Where Should We Draw The Line On Free Speech With JD Rucker And Chase Geiser | OAP #51
JD Rucker is the Co-Founder of FreedomFirstNetwork.com and the Editor of TheLibertyDaily.com.
In this episode we discuss freedom of speech and whether or not any speech should be regulated or if regulating speech at all creates a slippery slope bound to infringe on speech rights that should be protected. We also discuss what's going on with the pandemic and the political and corporate response to approaches they deem controversial.
EPISODE LINKS:
Chase's Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/RealChaseGeiser
JD's Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/JDRucker
Hey, hey, hey, this is One American Podcast, and we are live with JD Rucker.
JD, how are you doing?
I'm doing fantastic.
How are you?
I'm doing well.
Thanks again for coming on.
JD and I go way back.
We've shared, I don't know, maybe 15 words.
I was going to say, I thought, where's he going with this?
And then, oh, sarcasm.
Great.
I'm not going to lie.
Am I going to have to play it?
So, so I noticed that we were added to the same Twitter messenger group.
I think that's how I found you.
And I thought that you'd be a cool guy to have on the show.
I know very little about you other than that you're a cool guy.
So can you give me this skinny?
You clearly know nothing about me if you think I'm cool because I'm pretty darn lame, actually.
I'm a podcaster.
I have noqreport.com.
I'm co-founder of FreedomFirstNetwork.com.
We also publish at AmericanConservativeMovement.com, conservativeplaybook.com, based underground.com, truthbasedmedia.com, uncanceled.news, conservative playlist.com.
I think that's it.
I'm also no Q is it, is it QAnon related?
N-OQ?
No, no, no, just N-O-Q stands for news, opinions, and quotes, even though John B. Wells told me that it should be news, opinions, and questions, mostly because I don't really do quotes anymore.
So that was a concept that we came up with in 2017.
It's like, hey, man, we'll make like memes and of quotes and people will share it.
And it really never worked out.
So I'm thinking about changing it.
Actually, we're probably just going to move everything over to a new website soon.
So we're breaking news right now, right here.
Awesome.
On this show.
What's the name of the show?
One American Podcast.
One American Podcast.
We are breaking this news right now on the One American podcast.
So congratulations, sir.
You should be honored.
And I am.
Thank you.
I feel very honored.
And I think you're super cool now that you're on my show.
Hey, there we go.
There we go.
I'll send you a diploma.
It'll be worth as much as one from Harvard.
Nice.
I generally do research.
I know that my good buddy Jeff Dornick, you've been on his show or vice versa.
You know, I was meaning to do research and then today just got away from me.
And I never actually, I don't go into interviews blind usually, but well, at least I don't intend to.
It seems like it happens about half the time.
So I don't even know.
Are you an American citizen?
Yes, I am.
Are you born and raised?
Libertarian, leftist, progressive, radical.
It's funny.
That's actually how I named the podcast because I was tired of people asking me if I was a Republican or a Democrat.
So I guess I'm just one American.
Democrats tend to think that I'm a radical right-wing Republican, and Republicans tend to think that I'm, I don't know what they think.
They tend to humor the humor when they disagree with me because I agree with them on the more important issues.
I don't know.
I wouldn't say that I'm a libertarian because I believe that government should exist in some form or another.
But it seems to me the libertarians have kind of gone closer to like an anarchist type bend than maybe they used to be 100 years ago.
And I'm not an anarchist.
Right.
But I believe in individual liberty, Second Amendment stuff.
I consider myself a Christian, though most Christians probably wouldn't because I'm a very secular Christian.
So I'm conservative in that sense, but I don't know.
I don't line up with any party really perfectly.
It's hard for me to.
Yeah.
How do you like that?
How's it working out?
It's easy during primaries.
I just don't vote.
Yeah.
No kidding.
Do you think there's ever going to be a third party in America?
We try to.
A viable one, you know?
So it would take, it would take a Trump.
Okay.
I mean, and I'm talking somebody of that stature with, you know, we're talking at least bare minimum $2.5 billion in backing in order to get a viable third party.
So the challenge there is, you know, you can get a third party started.
You can get it going.
You can get it, you know.
That stuff is easy, as the libertarians have proven for the last three decades.
It's easy to get a party going, but you have to be able to break through the atmosphere.
You have to be able to achieve enough velocity to be able to actually make it into that space because everywhere outside of that space is where the Republicans and the Democrats reside.
That's why they have control.
And nobody's been able to get enough speed and momentum to be able to do that.
It's kind of like you can take a 747, you can get it up, you know, 30,000 feet, but you'll never take it into space.
It just can't happen.
And so unless you were to take somebody like a Trump and, you know, or even an Obama, you know, we'll take it from the other side.
You know, let's say Obama decides that he wants to, the Democratic Party has been, has gone too far to the left.
He wants to have more of a common sense centrist party, you know, that will end up still being too far to the left, whatever.
You know, he could probably pull it off with enough financial backing.
But outside of probably those two men and maybe a handful of others, or say raise the amount to five to $10 billion, no, you could not have a viable third party.
There's just not, you can't get the ground swell and it's just too hard.
You know, our greatest strength right now to be able to do something like that would be the internet.
And our greatest weakness for being able to do something like that right now would be the internet because you have the attacks coming from both sides.
So no.
And the censorship too is a whole nother issue.
I mean, with the Weinsteins, they tried to do, was it the Project Unity or Unity 2020 where they tried to kind of do this newfangled thing?
And not that it would have ever worked, but the fact that it was just immediately censored is really kind of interesting.
Yeah, but I mean, but they were all, it wasn't just censored.
They were, but they were kind of cheating.
So let's throw that out.
I'm not familiar with that.
Yeah, just please, please enlighten me.
No, no, it's not a big deal.
It's just there was a little bit of, they got busted doing some kidding.
What did they do?
Nothing bad.
Just fake accounts, bought accounts, purchased accounts.
I was just there today, as a matter of fact, for the same thing, not from them, but from a conservative, conservative news outlet that's like, hey, would you like to be paid to promote our site?
It's like, no.
Yeah.
So do you think that's, you know, I've thought about this a lot.
I'm in digital marketing as a career.
And do you think that that was something that Unity 2020 did?
Or do you think that it was just sort of a rogue fan?
You know, it kind of went crazy.
I thought, man, you know, they ban accounts for buying fake followers.
What if somebody just bought AOC like, you know, 10 million followers overnight?
Well, no, no, no, no, no.
So they, no, I mean, they don't.
They don't ban accounts for buying fake followers.
That's, that's, uh, though, they'll ban them for buying sock puppets.
They'll buy them.
They'll ban them for purchasing tweets, let's say, or Facebook likes.
But buying followers is something that that's actually, there's nothing in the terms of service that says that that's against the rules.
Artificially inflating an account is not illegal.
Artificially inflating a post is against the terms of service.
So you would have to, somebody would have to, and here's the thing is that, you know, Twitter and Facebook, as much as I dislike both of them, they've both been through this thousands, hundreds of thousands of times already.
They know how to recognize what's real and what's fake.
And I'm certain that there have been people who have gone out and tried to do exactly what you just said, which is to try to sabotage an account by going to framing them, making it look like a sites are called.
What is it?
Mechanical Turk, I think is one of the old ones.
I don't know if it's even still around, but going there and saying, hey, I'll pay five cents for retweets on AOC's account, and they would recognize it.
They would be able to determine.
They probably have people there that will tell them, hey, yeah, this was purchased in Scandinavia by Boris.
This was an AOC move.
So, yeah.
Yeah, that's a good point.
Do you think that the social media platforms have been fair in the way that they've enforced their terms, or do you think that the censorship is intentionally one-sided?
There's no fairness involved in social media.
They're not platforms.
These are content networks that take advantage of platform protection through Section 230, but you can't consider them to be actual platforms, you know, because they do put editorial bias into it.
That's unambiguous.
They could say all day before Congress that they don't, except they do.
It's demonstrable.
They absolutely, positively, 100% do.
And so, you know, but I mean, what are we supposed to do about it?
We have a feckless GOP in Congress and a Democratic Party that actually likes what's happening.
So nothing's ever going to happen with Section 230 or with these protections unless somebody, private citizens, take it and they go through the court system.
If they can get the evidence out through the court system and not stop waiting around for legislation or signing petitions or calling for boycotts or this, that, or the other, then there could actually be something that could happen.
But right now, the prospects of that happening are nil.
Well, the idea that Twitter and Facebook would be held liable for any content on their platform is sort of the other direction is alarming too.
Because I mean, I understand that not exactly platforms because half the tweets I see in my feed have disclaimers that have been added by Twitter, right?
And so they're certainly adding their own position into the content that's consumed on these platforms, so to speak.
But the idea that they could be held liable, say, if a mass shooter live streamed, you know, right.
So I guess new legislation would have to come in to protect them despite the fact that they're section 230 in principle is absolutely necessary.
Okay.
The concept of it does make sense.
And this is where it comes down to actions that are taken.
You have to have, number one, you have to have a reasonable sense of legality when it comes to something like that.
Like you said, a mass shooter goes on Facebook, Facebook.
If somebody wants to sue, they would have to demonstrate that Facebook was made aware, that it was escalated to the appropriate people, and that then they did not take action.
That's different.
That's similar to what's already happening with Twitter right now with the lawsuit by the parents of the 14-year-old, well, at the time, 13 and 14-year-olds whose pictures were put up on Twitter and shared widely, you know, through the city.
Is this the human or the, was it child sex?
Was it child porn?
Is that what it was?
Yeah, it was child porn.
It was illegal content.
They were, Twitter was made aware.
They said they replied to the mother of the victim that they did not see it as a problem.
And it wasn't until seven days later when the Department of Justice intervened and demanded that they take it down.
That's when Twitter, Twitter finally said, oh, okay, fine.
Now, a situation like that, where, again, an illegal action was taken, the platform was used for illegal distribution of child porn.
The platform was made aware of it.
The platform willfully declined to take down the content and allowed it to stay up until you got Washington, D.C. and literally the Department of Justice to make a call and to get it finally taken down.
Should they be held accountable for that?
Absolutely.
Because that's not something where it's like, oh, you know, well, you know, it was a mistake or it flew under the radar.
They looked at it and determined this is acceptable content.
It's illegal, but it's acceptable on Twitter.
So what do you think happened there?
Do you think that they didn't believe the person was underage?
Do you think that it was just a bad employee that was like just clicking through and just declining every appeal?
Like, what happened?
I don't know.
I don't know the details.
I just know the storyline behind the details and the storyline itself is damning.
I'm not suggesting that Facebook, that Twitter is guilty.
I'm suggesting that the evidence that we know of and the evidence that the judge has seen has allowed the case to go forward.
And that's a righteous push.
Okay.
That's something where, okay, so now that's a lawsuit that makes sense.
Okay.
It passes the smell test.
It seems to be, you know, now let's find out what the details are and determine if there is guilt.
Let's determine if there was were there needs to be damages paid.
And I'm not, again, I'm not taking a side on that.
I'm just saying that I'm glad that the judge pushed forward despite Section 230.
Because again, we're talking about legality here.
You cannot use an obscure code to say, oh, yes, it's illegal, but it's okay because they're protected.
I'm not a big fan of that.
Right.
Do you think that there's any speech that should not be protected?
Do you think that it should be legal to be able to yell fire in a crowded theater as a classic example?
So I'll give you a better example.
I love it.
Let's say, let's say, you know, I'm happily married for nearly three decades.
I have four children.
Congratulations.
This hypothetical.
Thank you.
This hypothetical is very different from reality.
But let's say I had a girlfriend.
Okay.
And let's say that we broke.
She's a cool guy.
I'm a cool guy.
I mean, look at me who wouldn't date this, right?
So, so, you know, I have this girlfriend.
We break up, you know, on bad terms.
And I, should I be allowed to say, hey, Twitter, hey, Facebook, you know, here's a picture of my girlfriend.
Not naked, not nude, you know, just a legal picture of my girlfriend.
She's hot.
She likes this.
She likes that.
Here's her address.
Her key, her key is, you know, hidden here.
She keeps a spare key right here.
And she takes Ambien at around midnight on Tuesdays and she is out cold, you know, for at least three or four hours.
Okay.
Should I be allowed?
Is that is that protected speech?
I didn't break the law.
Okay.
I didn't.
Didn't technically break the law there.
An awfully shitty thing to do.
It is, you know, but should, you know, and then, of course, if something goes and happens to her, should I be held liable for that?
That's the question.
Is free, you know, did I break?
I didn't tell anybody to do anything.
I didn't, you know, pay a hitman or a, or a race.
Right.
I just listed some facts.
You're right.
So does that make me, you know, is that protected speech?
I would say not.
You know, I think that the vast, vast, vast majority of speech should be protected.
But I'm not an absolutist when it comes to this.
I am a right on the edge.
Okay.
What people call hate speech, I think it's free speech, you know, for the for the most part.
You know, if I were to, if I were to say, you know, I shouldn't get now, let's be clear, there's a difference between cancel culture and, you know, legal, um, the legalities behind speech.
So sure.
If I were to say, you know, oh man, you know, well, I'm not even going to say it because it's hard for me to even say these things because you're also talking to basically a prude who very rarely, if ever, curses, let alone sure.
Well, it could be a bannable offense too on YouTube.
You're right.
It's funny.
That's, it crossed my mind.
It's like, well, if I say that, is that going to get me canceled?
You know, that's true.
Point is, I'm not, I'm not an absolutist.
I think that there are scenarios that, you know, like you said, is it legal to walk into a building and make a statement, you know, fire, yell fire in a burning theater that ends up killing four people who get trampled because, you know, even though there was no fire and your intention was to kill them.
Should that be protected speech?
I don't think so either.
So how do you, how do you make a system, a legal system or legislation that can make those type of instances illegal without creating a slippery slope?
Yeah, I mean, you can't.
Right.
You're asking the million dollar question there.
We all have our.
Like Jordan Peterson says, who determines what's offensive?
Right, exactly.
You know, and I mean, I think that, I think what it really comes down to is, is, you know, is speech intended to harm?
And I'm not talking about harm someone's feelings.
Right.
Is speech intended to, you know, cause, is speech used in the act of a crime or on or to set up as a predicate for a crime, you know, even a minor crime?
Should that be the consideration?
And I would say that's as close to my view of acceptable as possible.
You know, should I be able to go to go yell a racial slur at somebody in public?
Depends.
You know, it depends upon the situation.
I'm not kidding.
I hate to say it, but that's kind of, it really does.
That's just a funny answer.
So like, what do you mean?
So like, what would be an appropriate time to shout a racial slur?
Yeah, we're talking about legal, not appropriate.
I'm not saying it's appropriate.
I'm saying, should I go to jail if I were to see in the, you know, did I break the, you know, am I breaking free, am I breaking hate speech laws if I say, you know, whatever.
I don't, again, no need to repeat it.
You understand what I mean when I say racial slurs.
I understand.
You know, you know, was it, was my intention to do emotional harm?
You know, yes, that's why people use racial slurs.
Should that be illegal?
Probably not.
You know, and again, I'm not an attorney here, but I also, you know, I'm not, I do have at least a certain sense of understanding.
And here's the important part.
If there's a takeaway to all this, it's that the chances of free speech getting out of hand are far less than the chances of our First Amendment rights being suppressed.
So if I'm looking at this just from an odds perspective, okay, I'm going to err on the side of free speech because the attacks going in the other direction are far more prevalent and today far louder than anything that we can say and do.
It's funny, I got retweeted by Candace or I wrote a story about, so are you familiar with the Candace Owens Aspen COVID tests?
Yes.
I saw you got retweeted yesterday, last night, I think, right?
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
So The reason I bring that up, I'm not name-jumping.
The reason I was saying that is because I got to experience.
I generally have a pretty tame Twitter account, but I'm blessed with not having a whole ton of trolls that are out there who attack me, but because she retweeted it, I was copied on.
I got all these comments.
Every time somebody comes in there and says something, I get copied on it.
It's in my notifications.
And so that was like, oh, wow, this is really eye-opening.
And everybody's like, oh, so basically you're saying baked a cake bigot and this stuff.
You guys are hypocrites from that.
And here's the thing: the article itself and the actions that she's taken, none of them were against this person's right to run their own business, right to say whatever they want to say, right to deny service.
This all came down to, you know, us, both her and me pointing out the lunacy of what we're seeing, the potential, not just hypocrisy, but more importantly, the tyranny that can evolve from this.
And tyranny doesn't just have to come from government.
I know by definition it does, but what we're seeing is the oppression from local businesses, from educators, from people in authority, not just government people.
Everybody is starting to become a COVID vaccine nanny.
And again, I'm coming in blind.
So for all I know, you're out there, you're out there with Jill Biden pushing for vaccines all day.
So I am as opposed to vaccines as you can possibly be, yet still have one.
So I got the JV vaccine, but I like line up with every single anti-vaccine talking point.
Okay.
So, well, at least you got the direct spike proteins.
That's what I did.
I got a pre-existing condition.
We had a baby that was born really early, and I know babies never die from it.
So don't get me wrong.
I'm familiar with the issue, but I just decided, you know what, I'm going to take the risk and get the vaccine.
But I hate this was back in April, and this is like before things started to get really heated in the argument.
I think that if I would have waited to get the vaccine and seen the authoritarianism that was really going to come into the conversation, I probably on principle wouldn't have.
But, you know, I just thought it's JJ.
How many, they've only been in a few lawsuits.
So I got it.
All right.
I understand why people don't.
I understand why people don't want to get it.
I totally understand why people are reluctant.
I made a tweet about it.
I said, you know, it's like if you were to go into a gas station and grab a Snickers bar and you buy it.
And as you're walking out, the clerk says, by the way, you're crazy if you think there are any razors in that Snickers bar.
You'd be like, are there?
And I feel like the left, the way they've acted about the vaccine, has made people more reluctant to get the vaccines than they would have been had nobody ever said anything.
You know, it's like, and so I don't know.
And I think there's good science supporting the side effects as being an issue.
I think what's happening is that I think a lot of people on the right are overcalculating the side effects and a lot of people on the left are just pretending that they don't exist at all.
When I think both of those are mistakes, but I could be wrong.
No, I think that's fair.
And I think, I think I hope you don't hate me because I got a vaccine though.
No, no, no, no.
I've got, I have many friends.
I actually had, it's funny.
I told you you were cool.
You have many friends.
This is going to be a motif, man.
There we go.
Lieutenant General Tom McInerney had gotten the first shot of, I don't remember if it was Pfizer or Moderna.
And he went and, you know, he was actually going in to get something, something else done with skin treatment.
And he actually doctors said, hey, while you're here, you know, you just go down and get the shot.
This is early on.
He's like, oh, okay.
So he gets his jab and then he It's calls his doctor friend who's not who's not a you know his doctor, but who's a friend who is a doctor and she's like, No, you know, suck out the poison, you know, get somebody to suck in your arm.
And since then, you know, he has become very adamantly opposed.
But the reason I bring him up is because I think he does fall in line with what you're saying as far as why is it so hard for us to get the message out about the vaccines.
I think a lot of it starts with we're making them sound so bad that people don't think it's real.
They think it's just conspiracy theory.
Yeah.
Here's the problem, though, is that Doug's Jones effect.
Yeah.
But here's the thing: in many ways, the facts are so bad that you have to almost tone them down in order to get people to look at them and then kind of ramp it up slowly versus just hitting them with, you know, whatever.
Well, I think from an anecdote, from an anecdotal standpoint, I've been fortunate enough not to know personally a single person who's been hospitalized from COVID.
However, I do personally know several people who have been hospitalized after taking the vaccine.
Yeah.
Several, I think, three or four, maybe two or three.
Yeah, I mean, but how many friends do you have?
Like nine?
So that's like most of them.
Right, right.
Like 33% of the people I expect.
It's like a plurality.
That's within the margin of error, statistically speaking.
Spoken like a true popular kid.
No, we, you know, it is, it is hard.
And you're right.
I think that they say on one side, you say, they say there's no side effects.
On the other side, they say that anybody who takes it is doomed to die.
You know, they're, they're not going to see 2022.
You know, the legions should start popping up on their skin at any moment.
And we do need to look at this scientifically.
And this is where we go back to both mainstream media and big tech as being, I think, the root cause to the lack of discourse.
Okay.
You know, you, you can't say anything.
You can't even mention the word ivermectin.
Okay.
I posted a tweet today that showed the difference in deaths per 100,000 people in Africa, where ivermectin is readily available to about half the population, okay, over the counter.
And it shows the ivermectin, ivermectin countries, and then non-ivermectin countries.
And it shows the graph of deaths.
Didn't India issue?
It's not even close.
Didn't India just issue it to the population?
Yes.
How did it work?
I don't know.
See, but over there, don't they hold cows in very high esteem?
Like saying something for a cow is not like a diss.
Oh, wait, wait, this is a cow dewormer.
I should be allowed to take it then.
This is great.
It's good enough for them.
It's good enough for me.
Yes.
I hold cows in high esteem as well.
I have a ribeye.
I've never heard of a cow getting COVID, man.
It's the ivermectin.
You know, I actually have.
I actually have.
I'm not kidding.
Yeah.
I actually had a cow.
Smart.
Oh, no.
I mean, it actually is.
They're testing it.
And they did find it in a cow.
They found it in some dogs.
They found it in deer in Michigan to the point that now, you know, there was this group that started forming until the authorities came and said, no, no, no, no, no, guys, put your guns down.
No need to go hunt down all the deer in Michigan.
Yeah, it's a crazy disease.
And I think that's the other part of it.
We're talking about how the right can overblow the adverse reactions.
There's also the underplaying the realities of COVID.
Listen, COVID-19 is a real disease.
It is a legitimate disease.
It is extremely risky for anybody over the age of 70.
Okay, it is.
And I've known people that are, you know, and it progresses.
You know, once you get into, like, I've known people in their 20s who have gotten it, it's like, I didn't even know I had it.
I've known people in their 30s that are, you know, it's kind of mixed there, depending upon their level of health.
I've known people in their 40s.
It's like, man, this, this kicked my butt.
Okay.
And we saw Joe Rogan.
He's like, he's like, I thought I was going to die for a day, but I took ivermectin and yeah, he's 54.
So then you go up and the one person that I personally know who died from COVID was in his 60s.
I'm sorry, by the way, to somebody who died of it.
Oh, yeah, it's, it's, yeah, it's sad.
Old colleague, Very sad scenario there because it wasn't Phil Valentine, was it?
No, no.
No, this guy was, you know, not only was he in his 60s, but he weighed probably about 360 pounds.
So he was kind of an ideal candidate to not be able to survive it.
You know, but you go on up.
So the statistics, and you can look at the Stanford study that is quote unquote released, except you can't share it because Facebook will fact check you on it.
It's pretty hilarious because you have two Stanford PhDs who have been doing this the same study.
They're studying for infection fatality rates amongst the various age groups.
And they've been doing this since last May.
So they've been doing this on an ongoing basis, you know, publishing the reports.
You can't post their new reports.
If you do, these virologists, these experts from Stanford with PhDs, if you post their study that shows that anyone under 70 has a has a less than 1% chance of dying from COVID if they're infected, if you post that, Facebook will replace it with a link to a fact check written by a grad student who has no scientific background and it was written months ago.
This is I think it's got to be lower than 1% because it is.
Because 1% is pretty damn high.
You're just saying locally.
Let me be clear.
So it's, I think in 60 to 69, it was like 0.54%.
I say less than 1% because we're talking about normies.
Your audience, there's got to be some normies out there.
It's like, oh, 1%, 1% is very, very high.
If 100 million people get it, then a million people are going to die.
All right.
So let's look at 0.54% for 60 to 69.
I think it was 0.27% from 50 to 59.
But then it drops below 0.0% once you get into the 40s.
And then 0.001, 0.0027.
Yeah, that was right.
0.0027 for people under the age of 20.
So for kids, for those under the age of 20, out of 100,000 people, as many, you know, approximately three, three kids would die.
100,000 infected people.
We're not just talking about mass, you know, general population.
We're saying you take 100,000 kids under the age of 20, infect them with COVID-19, approximately three will die.
And we're supposed to wear face masks.
They're supposed to wear face masks.
They're supposed to get it.
The counter argument you hear to that is, well, three is too many.
It's like, all right, well, if three is too many, then how come we haven't been wearing masks for pneumonia?
Because over twice as many kids last year died of pneumonia without COVID than died of COVID.
Power pools still allowed in backyards.
Shouldn't everybody be boarded up?
Exactly.
I know.
That's the, you know, cars, take cars off the road.
Everybody has to get rid of their dogs.
Right.
I mean, let's, let's get real here, folks.
This is why we're supposed to have liberty because in these situations, there are no experts.
And so the idea that any group can mandate behavior out of another group in a very confused situation or confused time, especially, I mean, I always am averse to that notion, but especially in a confused time, it doesn't make any sense to me because frankly, I mean, there are experts in virology and there are experts in statistics and data analysis and what have you, but there are not really that many experts in COVID-19.
I mean, you can't really become an expert in anything, any one thing specifically in such a short period of time.
It's sort of a new phenomenon.
I guess there are COVID experts, COVID virus experts, but I don't know.
The COVID has changed everything.
It usually takes about three years to approve a vaccine.
It only took them like four months.
What?
Sorry.
I keep forgetting.
You don't have to apologize to me.
You don't have to apologize.
I knew the risks I was taking.
I just took the risk, man.
You call me reckless, not stupid.
There we go.
Hey, you know what?
And I'm all for informed consent.
Okay.
I've got a doctor friend who he's in the 70s, so he's at risk.
He's a retired doctor.
He was for months.
He would tell me I was wrong.
And we're talking about a guy.
He's a conservative.
He is, I would say, to some extent, a conspiracy theorist.
And I really do believe, I hope he's not watching.
Because I was about to say something kind of mean, but I really do believe that the reason that he was opposed to fighting against these drugs, these injections, was because he had taken it.
And as a result, it's kind of like, well, now I have to, I have to To debunk those who are saying that it's bad because if it's bad and I took it, then that would make me dumb or make me whatever.
You know, finally, I was like, look, you know, you took it because you made a calculated judgment.
You, you researched it, you know, and he said, look, if I was 50, and he told me, if I was 50, I wouldn't have taken it.
If I was 30, I definitely wouldn't have taken it.
If I was 20, nobody better even come close to me with it.
But I'm in my 70s.
And so, yeah, I took it.
You know, my parents, they both got COVID and then they got the vaccine.
I'm like, what the hell are you thinking?
I know.
The study just came out.
I think it was from Israel, was it, that came out?
Was it today?
Three days ago, study said, said natural immunity is 13 times more effective than the vaccines.
Part of the study that nobody's talking about, though, is that they're now finding that those who have natural immunity who did not take the vaccine have an actual, actually, a less chance.
So it's not like it's like, if you have natural immunity and you add the vaccine, that your chances get better.
No, they actually get worse.
Apparently, there's something in some vaccine that inhibits natural immunity.
Maybe we're talking about this, a different study, or maybe I misread it, but I thought that the results of that study said that the highest immunity was found in those who had natural immunity and only one of the two Pfizer doses.
Oh, all right.
So you're no, the same study, but you're talking, so you're talking about the, you probably, did you read the story from Natural News or did you read it from the Epoch Times?
I read the actual fucking study.
No, you didn't.
No, the abstract and the conclusion, but I actually went to the study.
I was about to say, oh, man, I am outmatching this one.
If he's actually in the screen, I was actually.
I went to the source, so I didn't read an article about it.
Okay, gotcha.
Yeah, yeah.
So one of the articles, and I don't remember which one it was, one of the articles said that part of the data that was not published within the study for the sake of not wanting to concern people because it and also because it wasn't scientific.
It wasn't, they didn't have enough of a sample of people who had not been vaccinated.
But so it was considered anecdotal.
It couldn't be considered scientific.
But that the people who were only vaccinated or who were only had natural immunity and no vaccines demonstrated a higher resistance to COVID.
But again, not enough people to be able to show that.
And I'll find you the article and send it to you because it's eye-opening.
Just like we've seen with one shot, two shots, three shots.
They're pushing for now three shots here.
They've already had three shots in history.
They're going to make it an annual, they're going to make it part of the flu shot.
They're probably just going to be.
I don't think it's going to be annual.
I really think it's going to be quarterly, man.
Maybe at first?
Well, I don't know how long.
I mean, I think it'll be.
This isn't it, though.
That's for sure.
We agree there.
Yeah, well, I think it depends upon the variants.
First, they were talking eight months, then six months.
So, so right now, the six, there we go.
Six to eight months.
Too soon?
Stop it.
The six to eight month mark is not variant-based.
The six to eight month data is based upon the waning of the effectiveness of the original drugs.
So, but the variant aspect of it is what brings up to, you know, if we're so far, people are like, oh my gosh, there's so many variants.
No, there's not.
There's very limited variants compared to what viruses normally mutate much, much faster than this one.
But this one is going relatively slow.
It's at a pace that we can keep up with.
But here's the thing.
The Lambda variant, I forgot which there was a new one that just popped up.
Oh, so much Greek.
They're not even doing it in order.
They're really confusing.
It's like, wait a second.
Have they looked at the Greek alphabet recently?
You know, mega variant.
What?
Did I miss Epsilon?
What happened to Epsilon?
They were worried people aren't going to be able to spell it right.
You know, I think my theory is that they have to name everything around this virus after a major corporation just to screw over the PR.
It's like, first of all, it's the coronavirus.
It's a Delta variant.
Nobody's kidding on Delta Airlines right now.
They're like, isn't this where that variant came from?
I'd be suing the CDC right now if I was Delta Airlines.
You skipped Epsilon, damn it.
Why?
Why did you skip that?
Somebody had a bad experience.
Somebody at CDC had a bad experience.
call it delta we're going to call it google we should call it the google variant next time i swear to god i wish there needs to be a nike and a disney variant as long as they're not did you catch the nike yet sales plummet it makes your it makes your feet swell up uh so where were we man i'm sorry i just got distracted i was we're talking about disney villains i mean uh the cdc same thing Yeah,
no kidding.
So what do you like?
I have a question for you.
This is what I wanted to ask.
How do you explain the phenomena that is the fact that the vaccines were really initially at least a very, very impressive accomplishment for the Trump administration, right?
To get something optional available in such short order was totally unprecedented.
You know, Trump bragged about it, supported it.
I don't think he's lying.
I think he actually believes that what he did was great.
All the supporters were, you know, seemed to be on board with his hyper, you know, with Operation Warp Speed.
Then as soon as Biden gets into office, and it may have happened before, I don't know.
You might be a little bit more familiar with the zeitgeist, but it totally switched.
Now all the Democrats are pushing these vaccines that basically exist because of the leadership of the Trump administration.
I know that Trump himself didn't do the research and make these vaccines, but he created the environment that was conducive to them existing.
And all the left is, you know, are supporting the vaccines, and everybody on the right is like inverted.
How did that happen?
Like, I thought that the left would always only hate anything Trump did.
Sure.
Well, and so, okay, it's actually a very long question.
So let's go.
No, I'm sorry.
I wish I could have been a little bit more articulate and framing it.
Yeah, it's good.
It's good.
No, the question itself was actually very good.
I'm saying there's a lot to unpack there.
Sure.
The, you know, first and foremost, there was no shift from, you know, when Trump was pushing the vaccines, at least everybody that I know in my circles, everything that I was reading was still like, no, we don't support it.
We love Trump, but we wish he would stop pushing this.
You know, it wasn't, there was less partisanship there.
It was just kind of like, ah, we understand.
Okay, fine, but we're not going to take it.
So, right.
Or maybe we're going to take it or, you know, but we don't want as long as they don't start infringing on our rights.
You know, as long as they focus on freedom and choice and all this stuff, great.
Fine, make your vaccines, make people happy.
You know, hopefully that'll fix things and make it to where I don't have to wear my damn face mask anymore.
You know, that was kind of the attitude.
There was no shift.
Okay.
After he left and it became Biden's vaccine, there was no shift.
People were still saying the same thing, but you're right.
You've got Biden and Harris.
They're both all like, oh, no, you know, Harris specifically said, I would not trust a vaccine put out by that man or whatever.
Countless tweets.
I've seen the screenshots from a year ago of people saying exactly.
So I'm not, and keep in mind, I'm not suggesting by any means that the Republican Party or the conservatives or libertarians or anybody is not guilty of what I'm about to describe.
But let's get real here: that on the far left, even on the left of center and within the Democratic Party, the narrative is determined by the need of that particular moment.
We see this with my body, my choice, right?
My body, my choice.
It doesn't apply anymore.
It's a strategic party.
It's not a principle.
They're opportunists.
Exactly.
Whatever the talking point du jour is, that's what we're going to say.
And so, you know, what's the soup du jour?
It's the soup of the day.
Dumb dumber.
What's the soup du jour?
It's the soup of the day.
That sounds great.
I'll have that.
Sorry, every time I hear du jour, I just think that's you dumb dumber.
See, and in this unpacking, that I needed to be able to maintain all my thoughts.
I'm so sorry to be able to come up with it.
This is my all of a sudden, all I can think of is, you know, you're telling me there's a chance.
Oh, gosh.
Okay, so we were talking about how the Democratic Party is an opportunistic party, and they seem to flip-flop more than the right.
Which we can take back and go into literally, we can go into literally any subject from that jumping point because it applies universally.
But we were talking about the vaccine.
So, so was Trump misled?
Yes.
I thought you're going down the conspiratorial angle with this.
How did they get the vaccines out that quickly?
We know they were actually prepared and ready to go before the election even happened.
The only reason they held it off was so that they didn't want Trump to be able to say, oh, look, I got the vaccines out.
You know, we know that it was conspicuous that they literally, you know, there suddenly all of them become available and ready to go within a week and a half after the election.
Coincidence?
No.
It was planned out.
But let's get into the real conspiracy here.
Did it really take that China?
Did it really just take months or was it being developed before?
We already know that, at least the delivery system.
mRNA technology has been working on that since like 2004.
We also know that spike proteins have been in study for a long time.
And I'm not suggesting I say conspiracy and people are saying, oh, you mean that it's manufactured by a weapon that Fauci started envisioned in the 80s.
No, I'm not saying that necessarily.
But I will say that this wasn't a matter of, okay, so let's start from scratch.
Let's examine this.
Let's go through the standard vaccine protocols and come up with a solution.
What it was was, hey, it's a coronavirus.
Let's get our coronavirus stuff together and it uses spike protein.
So we got this and we got this mRNA technology and we can do this.
And then it's like, okay, here you go.
These weren't developed specifically for this.
They were developed out of almost like an amalgamation of junk parts.
You know what I mean?
It's like, let's take it Skywalker's Pod Racer in episode one.
Nice, nice.
Wow.
These references, man, going from Dumb and Dumber to Anakin Skywalker 2.
I grew up in the Midwest.
They were only movies.
It's like if you're in the Midwest.
Bloomington, Illinois.
Bloomington, Illinois.
Okay.
I don't know.
The only thing about Bloomington, Illinois that's rememberable.
It's where beer nuts were founded, and it's also where State Farm Insurance was founded.
Okay, well, in that case, then it's a good place.
Because I like beer nuts.
Yeah, they're okay.
Uts are better than nuts.
Another reference.
Oh, boy.
My wife and I have been watching Mad Men for like the third time.
It's my go-to show.
You probably don't have time for TV because you're a productive human being.
I don't have time for TV, but I'm because I'm a productive human being.
But here's the, you want to hear something really odd?
I probably know more lines from Mad Men.
I did the Cliff's Notes versions.
Are you old enough to know what Cliff's Notes are?
Yes.
Cliff Notes is not quite before my time.
Yeah, okay.
I was shocked to find out.
My son's 25, and I asked him, you know, is the Cliff's Notes version.
He's like, what are Cliff's notes?
Who the hell is Cliff?
You don't need to look at Cliff anymore.
Who the hell is Steve Jobs?
He's adopted.
Okay.
Bring it in.
Come on.
Come on.
Tighten up.
We didn't do a rehearsal, folks.
Oh, right.
So I actually watched the entire Mad Men series in one night using the Cliff's Notes versions on YouTube.
It's got like, takes every episode and breaks it down.
So point being is that, yes, I know that Don Draper dies at the end and that Dumbledore is actually using Harry.
So you can use classic grooming behavior.
What is happiness?
He's always giving him Christianity.
Even though they're not related.
Here's an invisibility quoke.
We could hide in this, Harry.
Odd that this all comes centers around you.
You know, what is, I mean, yes.
So Madman.
Yeah.
Don Draper, you were saying?
Yeah, well, there's Uts.
Yeah, there's an episode where they do an Uts commercial, and Uts are better than nuts.
And we were talking about beer nuts and whether or not they were good.
And we're talking about the Midwest, which was an explanation of my knowledge of pop culture.
Yeah.
Did not connect.
Yes.
Peggy.
Peggy Olson.
What about Peggy Olsen?
She's the Handmaid's Tale.
And they just banned abortion in Texas.
And now it's all Elizabeth Warren's Handmaid's Tale.
Olson is at the center.
Did you watch or read Handmaid's Tale?
I did not, and I did not.
So my wife and I watched the series and it was really damn good.
I've heard, you know, my wife watched, I think, the first two episodes.
I was really reluctant to watch it because I thought it was going to be feministy stuff.
And they did a good enough job that I was able to get past that.
Yeah, see, it is.
I don't, you know, you'd mentioned because I am too productive.
I don't watch shows or movies, generally speaking, anymore because it's just, I can't see myself supporting people who hate me, you know, who actively work against me, you know, to not only spread a message, but to who take their money.
Money that I give them is then given to causes that I oppose, you know.
And as much, you know, I'm not one that, I'm not part of cancel culture.
So I don't say go out there and boycott Chipotle because they have, they have.
But it's just unconscionable to you personally.
But I will not buy Chipotle, you know.
My wife and daughter, they still order Chipotle and I won't, you know.
Yeah.
The problem with that, man, the problem with that is like I got a lot of friends that are like in cybersecurity and intelligence as well.
Not a lot.
I have one friend in cybersecurity and I have one friend who's part of the intelligence community.
And it's 50% of your friends.
Right.
And having spoken to them, having had spoken to them, I don't know.
If I read it, I would know which was right.
It seems to me that in the instance of security and privacy, if you have even one vulnerability, then the whole effort is moot, right?
So if you can't have airtight privacy and security measures for like what you do on the internet or whatever, then you might as well not have any, right?
So, oh, the car was listening to me.
Damn it.
I knew I forgot something.
And so it seems to me that the same principle can be transferred to what you decide to support or not because we're sort of running out of options of alternatives.
I have to use Amazon and I don't like the CCP, but I mean, everything in this room that I'm looking at right now was made in China.
Yeah.
I could boycott Amazon or I could boycott China, but man, that would be an effort.
All I ask people to do is this.
Listen, you're right.
It is a good comparison, but I think it's flawed because I think that we can still cause pain.
We can still cause pain by properly and selectively boycotting.
That doesn't mean we have to be against, you know, again, boycott absolutists here.
It means that we need to go beyond what's convenient.
Okay.
Yes.
I did boycott Amazon for three weeks until I realized.
I did Netflix for a month when they put out that kiddie porn video.
Cuties.
Yes.
We canceled Netflix.
I haven't gone back.
But guess what?
But they saw me on one month's metrics.
I just wanted the report to show how many losers, how many users you lost because of this damn movie.
That's all I wanted.
Yeah.
See, I went ahead and you know what?
I'm just done with Netflix, but I did.
Here's the funny part.
I did for the, because I had to know if it was real and I had to find out if, if Kathleen Kennedy really is as bad and Jon Favreau is really as good.
But I actually did, did a, did one month of Disney plus.
Yeah.
And I did watch the Mandalorian with my wife.
Did you think about pirating it so that they wouldn't make any money?
I mean, that's illegal.
See, then I get, then I get the, you know, it's.
Then you're a thief.
Yeah.
I mean.
Is it right to steal from Hitler?
It's like, you know, again, we're getting into, into minor morals here.
It's like, oh, is my 699, you know, contributed to, to, to killing babies?
I don't know, you know, but it, it may have happened, may have not, but it did.
And so the point that I'm trying to make is that we can still be aggressive and selective with our, with how we spend our money.
And we, if we do have viable alternatives, even if it's maybe a little bit more expensive, even if driving there might take an extra 10 or 15 minutes, I guess what I'm saying is, you know, would I tell people to avoid an ice cream shop and drive an extra hour and a half to get to the other ice cream shop where, where they don't have masks?
Or would I tell people just put on your mask for that period of time?
Cause this particular private business wants masks.
No big deal.
You know, don't, that's not a hill to die on.
Okay.
So that, you know, that's making a logical decision.
I just think that people need to go beyond, you know, the whole, well, I didn't went to this shop instead of the other shop because the other shop is, is a four minutes extra drive.
That's not acceptable to me.
You know, I ate at Chipotle instead of wherever Wendy's or, or, or, you know, Chick-fil-A or something because, because, uh, you know, um, I was in more of a mood for Chick-fil-A or for, for Chipotle.
So, so what's your beef with Chipotle, man?
Cause I, Chipotle is probably my favorite restaurant and I'm not familiar with their politics.
Oh, I'm so sorry.
So just, you can ruin it for me.
It's all right.
You know, it's okay.
I mean, there they're, all right.
They're extraordinarily, extraordinarily into certain aspects of cultural Marxism, in particular, LGBTQ supremacy.
So they do have a whole lot of their attachment to the transgender movement in particular is very, very aggressive.
They have little promos they put out.
where they'll do a day where if you can buy the, I don't even know the name, they have like these three particular transgender divas who have burritos named after them only certain days of the year.
And if you buy those burritos, then a dollar goes to whatever one of the charities, the transgender.
Yeah, there you go.
And again, let's be clear, this is where the libertarian, I mean, somebody wants to be transgender, great, I don't care.
Yeah, I'm the same way.
I just don't want it pushed onto my children.
I don't want it promoted as superior.
And I don't like the idea that a man has to use the men's room.
A woman has to use the women's room, but a transgender can use either.
People say it's not that big a deal.
No, that's supremacy.
Why can't it just be a business?
Why can't it just be exactly?
Why can't people make that?
Don't even get me started.
We could go on a long personal choice.
And I want to be conscientious of your time.
So if you need to go, let me know.
I know you're sitting in an uncomfortable.
I needed to go half an hour ago.
So when you're going through hell, just keep going.
So let me ask you this.
Do you think Don Draper?
Same guy.
Do you think that businesses should be able?
Do you think that a black-owned historical restaurant, say there's a restaurant in Memphis, Tennessee, that's been selling the best fucking barbecue for 100 years?
I've been told.
Yes.
Do you think that a black-owned restaurant should be able to deny service to a white person?
No, of course not.
Legally.
Legally.
No, not legally.
Again, so let's be clear.
There are, you know, you're right.
There is a there is a choice.
Well, I guess the line has to do with not necessarily the intentions of an individual action, but what are the repercussions of that action being used in other ways?
Okay.
So in that particular instance, if let's say, you know, like you said, and this, you didn't have to use a hypothetical.
We are seeing this thing, not necessarily with businesses, but with like, you know, there was that, I forget the college that said the rock was racist, so they spent money to get rid of that rock.
Are you familiar with that?
Like there was a rock.
There was a human being or there was a rock on the campus.
No, there was a there was this rock, this historic rock that was supposed to be racist.
So the college had it removed, which is irrelevant to the story, but that's the same college that has just had like a ignorant, igneous rock.
It was literally, so they had a, they had, and I didn't read the story, I only saw the headline earlier, but they had a an event that was specifically dubbed as an all-inclusive event, except for white people.
White people couldn't attend.
It's kind of like what happens.
It's all inclusive.
Reflein.
Yeah.
You know, so we've got the, in many ways there.
You know, there's, I'm going to, I have to preface this because if I say the line without it, without it being referenced, then it's a really bad line.
Did you watch any of the Austin Powers movies?
Yes, but it's been years.
I've seen all of them.
You saw, I think Michael Cain was in one of them.
Maybe the last one.
I can't remember.
I'm Michael Cain.
Michael Cain.
Gosh.
So he, you know, there's a line in there where he's like, you know what?
The only thing that I, the only two things that I can't stand are, you know, racial distinctions.
Yeah, don't get me banned, man.
The only two things I can't stand is racial inequality and the Dutch.
Okay, okay.
And that's kind of what, you know, it's like, it's like, okay, you know, it's all inclusive except for white people.
What?
You know, so should that be allowed?
You know, I don't, I don't know.
You know, should a business be allowed to do that?
You know, then we go to the other side.
You know, should an all-black, an all-black club only allow black members?
You know, all black university.
What if there's a historical black university and they only accept black kids?
You know, and so does that extend, you know, does at what point can we embrace cultural groupings without being racist?
You know, and that's really, that is a serious question that we need to have answered because it seems to be more and more legal, heading in the opposite direction that it was in in the 50s and 60s, but it still seems to be, you know, people are accepting it, that we can do this discrimination.
Let's see, we'll call it segregation.
I don't want to say it's necessarily discriminatory because I think in some cases it's just not.
I don't think the people were like, were who did that event I was telling you about at the college.
I don't think they were sitting there thinking, you know, we have to hate on white people.
I think that truly, at least in their hearts, or at least in their brains, they were thinking, you know, this is about inclusivity.
This is about diversity.
Raising awareness is about right.
So it really is, you know, we really just shouldn't have white people there.
And so then again, this made sense to them.
So I think, again, so to be clear, they didn't think it was discriminatory, but they knew it was segregation.
So the question is, is segregation, is that acceptable in any way?
You know, we've gone through for years saying no, no, no, but maybe it is.
Maybe in certain scenarios, maybe, again, like I said, with, would it be discriminatory if, you know, I started a Bible study group and an atheist, you know, wanted to, you know, apply for a job to be secretary of the group or something or wanted to be, you know, want to sit in on the group.
It's a bad example because as a Christian, I would say, sure, yeah, come on in.
Listen.
Let me show you.
Show you what I'm talking about.
Or more broadly, what he's talking about.
But, you know, you get the idea.
Yeah, I do.
Well, do you think that had the Civil Rights Act not passed, do you think that we'd still see restaurants that were racially segregated today?
Do you think, I mean, it seems to me that the free market might have corrected that problem if it was just given a little bit more time.
Maybe, maybe not.
I mean, the schools thing obviously needed to be enforced, but the private businesses thing is what I wonder about.
Well, and I mean, it's not just not just segregation of who can be there, it's segregation of who can sit where and who can order what and who has to pay what.
Let me put it this way.
I love the Civil Rights Act, by the way, but I'm just curious as to, you know, it's funny to think about in this context.
If you had asked me the same question two years ago, I would have said, yes, the free market would have corrected it.
What we've seen the free market do for the last two or three years doesn't give me as much hope.
Where have you seen a free market?
Good point.
Please tell me where.
Where I moved to make his closest thing I can at least can't get aborted.
You're right, but you're asking if the market itself can correct things.
And I'm not sure if that power is legitimate or if it's earned anymore, you know, because I hate to say it.
I don't trust the will of the American people as much as I would have, say, even two or three years ago.
Because we are seeing that it is too easy to manipulate us.
We as a people are, I would say, more susceptible to manipulation than other countries, where at least in, say, like communist China or North Korea or Iran, they know they're being manipulated.
They've built their lives around this manipulation and they're okay with it.
Are we worse off because we're supposed to be free and we allow the manipulation to happen?
I would say yes.
I would say that we're no longer as free and it's not that our freedoms have been taken away.
It's that we've willfully given them up.
And that's scary.
Well, it does seem to me that cultural consensus does have an impact on the market.
And what I mean to say is when there's a certain critical mass of a market reached that has a consensus about even like a moral principle or a political position, that changes.
So, for example, enough of Chipotle's consumers have a certain position on the transgender issue that it impacted the way they were doing business.
I would say that Chipotle is actually responding to the market, not creating the market.
And we see this a lot with like the critical race theory stuff that like the diversity, the diversity, equity, and inclusion stuff that these businesses are doing.
There's a certain level of consensus in the workforce among consumers that feel like they either need to mitigate liability or for PR purposes, they need to do these things, right?
And in the case of race, I believe that had they not made it illegal to segregate or discriminate based on race in a private business, had they let it just ride in time, it would have had a deep impact on the marketplace.
And it would be very hard to find restaurants that still did segregation, even if it was totally legal.
Sure.
No, I agree.
I see what you're saying.
I'm looking at it from the perspective of, let's say, I guess we're looking at timing.
You're looking at it from if none of this happened in the 60s.
I'm looking at it from, let's say that the basically segregation was legalized five years ago.
Would it have already changed by now?
Maybe, maybe not.
But I think you're right.
I think there's at least some power when it comes to the obvious, but it's when we start to get into confusing topics like transgenderism, like critical race theory, going woke, so to speak.
Is that going to be, we've seen businesses making the wrong decision when it comes to such things and have suffered as a result, you know, because they think they're doing the will of the people, but it turns out that the fans for, say, the NFL, they're just not, they're not there anymore.
Are they going to come back?
Maybe, maybe not.
But I don't think they will unless the NFL makes changes.
You know, it's not just about the vaccines.
It's not just about the mandates.
It's about their embrace of the black national anthem, for example, to coincide with the actual national anthem.
That doesn't make any sense.
Now, if they had said, you know, we're going to play the black national anthem, the Hispanic national anthem, the white national anthem, the Native American national anthem, you know, why specifically one?
Why?
That doesn't make sense to me.
And it's, are we supposed to, no, I'm not going to go down that road.
That one is going to be a very long conversation.
So I could talk to you for hours.
Where can people find you?
They can't.
I try to stay very hidden.
I don't have to.
What's your social security number?
I don't have.
Now they can find me in California.
Small place, you know, unless Gavin Newsom gets the same office, in which case we're leaving.
I'm not kidding.
And more breaking news.
Ruckers leaving California.
If Newsom stays, suddenly he wins in a landslide.
Do you live down the road from Dornick?
Yes, I do.
Great guy.
Probably, you know, we've been working together, business partners, for a year and a half.
We've never met.
I don't know if you've heard the story.
Well, you probably haven't.
Actually, you definitely haven't.
We were supposed to meet.
We'd been talking on the phone for a few days, decided to put a business together.
We were supposed to meet on the day, the very first California lockdown.
Was it?
15th?
How did you know?
I lived in California.
Okay.
Wow.
Yeah.
I lived in Laguna.
Yes, it was.
I was in Laguna Nigel.
The Ards of March, man.
I'll never forget it.
You were in Laguna and Nigel last year.
I used to live in Laguna and the Gale.
Yeah, I was there last year until I lived on Castle Road.
I lived off of Golden Lantern.
My daughter went to, one of my daughters went to school close to there.
How weird.
There's all sorts of freaking.
Now I definitely.
Yeah, right.
Right next to Chaparosa Park.
There is a school there, an elementary school.
I don't know if that's the school.
It wasn't off of Golden Lantern.
It was down the block from there, actually.
But yeah, she went to the CBCS private school there.
Is that the one that they, is that the school that they made out of the old Insane Asylum?
Or is that the one on PCH that I'm talking about?
Yeah, I didn't know.
I probably should have if that's the case because I did not check that out.
Wow.
And I just added myself.
My daughter actually watched these things too.
So her boyfriend is probably ripping on me now because he's very, very far to the left.
He didn't even know that he sent you to an insane asylum.
How can you listen to anything he says about vaccines?
Anyway, yeah, they can find me at Twitter, JD Rucker.
They can find me at noqreport.com.
They can rewind this video and listen to all of the 9, 10, 12 various sites that I'm involved with.
But yeah, easiest way is freedomfirstnetwork.com, knockreport.com, or at JD Rucker on Twitter.
