Speaker 1: Up next, Out Loud with Gianno called Well. Part of
Speaker 1: the beginning with research. I'm I bright to the Capitol,
Speaker 1: big tech bands, Donald Trump and Republicans wonder where to
Speaker 1: go from here? Today I dig into all the chaos
Speaker 1: of last week. This is Out Allowed with Gianno Caldwell.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to outlliwed with Gianno Caldwell. We've got so
Speaker 1: much to get through this episode after a week that
Speaker 1: we won't soon forget. My guest today is here to
Speaker 1: break it all down. Her name is Liz Willer. She's
Speaker 1: an author, TV hosts, and conservative political commentator. From twenty
Speaker 1: she hosted the popular show Tipping Point with Liez Willer
Speaker 1: on One American news network. In nineteen Liz published our
Speaker 1: first book, Tipping Points, How to Topple the Left House
Speaker 1: of Cards. We're going to discuss all the big news
Speaker 1: that everyone's talking about in the path forward for the
Speaker 1: Republican Party. Let's go Well, welcome to the show. One
Speaker 1: of my very good friends, Liz Whiller, only for a
Speaker 1: number of years. So excited to have you. You You wanted
Speaker 1: the smartest people I know, and so excited to have
Speaker 1: you on Outlow with Gianno called Wall. How are you
Speaker 1: doing Giano. Thank you so much for having me. I'm
Speaker 1: so excited to be here. And it is true. We've
Speaker 1: known each other almost since the beginning of both of
Speaker 1: our respective political careers. We were sort of up and
Speaker 1: comers together, so it's been really fun to watch your
Speaker 1: career blossom. And look where we are now. This past week,
Speaker 1: we saw something that our country never expected. We saw
Speaker 1: a riot at our our US capital. Um. There's been
Speaker 1: a lot of conversation in terms of what that means
Speaker 1: to our country. Uh, it's been condemned from leaders nationally
Speaker 1: and globally in terms of President Trump encouraging his supporters
Speaker 1: to go to the capital. Of course, we know that
Speaker 1: he didn't tell them to go and riot or breaking
Speaker 1: through the capital. We know that that's that's not the case. Um,
Speaker 1: But he has very passionate supporters and certainly there was
Speaker 1: the people's business going on at that time. And in
Speaker 1: terms of CENTERFI in the election, I've myself said President
Speaker 1: Trump should have not and or is just supporters to
Speaker 1: go there because you just never know what they're gonna do,
Speaker 1: especially at a time like that. We'll show reaction to
Speaker 1: what happened at the Capitol. Well, I think condemnation is first,
Speaker 1: you know, that needs to be said first, and this
Speaker 1: should be a nonpartisan, non political thing. When people commit
Speaker 1: violence in the name of political differences, that is unequivocally wrong. UM,
Speaker 1: and I commend actually the entire conservative movement and the
Speaker 1: entire Republican Party for recognizing that immediately. You can contrast
Speaker 1: that with how the left responded this summer to the
Speaker 1: Black Lives Matter riots, the Antifa violence, burning cities, you know, Kenosha,
Speaker 1: for one, Milwaukee. Um, there wasn't condemnation. There was almost
Speaker 1: a complicity, at least a rhetorical complicity on that side.
Speaker 1: So I'm really proud of our side for recognizing that
Speaker 1: even if there's legitimate grievances that these people felt being violent,
Speaker 1: storming the capital, hurting capital of police officers, even murdering
Speaker 1: one is not the answer. That is unequivocally not the answer.
Speaker 1: I think though, that the mainstream media and the left
Speaker 1: jumped on it immediately, as you and I Gianno, who
Speaker 1: were who work in media would expect, and they twisted it.
Speaker 1: They made it seem a like President Trump had called
Speaker 1: for violence, when if you look at the transcripts of
Speaker 1: what he said, he unequivocally did not call for violence.
Speaker 1: He even used the word peacefully and powerfully protest at
Speaker 1: the Capitol, I believe was his phrase. He then condemned
Speaker 1: those who did riot, those who did commit violence, and
Speaker 1: told them to go home. If that had been the
Speaker 1: behavior from any other president aside from Trump, he would
Speaker 1: have been applauded by the mainstream media for handling it properly.
Speaker 1: This is not something that is an objective analysis by
Speaker 1: the mainstream media looking at Trump's behavior. They've had it
Speaker 1: out for him for five years and they're using this
Speaker 1: just as their last hammer shot home before he's out
Speaker 1: of office. They wanted to vilify him, they wanted to
Speaker 1: demonize him, and yes, he's not always the smoothest with
Speaker 1: his rhetoric. To say I love you to the people
Speaker 1: who rioted in that initial video, that's not a wise
Speaker 1: thing to say, right because you know it's going to
Speaker 1: be misconstant rude. But even so, even if it lacks wisdom,
Speaker 1: it's not the same as calling for violence. Those are
Speaker 1: the first two things. The third thing that I would
Speaker 1: say is this is not representative of those who voted
Speaker 1: for President Trump, seventy five million people. Giano you and
Speaker 1: I among them, voted for this man Uh to be
Speaker 1: president of the United States, and the vast, vast, vast
Speaker 1: majority of us are non violent. There are fringes on
Speaker 1: the left and there are fringes on the right. The guy,
Speaker 1: for example, who was on the House floor with those
Speaker 1: horns on his head, I mean, this guy is like
Speaker 1: a conspiracy theorist who's in his thirties, who lives in
Speaker 1: his mother's basement. I mean, he's an absolute ne'er do
Speaker 1: well loser, and he doesn't represent Trump voters. But the left,
Speaker 1: of course, wants to conflict that guy with all of us. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And you know, I've actually because I know that President
Speaker 1: Trump realized that he has a very passionate supporters. And certainly,
Speaker 1: I don't believe by any measure that you can indict
Speaker 1: all folks who supported President Trump, whether they voted for
Speaker 1: him or not, whether he supported his policies or not,
Speaker 1: and say that this has to do with all of them.
Speaker 1: And I honestly, I know that these are very passionate
Speaker 1: people who went out there, and I've actually condemned President
Speaker 1: Trump for even encouraging them, because you just never know
Speaker 1: what might happen in that in that stunt. So I
Speaker 1: do agree that this should be condemned on all all ends.
Speaker 1: But you should never be trying to indict all the
Speaker 1: Trump supporters for the actions of a few, and they
Speaker 1: would never do that if this was people in the
Speaker 1: BLM movement or anywhere else. I absolutely agree. I agree
Speaker 1: with you on that. And we saw over the summer,
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, riots across the country carey about Antifa
Speaker 1: and some members of the BLM movement and the left
Speaker 1: not only did not condemn him, we saw Joe Biden
Speaker 1: who ignored it during the d n C convention and
Speaker 1: it wasn't until his poll numbers begin to be impacted
Speaker 1: because folks in the suburbs said, hey, why is this
Speaker 1: allowed to go on that they made any statements with
Speaker 1: regards to it. We should be against violence at all time,
Speaker 1: not just when it's politically convenient for us. I mean,
Speaker 1: what the thoughts about the continuation of this, because I'm
Speaker 1: beginning to believe that some of these protests we've seen,
Speaker 1: I know that there's a Joe Biden presidency that's going
Speaker 1: to happen. It seems as though this may not be
Speaker 1: the end of it. In terms of the protests. We
Speaker 1: might might have seen during the country in terms of
Speaker 1: racial justice. Well, protests I have no problem with. And
Speaker 1: this is where I guess I would disagree just slightly
Speaker 1: with you or push back just slightly. I have no
Speaker 1: problem with President Trump encouraging protests from his supporters. You know,
Speaker 1: anybody with any grievance is allowed to protest for any reason,
Speaker 1: and I have zero problem with that, even if I
Speaker 1: disagree with, you know, the premise of Antifa, the premise
Speaker 1: of Black Lives Matter. Even if somebody disagrees with the
Speaker 1: premise of the Trump rally and the Capital, I don't
Speaker 1: care if President Trump says, go to the capital and protests.
Speaker 1: That's the people's way of communicating with their representatives, whether
Speaker 1: or not we agree that their grievances are valid. And
Speaker 1: I think it's a very slippery slope if we allow
Speaker 1: the left to conflate actions. And what I mean by
Speaker 1: that is words matter, right, You and I talked, have
Speaker 1: talked a million times about this, actually for every kind
Speaker 1: of issue. When the left tries to obliterate objective truth,
Speaker 1: when they say there is no such thing as gender,
Speaker 1: no man, no woman, no right, no wrong, that makes
Speaker 1: a difference because what happens is they set up an
Speaker 1: environment where they can take a comment and you can
Speaker 1: you know, look at Twitter. For example, Twitter banned President
Speaker 1: Trump for two reasons, because he tweeted that he would
Speaker 1: not be attending Joe Biden's inauguration, and because he said
Speaker 1: his seventy five million supporters, the people who voted for him,
Speaker 1: American patriots, he called them, would not be ignored. So
Speaker 1: those are two like rather innocuous things, right Like, you
Speaker 1: can debate whether it's rude not to go to an
Speaker 1: election of your of your successor you can debate, I
Speaker 1: guess whether seventy five million Americans because they didn't win
Speaker 1: the election, are going to be ignored. But there's nothing
Speaker 1: in centiary about either of those two things. But when
Speaker 1: we obliterate objective truth, when we let the left redefine words,
Speaker 1: then they can literally say, and this is what Twitter did.
Speaker 1: They can look at President Trump's tweets and say that
Speaker 1: could be interpreted by someone as inciting violence, and objectively, Gianna,
Speaker 1: you and I would look at that and say, well, no,
Speaker 1: it couldn't. He's not encouraging violence. He's saying nothing about violence.
Speaker 1: He's saying I'm not going to Joe Biden's inauguration. Well,
Speaker 1: so what But if you allow the left to tell
Speaker 1: you that one word actually means something else, then they're
Speaker 1: gonna be able to define anybody's words to mean anything
Speaker 1: they want to mean to serve their agenda. And you
Speaker 1: mentioned this, and we're talking about big tech, and after
Speaker 1: after MAFI storm in the capital, we know that their
Speaker 1: silence are rather trying to silence President Trump on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram,
Speaker 1: and they've banned them. This censorship is very slippery. Slow.
Speaker 1: What are your thoughts on the suppression we've seen in
Speaker 1: the past few days. I know you lost a lot
Speaker 1: of followers. I lost over fifteen thousand followers. I know
Speaker 1: there's been a lot of other people followers asked yep, yep,
Speaker 1: I checked about an hour ago. Actually, um, because that's
Speaker 1: not even account I generally keep track of. But fifty
Speaker 1: seven thousand followers is how many followers I've lost. Um.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's terrible, right I It's hard for me
Speaker 1: to believe that even left wing voters. I'm not talking
Speaker 1: about swamp creatures in Washington, d C. It's hard for
Speaker 1: me to imagine that the average liberal in our country
Speaker 1: thinks that this kind of censorship and silencing is okay
Speaker 1: because it's it's not it's not what our country is about.
Speaker 1: It's it's terrible to see what's happening they actually want.
Speaker 1: I've warned about this for a long time. People have
Speaker 1: actually accused me of being hyperbolic about it, and I
Speaker 1: haven't been. But they want to take conservatives and they
Speaker 1: want to socially ostracize us. They want us to be unemployable,
Speaker 1: They want us to have our free speech restricted. They
Speaker 1: want to label us as violent, radical extremists so that
Speaker 1: they can force us to either remove ourselves from polite society,
Speaker 1: as they say, or else conform to their radical leftist ideology.
Speaker 1: I have been saying this for years now, that this
Speaker 1: is their goal. We've seen it in every arena. We
Speaker 1: saw it in religious liberty with Jack Phillips at Masterpiece
Speaker 1: Cake Shop. They wanted to close down his business because
Speaker 1: of his Christian beliefs. We saw this with Little Sisters
Speaker 1: of the Poor and Obamacare. They sued Catholic nuns because
Speaker 1: they wouldn't fund a board defacient birth control. You know,
Speaker 1: with some gun groups, they denied them bank accounts because
Speaker 1: they didn't want them to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
Speaker 1: They don't want conservatives to have the right to protest
Speaker 1: the right to free speech because they want to label
Speaker 1: that as violence as a pretext to ban it. You
Speaker 1: know what's interesting about that is, yes, you've been warning it.
Speaker 1: A lot of other conservatives have been warning about this,
Speaker 1: and a lot of folks on the left and in
Speaker 1: the mainstream have said, you know, this is just a
Speaker 1: fringe opinion, and they in general and then they said,
Speaker 1: oh with social media because of conservatives. It was a
Speaker 1: study to show that nine of conservatives believe that social
Speaker 1: media was pretty much out to get them and censor them.
Speaker 1: And people have said, oh, that's not true. You know
Speaker 1: that this is just some lie that is being pushed
Speaker 1: on the ride it and it's not true. And then
Speaker 1: you see people are purging, purging account you you barely
Speaker 1: can post anything without being considered banning. And you saw
Speaker 1: just recently where there was a trending topic of hang
Speaker 1: Mike Pence. How is the hang Mike Pence thing not
Speaker 1: inciting violence? The double standard is terrible. And here here's
Speaker 1: a confession, Giano. I have to say, over the past
Speaker 1: couple of years, there have been times that other conservatives
Speaker 1: have made allegations that big tech is censoring them. They'll say, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm I've been shadow banded on Twitter and my tweets
Speaker 1: aren't getting the same, you know, reach that they used to.
Speaker 1: And honestly, I'm always a little bit skeptical when someone
Speaker 1: says that. I'm usually like, well, are you're sure it's
Speaker 1: really that good of a tweet. I'm just full disclosure,
Speaker 1: That's what I tend to think. However, this takes it
Speaker 1: to a whole new level. And this is the second
Speaker 1: part of it. I started believing more of the big
Speaker 1: tech censorship this summer when I myself and again this
Speaker 1: is my fault for not believing, I guess, but I
Speaker 1: myself was so objects to a quote unquote fact check
Speaker 1: from Facebook, which are these left wing organizations that pretend
Speaker 1: that they're just checking the facts when really they're marking
Speaker 1: you as fake news based on their differing opinion with you.
Speaker 1: And the result of that is you either get demonetized,
Speaker 1: your reach is reduced, you have no ability to have
Speaker 1: a platform on Facebook. And this has happened to me.
Speaker 1: It happened to me coincidentally the day I went independent
Speaker 1: and two months before the presidential election, when I was
Speaker 1: having a huge impact on the national conversation on this
Speaker 1: debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Those are the
Speaker 1: first things that happened. The second thing that happens is
Speaker 1: this full out censorship. But I mean, there's simply no
Speaker 1: argument that it is happening at this point. Now walk
Speaker 1: us through this, because this there was a story dawn
Speaker 1: on you in the USA USA Today, wasn't so I
Speaker 1: do this video on a weekly basis called five Things
Speaker 1: five stories the mainstream media refuses to report, and I
Speaker 1: reported very early in the summer. I think it was
Speaker 1: May at the Wisconsin elections that were happening. You know,
Speaker 1: it was the first big group election you know, quote
Speaker 1: unquote during COVID that they did not it did not
Speaker 1: serve as a super spreader event, as the mainstream media
Speaker 1: had warned and then insinuated after it happened. You know,
Speaker 1: it was one of those things were like, oh, if
Speaker 1: people go out and vote, they're definitely gonna get COVID.
Speaker 1: We have to do mail in ballots. And I was like, well,
Speaker 1: wait a second, let's look and see what happened. I'm
Speaker 1: not the only one that said that people conducted actual
Speaker 1: studies contact tracing and found that the elections were not
Speaker 1: a significant vector of transmission. There was actually no real
Speaker 1: transmission that happened because they social distanced and did all,
Speaker 1: you know, all their different mitigation protocols. And so I
Speaker 1: did a little portion of that final point or that
Speaker 1: video that I make that said what the mainstream media
Speaker 1: won't tell you. They won't tell you that after their
Speaker 1: warnings that the Wisconsin election would be a super streader event,
Speaker 1: actually the statistics show it wasn't so USA today they
Speaker 1: claimed that they couldn't find any mainstream media outlets who
Speaker 1: had made the claim that Wisconsin was a super spreader event.
Speaker 1: And I'm just like mind blown, Like did you hear
Speaker 1: the coverage and the chatter and the narratives that were
Speaker 1: going down the liberal pipeline leading up to this election
Speaker 1: and then the silence after it when they were wrong
Speaker 1: and they didn't want to report that they were wrong,
Speaker 1: So they claimed that I had been misleading or told
Speaker 1: a lie or exaggerated all because they didn't want that
Speaker 1: facts to come to light, because had it come to
Speaker 1: light in the way that it should have, we would
Speaker 1: never have had the mail in voting, which ultimately in
Speaker 1: my opinion led to Joe Biden winning the election. You know,
Speaker 1: I think that's really interesting and I want to pick
Speaker 1: up from there in the moment. But first let's take
Speaker 1: a quick break sticking with social media. What do you
Speaker 1: think should be done in terms of these social media giants.
Speaker 1: Should they be treated just like regular publications instead of
Speaker 1: platform Should we be looking at war anti trust losses
Speaker 1: because they're too much like monopolies. What do you think both?
Speaker 1: I mean, I think we all know some about Section
Speaker 1: two thirty and it served its purpose, right. It's kind
Speaker 1: of like unions in the past. They serve their purpose
Speaker 1: and now it's time to abolish public sector unions. That's
Speaker 1: the same sort of thing with Section two thirty. There
Speaker 1: are arguments to be made about the benefits that it brings,
Speaker 1: and there's no doubt that in everything in life, right,
Speaker 1: there's benefits and then there's downsides. But the downsides of
Speaker 1: Section to thirty now very clearly outweigh the benefits because
Speaker 1: these big tech companies are treated as platforms, which means
Speaker 1: they are not liable for what you or I or
Speaker 1: crazy you know, X y Z next door says. Yet
Speaker 1: part of that stipulation of Section to thirty is that
Speaker 1: they cannot editorialize at all. They have to just provide
Speaker 1: people a platforming, neutral platform, and they're not part of
Speaker 1: what's said at all. Well, they're clearly not doing that right.
Speaker 1: They're a big part, a big part of editorializing. In fact,
Speaker 1: I don't know an editor that's picky as Twitter and
Speaker 1: Facebook are being about what other people post. So they
Speaker 1: can't have it both ways. If they want to editorialize totally, fine,
Speaker 1: that's their right their private companies, but they can't be
Speaker 1: protected from the liability of what they do if they
Speaker 1: want to editorialize. That's simply how the law is written
Speaker 1: and ought to be interpreted. That's the first thing. The
Speaker 1: second thing is we should enforce the laws on our books.
Speaker 1: This is the problem with a lot of different issues
Speaker 1: in our country. We actually have laws against it, they're
Speaker 1: just not enforced properly. Immigration is an example of that,
Speaker 1: but that's a different topic for a different day. But
Speaker 1: monopoly laws, of course, they should be enforced. We already
Speaker 1: have them. We don't need to target big tech with
Speaker 1: some new type of legislation. We should just subject them
Speaker 1: to antitrust investigations and if they qualify as the monopoly.
Speaker 1: They shouldn't be allowed to operate like that because that's
Speaker 1: the law of our land. You know. What's what's interesting,
Speaker 1: And I tweeted this recently because I'm gonna be honest.
Speaker 1: Is a Republican for well well over a decade. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not that old. I don't know how much every
Speaker 1: meeting to a lot of people, but I feel as
Speaker 1: though the GOP has failed us in terms of really
Speaker 1: ensuring that big tech doesn't have as much influence that
Speaker 1: it has. In twenty I believe it was eighteen, there
Speaker 1: was almost two million people in the United States that
Speaker 1: were involved in social media. Almost twenty percent of those
Speaker 1: individuals get their political opinions from social media, and now
Speaker 1: big tech is editorizing content and for a lot of conservatives.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you you talk to just about anybody,
Speaker 1: they feel as though they're under attack personally. That's whether
Speaker 1: you have one follower, follower or three million. People really
Speaker 1: feel as though they're being targeted. And the Republican Party
Speaker 1: did not protect us from it when they hit every
Speaker 1: opportunity to do so, what do you think of that?
Speaker 1: I mean, in the very recent history, meaning in the
Speaker 1: last month, I'm very disappointed in the Republican Party. I
Speaker 1: thought President from vetoing the Defense Bill to get Section
Speaker 1: to thirty reform in there was a good move. I mean,
Speaker 1: he sees he saw what was happening. This wasn't hypothetical
Speaker 1: at that point. Republican senators should have known better. They
Speaker 1: can see what's happening too, and they did nothing. Republicans
Speaker 1: had an opportunity to make this happen, and they did nothing.
Speaker 1: That's why Republicans get so frustrated with career politicians, because
Speaker 1: when we have these opportunities, these career politicians lack a
Speaker 1: killer instinct. They don't say, we're gonna play hardball on
Speaker 1: this deal, We're gonna get a provision that we want.
Speaker 1: No just Nancy Pelosi gets everything she wants and Republicans,
Speaker 1: who had the majority in the Senate and the presidency
Speaker 1: get left in the dust. It's it's unfathomable to me.
Speaker 1: It's so annoying. My question to you is going forward,
Speaker 1: will the Republican Party still be the party of Donald
Speaker 1: Trump Ship? Or should be? Like? What? What? What should
Speaker 1: we expect? It feels like we need something new, fresh,
Speaker 1: and different than what we've been seeing as of recent
Speaker 1: well let's talk about the stimulus checks for a second,
Speaker 1: because there's this narrative that's circulating amongst many people in
Speaker 1: the rights blaming Mitch McConnell for not voting on the
Speaker 1: two thousand dollar stimulus check and saying, well, that's why
Speaker 1: you know, Republicans lost the Senate in Georgia because Joe
Speaker 1: Biden went down there and said on day one, I'll
Speaker 1: give you a two thousand dollar check. There was a
Speaker 1: poll down, the survey down that showed that the two
Speaker 1: thousand dollar stimulus checks whereas popular as like football in Georgia. Right, So,
Speaker 1: in a sense, people are blaming Mitch McConnell for that.
Speaker 1: But I want to take it a step deeper, a
Speaker 1: step in a more complex manner. I want to look
Speaker 1: at this in a more nuanced sense and ask this
Speaker 1: question why we're Republicans in the lose lose situation to
Speaker 1: begin with, meaning, it's actually not smart to give people
Speaker 1: two thousand dollars. It's not going to help people who
Speaker 1: are actually losing their business. Two thousand dollars might help
Speaker 1: for a month, but it's a token effort that politicians
Speaker 1: use to comfort their own consciences for how much they've
Speaker 1: hurt the American people. It is not a game changer
Speaker 1: for people in need. So we need to understand that
Speaker 1: first of all. So why were we in this lose
Speaker 1: lose situation where we had this choice between spending a
Speaker 1: lot of money but I mean a lot of money
Speaker 1: going into debt that's gonna be on the shoulders of
Speaker 1: our children and our grandchildren and our great grandchildren, or
Speaker 1: if we didn't do something so fiscally risky and irresponsible,
Speaker 1: we would lose the election. How did we get into
Speaker 1: that position? Because that's a choice, a lose lose that
Speaker 1: you should be able to have the forethought to see
Speaker 1: coming and make decisions accordingly to avoid that. And here's
Speaker 1: what I mean. We have to go back even further
Speaker 1: and look at how even Republicans handled the COVID nineteen crisis.
Speaker 1: Even President Trump is not he is culpable in some
Speaker 1: ways for how he handled the COVID nineteen crisis. You know,
Speaker 1: how he elevated Dr Fauci, how he was very much
Speaker 1: against Georgia reopening when they initially after the quote unquote
Speaker 1: first Wave, wanted to reopen their economy. We have to
Speaker 1: look at actions that lead us into situations where we're
Speaker 1: gonna lose lose to try to avoid that. It's like
Speaker 1: chess thinking versus checkers thinking. And I think if the
Speaker 1: Republican Party doesn't reform the way that we think to
Speaker 1: start avoiding some of these lose lose situations, then what's
Speaker 1: gonna happen? We're going to continue losing. So even in
Speaker 1: the unprecedented pandemic where we've seen business after business shutdown,
Speaker 1: whatever what, no matter what state you're in. I mean,
Speaker 1: with the exception of Florida, which has been great. In Texas,
Speaker 1: I think they've also been great, and they've handled it
Speaker 1: pretty well in terms of understanding. For example, I'm in
Speaker 1: Florida right now. Ronda Santis understands that it's not just
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen that kills poverty, kills too. But we're in
Speaker 1: a situation that we've never really experienced as a country.
Speaker 1: The American people have been sending over three hillion dollars
Speaker 1: of their money to the federal government in the form
Speaker 1: of corporate income. Isn't it right to say in a
Speaker 1: situation like this that they should get some aid. I mean,
Speaker 1: businesses absolutely deserve aid. That's what we saw, like some
Speaker 1: of the similars PPP money. I think that's appropriate. What
Speaker 1: why is it wrong for them to get two thousand
Speaker 1: dollars of them money. I know the debt is a
Speaker 1: big issue. We've been seeing the debt. I don't think
Speaker 1: it's a right and wrong issue. I think it's a
Speaker 1: smart and dumb issue. Like if we want business owners
Speaker 1: to survive, we need to let them open their businesses
Speaker 1: and run their businesses. I mean, my my family is
Speaker 1: full of small business owners, some people, some of members
Speaker 1: of my family. My sister, for example, has been absolutely
Speaker 1: you know, hammered by these shutdowns. Her business is basically destroyed.
Speaker 1: Two thousand dollars barely pays for a month of rent
Speaker 1: and compensation for what she's lost. You know, like I said,
Speaker 1: it's it's basically token. It's not a matter of don't
Speaker 1: they deserve something. Yeah, they deserve a government that doesn't
Speaker 1: tell them that they can run their business, the government
Speaker 1: that doesn't tell them that they have to shut down.
Speaker 1: A government that doesn't say sorry, too bad. You know,
Speaker 1: we're gonna live. We're gonna continue to collect our paychecks
Speaker 1: and live our cochy lifestyle, and we're gonna throw you
Speaker 1: some uh some money that Nancy Pelosi, by the way,
Speaker 1: wants described an equivalent amount as being quote crumbs. It's
Speaker 1: a matter of is it actually going to help people?
Speaker 1: Are what is going to protect people's livelihoods well also
Speaker 1: sure protecting against COVID. And you know, it's been nine months,
Speaker 1: more than that, almost ten months. We know that the
Speaker 1: lockdowns themselves shutting down businesses, that doesn't work. It destroys
Speaker 1: people's lives. It destroys their livelihoods. The lockdowns lead to deaths,
Speaker 1: to just as COVID nineteen does. I don't blame politicians
Speaker 1: necessarily for how they handled it. The first month, the
Speaker 1: first six weeks, we didn't know what it was. We
Speaker 1: were told that it was going to be this horribly
Speaker 1: deadly pandemic that was gonna cause millions of millions of
Speaker 1: deaths in our own country. And then we started getting
Speaker 1: the actual facts about it. We realized that it is
Speaker 1: very risky for elderly people, it's not very risky for young,
Speaker 1: healthy people. It's basically not a risk at all for children.
Speaker 1: The vectors of transmission are not schools, they're not retail businesses,
Speaker 1: they're not even restaurants and bars. I think New York
Speaker 1: city's own data showed that transmission in bars was like
Speaker 1: one percent of cases were transmitted in bars and restaurants.
Speaker 1: I mean, there are some governors, Rhonda Santas included, who
Speaker 1: recognize the scientific facts about this virus and are taking
Speaker 1: mitigation measures based on the facts, but most other politicians
Speaker 1: in our nation are not. They're basing it off of
Speaker 1: maybe their political agenda, maybe their own mass hysteria, their
Speaker 1: own fear, their own desire for power, whatever it is,
Speaker 1: their lack of understanding and compassion for non government officials,
Speaker 1: for everyday working people. And so I have no patience
Speaker 1: for those politicians as I see my own family members
Speaker 1: businesses being shut down. Two thousand dollars is nothing compared
Speaker 1: to a year's salary, a year investment in everything that
Speaker 1: they've lost. And I don't disagree with that. I just
Speaker 1: think people should get something. I also think in terms
Speaker 1: of how they build out the policies, in terms of
Speaker 1: the stimulus, where they're like, oh, well, last year you
Speaker 1: made a hundred thousand dollars or three hundred thousand or
Speaker 1: four hundred thousand dollars um you can't get any of
Speaker 1: this particular stimulus. An when you may have zero today
Speaker 1: is just like insulting and stupid that that's my point
Speaker 1: of view. I just think that there has to be
Speaker 1: something done opening the business. Absolutely, but if your business
Speaker 1: has been shut down for nine months, you may not
Speaker 1: have money to open your business. So I don't disagree
Speaker 1: with that. Don't don't misunderstanding. I don't disagree with that.
Speaker 1: I just think that we have to engage in a
Speaker 1: more complex form of thinking as politicians. Basically, we have
Speaker 1: to engage in a more complex form of thinking so
Speaker 1: that we don't get ourselves into that situation where we're saying, Okay,
Speaker 1: your business has been shut down for nine months, which
Speaker 1: means morally the government of course has an obligation to
Speaker 1: give you something if they've taken everything away from you.
Speaker 1: Yet it's not really gonna help, and it's going to
Speaker 1: cause a fiscal a massive fiscal deficit, which we know
Speaker 1: is also a national security risk. Because I'm not disagreeing
Speaker 1: with you when you say, you know they deserve something
Speaker 1: if the government's shut them down. Of course, I just
Speaker 1: think that smart politicians, politicians of integrity, if such a
Speaker 1: thing exists, could think ahead and avoid these lose lose situations.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm frustrated the most in politics. Yeah, now,
Speaker 1: and and that I absolutely agree with you on. On
Speaker 1: another note, Senator John Throwing, the Republican from South Dakota
Speaker 1: who's also the Senate majority WHI said, I think our
Speaker 1: identity quote, I think our identity from the past several
Speaker 1: years now has been been around built around an individual,
Speaker 1: and we've got to get back to where it is
Speaker 1: built on a set of ideas and principles and policies.
Speaker 1: And I'm sure those conversations will be held, but it
Speaker 1: needs to happen pretty soon. Would you agree with that?
Speaker 1: And what's what's what's the path forward? I just I
Speaker 1: don't understand. I think I feel like we're a party
Speaker 1: where we're really trying to figure things out because largely
Speaker 1: we've not necessarily had a road map that's clear, and
Speaker 1: a lot of people are really concerned. I think we're
Speaker 1: gonna We've lost a lot of voters. People are upset,
Speaker 1: whether they came in because they just believed in Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and they wanted to support his presidency. They feel
Speaker 1: as though the party has failed. And then people who
Speaker 1: have been Conservatives and Republicans for decades, they're saying, you know,
Speaker 1: what I'm giving up on the Republican Party. They're not
Speaker 1: gonna go vote for Democrats, but they're just not going
Speaker 1: to vote at all. So I mean, where did you
Speaker 1: really leave us? There's a lot of confusion going on today.
Speaker 1: What do you think? Well, I'll tell you something that
Speaker 1: I speak at the Young America's Foundation often, and one
Speaker 1: of the things that I always tell the high school
Speaker 1: or the college students is um you should base your
Speaker 1: political loyalty on principle, not on politician. You must resist
Speaker 1: putting a politician on a pedestal for several reasons. First
Speaker 1: of all, they will always disappoint you, because there's never
Speaker 1: going to be someone who agrees with you unless it's yourself.
Speaker 1: And second of all, when you elevate a politician to
Speaker 1: a pedestal position, you are giving them, at least in
Speaker 1: your own mind, power that we should not be giving them.
Speaker 1: You are giving them an unprecedented amount of um power,
Speaker 1: and that's dangerous. So it's actually basically a very non
Speaker 1: sexy solution. We need to care less about politicians and
Speaker 1: more about policy issues. And we live in a cult
Speaker 1: of personality. I mean, look at how we always are
Speaker 1: elevating different kinds of politicians and public figures in Hollywood celebrities.
Speaker 1: Our culture has a problem with the cult of personality.
Speaker 1: We are applying that to people and to politicians instead
Speaker 1: of to God as we should. So I know this
Speaker 1: is not an easy answer, but we need to think
Speaker 1: in a cultural sense. Why are we disordered in this
Speaker 1: way where we deify politicians? I mean, Democrats did it
Speaker 1: to Obama, Republicans did it to Trump. Why are we
Speaker 1: in a position where our loyalty comes first to the
Speaker 1: person versus the principle. If we can reorder our minds
Speaker 1: to only support people who are likewise defending the principle,
Speaker 1: our parties, both of them, actually would be much better off. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: I agree with you. I want to continue from there
Speaker 1: right after we take a quick break. Now, do you
Speaker 1: see any future leaders on the right beyond Trump? The
Speaker 1: catcher eye that would be the real future leaders of
Speaker 1: the party. Oh, that's an interesting question. Isn't that always
Speaker 1: fun to play? Who's going to be on the primary
Speaker 1: debate stage? I mean, there's there's tons of them. Think
Speaker 1: about different governors. There's Rhonda Santis, There's you know, Governor
Speaker 1: Abbott of Texas. There's um there's NICKI Haley, there's there's
Speaker 1: governors all there's actually a lot of Republican governors who
Speaker 1: are very qualified. We've gotten and this is interesting, we've
Speaker 1: gotten in the past since Obama. We've gotten away from
Speaker 1: governors being political candidates and towards senators being political candidates
Speaker 1: when it for president. I mean, when it used to
Speaker 1: be the other way around, right, It used to be
Speaker 1: the governors that would take the next step to the
Speaker 1: White House and the senators, you know, kept their place
Speaker 1: in the Senate. Now senators go to the Senate because
Speaker 1: they want to be the president. So in addition to
Speaker 1: those governors, you know, we have the whole slew of
Speaker 1: Republican senators who want to be the nominee in who
Speaker 1: I'm sure are going to run again. So there's not
Speaker 1: going to be a shortage of choices. I think it's
Speaker 1: going to be a very crowded primary stage. And you,
Speaker 1: you're a very young conservative. I don't want to thank you.
Speaker 1: I didn't want to say that, But what do you
Speaker 1: think conservatives need to do to reach out to younger vote? Um.
Speaker 1: I think they need to listen to the concerns of
Speaker 1: younger voters and they need to not try to convince
Speaker 1: younger voters to be worried about things that they aren't
Speaker 1: worried about, or not to worry about things that they
Speaker 1: are worried about. They need to meet the concerns of
Speaker 1: young people where they are and then explain how conservative
Speaker 1: policies best address the pre existing issues that young people
Speaker 1: are worried about, because right now, Republicans have a tendency
Speaker 1: to not really actively listen to young people, but just
Speaker 1: to say, actually, this is what you should be concerned about.
Speaker 1: And young people who have been told, you know, for
Speaker 1: years that the world is about to end for climate change,
Speaker 1: You're like, what do I care about my grandchildren's fiscal deficit?
Speaker 1: And there is a reason they should care. But politicians
Speaker 1: need Republican politicians need to listen to young people and
Speaker 1: explain how conservative policies answered the pre existing concerns that
Speaker 1: young people have instead of trying to tell them to
Speaker 1: be concerned about something else. Now on Juniory twenty, and
Speaker 1: Joe Biden will become the President of the United States.
Speaker 1: Will this be a third term of Obama? Or what
Speaker 1: should we expect from Oh, I think he's gonna be
Speaker 1: much more radical than Obama. Look at who he's surrounding
Speaker 1: himself with. I mean, Barack Obama was the most radical
Speaker 1: leftist president that we had had up until that point.
Speaker 1: But I think the people who Joe Biden has surrounded
Speaker 1: himself with, perhaps the people who are making Joe Biden's
Speaker 1: decisions and controlling much of Joe Biden's policy direction, they
Speaker 1: are more, much more blatantly leftist than Obama was, because
Speaker 1: he at least tried to be nuanced about it and tried.
Speaker 1: He didn't. I'm not saying he succeeded policy wise, but
Speaker 1: he didn't admit, Oh, I'm a socialist. Oh I'm a Marxist.
Speaker 1: Oh I think we should ban guns. I think that
Speaker 1: we should, you know, stifle religious liberty. All the people
Speaker 1: Joe Biden is surrounding himself with, including probably most importantly
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris, his vice presidential running mate, are extremely extreme
Speaker 1: radical leftist. If they have control of the Senate, the House,
Speaker 1: and the presidency, Gianna, the next two years before the
Speaker 1: midterms are going to be a blood bath. And I
Speaker 1: don't mean that literally, I mean a blood lath of
Speaker 1: policy um that's going that's obliterating essentially our constitutional principles. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and Kamala Harris has been rated the most liberal senator
Speaker 1: even beyond Bernie Sanders. Beyond that, do you predict there's
Speaker 1: gonna be some infighting between Biden and the more progressive
Speaker 1: Bernie and AOC wing of the Democratic Party. Yeah, for sure.
Speaker 1: And by the way, let me go back for a second,
Speaker 1: because media matters always tracks every single thing that I say,
Speaker 1: so I want to give additional context so they don't
Speaker 1: lie about the word that I used, especially in the
Speaker 1: wake of the capital rights. When I say blood bath,
Speaker 1: I do not mean a physical blood bath. I meant, uh,
Speaker 1: the on the chopping block would be our constitutional rights,
Speaker 1: life liberating in the pursuit of happiness. Are individual liberties?
Speaker 1: Are freedom as a nation? That's what I meant when
Speaker 1: I said that. Just for any liberal who's looking to
Speaker 1: take me out of context, make sure you listen to
Speaker 1: my full comment before you misquote me or misconstrue what
Speaker 1: I say. Isn't it fun being conservative? Jano? I just
Speaker 1: wanted to put that up there. No, I mean, and
Speaker 1: you're so right to do so, because legitimately, now it
Speaker 1: seems like it's such an interesting, insensitive time where liberals
Speaker 1: in places like media matters. They're really trying to take
Speaker 1: us out of context. So it's good that you provided that,
Speaker 1: but it was clear enough for everyone who was listening.
Speaker 1: They knew exactly what you what you were saying, and
Speaker 1: you clarified it as soon as you said it, so
Speaker 1: people can understand. But thank you for providing an additional clarification.
Speaker 1: Of course, of course. Um, But as that's your question,
Speaker 1: which is is there going to be conflict between the
Speaker 1: radical leftist portion of the Democratic Party and Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: I don't actually think Joe Biden's gonna put up much
Speaker 1: of a fight. I mean, he's gotten what he wanted, right,
Speaker 1: He's going to be inaugurated the president of the United States.
Speaker 1: He knew what he was doing when he picked Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: I mean that that's the thing about Democrats for the
Speaker 1: most part, at least democratic politicians, is they're not that
Speaker 1: principle of people. They might be ideological, they might have
Speaker 1: a political agenda, but it's not like Joe Biden is
Speaker 1: going to stand up there and say, wait a second,
Speaker 1: I am principally against packing the Supreme Court. He might
Speaker 1: recognize the political impracticality of it in certain senses, he
Speaker 1: might recognize from his past that it's hypocritical based on
Speaker 1: what he said, but like he's going, he can be
Speaker 1: convinced to move further left. I mean we've seen that
Speaker 1: under our very noses. Compared to what he said uh
Speaker 1: in the primaries versus what he's saying now, I don't
Speaker 1: think he's gonna put up much of a fight. I
Speaker 1: think it's gonna be very far leftist because they're not
Speaker 1: gonna They're not going to listen to Republican minority voices
Speaker 1: in a House and the Senate. They're going to do
Speaker 1: whatever they want. Absolutely, they're going to dominate it. And
Speaker 1: to conclude our conversation, I just have two more questions. First, sure,
Speaker 1: you became a prominent media figure at a young age.
Speaker 1: What advice would you get the kids in college or
Speaker 1: recent graduates who would want to make it in a
Speaker 1: political world or as a journalist. I would say, read
Speaker 1: a lot of books. Read as many books as you
Speaker 1: can any any books that you would recommend, Yes, So
Speaker 1: I actually made a list in my book. There's a
Speaker 1: whole chapter dedicated to fifty books that you should read
Speaker 1: if you want to be an educated conservative. So, at
Speaker 1: the risk of sounding like I'm promoting my own book,
Speaker 1: which we're going to do that anyway, but Tipping points
Speaker 1: how to tolp the less House of Cards, and there's
Speaker 1: a whole chapter I think it's chapter seven that has
Speaker 1: a whole list of books that young people should read.
Speaker 1: So um, that is my first piece of advice. The
Speaker 1: second piece of advice builds on that know what you're
Speaker 1: talking about, really understand why you stand for what you
Speaker 1: stand for, or and understand why the left stands for
Speaker 1: what they stand for. Because when you start undergoing scrutiny,
Speaker 1: when the firestorm of the left starts criticizing you and
Speaker 1: hacking you, you better be strong and what you believe
Speaker 1: and understand why you believe it, or else it's an
Speaker 1: untenable situation to be attacked like that. The third piece
Speaker 1: of advice builds on that if you're going to be attacked,
Speaker 1: you need to be surrounded by a support system family
Speaker 1: and friends, church, community hopefully who support you that you
Speaker 1: can come home from the political fray from and live
Speaker 1: a regular life. Those three things are the most important
Speaker 1: things that you can do if you want to be
Speaker 1: successful in conservative politics today. All right, And finally, America
Speaker 1: is currently divided, and a lot of people are pestimistic
Speaker 1: about the future of our country. Can you give Americans
Speaker 1: a reason to be optimistic? Of course, I wouldn't be
Speaker 1: fighting the fight that I'm fighting every day if I
Speaker 1: didn't think there was hope for our country. If I
Speaker 1: truly thought we were about to be flushed down the toilet,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be involved in this fray. I am involved
Speaker 1: in this fray. Of course, we have hope. We have
Speaker 1: undergone as a nation, tremendous conflict, tremendous wrongdoing with Gianna.
Speaker 1: We underwent a civil war. You know, we have correct
Speaker 1: course corrected from a litany of evils inflicted on people,
Speaker 1: whether it was people of color, whether it was women,
Speaker 1: And every time we have managed to course correct. Do
Speaker 1: not give up on the principles enshrined in our founding
Speaker 1: documents that allow us to both be sinners as men
Speaker 1: and course correct as a nation. We can do it
Speaker 1: if we don't abandon those principles. There it is, Liz,
Speaker 1: will it On't you tell us how we can follow you.
Speaker 1: We're gonna mention your book again, but go ahead mention
Speaker 1: your book for us, and and certainly you put you
Speaker 1: put out these dynamic videos every week that a lot
Speaker 1: of times go viral on your Instagram. So give us
Speaker 1: your social media handles and how we can keep in touch. Definitely.
Speaker 1: So you can find my book Tipping Points on Amazon
Speaker 1: or Barnes and Noble anywhere that you find books. You
Speaker 1: can subscribe to my YouTube channel, which is where I
Speaker 1: release those videos. You can just go to join Liz
Speaker 1: Wheeler dot com. It's all three of those are. One
Speaker 1: word to join Liz Wheeler is the U R L
Speaker 1: Join Liz Wheeler dot com. You can follow me on
Speaker 1: Twitter at Liz Underscore Wheeler. You can follow me on
Speaker 1: Facebook at Official Liz Wheeler pretty much any any platform.
Speaker 1: You can follow me on parlor for you know, as
Speaker 1: long as parlor is set to last right now. Uh.
Speaker 1: You'll find a blue checkmark by my name on any
Speaker 1: profile that is really me and I hope you connect
Speaker 1: with me. Absolutely. Thank you Lois Will for joining out
Speaker 1: loud with Gianno called about truly appreciate your time and inside.
Speaker 1: Thanks Gianna, it was great stock for you. Absolutely, Thank
Speaker 1: you so much. Thanks to Liz Will look for a
Speaker 1: great interview. If you're enjoying the show, please leave us
Speaker 1: a review and rate us with five stars on Apple Podcast.
Speaker 1: If you have any questions for me, please email me
Speaker 1: at out loud at Ginger Street sixty dot com um
Speaker 1: and I'll try to answer them in our future episodes.
Speaker 1: You can also find me on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and
Speaker 1: parlor at Gianna Caldwell. And if you're interested in learning
Speaker 1: more about my story, please pick up a copy of
Speaker 1: my best selling book titled Taken for Granted, How Conservatism
Speaker 1: Can Win Back to the Americans and Liberalism Failed. Special
Speaker 1: thanks to our producer Steven Jones, research for Aaron Kleveman,
Speaker 1: and executive producers Debbie Myers and of course speaker New Gingrich,
Speaker 1: part of the English three sixty network