Dave Smith and Robbie the Fire Bernstein critique state overreach, citing mass incarceration and surveillance as primary issues while promoting upcoming libertarian events. They analyze a CNN article linking pandemic lessons to climate change, arguing it sets a dangerous precedent for suspending civil liberties under Democratic leadership. Defending Tucker Carlson against "replacement" rhetoric accusations, they assert Democrats openly discuss demographic shifts without consequence. The episode culminates in a heated exchange between Congressman Jim Jordan and Dr. Fauci, where Jordan demands specific metrics for lifting mandates, accusing Fauci of prioritizing pharmaceutical profits over constitutional freedoms with an indefinite suspension of rights. Ultimately, the hosts suggest current discourse restrictions intentionally suppress debate on voter ID and welfare reform to maintain government control. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Roll Back The State00:02:05
Fill her up.
You are listening to the Gash Digital Network.
We need to roll back the state.
We spy on all of our own citizens.
Our prisons are flooded with nonviolent drug offenders.
If you want to know who America's next enemy is, look at who we're funding right now.
Every single one of these problems are a result of government being way too big.
You're listening to part of the problem on the Gas Digital Network.
Here's your host, Dave Smith.
Hey, what's up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
I am the most consistent motherfucker you know, Dave Smith.
He is the king of the caulks, Robbie the Fire Bernstein.
What's going on, my brother?
How you feeling today?
Doing pretty good.
How about you, Davey Smith?
Doing very good.
Very good.
Can complain.
If you didn't catch our last episode with Dan McKnight, please go check that out.
I just thought that was incredible.
That guy is a beast.
Go look into the Defend the Guard movement and push and Dan McKnight and everything that guy is doing because it's really incredible.
And since we were talking about wars and the Defend the Guard push and all of that stuff, we weren't really talking about the news.
And now we got kind of a bunch of stuff that we haven't discussed that me and you can get into today, Rob.
But before we jump into all of that, don't forget to come see me and Robbie the Fire Bernstein at Porkfest this summer.
Tickets are almost sold out.
If you want to come, you got to go get them now because this is probably going to be the last week that they're available.
Go grab tickets.
Come see us at Porkfest.
Live stand-up comedy show and a live episode of Part of the Problem.
It's going to be a party.
A lot of great people are going to be up there.
Gene Epstein, Tom Woods, a lot of great, great people in our circles will be up there.
And also just some great people hanging out.
Porkfest is a lot of fun.
Also, come see me at Freedom Fest this summer.
Also, I'm going to be speaking in Pittsburgh at the Mises Caucus event, which is on May 15th, I believe.
Climate Change Propaganda00:12:23
What is the, I think I had the website written down here somewhere.
Lpmisescaucus.com.
Slash bash.
That's where you need to go to get yourself the information and tickets to that great event.
So uh, make sure you come see us there.
All right, and i'm gonna be at uh Childrenberg and also the uh Libertarian National Convention out all the way out in Portland, going out there doing some stand-up, rallying the Mises Caucus to show up and uh take over some seats.
There you go, Robbie the Fire, the.
It's very rare that the king comes off his throne and actually gets involved in the the day-to-day politics.
Uh, but that's how important you know, this is when the king is coming to Portland, to Portland, where they might still be setting things on fire, but they got heroin and donuts, so you can numb out, yeah it's, it's that the fire looks pretty beautiful when you're eating a donut high off your ass.
Um okay so uh, there's a few different things that I wanted to talk about today.
Um, one uh that jumped out at me was a uh CNN uh article.
I saw CNN Tweeted this, or people started tagging me on it, which really just kind of summed up a lot of things that we've been talking about for the last year.
The tweet was this.
This is from CNN.
The pandemic has given us a trial run.
That's the quote up top.
Experts say the COVID-19 pandemic has taught hard lessons that countries can use to tackle another major global crisis, climate change.
Now, a few things that I just want to mention about this, and go read the article if you want to.
The article isn't, you know, blatantly coming out and saying we need global lockdowns to fight climate change.
It's just kind of hinting at, like, oh, look, what we can do when we all come together to fight a really big threat.
And what's another really big threat?
Well, it's climate change.
This stated differently.
We've already said, hey, civil liberties, forget it.
Yep.
We've already said, hey, let's throw away civil liberties in the fight against, you know, unknown risks.
And so if we could do that for COVID, which no one was really going to die from, or most of us weren't, and we probably could have gone about our lives.
Well, really, global warming, that's the bigger issue.
So why would we not?
This was, I don't know if you remember this, Rob, but this was after the lockdowns hit.
This was the topic we were discussing on our first episode.
Our first out of the studio episode that we did late last March.
This was one of the things that we spent a bunch of time talking about.
And like, well, by this logic, why should we not be doing this for climate change?
I mean, if you like, by the logic of an Elizabeth Warren, a Bernie Sanders, an AOC, a Joe Biden, you know, some of the more powerful Democrats, by their logic, we should be doing substantially more to limit climate change than we should for COVID.
I mean, according to them, COVID has, you know, killed a few hundred thousand Americans.
Climate change endangers all species.
According to Joe Biden, the planet is going to be uninhabitable for our children.
That might sound like hyperbole to sane people, but this is something that he says over and over again.
Now, if that's, that was Bernie Sanders says that over and over again.
Whatever.
Biden says very similar things.
We're going to be dead within 10 minutes.
The planet's getting warm.
At least 10 minutes.
I just won't save you.
I'm on my third heart attack.
Now, I'm once again asking you for money.
But so by their logic, so this is what we should do.
And once you've already set the precedent that you can suspend all civil liberties in the name of public health, well, then this just seems obvious.
Now, one of the other things in the background of all of this is what just happened with Project Veritas.
Now, I got to say, I know Project Veritas is very demonized and a lot of people give them shit.
I think they do some pretty incredible work.
And it's not as if the videos that they put out there are often proved false videos.
They're not like paying actors.
What they do is they get people to go undercover and catch people talking.
And they just put out this video of these CNN producer who's openly talking about how they create all these stories, how their number one mission was to get Trump out of office, and how now that there's COVID fatigue, their big switch is going to be toward climate change.
It is really quite something to see that video come out.
Then James O'Keefe's Twitter got suspended.
Now, James O'Keefe, feel however you feel about him, he's not somebody who's out there like calling people the N-word or something like that, who's like, oh, hate speech or something like that.
Like, there's no, he, his Twitter account got suspended right after they put out this video, which went viral, got a lot of attraction.
And then CNN comes out with this article.
So the timing of it all seemed very suspicious to the point that you almost couldn't imagine that someone at CNN wouldn't be like, hold that article for like two weeks.
You know what I mean?
Like, because there was just this video of one of our guys saying that we're making this switch.
So right now, maybe we shouldn't have it.
But no, no, no one, no one gave those instructions.
So this is, look, man, you know, it's like Ron Paul used to say this country needs a revolution.
And man, though, it was true when he said it, but it's like 100,000 times more true today than it's ever been.
We really need a revolution in this country where the overwhelming majority of the country soundly rejects the COVID regime, just rejects the idea that if there's some type of threat, perceived or real, we can just suspend every sense of civil liberties and natural rights imaginable.
Because you can, and this is the really dangerous thing about the last year of what they've done, is that there is nothing so unique about COVID that you couldn't make an equally sound argument or perhaps an even much better argument for other things to suspend the entire economy because of those.
There are, you know, if you believe the climate change hysteria, it's a much bigger threat than COVID.
And there are other things that kill a lot more people than COVID that everyone staying in their house could avoid.
So this is like, this needs to not only just be ended, but soundly rejected.
And or else we're in big trouble.
Was there only one Veritas video?
It was just one video, right?
On this particular subject?
Yeah.
Or just the one person.
All right.
I guess I got to rewatch it because I didn't catch that point with the, that you were just saying that he was talking about that they're very specifically running with a environmental or what do you say?
It was specifically global warming.
Well, what he's done is that they're switching to climate change, that that is the agenda.
Okay, so Brian just infirms, there were three parts to the exposes.
Usually what Project Veritas will do is they'll have very, very long exposés, but then they chop it down into videos that go viral.
Got it.
All right.
So I got to watch all three because I didn't catch that.
The one part that I watched, there are some pretty damning moments, but I also felt that the editing job does not give you a clear picture on the full conversation.
And the questions themselves sometimes didn't speak to what are you doing as much as, well, what could be media propaganda?
And him more just speaking to theoreticals and not saying, this is what I do, which I could see you working in the news space and almost being against propaganda and saying, here's the negative effects of something you could do.
Oddly enough, he did not strike me like some overly sharp guy or some dude who.
Well, it's always funny how they don't see it coming because from your perspective, when you're watching the video, it's just two guys hanging out at a bar having a beer and they're like, so you guys do propaganda, huh?
He's like, like, it doesn't even like kind of, he's like, hey, you mind if I just set my bag down right here?
So you guys are going to have a lot of news.
And they're like, it's got to totally do.
It's got to be a hot chick.
I can't tell you that it's a hot chick, but like it's a female's voice.
And so I understand how you, you know, you're some fucking nerdy dude works in the whatever lab haven't been, and all of a sudden some lady seems like she's super interested in your politics.
So, hey, I thought that was so cool the way you guys got Trump out of office.
You guys literally made that up, right?
He's like, absolutely.
We totally did.
Yeah.
It's a, listen, I don't know their tricks, how they get all this shit.
I could imagine that people at CNN are just like, hey, stop spilling our secrets at bars.
You're being recorded.
This is the 17th time they've busted us this way.
I think the Asian American thing was pretty damning because he said, like, we researched it almost seeming like I wanted to run this story, but it obviously did not fit the kind of thing CNN would want to approach.
But past that, there was quite a bit of what I'm describing, which is, well, what would be media?
And he's not telling you CNN propaganda.
He's more telling you the potential problems.
If anything, he's almost saying this is the issue of propaganda.
If you watch more of the videos, there were some pretty direct comments where he's like, this is what CNN does.
Like, it's pretty bad.
You see, they fooled me by putting out the three parts.
I only watched part one.
There you go.
No, look, it's, I just say, if you, if you're a regular listener of this show, I don't think there's anything there that would not be what you would expect it to be.
I also find leather coats.
Watch out for this push.
Watch out for this push for the climate change as the new issue.
The leather coke guy has creepy Chris Hansen energy also.
I can't disagree with you that.
That's James O'Keefe.
He's just got suspended off Twitter.
So we'll see whether he's permanently suspended or not.
I'm not sure.
But that is just to watch this now start to unfold as there is this COVID fatigue and people are really getting over it.
And also that a few states have fully opened and they aren't seeing spikes in numbers.
And so it's just, it's much harder to keep this thing going to watch this pivot starting to happen is something.
Biden's also putting major resources into, I'll just call, I don't think anyone uses this term, but we're going to start right here, the green agenda, which includes the infrastructure plan, which has a lot of money seemingly set aside basically for fighting climate change and investments in green technology.
And then you also have BlackRock.
A lot of Fed money was sent through Black Rock with the SPVs.
They got their bailout when it came to junk bonds that they were heavily, from what I understand, heavily invested in.
And now BlackRock is kind of leading this Wall Street crusade of monitoring firms to make sure that they're, I don't know, being carbon, whatever.
Like there's a leftist agenda that is now flowing through BlackRock and don't think that isn't Fed money.
Yeah, no, 100%.
That's a very good point.
And this was true in the Obama administration as well.
Just a lot of push to funnel money into these green energy companies, sustainable energy companies and stuff, which just all it really is is the latest version of cronyism.
You know, like think of the like Solyndra thing and all that.
It's just like, oh, here's a few hundred million dollars of taxpayer money for politically connected businessmen.
That's really what it is in the name of we're, you know, green energy and caring about the environment and all this other bullshit.
Tucker Carlson Debate00:17:43
All right, guys, let's take a quick second and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is fume.
Fume is a great natural and non-addictive replacement for smoking and vaping and nicotine addictions.
It's not a vape.
It's not a cigarette.
Fume is a hollow piece of Canadian maple with cores infused with the benefits of the world's super plant.
Using fume is a great replacement therapy.
It replaces the hand-to-mouth action, which I have found is really a big part of my addiction to vaping.
I've been vaping way less because of fume.
I highly recommend them.
A number of different flavors are great natural nicotine craving reducers as well.
There's a wide selection of cores with focus on flavor, aroma, and the specific effect you are looking for.
I've been using the Conquer Cores, which is their newest one.
It's a deep cooling mix of earthly sweetness, a combination of black pepper for cravings, peppermint to help with breathing, and cinnamon and lavender to ease the pain of quitting.
The Conquer Cores are the number one cores for quitting smoking start to finish.
All fume items are manufactured and sustainably produced in Calgary, Alberta, Canada with Canadian maple.
For those of you guys out there who are smoking cigarettes or vaping, I know you all want to quit, and this is a whole new way to try that really does help a lot of people.
Thousands of people have quit smoking with fume.
I personally always hated the gums and the patches.
They never worked for me.
This is a whole new thing.
Go to fumeessential.com.
That's F-U-M-E-S-S-E-N-T-I-A-L dot com and take a look at their entire selection.
There's more than half a dozen flavors, and they explain the entire fume program.
You can subscribe for monthly deliveries so you never have to worry about your fume supply or check out their new products a la carte and find your favorite that way.
Make sure to use the promo code problem10.
That'll get you 10% off your entire order at fumeessential.com.
All right, let's get back on the show.
Switching gears a little bit.
I wanted to talk about this thing that happened with Tucker Carlson late last week and then early this week.
And there were a bunch of calls to boycott, to get Tucker kicked off the air.
It failed again, and I don't think it's going to succeed at all, although basically no different than what's been going on over the last few years.
They certainly have succeeded in making a lot of advertisers unwilling to advertise on his show.
But they haven't gotten touched on.
It's because they got to spend their Fed money elsewhere.
Well, yeah.
You're a pharmaceutical company.
You just got your idemification from lawsuits.
They're helping you roll out and push your vaccine on people.
Oh, look at that.
The same government that's creating all the profit margins for you doesn't want you also supporting Biden, telling you that they're stealing people's votes.
Right, right.
Whatever.
Yeah.
So the thing is that it's not successful in pushing Tucker off the air.
That's not to say they never could be, but the reason why it hasn't worked so far and the reason why this latest one probably won't is, I think, twofold.
And number one is just that Tucker Carlson is, his show is wildly successful.
It's always either the number one or number two most watched show in cable news.
And that is valuable to a network.
Even if you've scared off most of their advertisers, it's still very valuable for them to have someone who brings in so many eyeballs.
And number two is that I think Fox News understands that if they allow this kind of, you know, woke mob or whatever you want to call them, the people who are offended by Tucker Carlson to force them to boot him off the air, that they've put themselves in a very vulnerable situation.
And if they can't protect their number one guy and they are forced to fire him, then they can just end up this good.
They're bitches, dude.
Well, not only that they're bitches, but that it's like, you know, if you give the bully your lunch money today, you know, it's like if you're being blackmailed, someone goes, I have some dirt on you and I need you to give me $10,000.
You're like, yeah, but if I give this guy $10,000, what's to say he doesn't come back and ask for another $10,000 next week.
So when you're putting up billboards that say cancel and cancel culture.
Yeah.
Well, right.
But like, if you, they know, right?
Like, if, because they know how these demands work, if they do cancel, cancel Tucker Carlson, then what's, it's not like they're going to go, okay, we're cool with Fox News now.
Then there'll be demands to cancel Hannity and Laura Ingram and all these other people, which there probably already are, just not as loud as Tucker.
But so anyway, I think that's what, at least for now, is protecting him, his audience, and the fact that Fox News doesn't want to capitulate to these demands.
Let me just give you how I feel about this, right?
So just so people understand what my perspective is on the Tucker Carlson thing and why I care about it.
All right.
Like I'm almost 40 now.
Okay.
So I'm going to be 38 in a couple weeks.
And there's, you know, when you get a little bit older, not to sound, you know, patronizing to people who listen who are older, although we don't have that many of them.
But not that 40 isn't like that old, but it's not, I remember how old it sounded at 18.
So I get it.
But there's advantages and disadvantages that come along with it.
You're never quite as connected to like the latest fads, the latest developments as young people are at times.
You're never quite as keyed into what younger people are experiencing and thinking and things like that.
But there is wisdom that comes along with kind of just having more time to, you know, you just have more data that's come in that you can, you know, kind of go over.
You have a longer memory.
And what I really care about is the war stuff.
That's always my kind of number one thing.
The literal genocides that are going on in, you know, several different countries that I'm forced to subsidize with my tax dollars.
That's my primary issue.
It always has been.
And, you know, once again, go check out the last episode we did with Dan McKnight over that, about that.
So to me, I think what I really appreciate, what that some young people just kind of take for granted, but since I have vivid memories of the George W. Bush administration, I still find more incredible.
And it's difficult today at times to zoom out and actually appreciate how meaningful this is.
But the fact that the 8 p.m. host on Fox News, who has over 4 million viewers per episode coming in, the fact that that guy is completely opposed to the warfare state is fucking incredible.
It's something that we could never have imagined we'd have, you know, just a few years ago, like not that long ago.
And in the Bush years when it was O'Reilly selling every one of these wars that we're still in today, it was just inconceivable the idea that he would be replaced with someone who was, you know, not just like is all right on the wars is really great.
I mean, every single time, he gets it right immediately.
It's like the day that they're saying Assad gassed his own people.
He's on there going, this makes absolutely no sense.
What evidence do we have that Assad gassed his own people?
Why would he do that?
I want to see evidence.
I don't believe it.
And then he's got it completely right.
When we're on the precipice of going to war with Iran, he's right away calling it out, whether it's a Republican president or a Democratic president, doesn't matter.
He's calling out the wars.
And this is, to me, extremely valuable.
And, you know, you can feel however way you do about other opinions that he has.
It's not like whoever they replace him with there wouldn't have a lot of bad positions, you know what I mean?
But the odds that they would get another guy who's this sharp, who's this opposed to the wars, is right around zero, right around zero percent, okay?
So that's that's really what my concern is over these whole like kind of attempts to kick Tucker Carlson off the air.
Like, even if, from your perspective, he's really bad on immigration or he's really bad on free trade or he's really bad on all these other issues, odds are whoever they replace him with will probably be just as bad on those issues and guarantee will not be as good on the war issue, which is the most important issue.
And when you see things like, you know, as we've covered on the show before, the Pentagon and the military going after Tucker Carlson, you know what I mean?
Just recognize that even if you're doing it for completely legitimate reasons about some other issue, make sure you're not a useful idiot for the Warhawks who want this guy kicked off for that reason.
Okay.
So that's kind of, that's my own motivating, you know, interest in this in the background is that my, my, the idea that like there are people, you know, that the most popular guy with right-wingers in the country is telling them to oppose all of these wars is like unbelievably important.
And anybody who downplays that, I just, either you're stupid or you're just not really serious about being against the wars.
Because that's it.
I mean, if you get the right wing in America to not go along with these wars, it's going to be very tough for them to ever sell a new one.
So that's, you know, that is just, like I said, it's incredibly valuable to have that guy there.
Like, even if he was bad on every single other issue, I'd still want him there just because he's so good on the most important one.
And on top of that, I like the show.
I just, even when I disagree with him, you know, and we used to have a whole running Contra Carlson thing where we would do segments that we thought he got completely wrong.
But the show is always interesting and thoughtful and just kind of different than what else is on cable news.
Anyway, just saying that in the background, disclaiming my bias going in to it.
So I sent you the segment.
You watched it.
There was a segment last Friday.
He caught a ton of heat over the weekend for it.
Then he came back and doubled down on it and refused to apologize earlier this week.
And really, from my perspective, if you've watched Tucker Carlson, it wasn't really anything different than what he's been arguing for years now.
He is basically arguing against the current immigration system and that it is that the country should have a say on whether we let this many people in, that there's no real national discussion about it, and that there is a plan in the works here.
What was really different, at least from my perspective on this, the thing that really got everybody outraged was that he used the term replacement.
And this is what some would accuse him or what some would accuse of being like a white supremacist dog whistle type thing.
And of course, this is, you know, like, you think about Charlottesville, the Jews will not replace us, like that type of thing is what they're accusing.
Like, you're pushing this.
They're trying to replace white people, which is the argument that white supremacists use.
At least that's how the argument goes.
Except that Cars Tucker was pretty slick about it, and he spoke about how this is an issue for all races.
And towards the end of his piece, he spoke pretty specifically about how this is going to affect the black community in California.
So if anything, firstly, Tucker could not have presented that case better.
And he's right.
It's not fair.
And they're not discussing it.
And I would think that the government has an obligation to enforce the law.
And so if we have a law that crossing the border legally is illegal, I don't understand how they have the option to just not enforce that, especially when there's the consequence of the fact that it does change the voting demographics and also puts burden on everybody to pay for the social benefits of these people.
But if he's dog whistling races, like, well, then I guess the racists are right on this one.
I guess there's one topic that they're right about and maybe we should hear them out.
They might even have some good marketing slogans that people should incorporate because when it comes to this one specific issue, I guess they have that one right.
Well, you know, I'll say, and I can hear the offended screeching coming as you say that.
But I will say this.
I think that, first off, Tucker Carlson does, whether you agree or disagree with the argument he's making.
And by the way, I didn't completely agree with it.
There were things he said that I was like, yeah, I think that's wrong.
And certainly things that I wouldn't have said it that way and whatever.
But he did go out of his way to say, yeah, the accusation that this is like some white supremacist talking point is ridiculous.
It's not an issue of race.
It's an issue of political power.
And he specifically made the point that if the people who were coming over the border were almost certainly going to be Republican voters, Democrats would not be on this moral outrage of how we can't stop them from coming.
So he did go out of his way to specifically make that point.
I will just say this, okay?
Here's how I feel about not even the particular argument.
Maybe I'll touch on that a little bit, but just the bigger context of whether you're allowed to have this argument or whether you're allowed to present this or should be kicked off air for it.
And here's a few things that just jump out at me that drive me crazy.
Okay.
Number one, Democrats openly make this claim all the time.
Joy Ann Reed on MSNBC talks about this all the time.
She calls it the brown wave and how Republicans will never be able to win national elections again because of the changing demographics of the country.
So if one side is allowed, and she's far from the only one, like lots of them have talked about this.
So if you're allowed to talk about this and celebrate it, then you also have to be allowed to talk about it and criticize it.
It can't just be this thing where like, you can talk about this.
This is obviously a thing, but only if you're celebrating it.
And then if you talk about it and go like, yeah, I think we should oppose this, they go, well, you're a white supremacist for bringing this up.
It's like, well, they're bringing it up too.
So that just drives me crazy.
Like you can't deny it's a thing, or at least you should also be outraged and deny it when it's brought up by the people who support it.
Because otherwise this is just like goofy.
Like you're pretending something doesn't exist that the other side is telling you does exist.
You know what I mean?
Like you're like, this guy's going to kill me.
And you're like, that's insane that you would say this guy's going to kill him.
And then the guy's like, no, no, no, I'm here to kill him.
I am.
I am here.
And they're like, well, absolutely.
You're a hero.
But this guy is saying you're going to kill him.
Like either you're allowed to, either you're both allowed to be on the same page or neither of you are.
But that to me is nuts.
The other thing is just that the argument, if you want to call it that, that I've seen a lot of the blue check marks making on Twitter, that this is the same language that racists use, that this is a point that racists made.
Or the argument that they're saying is that, look at all these bad people.
They're praising Tucker Carlson right now, which is true.
So a lot of the people who they think are, you know, whatever, alt-right or racist or whatever, you know, word you want to use to describe them, they were really happy that Tucker Carlson had this segment.
The argument that because of that, what Tucker said is wrong is really, really stupid.
It's a bullshit argument.
Like it's just, it's a propaganda technique.
If you're against what Tucker Carlson said and you want to make an argument against it, fine.
Drop that bullshit because that's stupid.
It's really, really stupid.
Like it's, it's a little bit more sophisticated, but it's basically the same argument as like, you're a vegetarian and Hitler was a vegetarian.
So therefore, you can't be a vegetarian.
It's just really, really stupid.
And the fact that any libertarian could get caught up in making that argument to me is so bananas because just look at how this could be applied to you, right?
Dumbest Counter Argument00:03:09
Like if you're against the wars, well, guess what?
You know who might applaud you for that?
A communist.
Because they're also against imperialism, right?
So does that disprove your argument?
Does that make you a communist?
Does that, no, of course, this is stupid.
They might be wrong about everything else, but they could be right about that.
Like just kind of to the point that you were making.
Just because someone's wrong about other shit doesn't mean they can't be right about anything.
And the truth is that you might say, oh, we want to, we're against affirmative action.
Well, a racist might agree with you on that.
But that doesn't mean that it's wrong to oppose affirmative action.
If I say that I'm against the wars and I'm against the Federal Reserve and I'm against foreign aid to Israel, an anti-Semite might agree with me on that.
But none of this disproves your argument.
And the fact that those groups might celebrate something you said is just, it's completely irrelevant.
It's the dumbest line of counter argument.
Again, I don't even think you can call it an argument, but this is just, this is pathetic.
Just don't go down this road because it's incredibly weak and it can always be used back against you.
Like whatever, you're against the war on drugs.
Oh, so you're a leftist now.
You're against the income tax.
Oh, so you're a right-winger now.
Like this is silly.
This is like, it doesn't matter.
One group can have awful thoughts and agree with something you say.
And that means nothing.
I guarantee you that there are things that I've said on this podcast that communists would celebrate.
There's things I've said on this podcast that anti-Semites would celebrate, that alt-writers, that whoever, whatever group you could find that you think are really horrible, there's definitely something me and you have said that they'd be like, goddamn right, you're right on that point.
It doesn't mean anything.
That doesn't mean you're endorsing all of their bad views just because you have overlap in one area.
So I'll say that.
To give another example, to me, it's like if an anti-Semite said, end the Fed and let's kill all the Jews because they keep reinstituting it.
So I can agree with them on end the Fed.
They've got that part right.
And then if I start doing a thing about end the Fed because I think it's a good slogan to, you know, convey the idea that we should end the Fed, that doesn't mean I agree with them on the killing the Jews part.
Right.
Yeah, it's, it's like that simple.
I mean, this is, and whether you realize it or not, this is, this is a bullshit tactic like that people use.
It's like they don't actually want to, the reason they want to shut him up is because they don't want to have this conversation.
And if you, you know what I mean?
And if you do want to have the conversation, then you have no need to shut him up if you've got a superior argument.
Just fucking present it.
But the idea that they'll go, well, this white supremacist website was saying Tucker Carlson's really great for this segment.
Again, this is just, it is a non-argument.
The same way if I was talking about end the Fed, the Nazi, well, let's pretend I just looked this way and I wasn't actually Jewish.
They might hop on board with that because they're like, well, that's half of what we're looking to do.
The first half, what we're looking to do is end the Fed.
And so, you know, he's trying to get half of our agenda done.
We'll try and take over from there.
But I agree with what he's saying.
Yeah, it's just silliness.
Welfare State Racism Tactic00:08:28
I don't know how else to describe it.
So it's the lowest form.
It's not even as good as a guilt by association argument because he's not even associating with these people.
And a guilt by association argument is still awful, but he's not even associating them with him.
They just happen to like one thing that he said.
Now, another thing that jumps out at me that I just find to be like, really, you know, it's almost like maddening that this is actually the parameters that are being allowed in terms of public conversation is that, so you have, you know, okay, there might be libertarians out there, and there are some who make solid open borders arguments.
There are, in many ways, right?
Like you could, you can say it's the purest libertarian position.
And in many, what really to me, the purest libertarian position is just private borders and a true market in immigration, which wouldn't necessarily indicate an opening of those private borders or a closing of those private borders.
You would just have, you know, property owners and communities allowed to decide.
Like if you had a private, you know, apartment building that, you know, me and you owned, it doesn't mean that the logical conclusion is like, well, if a thousand people walk in here, we got to open those doors and let everybody in.
It's like, no, I mean, it's quite possible we'd close the doors and not let people in.
But regardless of any of that, you can argue that in a libertarian system, whether a minarchist or an anarchist system, that the best system is to not have government interference in migration.
And in this system, there'd be no welfare state.
There'd be no voting for bigger government.
There'd be no, you know, anti-discrimination laws, yada, yada, yada, down the list.
You'd just have a free voluntary society.
However, that is not the model that we're currently in.
Okay.
Now, we're currently in a model that is the biggest government in the history of the world, a welfare state, discrimination laws, voting, all of these things.
And within that model, having massive amounts of immigrants coming into the country.
Now, you evidently, the rules of public discourse here are, well, you can't talk about being against the immigrants coming in, or that is, guess what?
Racist.
Okay.
I want to talk about ending the welfare state.
No, because that is, you guessed it, racist.
Well, what if I were to suggest we should abolish anti-discrimination laws?
Oh, sorry.
Ding, ding, ding, racist.
Well, how about I suggest you have to show a freaking ID before you vote?
You're never going to believe what that is, Rob.
That's right.
It's also racist.
So even for libertarians who think that this other model would be superior, just notice that under these current rules of discourse, you're not allowed to talk about any of them because every last one of them, they will say, oh, no, you're racist.
Not a counter to what your argument is, not a thoughtful response to why you believe this model would lend itself to a more peaceful, more prosperous society.
It's an accusation about who you are and what's in your heart.
You're a bad person who doesn't have humanity for other groups of people because you believe in these principles.
So I'm sorry, but looking at all of these parameters, eventually, I don't understand how any thinking person doesn't eventually go, fuck all of that.
No, you're allowed to discuss any of this.
And you know what?
The fact that they're like, the fact that all of these things have intentionally been designed, not like by accident, they just happen to organically become this.
It's not like, you know, like the idea, there was this natural kind of organic grassroots movement that said it's horribly racist for someone to have to show a driver's license before they voted.
No, you have it being pushed down by politicians, giant corporations, you know, fairly powerful individuals pushing this.
The fact that all of these things have been labeled as third rails, you're not allowed to discuss any of them.
This is not by accident.
This is not by accident.
So don't like, I don't know, don't dismiss the idea that there is a plan here, that there is a plan at work.
And that was Tucker's ultimate point, was that he was like, look, if these people were coming over here voting for Republicans, the Democrats wouldn't be celebrating it.
The Democrats are not out there in any state, in any district, where it doesn't help them pushing this whole agenda about voting rights.
You know what I mean?
They would scream the COVID risk and shut it down on behalf of COVID.
Exactly.
Whereas in this case, they're not even testing and sending them right in.
This is not these are not people.
It'd be one thing, right?
It'd be one thing if these were like hardcore libertarians who really believed in human liberty and they were like, I just do not believe in the government interfering in a free person's life.
But that's obviously not who Democrats are, right?
Like Democrats, yeah, they would use a COVID excuse and lock people in their homes if they had to.
So this is about political power.
Now you can separate those things out and say, okay, this might be a plan that's designed for political power from some very ugly people up top.
That doesn't mean that the family being held in some detention center isn't a real family that's being held, that really just wanted a better life for them and their children.
That doesn't mean we have to lose our humanity for these people.
It doesn't even mean we have to support any government policy, let alone all the government policies that are at work here.
And in fact, this is why I always say when it comes to immigration, I mean, the best things we could start doing would just start end the war on drugs, end the welfare state, stop subsidizing immigration and subsidizing a war against immigration.
There are humane, common sense proposals that you could put forward.
But just look at the situation as it is.
This is all bullshit.
This idea that anybody who wants to discuss any one of these issues that would make this system not insane is labeled as a racist, is now supposed to be boycotted or they're supposed to be kicked off the air.
This is bananas.
And so I just, you know, it's almost like hard, you know, like I've had some of these conversations before with like even like open border libertarian types.
And you'll go right away to just the point of like, so, okay, so where do you stand on voter ID?
Where do you stand on all this other stuff?
And almost all of them will have to admit that they support something like that because even they can't say, hey, I'm for open borders and they all can vote because that's a little bit crazy, right?
And so then you're like, okay, but just so you know, just so you know, if you think you've protected yourself from the racist label because you don't want to have the conversation about border control, fine, but you're going to be just as racist in the eyes of all these guys if you support them showing a license before they vote.
Just pointing that out there.
So maybe we should all come together and reject the idea that you immediately get called a racist for having any of these conversations.
And then we can actually start to have a conversation like grown-ups would.
That's what I think.
That being said, I did, I hated the Tucker comparison to the family.
I just, by the way, I hate every comparison that people make.
Oh, the brother one?
I thought that example was fun.
I hate any comparison between government and your parents.
I always hate that.
I thought that was a good example.
I thought it was, I'll react because maybe not everyone saw it.
But if I remember correctly, the example was your parents bring a bunch of new siblings into the house and they give them cars or late curfew that you don't have, so you're pissed about it.
Constitutional Emergency Powers00:15:21
And so government's bringing these new people in and they're giving them benefits that you don't have.
The best example is whatever this new flying arrangement is.
Yeah, okay.
The flying arrangement is a little bit crazy, but I just hate, I'm just saying, not even that particular example.
I hate government as parents.
And then going, well, mommy's not being fair to me and blah, blah, blah.
It's like, yeah, okay, what?
They're not our parents.
They're just some corrupt fucking, you know, people who live in Washington, D.C. who are in bed with giant corporations.
Anyway, not so much just this exact example.
I just hate every single time that government is compared to parents.
And then it's always like, and that's why they have to take care of you, just like you would want your parents to take care.
It's like, well, the slight difference is like, I'm a parent and my daughter's two.
So it's not quite the same as adult free men being ruled over by sociopaths in Washington, D.C. All right, guys, let's take a quick second and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is yokratom.com, home of the $60 Kilo.
That's the world's best value in Kratom shipped right to your door.
No questions asked.
Now, if you've never heard of Kratom before, just ignore this ad.
We're not talking to you.
No need to hear this and go try Kratom.
But if you're currently a fan of Kratom, then celebrate your freedom at yokratom.com, home of the $60 kilo, which is unheard of.
Yo Kratom is one of the biggest sellers of Kratom nationwide, and they made yokratom.com so you can buy directly at wholesale prices.
This is quality Kratom.
We've heard great feedback from the fans.
They confirm it's solid.
And like I said, it's the only place where you can find a kilo for $60.
So last time, if you're currently a fan of Kratom, go to yokratom.com and get yourself a $60 kilo.
All right, let's get back into the show.
All right.
I want to switch gears here and go to another topic.
There was an interesting back and forth between our Lord and Savior, Dr. Fauci, and Jim Jordan in Congress the other day.
I thought this was something of note.
And it almost sounded for a little bit like me or you were able to be up there in Congress.
But he's, look, Jim Jordan, he's good at this.
This is what he does really well.
And you don't really want to be on the other side of him on one of these things.
And so this was, I don't know, I thought it was interesting and revealing.
And there's a bit to talk about.
So let's play this video of Jim Jordan grilling Dr. Fauci.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fauci, when is the time?
When is the time?
Well, in your written statement, you say, now is not the time to pull back on masking, physical distancing, and avoiding congregate settings.
When is the time?
When do Americans get their freedom back?
Can you put your microphone on, please?
I like that right away.
They're just going like, hey, genius doctor, did they teach you in epidemiology school how to turn a fucking mic on?
All right, bring it back a few seconds.
Sorry.
It does, I will say right away, though, this is a, to start off with, a very fair question.
I mean, if you start with 15 days to flatten the curve and we're like a year later and you're saying this is not the time, it reminds me a lot of the stuff in Afghanistan.
Oh, this is not the time to pull out.
And you're like, the war is going on 20 years, dude.
When is the time?
If you're going to keep saying this is not the time, can you specifically say what conditions would tell us this is the time?
Because otherwise, it's very easy to just always say, oh, no, this isn't the time.
It's not the time.
Or to just be making it up.
If you're actually a scientist and you've got some clear plan here, so share it with us.
Yeah.
I mean, we were told two weeks.
Then we were told when cases drop.
Then we were told not till there's a vaccine.
Like all of these things.
Are you ever going to take this dick out of our ass?
Yeah, really?
When's the time?
A great thing to say if someone rapes you in prison.
It's like, please stop.
Now's not the time.
Now's just not the time.
You're like, what would the time look like, Dr. Fauci?
Please.
How did we end up being cellmates?
All right, let's keep playing.
When we get the level of infection in this country low enough that it is not a really high- What is low enough?
Give me a number.
I mean, we had 15 days to slow the spread turned into one year of lost liberty.
What metrics, what measures, what has to happen before Americans get their freedoms?
My message, Congressman Jordan, is to get as many people vaccinated as quickly as we possibly can to get the level of infection in this country low that it is no longer a threat.
That is when.
And I believe when that happens, you will see.
What determines when?
I'm sorry.
What?
What measure?
I mean, are we just going to continue this forever?
Or when do we get to the point?
What measure, what standard?
What objective outcome do we have to reach before Americans get their liberty and freedoms back?
You know, you're indicating liberty and freedom.
I look at it as a public health measure to prevent people from dying and going to the hospital.
You don't think you got to pause it here for a second.
Last year, Dr. Fauci.
So, I mean, before we even continue, and Jim Jordan has an excellent line of reasoning here of just, well, if you're the scientist, give me the standard.
Let's also note that we should probably be having a second conversation of why is there some other branch of government where one doctor gets to decide that liberty is not an important metric.
Well, listen.
Who put him above it?
Who put him above the entire system?
This is the thing that's infuriating about Congressman Jordan here.
It's like, oh, okay, dude, look, I'm glad he's finally saying some of the right things.
But this just reminds me back of the thing that Jeff Dice said on the show, I think a couple years ago, when he said, when the left says something, they're serious.
And when the right says something, they're not.
You know, and you see this all the time.
When it's like, when people on the left say, we're going to get gay marriage legalized in this country, they mean it.
They are really going to do that.
When people on the right say, we're going to ban abortion, they simply don't.
They're not really going to do that.
And people know this.
And Jim Jordan is sounding really serious here.
And he's like, when do we get our freedom back?
And he goes on to talk about how unconstitutional all of this is.
And it leaves you there just like sitting like, you're like, oh, wow, that's great.
You're saying this.
I sure wish I knew a congressman who felt that way.
You don't have any like power to, I mean, okay, introduce something.
Let's make some moves.
Shouldn't some people be in jail over this then?
I thought the Constitution was the law.
I didn't realize it was just like, hey, you're violating this suggestion book that I really like.
You know, it's like, why don't we do something about this then?
Why are we even listening to a doctor who's telling us we don't get our constitutionally protected freedoms, which he gets into more in a sec.
Go ahead.
As just a theoretical, I mean, if we actually were a country that had a constitution and we stood by the thing, the process here would be, I guess someone would put forward some sort of an emergency powers act, which goes, hey, we've got a problem that's so bad.
We actually want to break from the norms of the Constitution for a temporary period and put this person in charge.
And then I guess the Supreme Court would have to have that conversation or then the Senate would have to actually sit down and go, you know what, this situation is so bad that we are going to change the laws of the Constitution.
Well, they'd need to amend the Constitution.
Right.
To say that there's some sort of a special provision.
Yes, you would need an amendment to the Constitution to do what's happened over the last year legally.
Like if we actually cared about the law of the land, what all these people took an oath to preserve and defend, right?
And there is a process to change the Constitution in the Constitution.
The thing is that it would have to, right?
It would have to, I forget what it is, two-thirds in the House and the Senate, and then it would have to be ratified by all the states.
So what you do is you put everyone on the record.
And this is where the concept, which has never played out in reality, but where the concept was of self-governance, of the rule derived through consent of the people, is that in order to do this, you really would have to theoretically have a lot of consent from the people to allow your representatives to get away with so many of them not being pressured by the people.
Like you will never get re-elected again if you do this and then ratified by every single state, right?
Like you'd have to have a lot of public support in order to do that.
But then all these people would also have to be on record as we did this.
We amended the Constitution to repeal essentially the First Amendment and the others as well.
A working system to test if something's actually a good idea or the will of the people.
Right.
So we're almost having the wrong conversation here altogether where the conversation should be really somebody else.
Why does some guy named Fauci have the right to just direct that we're going to do things that are against people's freedoms or the Constitution?
That's exactly right.
So this whole conversation is interesting.
And I do think that he does a great job of exposing the fact that Fauci is just a lying fraud who wants to get everybody vaccinated.
Hopefully within the next 10 years, the book actually comes out showing what his relationship is with these companies, the profits that he's made.
No one, dude, no one wants to report on this shit, dude.
But like, this is the biggest giveaway to fucking big pharma in our history.
I mean, this is just like unbelievable to these guys.
Who was it?
I think it was Pfizer or it might have been Moderna.
I can't remember, who just came out and said, oh yeah, it's going to be within 12 months, you're going to need another one.
And so they're all coming out.
Oh, yeah, yeah, this is going to be a yearly thing.
And everyone has to get our shot every single year.
Every single year.
You're going to have to get it.
Huge amounts of money being made.
All right, let's play more of this because it gets interesting.
You don't think Americans' liberties have been threatened the last year, Dr. Pauci?
They've been assaulted.
Their liberties have.
I don't look at this as a liberty thing.
Well, that's obvious.
That's a public health thing.
I disagree with you on that.
Do you think the Constitution is suspended during a virus, during a pandemic?
It's certainly not.
This will end for sure when we get the level of infection very low.
It is now at such a high level.
There's a threat again of major suspension.
It's like Trump talk, by the way.
When it gets low, when it's high, it's so high.
Yep.
No, that's exactly right.
And, you know, the thing here, again, it's infuriating on both ends because the truth is, right?
And this is what bugs me about Jim Jordan.
He's sitting there going, the Constitution isn't suspended during a virus.
But the reality that we all see in front of us is that it is.
This is just, this is the problem with constitutional conservatism in general.
It's like you're fighting against a very real threat with a superstition, like a magical belief.
But I'm telling you, this isn't the way it's written down on paper.
It's like, yeah, okay, it's not.
It reminds me, I mean, I had a whole bit in my last comedy hour about this.
But it's like when you see people who argue with cops about their rights, and then the cop just violates all of these rights.
And then, you know, there's, I know my rights.
You're not allowed to search that.
You're not allowed.
You can't make me come out of my car.
And what happens?
What happens to that guy?
Well, the window's shattered.
He's tased and dragged out of the car.
But you sit there arguing your superstition.
But I know about my rights.
I know about this magical potion.
You are quite literally trying to use magic to fight a real person who's in front of you with a gun and a taser.
Like, there's this, in reality, there's a man with a gun who's ordering you out of your car.
And you're going, you know, hocus pocus, constitutionist locus, you know, and like this is supposed to work somehow.
Well, it doesn't work.
And no, Jim Jordan, you're wrong.
You're wrong.
The Constitution was suspended over this last year.
That's just the facts.
And you're even pointing that out, but still claiming that it's not the reality.
Anyway, let's keep playing.
Rights have been completely attacked.
Your right to go to church, your right to assemble, your right to petition your government, freedom of the press, freedom of speech have all been assaulted.
I mean, for a year now, Americans haven't been able to go to church.
Even today, when they go to church, they're limited in the size of worshipers who can meet.
Your right to assemble?
Oh, my goodness.
Last fall in Ohio.
You had to be in your home at 10.
In Pennsylvania, you had to be in your home.
When you're in your home, you had to wear a mask.
In Vermont, when you were in your home, you didn't have to wear a mask, Dr. Fauci, because you weren't allowed to have people over to your house.
Yeah, Congressman Jordan.
Your ability to petition your government for a year, for a year, American citizens haven't been able to come to their capital to petition their government to talk to their representatives and freedom of the press.
These very pictures that Representative Scleeese just showed you and talked about, guess what?
The press isn't allowed in those facilities.
The press is not, the Biden administration will not let the press in there.
And certainly freedom of speech.
I mean, freedom of governor of our third largest state meets with physicians and that video is censored because they dare to disagree with Dr. Fauci.
So I just want to know, when do Americans get their First Amendment liberties back?
You know, I don't think anything was censored because they felt they couldn't disagree with me.
I think you're making this a personal thing and it isn't.
So let's pause right there.
You are.
I thought it was really just kind of interesting about that, right?
So he goes down all of these.
And look, I think Jordan actually slipped up there and handed Fauci in out because he's talking about First Amendment protections and however you feel about all of the internet censorship stuff, which I am adamantly opposed to, it's not really a First Amendment violation.
And that's part of how it's easy for these guys to get away with it.
Like the First Amendment says that Congress shall write no law abridging the freedom of speech.
It does not say that.
Tech companies or social media or anything like that won't take down videos that they claim are fake.
So he throws this thing at the end about and this is an important, just like debate tactic in general don't overplay your hand when you've got a really solid argument, because what it allows is for someone else to then just call out how you overplayed your hand, and that's what he gave to Fauci right there.
So he goes through the uh, the rights protected in the first amendment right, and what is it?
Don't Overplay Your Hand00:06:57
I think there's four rights protected in the first amendment.
So there's freedom of speech, um.
Freedom of of religion, freedom to assemble uh, and freedom of the press, right.
So these are these four freedoms.
He has three of them down with no argument, no argument whatsoever.
So he goes through them, okay.
Well, freedom of religion, obviously, churches and synagogues were closed still to this day.
There's there's government limits on how you can worship and how many people can be there.
Freedom of the press, the press isn't allowed to all of these facilities under the Covet Guides, no question about that one.
Freedom to assemble, I mean, you know obviously, the freedom to assemble has been completely violated over the last uh, last year.
So there's slam dunk slam dunk slam, duck.
And then he throws the last one in there and goes.
And anyone who disagrees with dr Fauci can't blah blah blah, say anything.
And so what does Fauci do?
Well, he's got no response to the first three, right?
So he just picks on the last one and goes.
Well, I think you're making this personal about me and I don't actually think that that's true, that you can't disagree with me.
And now you hand him it out, whereas if you had just stuck to the first three, you had a slam dunk argument.
So that is a little bit just of like a debate technique, when you've got an argument that someone can't back out of, never pivot to some other argument that isn't as strong.
Um again, i'm completely against the internet censorship stuff, but it's really.
It's a tough argument to say that that's a violation of the first amendment.
You bet you might think it ought to be, but it isn't really so.
Anyway, just a little thing to notice there.
All right, let's play a little more of this.
That is exactly what you're doing.
No, your recommendations carry a lot of weight.
Dr Fauci, we just had the chair of the Financial Services Committee said she loves you and you're the greatest thing in the world.
My recommendations are consistent.
Well, the gentleman yield.
No, it's my.
Can I answer the question please?
My recommendations are not a personal recommendation.
It's based on the CDC guidance, which is which is and i'm asking the question what measures have to be attained before Americans get their first amendment liberties back?
I just told you that.
I know you haven't given anything specific.
You said, we hope when this tell me specifically right now, right now we have about 60,000 infections a day, which is a very large risk for a surge.
We're not talking about liberties, we're talking about a pandemic that has killed 560,000 Americans.
And I get that.
I'm talking about.
And I don't disagree with that.
And I understand how serious that is, but I also stand it's pretty serious when businesses have been shut down.
People can't go to church.
People can't assemble in their own homes without.
All right.
So let's just pause it right there.
And we'll just wrap up.
I think the ending on this is actually kind of important because firstly, someone tells Jim Jordan to shut his mouth, which is hilarious to both be saying, hey, this is supposed to be a cordial environment and you're overstepping your bounds to shut your mouth.
But also, Fauci never actually gives him an answer on a specific way.
Well, it speaks to the fact that it's bullshit.
He doesn't have a specific.
He doesn't have a specific.
And okay, fine.
We'll play the last couple minutes of it.
But the thing that's worth noting there is just that Fauci is on record saying this is not about liberty.
This is about the fact that this many people have died.
And I just really do, if nothing else coming out of this, I always appreciate when people are made to go on the record.
And so that is Dr. Fauci's position.
This is not about liberty.
Here's all these examples of people's liberty being violated.
Well, that's not what this is about.
And to all of you people out there who oppose the COVID regime and who aren't necessarily 100%ers, understand this is a moment for you to realize.
Yeah, you really want it to be about liberty.
You really do.
Because when you make it not about liberty, you empower these type of people.
All right, fine.
Let's play the last couple minutes of it.
And I understand how serious that is, but I also stand it's pretty serious when businesses have been shut down.
People can't go to church.
People can't assemble in their own homes with their friends, with their families.
People can't go to a loved one's funeral.
People can't get to their government, petition their representative to redress their grievances.
I also understand the First Amendment is pretty darn important, and it's been a year, and I want to know when Americans will get those First Amendment liberties back.
Well, you just said people cannot assemble in their own homes.
They can.
That's a CBC recommendation for vaccines.
Not last fall, they couldn't.
I didn't hear it.
Not last fall, they couldn't.
I didn't hear what he said.
Yes, he did.
Time has expired.
I mean, he's screaming at when we can get our liberties back.
It's been 90% of the members of the United States Congress get vaccinated.
Well, I want to know if that's what Dr. Fauci is.
Is it 90%?
That's what I'm doing.
Dr. Fauci, is it 90%?
That's what I'd like to know.
Give us some objective standards versus when certain things get reached, we might be able to get back to having our liberty.
When?
What are the numbers?
You're going to see a gradual from the right now.
We're at an unacceptably high level.
On a daily basis, it's unacceptably high, regardless of who you are.
What you're going to see as more and more people get vaccinated and we get over 3 million people a day, you're going to see the level of infection come down and down.
And gradually, there will be more flexibility for doing the things that you're talking.
Where does it get to?
When it comes down, what number do we get our liberties back?
Tell me the number.
Tell me the number.
When 90% of the members of Congress get vaccinated.
But you're not a doctor, Mr. Clydeburn.
He is.
What is the number?
He says when 90% of the members of Congress get vaccinated.
No, but to me, this is super important.
Fauci, look at the dead.
When he asked it the last time, you have to go back.
Brian, you don't have to go back.
I'm saying, fans, you can go back.
Look at the dead in Fauci's eyes where he's like, fuck, I don't have an answer to this.
And it's because he's spinning bullshit.
He doesn't.
How are you the head scientists?
You shut down the entire country over some, you know, well, let's find.
Let's play into his reality.
You got a real health scare.
You got a real claim here.
So how do you not have a specific number at which we're allowed out?
The answer is because you're fucking winging it.
It's bullshit.
Yeah.
No, that's exactly right.
And if you have no number where we're going to get out, then guess what?
His recommendation is never going to be that we can get out of this.
And as he just told you right there, his concern isn't liberty.
It's not that he's balancing in his mind the need for liberty verse people dying.
It's just that liberty isn't a concern.
So in that case, we should never leave our houses ever.
It's moving vaccines.
There's vaccine sales.
There's your Lord Dr. Fauci.
But no, I'm sure he's got no connection to these big pharmaceutical companies, Rob.