Speaker 1: This is Buck's first thoughts. The news you need to
Speaker 1: get through your day in forty five minutes. Make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe on the iHeart app or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. We know that the journos lie. That's not
Speaker 1: anything new. We've seen that plenty of times. We're all
Speaker 1: very aware of the fact that they always root for
Speaker 1: one side. They are Democrats. They're controlled effectively by the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party, or perhaps, as some argue, the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: is controlled by the corporate media. They work hand in hand.
Speaker 1: They are symbiotic organisms. But we have yet another story
Speaker 1: to add into the mix here. That's fake news. I mean.
Speaker 1: The reason that Trump's fake news allegations or accusations, quite honestly,
Speaker 1: just the fact that they used the term against them
Speaker 1: upset them so much was because at some level they
Speaker 1: know it's true. They don't want to believe it, they'd
Speaker 1: never admit that, but at some level, Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: somebody who was able to speak the truth about the
Speaker 1: media that they're hoping the American people don't figure out.
Speaker 1: It is largely now a profession of propaganda. It's not
Speaker 1: something that you can count on, it's not something you
Speaker 1: can trust. People have their own motivations, They bring their
Speaker 1: own biases to it, and more than ever now it
Speaker 1: is used to weaponize perception against conservatives and Republicans. And
Speaker 1: I don't want to get into that some more. But
Speaker 1: you know what else can be weaponized is your data.
Speaker 1: That's right, the stuff that's constantly being collected on you online.
Speaker 1: You know you can't trust these social media companies, right,
Speaker 1: they sell your stuff, but they're also tracking it, they're
Speaker 1: keeping it all on servers. What do you think that
Speaker 1: turns into in a matter of years, given how they're
Speaker 1: already censoring us, They're already looking for people who have
Speaker 1: wrong think in their social media profiles. Don't you think
Speaker 1: it's time that you took the basic step to protect
Speaker 1: yourself online? Do what I do with Express VPN. I've
Speaker 1: got the Express VPN app on my phone. It's so straightforward,
Speaker 1: so easy. You get this app, you set it up,
Speaker 1: you can have it protecting you on multiple devices. Here's
Speaker 1: what it does. Express VPN encrypts my network data, so
Speaker 1: it protects sensitive information from being compromised. Okay, and it's
Speaker 1: so easy to use. One click. I mean, I'm not
Speaker 1: somebody who's super tech savvy. One click and you'll protect
Speaker 1: all of your devices, and they make sure that they
Speaker 1: protect your ability to operate online without everything being spied on.
Speaker 1: Don't you just want to have some privacy for what
Speaker 1: you're doing online without big tech peering over your shoulder
Speaker 1: and selling all of your activity. Stop handing over your
Speaker 1: data to these big tech left wing companies. Go with
Speaker 1: the VPN, the virtual Private network that I trust for
Speaker 1: online protection. All you have to do is go to
Speaker 1: Express vpn dot com slash buck to get three months
Speaker 1: free on a one year package. That's Express vpn dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck. Please go now, set it up. You'll
Speaker 1: be happy you did. This is a you need this
Speaker 1: on your phone. You need this on your devices. Express
Speaker 1: vpn dot com, slash buck. They're supposed to bring us
Speaker 1: the truth in journals, and that's what they say. They
Speaker 1: speak truth to power. They claim that their very profession
Speaker 1: is all about bringing you the facts. Well, let's do
Speaker 1: it a quick review. What are some of the giant
Speaker 1: awful lies told with intent as well? I don't believe
Speaker 1: that these were situations where they were good faith errors.
Speaker 1: I think that they recognized an opportunity to push an agenda.
Speaker 1: They recognized a means of pushing forward politics, and they
Speaker 1: took it right. They saw what they were doing, they
Speaker 1: saw that they could get away with it in their
Speaker 1: own minds, and so they bashed Republicans with fake news.
Speaker 1: I mean, fake news has been weaponized, and you should
Speaker 1: never forget that fake news was originally a term that
Speaker 1: the Democrat media was using to try to explain away
Speaker 1: news stories online. They said that the Trump supporters were
Speaker 1: all believing. This is back in twenty fifteen. We're all
Speaker 1: believing things that weren't true, and that's why Trump had
Speaker 1: so much support. The Russian fake news online was what
Speaker 1: they were turning to. Well, for a lot of us,
Speaker 1: we recognize that when Trump turned this around on them,
Speaker 1: it really stung. The journals were upset by this because
Speaker 1: it was so true that they peddle in falsehoods on
Speaker 1: a regular basis, and they're not upset about it. They
Speaker 1: only get upset when it doesn't work and when they
Speaker 1: get caught. At some level, they recognize this is their job.
Speaker 1: They are activists, they are advocates. They are not people
Speaker 1: who are neutral in a pursuit of the truth. And
Speaker 1: some of the clear examples of this, I mean, the
Speaker 1: biggest one that comes to mind more than really any
Speaker 1: other is the Russia collusion hoax, which they pushed for
Speaker 1: years and actually still cling at some level. They'll say, well,
Speaker 1: there wasn't quite the collusion that we said there was,
Speaker 1: but there was clearly something going on and there was
Speaker 1: a willingness to collude. They put on their freud hats
Speaker 1: and they say, well, we can see into the minds
Speaker 1: of Trump and his people. They would have colluded if
Speaker 1: they could have gotten away with it. But of course
Speaker 1: that's not what we were told in the initial phases.
Speaker 1: Early on. What they were telling us is that Trump
Speaker 1: worked with the Russian government, with Putin and the Kremlin
Speaker 1: to steal the election. That was an awful lie. It's
Speaker 1: one that undermined a president. It's one that was used
Speaker 1: as the primary method think about this. That was the
Speaker 1: number one rallying cry of the hashtag resistance while Trump
Speaker 1: was in office. It was a lie. They actually got
Speaker 1: a special counsel based off of it. I mean, they
Speaker 1: were able to take it to the next level of
Speaker 1: It wasn't merely we don't It wasn't merely a question
Speaker 1: of you know, this is one of several stories or
Speaker 1: areas where we're going to attack the president. They were
Speaker 1: able to use this to turn the government apparatus against
Speaker 1: a sitting president. It's all lies. Did anyone really suffer
Speaker 1: the consequences for this? Now? In fact, over at MSNBC
Speaker 1: it caused a big ratings boom, same thing at CNN.
Speaker 1: The Russia collusion hoaxers and now truthers were overwhelmingly promoted.
Speaker 1: It advanced their careers. I mean, there was some guy
Speaker 1: or remember who wrote a book I don't remember his
Speaker 1: name now, he's an idiot called Proof of Collusion, and
Speaker 1: the guy had like almost a million followers on Twitter.
Speaker 1: Some total clown that nobody should have ever heard of
Speaker 1: or believed or listened to her read, created a big
Speaker 1: career for himself. The guy's an idiot. And there's tons
Speaker 1: of people out there like that. So not only do
Speaker 1: they lie and advance their political goals, they benefit from
Speaker 1: the lie. And then they go around telling us all
Speaker 1: that that Trump lies so much and that we're delusional
Speaker 1: because we don't see the Trump lies. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: Trump lies about how many ice cream ice cream scoops
Speaker 1: he had last night, and they freak out about it.
Speaker 1: And you know, I sit here and I see what's
Speaker 1: going on with this once again. And I actually worry
Speaker 1: about the future of the country. I really do, because
Speaker 1: we now have the elites, we have this cast of
Speaker 1: so called truthtellers who are the biggest frauds and the
Speaker 1: biggest liars in the country. So there's Russia collusion, which was,
Speaker 1: as you know, a big lie. There is their willingness
Speaker 1: to suppress stories they don't like, like the Hunter Biden story.
Speaker 1: That's a form of lying, suppression of truth, and that
Speaker 1: was right before the election. We know what they did there.
Speaker 1: There was the the insurrection Day where people beat officers
Speaker 1: sick Nick to death with flagpoles. That was the story,
Speaker 1: you know that they were saying that there were there
Speaker 1: were murders of police officers on Capitol Hill during the
Speaker 1: January sixth insurrection Day. It was a riot. It was
Speaker 1: not an insurrection, and we all know it. But Officer
Speaker 1: sick Nick did not die from being beaten to death.
Speaker 1: In fact, he didn't die from any blunt force trauma
Speaker 1: or any assault of any kind based on the autopsy
Speaker 1: information that we've been given, not officially, but that has
Speaker 1: been reported on. That's a pretty damn big lie, isn't it.
Speaker 1: Saying that police officer was beaten to death by people.
Speaker 1: So you can blame everybody who generally is on the
Speaker 1: right of American politics, where we're all responsible for that.
Speaker 1: And it turns out, well, no, that's not what happened.
Speaker 1: How could the media get that wrong? Ah? But you see,
Speaker 1: it served the purpose, that's the point. It served the purpose.
Speaker 1: And then that brings me to the latest one. You'll
Speaker 1: recall that President Trump was very upset and did not
Speaker 1: did not believe at first the results and still perhaps doesn't.
Speaker 1: There was of the twenty twenty presidential election. Well as
Speaker 1: part of during that, as part of that whole period
Speaker 1: and that that back and forth, The Washington Post published
Speaker 1: a story on January ninth saying that Trump essentially pressured Georgia,
Speaker 1: the a Georgia elections investigator to quote find the fraud. Okay,
Speaker 1: find the fraud. And just a few days ago, Now
Speaker 1: that was that was a big deal for everyone, understand this,
Speaker 1: because they were saying that now Trump was using his position,
Speaker 1: as you know now the outgoing president, but he was
Speaker 1: using his position still as the man occupying the oval
Speaker 1: office to change the results of the election, using pressure.
Speaker 1: That's a big charge. To make that really got a
Speaker 1: lot of attention, and in fact, the line find the
Speaker 1: fraud was cited in the articles of impeachment against Trump,
Speaker 1: the Democrats and the Congress brought against him for a
Speaker 1: second time. Well, just a few days ago. You gotta
Speaker 1: hear this the Washington Post. Remember that story. I was
Speaker 1: January ninth. Now it's March eleventh, two months pass. And
Speaker 1: here is what they add to this story as a correction.
Speaker 1: Two months after publication of this story, the Georgia Secretary
Speaker 1: of State released an audio recording of President Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: December phone call with the state's top election investigator. The
Speaker 1: recording revealed that the Post misquoted Trump's comments on the
Speaker 1: call based on information provided by a source. Trump did
Speaker 1: not tell the investigator to find the fraud or say
Speaker 1: she would be a national hero if she did so. Instead,
Speaker 1: Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize ballots in Fulton County, Georgia,
Speaker 1: asserting she would find dishonesty there. He also told her
Speaker 1: she had the most important job in the country right now.
Speaker 1: A story about their recording can be found here. The
Speaker 1: headline and text of the story have been corrected to
Speaker 1: remove quotes misattributed to Trump, So they lied about what
Speaker 1: he said. How do they do that? How did this
Speaker 1: actually happen? Well, they used anonymous sourcing as the as
Speaker 1: the people telling them that this is what Trump said. Right.
Speaker 1: Remember on page ten of the Democrats impeachment brief, they
Speaker 1: highlighted this Washington Post article and the fake quotes in
Speaker 1: oral arguments while it was being televised. So they used this,
Speaker 1: they used doesn't this remind you of something else? Oh? Wait,
Speaker 1: untrue news stories lies from left wing Democrat media organizations
Speaker 1: are then cited in official government proceedings to attack an
Speaker 1: enemy of the left, to attack a Republican just like
Speaker 1: what happened in the FISA debacle going after Carter Page,
Speaker 1: just like what happened when they were going after George Bappadopoulos,
Speaker 1: and people in the FBI were saying, well, look at
Speaker 1: what Yahoo reported on Yahoo's reporting bullcrap, and the FBI morons,
Speaker 1: because that's what the people involved in this were morons,
Speaker 1: were like, well, that gives us the justification if it's
Speaker 1: reported by Yahoo or the Washington Post, it's gotta be true.
Speaker 1: What the heck is going on here? This is not
Speaker 1: the way a free and fair society can run. Enough
Speaker 1: is enough. We cannot trust these news organizations. They are
Speaker 1: not trustworthy. We need to understand that. It's not a mistake,
Speaker 1: it's who they are. This is what they've become. Journalism
Speaker 1: is not a thing in America anymore. There are some journalists,
Speaker 1: but the overall practice of journalism is just warring propaganda machines,
Speaker 1: pushing the left wing political agenda. That's all. So they
Speaker 1: lied about about what Trump said. The only reason we
Speaker 1: know about this is because there's an actual recording, and
Speaker 1: the recording was found in the trash folder on a
Speaker 1: computer belonging to a Georgia elections investigator when there was
Speaker 1: a Freedom of Information Act request. And this is what
Speaker 1: end up happening. Unbelievable. And you know, other news outlets
Speaker 1: used their own anonymous sources to verify the quotes attributed
Speaker 1: to Trump that the Washington Post also had anonymous sources.
Speaker 1: Was it all the same source? This is why anonymous
Speaker 1: sourcing is one of the biggest shams, one of the
Speaker 1: biggest frauds that the media perpetrates, because you know, they
Speaker 1: can say whatever they want and they'll never reveal their
Speaker 1: source and then just making it up as they go along,
Speaker 1: or it's all one person, but ten outlets are all
Speaker 1: talking to the same person, so you think it's a
Speaker 1: lot of different sources. According to this is from the
Speaker 1: Federalist dot Com today. According to the chairman of the
Speaker 1: Georgia Republican Party, the Secretary of State's office secretly recorded
Speaker 1: the conversation, mischaracterized its contents to the Washington Post, and
Speaker 1: then attempted to delete the recording. It was recently discovered
Speaker 1: in a laptop trash folder as part of an open
Speaker 1: records search. So the Washington Post fabricated quotes they knew
Speaker 1: were from a secondhand source in the office of a
Speaker 1: political enemy, couldn't confirm the quotes with additional sourcing, still
Speaker 1: attributed them to the sitting president of the United States.
Speaker 1: Used those quotes as a basis to speculate the President
Speaker 1: committed a crime, and the Democrat Party would later repeatedly
Speaker 1: cite the bogus article one attempting to impeach Trump for
Speaker 1: high crimes and misdemeanors. This is all from my friend
Speaker 1: Mark Hemingway at the Federalist dot Com quote. But wait,
Speaker 1: it gets much worse. Several other major media outlets, including NBC, ABC,
Speaker 1: USA Today, PBS and CNN confirmed the fabricated quotes from
Speaker 1: the post anonymous sources by citing their own anonymous sources.
Speaker 1: He writes, alas, not only is this going to pass
Speaker 1: without any consequences, we are inured to this behavior from
Speaker 1: the media. The Post did this at the tail end
Speaker 1: of a Trump presidency defined by years of the media
Speaker 1: repeatedly being debased by sources who use credulously granted anonymity
Speaker 1: as a cloak to pass off dodgy information, enriched themselves
Speaker 1: or ironically enough so doubt about the results of the
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen election. It's not exactly puzzling. While the Trump
Speaker 1: White House might have stopped returning reporters phone calls whether
Speaker 1: or not the mistakes above were intentional, this kind of
Speaker 1: thing has become so commonplace and reckless that intent is
Speaker 1: almost functionally irrelevant. With near universality, all these damning media
Speaker 1: screwups run in one political direction. It's a shame New
Speaker 1: York Governor Andrew Cuomo didn't try and kiss any of
Speaker 1: the grandmothers he killed, Otherwise the media may have been
Speaker 1: obligated to cover his deadly policies and quote Mark Federal
Speaker 1: Mark a Hemingway at the Federalist, just lighting it up here,
Speaker 1: and it's exactly the point. I mean this. Our media
Speaker 1: deserves honestly, it deserves repudiation, it deserve scorn. These people
Speaker 1: are atrocious, they're immoral, they're unethical, They ruin lives. There's
Speaker 1: no decency, there's no honesty, and they're mostly really dumb too.
Speaker 1: They think they're smart. A lot of them managed to
Speaker 1: weasel their way into relatively fancy institutions for their degrees,
Speaker 1: a Columbia Journalism School or whatever. It's all meaningless, friends,
Speaker 1: it doesn't it doesn't actually tell you anything about them.
Speaker 1: A lot of them just found some way to use
Speaker 1: the system to their own benefit. And that's all they do.
Speaker 1: That's really all their careers all about. They use the
Speaker 1: system to elevate themselves at the expense of truth, decency,
Speaker 1: hard work, ethics. It's all about them. It's a profession
Speaker 1: of sociopaths who weaponize their quasi psychosis on behalf of
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party and get rich and famous doing so.
Speaker 1: At least the TV journals do the print journals, they
Speaker 1: just walk around generally looking frazzled and frumpy and upset
Speaker 1: and angry. And hate Republicans and pretend that they're doing
Speaker 1: God's work by writing editorials disguised as news pieces. That
Speaker 1: is the American media today. And the fact that they
Speaker 1: would lie about a president, and that that lie would
Speaker 1: find its way into another impeachment trial after other lies
Speaker 1: told about the president for the first impeachment trial, after
Speaker 1: other lies told about the president to bring a special
Speaker 1: counsel against him. How much lying can they do about
Speaker 1: us before we realize they are bad people who cannot
Speaker 1: be trusted. I will tell you that we would have
Speaker 1: worked just as hard to eliminate those acts of voter
Speaker 1: suppression as we did to eliminate the ones that existed
Speaker 1: in twenty eighteen. We were able to mitigate that harm
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty. We will continue to fight. The reality
Speaker 1: is voters when they see that people are attacking their
Speaker 1: right to vote, we respond, and we respond with a
Speaker 1: fury that is born of urgency. We would not have
Speaker 1: the American Rescue Plan that is going to lift one
Speaker 1: hundred and seventy one thousand children in Georgia out of poverty,
Speaker 1: will serve millions of Americans and lift them out of poverty.
Speaker 1: That's something that would not happen but for the right
Speaker 1: to vote, and so I refuse to countenance anything other
Speaker 1: than the deepest commitment to defending our democracy through Fairfight
Speaker 1: dot Com and the work that other organizations are doing.
Speaker 1: This has become a big national fight for you. But
Speaker 1: I am curious, are you still thinking about running for
Speaker 1: governor in Georgia in twenty twenty two. My focus is
Speaker 1: on making sure we have elections in twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: and that means that we have to defend our democracy
Speaker 1: against all enemies, foreign and certainly the domestic enemies we
Speaker 1: see permeating and unfortunately populating our state legislatures, fighting hard
Speaker 1: to restrict access to the right to vote, trying to
Speaker 1: make certain that people have in young people cannot participate
Speaker 1: fully in our democracy, which is the least patriotic thing
Speaker 1: I can imagine. In this moment, Stacy Abrams can go
Speaker 1: on air and say absolutely anything, and the journals like
Speaker 1: Chuck Todd, who's just a sniveling little fraud, But the
Speaker 1: journals nod their heads, they go, yeah, that's right, Stacey Abrams,
Speaker 1: You're so great. You're not somebody who pretends that she
Speaker 1: won an election that she lost that and no one
Speaker 1: ever calls her out on this. I mean, they're putting
Speaker 1: someone on on TV here who's the big defender of
Speaker 1: free and fair elections, according to Democrats, Stacy Abrams, who
Speaker 1: can accept that she lost an election. She walks around
Speaker 1: acting like she actually won the Georgia gubernatorial race. But
Speaker 1: she didn't. But that's okay because she's Stacy Abrams. She
Speaker 1: suggests on National TV that Republicans because of the domestic threat.
Speaker 1: Oh yes, the QAnon election cancelers are out there. More
Speaker 1: hysteria nonsense from Democrats there might be canceled elections. What
Speaker 1: no pushback? Oh, I'm working on having just making sure
Speaker 1: we have elections in twenty twenty two. Oh yes, because
Speaker 1: the big, bad mean Republicans will will get rid of
Speaker 1: all of the elections. Every election integrity measure is racist,
Speaker 1: every everything that we do. You know, I just want
Speaker 1: to know, why have any rules about elections at all?
Speaker 1: I mean, at some point you run into this, right,
Speaker 1: why not just have you know, how anybody can vote
Speaker 1: and whatever's in the box at the end of the
Speaker 1: day at the polling station, and who says, end of
Speaker 1: the day, Let's let's have an election year and we'll
Speaker 1: just sort of let Well, it'll all be on the
Speaker 1: honor system and you can just write down the name
Speaker 1: of the person you want to be president and you
Speaker 1: put it in that box. And there's no security because
Speaker 1: we trust people. There's no there's no checking, you know,
Speaker 1: the voter roles, there's no providing ID, there's no rua USA. Well,
Speaker 1: just you know, it'll be like passing a hat around
Speaker 1: that everyone writes it on a piece of paper. We'll
Speaker 1: do that all over the country. We'll do it for
Speaker 1: a whole year, because you know, we believe in democracy.
Speaker 1: How much elimination of voter integrity measures is actually too
Speaker 1: much for democrats? You have to ask that question. The answer,
Speaker 1: by the way, is there's no such thing. As long
Speaker 1: as they win, that's all that matters. Well, it's been
Speaker 1: pretty aggressive. I mean, you've had significant contributions by the
Speaker 1: New York Times, Jesse McKinley, all many Times Union, Brenda
Speaker 1: Lyons up there pushing the story forward, New York Post, Champion,
Speaker 1: Washington Post. All these forces gathering, you know, sort of
Speaker 1: undoes the right wing conspiracy theory about the mainstream media,
Speaker 1: which is that we don't cover democratic politicians. But I
Speaker 1: would be remissed, Brian if I didn't mention CNN's own
Speaker 1: huge media story here with Chris Cuomo, the anchor at
Speaker 1: the nine o'clock hour who covered Andrew Cuomo and had
Speaker 1: all these wonderful love athon interviews with him, more than
Speaker 1: ten of them, and they suspended the conflict of interest
Speaker 1: rule for Chris Cuomo for those interviews. Yet all of
Speaker 1: a sudden they've enforced it again now that Andrew Cuomo
Speaker 1: is in the midst of an historic scandal in the
Speaker 1: Albany State House. So I think that that is a
Speaker 1: major black eye for CNN, A major black guy for CNN. Uh.
Speaker 1: This guy Wemple from the Washington Post, he's on CNN
Speaker 1: air and he is he is giving them a little
Speaker 1: little slap right across the face. He's the one, He's
Speaker 1: the one giving them a black eye right there. I
Speaker 1: gotta say I was a little surprised. Apparently, apparently the
Speaker 1: journals can actually get upset at their fellow journals when
Speaker 1: they're so grotesquely unethical in their professions, when there's such
Speaker 1: an obvious fraudulence at the heart of what they're doing,
Speaker 1: and just the conflict of interest and all of it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: turns out that occasionally even even the lib journals will
Speaker 1: have to call out their fellow lib journals. That was
Speaker 1: a facinating one. But just to get into the heart
Speaker 1: of the issue here for a second, why is he
Speaker 1: even pointing this out? What's he stating? Why is he
Speaker 1: said saying this was you know, back when Chris, when
Speaker 1: Andrew Cuomo was the hero, the hero of the pandemic,
Speaker 1: we were told that it was fine that his brother,
Speaker 1: Chris Cuomo, was interviewing him on what is ostensibly, or
Speaker 1: at least theoretically allegedly a news channel night after night,
Speaker 1: and it was all supposed to be so great, and
Speaker 1: look at these two brothers and during the pandemic and
Speaker 1: everything else. I mean, that's just not journalism, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: I have two brothers. They're they're just the best guys,
Speaker 1: the most fantastic individuals you could ever you could ever meet.
Speaker 1: But you know, if I were doing, if I were
Speaker 1: pretending to be a journalist covering the news, it would
Speaker 1: not be appropriate for me to have my politician brother
Speaker 1: on and give him a BackRub on TV every night.
Speaker 1: I mean that that's just not that's not cool, that's
Speaker 1: not what it's fraud it. Look, they can do whatever
Speaker 1: they want on at CNN, they just can't be frauds
Speaker 1: about it. They can't lie about it. You know, if
Speaker 1: they want to be a propaganda channel for the DNC,
Speaker 1: that's fine, just say so. But they won't even do that.
Speaker 1: You'll notice I'm much harder on CNN than I am
Speaker 1: on MSNBC on this issue. I mean, MSNBC is engaged
Speaker 1: in all kinds of dishonesty and bullcrap and their left
Speaker 1: wing lunatics, and they put fake Republicans on TV to
Speaker 1: just trash Republicans so their audience thinks, oh gee, the
Speaker 1: real Republicans actually hate the Republicans that have real support
Speaker 1: in the party. There's a lot of things, you know,
Speaker 1: it was it was the home channel for the Lincoln Project.
Speaker 1: A lot of stuff to trash MSNBC for. But everyone
Speaker 1: knows MSNBC is lib Central. Everyone knows that CNN is
Speaker 1: every bit as left wing as MSNBC in its propaganda efforts,
Speaker 1: but still clings to the absurd fiction that it is
Speaker 1: actually a journalistic endeavor, that they're speaking the truth to people,
Speaker 1: that they're bringing them the facts. You know, Apple and Banana,
Speaker 1: Remember that you know facts first, all these different CNN slogans,
Speaker 1: it's just dishonest, and anybody who is discerning and has
Speaker 1: critical thinking skills knows this can come to this very obvious,
Speaker 1: very blatant conclusion. You know that this guy from Washington
Speaker 1: Post calling out CNN. Yes, CNN has no response to that.
Speaker 1: And in fact, it's even worse because they waive the
Speaker 1: conflict of interest when they wanted to give a lot
Speaker 1: of a lot of puffery and a lot of high
Speaker 1: fives to Governor Cuomo. Now that the guy is barely
Speaker 1: holding on, now that he's just still the governor for
Speaker 1: the time being. But I mean, this guy had an
Speaker 1: iron grip on that position and now he's down to
Speaker 1: his last finger. I mean, he is. It's not looking
Speaker 1: good for him right now. I still think he's gonna
Speaker 1: I'll tell you this, I still believe Cuomo is gonna
Speaker 1: hang on. Another fascinating thing is watching the Libs try
Speaker 1: to defend Gavin Newsom. I mean, there was some Elizabeth
Speaker 1: warrentweet buckeye for Mischio. I haven't been on your show
Speaker 1: in a while because you know, I'm I'm out. They're
Speaker 1: fighting for the poor people, you know, the pores I'm
Speaker 1: worth about ten million. But oh gosh, golly, you know
Speaker 1: I was gonna be president and I just want to
Speaker 1: I want to help all the pores, you know. That's
Speaker 1: what I want to do, the poor people out there. Yeah. Sure,
Speaker 1: and now I'm fighting for you. Oh gosh. Anyway, she's
Speaker 1: back and she's saying that it's essentially right wing provocateurs.
Speaker 1: It's right wing people who are the ones who are
Speaker 1: trying to get rid of Gavin Newsom because Gavin Newsom
Speaker 1: listened to the science or something. And I'm sitting here saying, lady,
Speaker 1: California is all that. This is all Democrats in control.
Speaker 1: They run the state government, they run the state legislature.
Speaker 1: There is no Republican governance in the state of California.
Speaker 1: And the people of California are the ones who realize
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom is at best a hypocrite, at worst a
Speaker 1: hypocrite who's also an incompetent and an idiot because of
Speaker 1: what happened during COVID and they saw the numbers. You
Speaker 1: know that, It's really straightforward. Would you rather have been
Speaker 1: for the last twelve months at Floridian or at Californian?
Speaker 1: We all know the answer. To that question. People are upset,
Speaker 1: but they're blaming somehow it's Republicans fault. They're blaming Republicans
Speaker 1: for Gavin Newsom in the midst of a recall. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Cuomo here in New York, though, has has nobody to
Speaker 1: blame but himself. And it's Democrats who are pushing for
Speaker 1: him to go, and even Nancy Pelosi is saying that
Speaker 1: he should he should look look his heart Play seventeen.
Speaker 1: What these women have said must be treated with respect.
Speaker 1: They are credible and serious charges. And then I called
Speaker 1: for an investigation. I have confidence in the Attorney General
Speaker 1: of New York. She has called for a I think
Speaker 1: expeditious investigation. And again, with all the respect in the
Speaker 1: world for what these women have come forth and said.
Speaker 1: In terms of you're talking about New Yorkers now, in
Speaker 1: terms of generally speaking, people have to look inside themselves
Speaker 1: and say, Governor Cuomo, also, are they how affected is
Speaker 1: their leadership and leading the state under the circumstances that
Speaker 1: are there. But I do think that the women deserve
Speaker 1: to hear the results of these investigations, as does the governor. Anybody.
Speaker 1: No tolerance, no tolerance, And this is a subject very
Speaker 1: near and dear to my heart. This is no tolerance
Speaker 1: for sexual harassment. Let the world know that. But you're
Speaker 1: not calling it into resign right now. I think we
Speaker 1: should see the results of the event, but he may
Speaker 1: decide that was Hopefully this result will be soon. And
Speaker 1: what I'm saying is the governor should look inside his
Speaker 1: heart he loves New York, to see if he can
Speaker 1: govern effectively. Isn't a remarkable how she's dancing around on
Speaker 1: this one. Hey, zero tolerance versus sexual harassment. Zero tolerance,
Speaker 1: But we're going to tolerate it this time. I mean,
Speaker 1: she's like, we're not. We're not really gonna call for
Speaker 1: him to leave. You know, it's up to him. But
Speaker 1: we're very, very tough on this issue, Pelosi wants you
Speaker 1: to know, but not so not so tough that if
Speaker 1: Cuomo thinks, yeah, he should probably stay, that he shouldn't stay. Well,
Speaker 1: we got we got zero tolerance on this issue, but
Speaker 1: you know, not so tough that you know that that's
Speaker 1: where we are. That's that's how this goes. So I
Speaker 1: would just say, you know, yeah, this is what you
Speaker 1: get from democrats, a lot of pseudo moralizing while they're
Speaker 1: really just thinking about how will this affect our grip
Speaker 1: on power? How will this affect our ability to continue
Speaker 1: to be in control. That's what they're really thinking about.
Speaker 1: And it's a state official with Cuomo, but he's tied
Speaker 1: into the National Democrat COVID narrative. You have to remember
Speaker 1: that border crisis gets worse every day, more and more people,
Speaker 1: facilities overrun, FEMA deployed to our southern border. But it's
Speaker 1: not a crisis. The Democrats say, well, what is really
Speaker 1: going on here? And what are the politics at work?
Speaker 1: And what does this mean for the future of this country?
Speaker 1: Some big questions, important ones. We got our friend Ryan
Speaker 1: Gurdusky with us now to talk about all that and more.
Speaker 1: He is the author of They're not listening How the
Speaker 1: elites created the National Populous Revolution. Ryan, great to have
Speaker 1: you back, Thanks for having me. So you know your
Speaker 1: populous Revolution. It's interesting because it was really a populous
Speaker 1: revolt against the Gang of Eight bill back in the
Speaker 1: day that stopped Rubio and the others from being able
Speaker 1: to get through the amnesty. Are we seeing the beginnings
Speaker 1: of a public consciousness about what's really happening at our
Speaker 1: border where the Democrat plan is and therefore the pushback
Speaker 1: from actual Americans, from the actual voters could be severe.
Speaker 1: Or are you seeing a kind of apathy toward it
Speaker 1: right now? Well, I know people are upset actually right now.
Speaker 1: The scene and released the poll last week where the
Speaker 1: worst issue for Biden, where he was underwater by twelve
Speaker 1: points with voters, was on immigration. Immigration is not an
Speaker 1: issue that a lot of people focus on, especially as
Speaker 1: the media, until it's a crisis, usually pertaining to the border.
Speaker 1: Right now, on the border, we do have a crisis,
Speaker 1: over a hundred thousand people per month coming into the
Speaker 1: United States, mostly declaring asylum. It's a lot of children
Speaker 1: and women. I'm trying to get into the interior. And
Speaker 1: then what happens is under Trump we had a political
Speaker 1: remain in Mexico. They would have to wait in Mexico,
Speaker 1: wait until a judge heard there asylum case, asylum claim,
Speaker 1: and then rule whether it was you know, real or
Speaker 1: not real. Now that policy is basically gone, they can
Speaker 1: come into the interior the United States. They've they've filled
Speaker 1: over capacity all of the detention centers, so they get
Speaker 1: released into the interior. They've put on a bus a
Speaker 1: ship to either a city in California or Texas or Arizona,
Speaker 1: and then from there go wherever they are. And they
Speaker 1: given the ticket saying come back in two years to
Speaker 1: come here an immigration judge. It's a total disaster. And
Speaker 1: this is a disaster created by two people, mostly George W.
Speaker 1: Bush when he changed our asylum laws and Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden when he sat there and started gutting when
Speaker 1: he did two things on the campaign trail. He promised
Speaker 1: illegal aliens, both amnesty and free healthcare, and started gutting
Speaker 1: the Trump era immigration laws to protect what's going on
Speaker 1: right now. Trump warned that there were coyotes and human
Speaker 1: smugglers on the other side of the border waiting for
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. I mean, Central Americans, they pay a lot
Speaker 1: of attention to American laws and American politicians on immigration.
Speaker 1: So at this point, it's it's reached. It's reached at
Speaker 1: such a level where now they're renting out um, you
Speaker 1: know the stadiums. I mean there's a stadium in Dallas
Speaker 1: where they're gonna be just putting thousands of kids, like
Speaker 1: thousands of people and just waiting. And I think the
Speaker 1: thing that annoys Americans the most is their children can't
Speaker 1: go to school in person, but illegal alien children who
Speaker 1: are who are arrested the boarder are going to school
Speaker 1: in person. You know. We're told not to mask gather
Speaker 1: until fourth of July at a barbecue, and they have
Speaker 1: three thousand people in a stadium in Texas. By the way,
Speaker 1: most of these people are not COVI attested. And there
Speaker 1: are many new strains of COVID coming out of Central America.
Speaker 1: That is so bad actually that the UK and the
Speaker 1: EU have banned flights from Central and South America. So
Speaker 1: we have we have no you know, broad COVID testing,
Speaker 1: We have new strains coming across the border. We have
Speaker 1: a global pandemic, we have high unemployment rates, and Joe
Speaker 1: Biden has single handedly started gutting all the protections from
Speaker 1: safe third country agreements to remain in Mexico to the
Speaker 1: end of catching releases, crew created, catching release again, all
Speaker 1: on our southern border, all for political purposes. None of
Speaker 1: this is for public safety, none of this is for
Speaker 1: protecting American labor, American jobs, or or our health. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is a man who ran on COVID over and
Speaker 1: over and over and over again, and with new strings
Speaker 1: of COVID emerging throughout South America and Latin America. He
Speaker 1: has taken the doors open to whoever can get into
Speaker 1: the United States or you're probably gonna make your way,
Speaker 1: and all the while enriching human smugglers and coyotes and
Speaker 1: drug smugglers, and show the drug cartel the worst of
Speaker 1: human kind, the people who prey on poor people. They
Speaker 1: are making bi billions and billions of dollars because of
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. We're speaking Ryan Grdusky, author if they're not listening,
Speaker 1: and a conservative author commentator, Ryan who is This is
Speaker 1: another question that I always want people to know to
Speaker 1: keep in mind because the Democrats right now, you listen
Speaker 1: to Jen Sack and Joe Biden, they act like, oh,
Speaker 1: don't worry, we're going to We're going to handle this problem.
Speaker 1: But for a lot of people they hear them, they say, oh,
Speaker 1: so you're going to stop the inflow of people into
Speaker 1: the American interior, you know, one hundred thousand a month.
Speaker 1: From what I can tell, basically, everybody's being led into
Speaker 1: the US. I mean they get held for a while
Speaker 1: to process them, to go through some things, but as
Speaker 1: long as they're claiming asylum, which they've all and I
Speaker 1: know this for a fact from when I've been at
Speaker 1: the border. They are told and trained by the actual
Speaker 1: cartel coyotes. I mean they tell them this is what
Speaker 1: you say. They give them risk bands to show that
Speaker 1: they've paid the cartel. Now that's a new process that's
Speaker 1: been put in place, but this is all very watch
Speaker 1: you know, a well oiled machine of getting people into
Speaker 1: the United States. Who's not being able to who's being
Speaker 1: turned away? They act like they're turning a lot of
Speaker 1: people away. I don't see. You know, if they were
Speaker 1: telling us that fifty or sixty percent of migrants at
Speaker 1: the border were being sent back right away, I would
Speaker 1: be shocked. They are keeping I mean, they are keeping
Speaker 1: some people away, but it's not many, mostly single men
Speaker 1: or non unaccompanied miners. But if you're a woman or
Speaker 1: a company miner or a family unit, now you're being
Speaker 1: pressed immediately. So that's why that is it's causing a
Speaker 1: bigger crisis. Actually, remember when children at the border, children
Speaker 1: are used as as tools in this process, where a
Speaker 1: child is put with an adult who is not their relative,
Speaker 1: who is not their family member or their parents being
Speaker 1: told at the border to say that is your family member.
Speaker 1: And then being allowed to come in with adults. That's
Speaker 1: I mean, that's a huge, huge, huge problem, and it's
Speaker 1: only getting worse under the bidenmenistration. And you have this
Speaker 1: dual kind of narrative that's happening right now. You have
Speaker 1: some Republicans, including some attorney generals now are assuming the
Speaker 1: Biden administration. You have the governor of Texas and at
Speaker 1: least National guardsen which won't really do anything besides process
Speaker 1: them a little more efficiently. And you have some Republican congressman,
Speaker 1: and you have Democratic Congressman Congressman Seculer and Gonzalez, who
Speaker 1: represent the Texas Mexico border, have come out strongly against
Speaker 1: the Biden administration. And then you have like Congressman Salazar,
Speaker 1: who's a Miami based congressman who was talking about legalizing
Speaker 1: illegal aliens. You have Senator Rick Scott, who I broke
Speaker 1: on Twitter yesterday it's preparing a Dhaka amnesty for you know,
Speaker 1: building of the border wall, which would literally do nothing
Speaker 1: to stop the crisis that's happening right now. And you
Speaker 1: have Democrats who are sitting there and talking about a
Speaker 1: mass twenty two twenty to thirty person in my estimate,
Speaker 1: and Yale's estimate amnesty in mass amnesty, which only incentivizes
Speaker 1: more border crossings. So you have you have a bunch
Speaker 1: of Republicans and Democrats um incentivizing and promoting the idea
Speaker 1: that more people should come, and you have and you
Speaker 1: have a lot of Republicans and a handful of Democrats
Speaker 1: saying no, this is a real roal crisis. I think
Speaker 1: this week, according to Politico, they're going to have two
Speaker 1: amnesty bills voted on the House, and at least ten
Speaker 1: Republicans have co sponsored one of the amnesty bills. Do
Speaker 1: you see a future here, Ryan, in which there is
Speaker 1: not at least some kind of major amnesty that goes through,
Speaker 1: because as far as I see this right now, it
Speaker 1: feels like democrat if Democrats did amnesty for DACA, for
Speaker 1: all DACA people, which also would include their families too.
Speaker 1: But that's there. There's always these these attendant you know,
Speaker 1: people that were they focus on one group, but then
Speaker 1: also anybody that's in the in the general vicinity of
Speaker 1: that group, family, etc. Also recovered by it. Do you
Speaker 1: see a future in which there is in some form
Speaker 1: of mass amnesty, maybe not for all, however many millions,
Speaker 1: but two, three, four, five millions, something like that. And
Speaker 1: I mean this year, well this year, I mean, a
Speaker 1: DOC amnesty would be the only thing that could possibly
Speaker 1: go through. But it's very difficult. I mean not when
Speaker 1: you're having millions on the border and you're still having
Speaker 1: a issue, a large crisis. I mean, that's the problem
Speaker 1: with granting an amnesty is twofold one. Unless you actually
Speaker 1: fix the immigration system, you're just gonna have a future
Speaker 1: amnesty as well. It's not like children aren't making their
Speaker 1: way into the country right now who are not DOCA recipients.
Speaker 1: In fact, probably more are making their way who are
Speaker 1: not docer recimpients, but who will be future DOC recipients
Speaker 1: because they meet the criteria. They just don't meet the deadlines.
Speaker 1: So unless you fix the problem, we'll have to have
Speaker 1: another dock in five more years. Well, right, We had
Speaker 1: an amnesty in nineteen eighty six with Ronald Reagan, which
Speaker 1: Reagan admitted he basically got swindled. It was a promise
Speaker 1: that there would be border security, we'd never do this again.
Speaker 1: That it was supposed to be a couple of million people.
Speaker 1: They ended up covering like close to three to four
Speaker 1: or five million people when all said and done, and
Speaker 1: here we are. You know, we went through the nineties.
Speaker 1: But even even worse was judges extended that amnesty for
Speaker 1: years afterwards. They expanded that amnesty through through through judicial process.
Speaker 1: So any amnesty that goes through, you can make it
Speaker 1: as narrow as possible. You could say only left handed
Speaker 1: people from Guatemala who came in between May first and
Speaker 1: May second, and judges will expand it. So it's not
Speaker 1: going to be what anyone thinks it is. Anyone who
Speaker 1: has this like grandiose idea, it's going to be narrow
Speaker 1: just for children, very compassionate. That's a complete lie. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's going to get into the courts right away. We're
Speaker 1: talking to We're talking to Ryan Grodowsky, author of They're
Speaker 1: not listening how the elites created the National Populous Revolution
Speaker 1: Ran We're talking about the border crisis here and what
Speaker 1: we're facing now as a country as a result of this.
Speaker 1: Where is this problem? When does this turn into a
Speaker 1: problem for Democrats? Because I think that the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: has managed to convince certainly it's base and maybe a
Speaker 1: solid majority of all Democrats that illegal immigration is actually
Speaker 1: not bad. There's no downside to illegal immigration. I think
Speaker 1: that's where the Democrat Party is. Well. Listen, if you're
Speaker 1: a woke like most Democrats are, you believe that America
Speaker 1: is a better country if it's less white because white
Speaker 1: people are inherently the cause of all social cancers and
Speaker 1: social ills. So why would you not support at abolishment
Speaker 1: to any border or any border laws to diversify the
Speaker 1: country as fast as possible, Because I mean, white people
Speaker 1: have less political say, they're less involved in the political
Speaker 1: body politics, not the less involved, but they have a
Speaker 1: less proportional representation the body politics, and that is an
Speaker 1: essence a good thing according to woke idea. People with
Speaker 1: the woke ideology, many of whom are who are white.
Speaker 1: I think it gets into the problem for Democrats when
Speaker 1: when independents and Republicans are souring on a position and
Speaker 1: a portion of Democrats, like about a fifth of Democrats
Speaker 1: or maybe an eighth of Democrats are souring on a
Speaker 1: position of immigration. And that's what's happening right now. If
Speaker 1: you look at public polls from CNN, which is not
Speaker 1: a right wing polling institution, they're actually decent cy ands
Speaker 1: Pole sometimes, but you're seeing Joe Biden's a even PPP,
Speaker 1: which is a left wing polling institution, has Joe Biden's
Speaker 1: appro ratings under fifty percent for the very first time.
Speaker 1: It's being sunk by the immigration crisis at the border,
Speaker 1: and more than anything else, the things that irritate, you know,
Speaker 1: regular Americans who are a political is when they're told
Speaker 1: to live by double standards, when illegal alien children are
Speaker 1: allowed to go to school in person and their children aren't.
Speaker 1: When illegal alien criminals are allowed to which is a
Speaker 1: new policy under Joe Biden, illegal alien criminals lawyers are
Speaker 1: allowed to sit there and fight against deportation because they
Speaker 1: say it doesn't or they're already on the process of
Speaker 1: being deported because they say it doesn't fill out with
Speaker 1: what Joe Biden's executive order state, so they could stay
Speaker 1: in the country even if they committed a crime because
Speaker 1: it's it's it's not within the crime per view of
Speaker 1: what Joe Biden's that are their deportation priorities. Um when
Speaker 1: when when they're when taxes don't have to be paid,
Speaker 1: when services can be can be extended, When all these
Speaker 1: things happen, they just feel like it's rigged against them,
Speaker 1: and it creates a boiling point that they look to
Speaker 1: a leader like Donald Trump. No even not Donald Trump
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty four, but a leader who sits there
Speaker 1: and points obvious things that everyone sees but are afraid
Speaker 1: to talk about. When it comes to a portion of
Speaker 1: this country are allowed to live a certain way, Well,
Speaker 1: we have to live by different rules and standards, and
Speaker 1: that irritates the hell out of average America. What is
Speaker 1: the Republican way out of this? I think that's another
Speaker 1: you know I've got I got very frustrated during the
Speaker 1: Trump years because we talked a lot about we heard
Speaker 1: a lot in the early days about how bad Obamacare
Speaker 1: was and we're going to have this great Republican healthcare plan.
Speaker 1: It didn't happen. Okay, I mean, if people can sit
Speaker 1: around and talk about how it was going to happen,
Speaker 1: or you know, the obstruction or whatever. We had the House,
Speaker 1: we had the Senate, it didn't happen. What are Republicans
Speaker 1: going to do to solve this? If they could? I mean,
Speaker 1: what is the approach well that we could actually go
Speaker 1: we could go forward with. Now, the most important thing
Speaker 1: Republicans can do is their attorney generals can sue the
Speaker 1: Biden administration and get nation wide injunctions on many of
Speaker 1: these rules, which is finally happening. The Florida AG Moody,
Speaker 1: she just made a lawsuit today over some portion of
Speaker 1: the immigration goal. I haven't seen in the court case.
Speaker 1: Eleven Republican Attorney generals have sued over Biden is stripping
Speaker 1: the public charge rule, which denies green cardholder green cards
Speaker 1: to aliens legal aliens, they cannot get green cards if
Speaker 1: they owe money the federal government through welfare. A lot
Speaker 1: of them have sued over catch and release and over
Speaker 1: remain in Mexico. I mean, they're starting to see that
Speaker 1: is our main ability to fight is in the courts
Speaker 1: and trying to get nationwide injunctions to at least slow
Speaker 1: the process for a year and maybe get to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court and kind of see what happens. Although it's
Speaker 1: very difficult to see how the Supreme Court rule like
Speaker 1: that because the executives so much purview over immigration, but
Speaker 1: nonetheless at least slow the process down. And then with
Speaker 1: the Republican Congress, look, I mean, at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, you can talk about as many con you
Speaker 1: but anyone can talk as many compassionate things as they
Speaker 1: want to do with the children or with this, the
Speaker 1: asylum laws in this country, which grant massive amount of
Speaker 1: waivers to anyone who says that they were in an abuse.
Speaker 1: The situation that they have a gang after them, that
Speaker 1: their government is corrupt is what's creating this crisis. The
Speaker 1: asylum laws one have to change more than anything else,
Speaker 1: More than a border wall. We need a legal wall,
Speaker 1: a legal wall that sits there and redefines how we
Speaker 1: process asylum in this country, and you know, and and
Speaker 1: start working on new third safe country agreements and actually
Speaker 1: get all of Trump's executive orders on remain in Mexico,
Speaker 1: for instance, make that into an actual law that's that's
Speaker 1: on the books, not just an executive order, but a
Speaker 1: congressional law. Those things have to happen, and they have
Speaker 1: to be the main priority. This last week, Republicans, what
Speaker 1: are they talking about abolishing the estate tax? I mean,
Speaker 1: it's it's they are some of them are truly living
Speaker 1: in an other world. I mean Kevin McCarthy brought members
Speaker 1: on the board to see what happened. They said, it's
Speaker 1: a humanitarian crisis, which it is, um but that's not enough, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, in order to that there and actually get
Speaker 1: a real answer on the illegal alien problem. We need
Speaker 1: to change our asylum laws. You know, first and foremost.
Speaker 1: You think we've just got about a minute left. What
Speaker 1: do you think of the chances that this Biden administration?
Speaker 1: You know, what would you say the percentage chances are
Speaker 1: that that it achieves amnesty? Oh, I don't know. Fifteen percent,
Speaker 1: so not that high. You actually think they might not
Speaker 1: get there abroad amnesty? It's never gonna When Rubio and
Speaker 1: Graham came out in the Senate and said, if we're
Speaker 1: not going to support an amnesty, you could see by
Speaker 1: who they're working with. They're getting Bob Menendez to push
Speaker 1: the amnesty. He brings no broad consensus with the Republicans.
Speaker 1: If it was Dick der but I would say we
Speaker 1: have a serious threat. But but Bob Menendez does not
Speaker 1: bring anybody and the House is moving. You don't think
Speaker 1: they'll break the filibuster over this? No, No, not a chance.
Speaker 1: I just don't think that they're going to do it
Speaker 1: over over amnesty? What about HR one? No? I don't,
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't think that. I don't think they
Speaker 1: want to break the filibuster. I think there's probably nine
Speaker 1: Democrats in the Senate. They're all hoping for Joe Mansion.
Speaker 1: But if it's not Joe Mansion, it's Christen Cinema. It's
Speaker 1: not her, it's Maggie Hassam. If it's not him, it's
Speaker 1: John Tester. There's a lot of Democrats who do not
Speaker 1: want to break the filibuster. Not quite as radical as
Speaker 1: some of us are thinking. We'll have to see. Ryan
Speaker 1: will have you back on this one. Check out his book.
Speaker 1: They're not listening How the elites created the National Populous Revolution.
Speaker 1: Ryan or Dusky everybody. Ryan, thanks so much, Thank you,