's a bizarre thing for a small an alleged
Speaker 1: small government Republican to do. You know, yeah, we're just
Speaker 1: we're all of a sudden, he's a market absolutist, you know. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the free bar iss to do whatever they want. First
Speaker 1: Amendment rights. Yeah yeah, sure, Oh okay, he's on a
Speaker 1: cable channel. There's all kinds of regulations out there about
Speaker 1: what you can do, indecency, there are all kinds of
Speaker 1: restrictions on transparency and political advertising. I mean to say,
Speaker 1: just the First Amendment means when when it comes to
Speaker 1: Facebook and Twitter, for obvious reasons, the left takes the
Speaker 1: position they can do whatever they want, they can do
Speaker 1: anything they want, no regularly. Oh okay, So these those
Speaker 1: are the companies that have no regulation all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: according to Left, which Joe Scarborough is a part of.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's just a paid hack will do whatever
Speaker 1: they want him to do. And this is so interesting.
Speaker 1: It's like I always tell you, it's just about power.
Speaker 1: There's no principle behind any of this. They'll say, what
Speaker 1: do they have to say to get what they want.
Speaker 1: That's the attitude of the left, that's the attitude of
Speaker 1: social justice warriors, that's the attitude of the commies that
Speaker 1: are increasingly obviously ascendant in American public and private life.
Speaker 1: We have people that want totalitarian left wing control of
Speaker 1: the government. They think that would be a better thing.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that we're there and that's what the
Speaker 1: country is in, but that's what they desire, and whatever
Speaker 1: they have to say to push in that direction they
Speaker 1: will say. And people like Joe Scarborough will say it too,
Speaker 1: because you know they're paying him. We don't have enough
Speaker 1: data on information to jump to a conclusion at this
Speaker 1: point in time. We have repeatedly called for the WHO
Speaker 1: to support an expert driven evaluation of the pandemic's origins
Speaker 1: that is free from interference or politicization, and now we're
Speaker 1: hopeful that WHO can move into a more transparent, independent
Speaker 1: phase to investigation. I would say, in terms of the
Speaker 1: report which was specifically about individuals being hospitalized. We have
Speaker 1: no means of confirming that or denying that. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's not a report from the United States. Thank the
Speaker 1: journalis side of a US intelligence report, so that would
Speaker 1: have been a US repeat. Well, I don't have any
Speaker 1: I don't have anything more on a US intelligence report. Now,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, and it's not clear. Now, of
Speaker 1: a sudden, it's not obvious that the Wuhan coronavirus came from, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, a cave somewhere. Now, all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: it may it may in fact be the case that
Speaker 1: those who were saying all along that this could have
Speaker 1: been the result of an error in a lab that
Speaker 1: was studying it. That's not crazy, gosh. I know this
Speaker 1: is not surprising to you and me. But it is interesting,
Speaker 1: isn't it. How much changes and how much they the
Speaker 1: consensus fauci I had left, how much they've gotten wrong
Speaker 1: over and over again. Here's the former Secretary of State
Speaker 1: Mike Pompeo on this play twenty Someone somebody will have
Speaker 1: worked in that laboratory and will decide they can stick
Speaker 1: out of China. I'll come tell the truth. I'm convinced
Speaker 1: but sadly, I don't think that will happen in a
Speaker 1: timely fashion. And so what's the world do? How can
Speaker 1: we hold China accountable? There are many for them, and
Speaker 1: that we could do this, And why on earth would
Speaker 1: you join the World Health Organization, which were rewards of
Speaker 1: the Chinese for the exact partner that they joined in
Speaker 1: the cover up with right, it was doctor Tedros and
Speaker 1: Chi Chingping that colluded to keep this information out of
Speaker 1: the hands of the world. And so there are many
Speaker 1: things the United States government could do to impose real
Speaker 1: cost on the Chinese Communist Party until they come clean
Speaker 1: about what they know and what they did. We know
Speaker 1: for sure they covered up this virus. I am confident
Speaker 1: that we will find that the evidence that we have
Speaker 1: seen to data is consistent with a lab leak, and
Speaker 1: I'm convinced that's what we'll see. If I'm wrong, I
Speaker 1: hope the Chinese Communist Party will come forward and make
Speaker 1: a full oil. If they're going to hold back data,
Speaker 1: they're never going to give us full transparency. We all
Speaker 1: know that China won't even allow its own people basic freedoms.
Speaker 1: You think that they're really going to respond to a
Speaker 1: good faith of a good faith ask for data and
Speaker 1: information from the World Health Organization or the US for
Speaker 1: that matter. Now, I think that Mike Pompeo, I will
Speaker 1: tell you, is overstating the leverage that the US has
Speaker 1: to get answers here. The reality is that there is
Speaker 1: nothing that we are going to do. There's nothing we
Speaker 1: can do to force China to tell us things that
Speaker 1: would lead us to believe that they were that the
Speaker 1: Chinese Communist Party, that the regime was reckless in the
Speaker 1: original or in the outbreak of COVID nineteen and covered
Speaker 1: it up that effectively their negligence caused a global pandemic
Speaker 1: that has killed millions of people and cost trillions of dollars.
Speaker 1: They're never going to admit that. They're never going to
Speaker 1: give us the data to prove that or see that.
Speaker 1: They will always, always, always tell us that this was
Speaker 1: from bats or we don't know, or you know, whatever
Speaker 1: it was. That's the way this will go. So I
Speaker 1: think that we need to understand that, yes, it is
Speaker 1: worth pressuring China on this, but you know, there's only
Speaker 1: so much you can do for a situation like this,
Speaker 1: where China used this as not existential for its future,
Speaker 1: but certainly a high enough priority to cover this up
Speaker 1: that nobody is going to get them to do anything
Speaker 1: on this that they don't want to do. That's I
Speaker 1: think that much of it is obvious at this point.
Speaker 1: But I remember when this was for conspiracy theorists and
Speaker 1: all the different news stories and all the people who
Speaker 1: were so quick to either fake certainty or to just
Speaker 1: why about this? You know, it's been pretty good. And
Speaker 1: I gotta say Governor rom DeSantis once again desantists he's
Speaker 1: not tired of winning Play twenty two. Now we have
Speaker 1: information that this very well may have emanated from the
Speaker 1: wu Han Lab. That it was it was a leak
Speaker 1: from the lab. But you remember when people last year
Speaker 1: were raising that as something that needed to be investigated.
Speaker 1: They were de platformed for talking about the lab league,
Speaker 1: they were censored for having said that. And now even
Speaker 1: Fauci admits that this may be something that very well
Speaker 1: is the case. Are they going to now censor Fauci
Speaker 1: and pull him down off social media? That's one of
Speaker 1: the things that I will not forgive or forget that
Speaker 1: big tech shut down people for wrong think. But they
Speaker 1: said it was for you know, factual and accuracies. They
Speaker 1: brought these little, these little idiot sensor stormtroopers. Oh, the
Speaker 1: fact checkers from places like PolitiFact an embarrassment of an
Speaker 1: organization and PolitiFact Media matters. These are places where only
Speaker 1: the the lamest, slimiest human beings would ever want to
Speaker 1: spend time or draw paycheck. But that's that's what end
Speaker 1: up happening. They outsourced their sense ship to these so
Speaker 1: called fact checkers, and that was it. Right if you
Speaker 1: were on the wrong side of them, Sorry, the fact
Speaker 1: checkers have spoken. That's the way it went. And now
Speaker 1: they're wrong. We see they're wrong on a lot of things.
Speaker 1: They weren't actually facts. They were just opinions with the
Speaker 1: veneer of scientific consensus, and that was all that was
Speaker 1: necessary to push the whole thing through and to shut
Speaker 1: you down, to shut me down. I still have it.
Speaker 1: I still have PolitiFact writing an article, Oh outdoor, I said,
Speaker 1: outdoor masking is stupid. Yeah, it is stupid. I was right.
Speaker 1: You know, it looks like the CDC. I saw some
Speaker 1: rumor reporting the CDC may change its outdoor mask guidance
Speaker 1: for kids at summer camps because it is so stupid
Speaker 1: and so unscientific and so idiotic. On every level that
Speaker 1: the CDC is embarrassed enough to reconsider its position on that.
Speaker 1: But going back to the COVID origins fight, because you
Speaker 1: know that's getting a lot of attention this week, and
Speaker 1: we talked about it in detail yesterday in the show.
Speaker 1: What is the preferred the preferred rationale now for why
Speaker 1: they all turned on the lab league theory and believed
Speaker 1: the came from a cave theory or the wet market, right,
Speaker 1: came from the wet market. If that were the case,
Speaker 1: why weren't all the cases that they initially established having
Speaker 1: some connection to that wet market. They didn't. Some of
Speaker 1: them had no connection. That doesn't make sense. But Maggie Haberman,
Speaker 1: Democrat at the Democrat New York Times, wants you to
Speaker 1: know that it's really Trump's fault play eleven. I do
Speaker 1: think it's important to remember that part of the issue
Speaker 1: when this was first being reported on and discussed back
Speaker 1: a few months after the pandemic had begun, was that
Speaker 1: then President Trump and Mike Pompey, the Secretary of State,
Speaker 1: both suggested they had seen evidence that this was formed
Speaker 1: in a lab and they also suggested it was not
Speaker 1: released on purpose, but they refused to release the evidence
Speaker 1: showing what it was, and so because of that that
Speaker 1: made this instantly political. I think that was you example
Speaker 1: one thousand, when the Trump administration learned that when you
Speaker 1: have burned your own credibility over and over again, people
Speaker 1: are not immediately going to believe you, especially in an
Speaker 1: election year. However, that does not mean it's not worth discussing.
Speaker 1: There has been a sort of persistent, albeit relatively quiet
Speaker 1: focus on whether that was the origin of the virus,
Speaker 1: and it is compounded by the fact that there have
Speaker 1: not been clear answers from Chinese officials about it, and
Speaker 1: that investigators trying to find out the origin have been stymied.
Speaker 1: So I do think we're in a different period of this, John,
Speaker 1: But I also think it's important to remember because I
Speaker 1: think it's getting reframed in a way that's just not
Speaker 1: true to what happened. I don't mean here, I mean
Speaker 1: in this broader debate by Trump supporters about what happened
Speaker 1: when this was originally raised. Okay, let's let's unpack this
Speaker 1: for a second. Maggie Harman in in convincing and pretty
Speaker 1: you know, pretty fluid fashion here is really just making
Speaker 1: the case for yeah, we got it wrong. The media
Speaker 1: got this wrong by and large, but we had to
Speaker 1: get it wrong because Trump's such a liar that the
Speaker 1: fact that Trump said that it came from a lab
Speaker 1: justified us going against him, which was the media's attitude
Speaker 1: about everything. If Trump said it, it must be wrong.
Speaker 1: But they believe it. That's actually a sound rationale. They
Speaker 1: believe that's actually a reasonable justification for being wrong. If
Speaker 1: Trump said it, it has to be incorrect. Doesn't that
Speaker 1: tell you a lot about where they really were on this?
Speaker 1: Doesn't that tell you a lot about what the media? Well,
Speaker 1: you already know this. I mean the media was psychotically
Speaker 1: opposed to Donald Trump. But even on something where there
Speaker 1: were other voices all along, there were experts who were saying, now,
Speaker 1: this actually looked like it probably came from a lab.
Speaker 1: They insisted on opposing that theory and discrediting And I'm
Speaker 1: not just saying we don't think this is right, it's
Speaker 1: a conspiracy theory. You're a kup, you're a nut. Don't
Speaker 1: believe it. They insisted on that because it was politically expedient.
Speaker 1: This is just another data point to show you why
Speaker 1: you cannot trust the corporate media. You cannot trust them.
Speaker 1: They are not about honesty and truth and transparency. They
Speaker 1: are propagandists. They are pushing a narrative, and they are
Speaker 1: seeking power for their side. The most important thing this
Speaker 1: is if you read between the lines what you are
Speaker 1: being told here, even by a celebrated New York Times journal,
Speaker 1: The most important thing here was opposing what Donald Trump
Speaker 1: said at the time, not getting it right because in
Speaker 1: an election year, having Trump look like one he's correct,
Speaker 1: but also pointing to China as the origin of this,
Speaker 1: a country that Donald Trump was much more willing to
Speaker 1: confront and deal with in a forceful way than his
Speaker 1: predecessors of either party. That wasn't a narrative they wanted
Speaker 1: to tell. It was Trump's a buffoon. He's an idiot.
Speaker 1: He can't even he's making up things. Oh, he's making
Speaker 1: up things about the origins of the virus, like he
Speaker 1: makes up the injecting bleach into his veins. You are
Speaker 1: these other stupid things you hear from the journals all
Speaker 1: the time. And so they got this wrong. But they're
Speaker 1: not remorseful about getting it wrong. They just wished they
Speaker 1: hadn't gotten so blatantly caught because what was important to
Speaker 1: get this right, to understand the truth of this virus
Speaker 1: early on, because you can't stop the next pandemic, really
Speaker 1: if you don't know how this one started. Right, that
Speaker 1: didn't matter as much. Bash Trump, that was always on everything.
Speaker 1: That was mission number one for the journos. Don't ever
Speaker 1: forget it.