Dave Smith and Robbie critique the CDC's shifting narrative on vaccine efficacy, citing Fauci's admission that vaccinated individuals carry identical viral loads to unvaccinated ones during the Delta variant. They condemn government overreach, including forced vaccination vans, while debating whether private mandates or state coercion better protects liberty. The discussion extends to January 6th, arguing that treating it as domestic terrorism violates due process compared to the ignored destruction of BLM riots, ultimately asserting that libertarians must address real-world crises rather than living in theoretical "Ankapistan" to effectively challenge corporate media manipulation and expand government power. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Nick's Two Interviews00:04:24
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 Gash Digital Network.
What's up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
I am Dave Smith.
He is the king of the caulks.
I caught it from him.
Robbie, the fire Bernstein.
What's up, my brother?
Nothing much.
It's a pleasure to be here.
I appreciate it when people actually get my title right, but it's okay.
We've been working at this a long time, so I'll forgive you.
Well, I appreciate your forgiveness.
You are a generous and forgiving king, and that's why you have the support of the people.
All right.
So first, I just wanted to mention before we start this that yesterday I recorded in, I was interviewed by Nick Gillespie for Reason Magazine or for Reason video, I guess not the magazine, Reason like video interview segment, which is the second time I've done that.
And it was a lot of fun.
I really enjoyed it.
So go check that out.
I believe it's the podcast of it should be out today.
And then the video should be out sometime later this week.
I think that's what Nick told me.
What do you guys get into?
Deep party talk?
A little bit of Libertarian Party stuff, a lot of COVID stuff and big tech stuff and kind of, you know, some of the underlying issues between, say, like the kind of Reason magazine Cato types and the more Mises Institute Mises Caucus types and like not directly, but some of the stuff that's kind of under the surface there.
And it was good.
It was really, really good.
I always enjoy talking to Nick.
And even when we disagree on stuff, I think he's always in the, you know, the two times that he interviewed me for Reason.
And I think two times I had him on this podcast as well.
I think we've always gotten along well and he's always been fair in those interactions.
So I appreciate that.
And I do, I give him credit because the way this whole thing started was that they brought me up on the Reason Roundtable last week.
And I thought they were unfair in some of their criticism to me.
And I said that on Twitter.
And literally, I think within a couple hours of me tweeting that, Nick reached out to me and invited me on the show.
So that, I just thought that was like a cool thing to do.
You know what I mean?
Like I just, I thought that was like just like kind of noble on his part to be like, oh, hey, look, if you think we got something wrong, then you come on and you give your take on it.
So I appreciate that.
You know, I'm all.
And you actually did it.
How many times have you put out that offer for somebody else and they just squirm and run away?
It's quite often.
And quite often, other people will, you know, kind of Kathy Newman you and then never, you know, invite you on or never be interested to kind of get the clarification.
So I appreciated that very much.
And yeah, I thought it was a good conversation.
And that should be out soon.
And as long as they're plugging stuff, Washington, D.C. coming right around the corner, Rochester around the corner, Nashville around the corner.
So pick up your tickets.
There's going to be some great comedy shows.
Hell yez.
Looking forward.
Looking forward to all that stuff.
Okay.
So for today's show, there's a few things we wanted to talk about.
You sent me this clip, Rob, which I had not seen, but it was an interesting one.
And so I don't even think I need to set it up.
Let's play this.
We got a little clip from Dr. Truth Science himself on MSNBC, the home of hardcore real journalism.
Let's take it away.
CDC Vaccine Data Flaws00:14:06
So when we spoke about the decision by the CDC to say you didn't have to mask indoors if you were vaccinated, the key driver there was data about virus transmission amongst those folks vaccinated.
And you were on the program and there was a little bit of a question.
We knew that in the testing for the clinical trials and then real world testing, this was doing a very good job of preventing severe illness and hospitalization.
There was more question about whether you had viral load to transmit.
The data came back saying you don't really, and that it's okay to be indoors.
Now, so I guess the data is just different with Delta, but do you understand why people might feel a little whipsawed between the last announcement and this one?
Yeah, it's thoroughly understandable, but there really is a pretty clear explanation of it.
And here are the data.
When you go back 60 days or the two months ago, when you look at the level of virus in the nasopharynx of a person who's vaccinated and gets a breakthrough infection, it was considerably less than the level of virus in the nasopharynx of an unvaccinated person.
The data were clear.
Now that we have a Delta variant, that has changed the entire landscape.
Because when you look at the level of virus in the nasopharynx of a vaccinated person who gets a breakthrough infection with Delta, it is exactly the same as the level of virus in an unvaccinated person who's infected.
That's the problem.
So those data are very compelling.
And that triggered the change in the CDC guideline.
All right.
So there you go.
So if anyone's not familiar, he's referring to the CDC guidelines now saying that vaccinated people should be masking indoors, whereas before they had said they shouldn't.
And this is his argument for why it makes sense, because essentially cutting through the science talk there, that you are just as likely to spread the virus, the Delta variant, whether you're vaccinated or unvaccinated.
And I think a very important thing for people to note, which is extremely shady to me, is the CDC is purposely not tracking breakthrough cases.
What they are tracking is breakthrough cases with serious illness, but they are not tracking breakthrough cases.
So there is officially no data by admission of the CDC of whether or not the vaccine works for the Delta variant, because they are not tracking whether or not people who have gotten it will get sick.
And now what you're hearing from Fauci is that apparently the vaccines are so not efficient or effective that even if you've gotten them, you will need to mask up because not only can you get sick, but you can be getting other people sick.
And then the most important, last thing I'll say, the most important piece of that is that their propaganda two weeks ago was trying to say that unvaccinated individuals are putting everybody at risk and that the reason why the virus is able to find new hosts and continue to exist is because so many people are unvaccinated and it's giving the virus new people and the ability to mutate.
This discredits that entire narrative.
Yeah, that's right.
So right, spot on.
So even if you will accept, which by the way, I don't really have a problem accepting.
I mean, I don't know, but from the data I've looked at, it does seem like there is a really strong case that the vaccines make people less likely to get very, very sick or die.
I do think that there's a solid, you know, like case for that, that if you look at the hospitalizations and the deaths from COVID that are occurring now, they do seem to be disproportionately people who were not vaccinated.
So I think that there's even on that, a couple of things to note.
One is according to the CDC website, there's already 1,000 deaths amongst people that have been vaccinated.
That's according to the CDC website.
Yes.
Now, they'll tell you that 95% of all hospitalizations and deaths are people that are unvaccinated.
Yet, what's the most crucial piece of information?
Who's dying?
Are we talking about people who are at risk?
Are we talking about people 65 and older?
Now, here's just another thing just to point out how disingenuous they're being with the data.
When they tell you that a thousand people died, they'll instantly tell you, but 30% of those people, by the way, this is right off the CDC, and I'm actually pretty good at remembering these numbers.
30% of them was not related to COVID.
Now, that is a crucial piece of information that when it comes to the kid death number of 400, they won't tell you how many of those kids, right, died from other causes.
So they are cherry-picking information so that they can keep this vibe.
They can continue to try and sell us on taking the vaccine.
I will venture to guess, and yes, this is conspiracy talk right here.
I will put my money down that that 95% figure is for some reason inaccurate.
I can't tell you.
I don't have the proof yet.
I've been reading everything I can get my hands on, but I can tell you that they're cherry-picking the stats that they can find to try and push the vaccine.
And thus far, everything that they've claimed has mostly been inaccurate.
I promise you, I can't promise you.
Well, let's say this look.
And I understand where you're coming from on that.
And it is true that that is a, it certainly is eyebrow raising that you have this information when it suits the narrative and you don't have this information when it potentially would not suit the narrative, like with the kids.
They're purposely not tracking breakthrough cases or kids.
It's crazy.
I agree with you on all of that.
But even if we were to grant that completely, that, okay, say the 95% number is accurate and that, you know, the getting the vaccine greatly reduces your chance of hospitalization or death.
Even if that were true, there's still, which I'm on the fence about.
You know, I understand what you're saying.
I don't know.
It's inconclusive at best.
And I agree a little bit eyebrow raising what information they'll give and what they won't.
But regardless of that, this Fauci's line here, really, there's a big problem.
There's actually, there's several major problems that he has with taking this position now, which is that, well, okay, so number one, then you can't argue that the CDC was right then and is right now.
It has to be one or the other.
Because if they were going to say, oh, unvaccinated people don't have to wear masks inside, except there's a variant where now they do, then they should have been wearing masks before or they shouldn't be now.
It can't be that like, oh, well, we just, we were fine with them spreading the risk of them spreading the old COVID, but oh, it turns out there's a new variant that they can spread around more.
Well, then because of the possibility of a new variant, you never should have let people unmask if that's your argument.
So if that's your argument, one way or the other, if you were saying, we're going to let these people take their masks off and then a month later, they're going to have to go right back to doing it because, oh my God, this caused so many problems.
Then by your own logic, this was a bad decision to make.
This one, I'm going to take the opposite side on, which if you remember, Rand Paul had called out Dr. Fauci on mask wearing being feeder.
We'd have to rewatch that clip, but I think Fauci might have taken the opinion of, well, there are these variants and we're not sure.
And Rand Paul kind of pushed him on, yeah, but the current numbers don't support that.
And then the FDC, I believe the reason, I mean, the CDC, I believe the reason why they changed it was they realized we need to incentivize people to actually get the vaccines.
Yes, yes, yes.
No, I'm not saying this makes Fauci wrong for what he said there.
I'm saying it would make the CDC wrong and he would have to acknowledge that the CDC was wrong.
If you're going to go down this line, this is not my argument.
I'm just saying to be consistent, then he would have to argue that the CDC got this completely wrong.
This was a huge mistake, which, of course, is not what he wants to do because then the whole trust the science TM thing kind of goes out the window.
And it turns out that the CDC can make big mistakes.
I'm saying even if you're on the COVID hawk perspective, there would be a major problem here in the logic.
As much as I absolutely hate on Fauci, and I think 90% of the time he is lying and he tries to hide behind, well, the data has changed and it hasn't.
This might be an instance where the data actually did change, where on the original variants, there was no reason for it.
And by the way, I don't even think masks are that effective.
So like, no, I agree.
I agree with you.
Yes, it's all ridiculous.
I'm just saying that even if you take Dr. Fauci's line on this, then you would have to say that the CDC, even if you're saying the data at the time suggested this, you'd have to go, well, they didn't foresee that there would be this new variant that does spread just as quickly.
So it was still a mistake, even by his own line of reasoning.
But the major problem that you have here is that this is a crucial, deadly blow to the vaccine propaganda from just a few weeks ago.
I mean, do you remember, right, when I was on Rogan and we had that clip that went viral?
I wish it was driven by me, but I think it was more about what Joe said.
But what was the now this got, you know, this got condemnation from everybody, not just the corporate press, but from Dr. Fauci himself and from President Joe Biden and like all the way up the chain, the biggest, you know, people in the COVID regime all stood up to condemn Joe Rogan.
And I suppose indirectly, yours truly.
And what was their big criticism?
Well, you don't get vaccinated for yourself.
You get vaccinated for everybody else.
And that's why you have to get this vaccine.
And yet, here we are.
And now they're saying, oh, but there's a variant and the vaccine actually does nothing.
According to Dr. Fauci here, makes you no less likely to transmit it to somebody else.
So, right, that whole narrative, at least now, I mean, they could argue that at the time that was the truth, but your vaccine's really not that great if it's just true for a few months and then all of a sudden none of this is true.
Still even call it a vaccine.
I mean, it never was a vaccine.
It was something that for marketing purposes, they called a vaccine.
However, are there other vaccines on the market that have, I mean, they're not tracking breakthrough cases.
However, I saw a real clear markets article there.
I haven't been able to validate this.
They said that there was a study in Israel that as many as 50% of new cases are in people that were fully vaccinated.
So that's the only stat I've seen thus far in terms of breakthrough cases.
I personally know a couple individuals, including young kids, who were fully vaccinated that have gotten sick, which would just make me suggest if there's people within my inner circle or people like that I know that were fully vaccinated, got sick, it's probably the, especially amongst younger people and they're showing symptoms.
It's got to be pretty high.
So I forget what I was going with that.
Well, look, no, I listen, I think I get where you're going with it.
And so the problem that you have now, right?
And this is a real, this is what's so interesting about this little time period that we're in right now and which direction all these things are going to go, which personally, my belief is that it's not predetermined.
And it irks me when people on either side pretend that it is predetermined where we're going to go from here.
We're at a fork in the road and we don't exactly know.
But if you listen to what Fauci is saying here, right?
The major problem that they have now is that this basically removes all incentives for the vast majority of people to get vaccinated.
So if their goal is to get the number of people vaccinated up, which I think is pretty obvious is their goal for whatever the reason may be.
I certainly know why the big pharmaceutical companies would want that to be the push, but whatever other ulterior motives, whether it's control or money or the revolving door type profits, whatever it is, this is bad in the incentives department because now you're right back to saying, hey, go ahead and get the vaccine and you can keep masking up everywhere you go.
So you don't have an incentive like, oh, now you get to do stuff that you couldn't do.
They don't have that whole character.
And you might still get sick and you'll still transmit the virus if you do.
Now the claim is it may prevent serious illness only, right?
Which the only people who should probably really be concerned with that are people in risk categories who I might even suggest should have a conversation with their doctor and get the vaccines.
But for everyone else, it's a very bad risk equation to be taking this.
Well, right.
And so that's right.
I mean, look, there's, I don't know exactly the risk equation.
I think it's hard to really measure.
But the truth is that for the vast majority of people, particularly young, healthy people, the risks of COVID just simply aren't that high.
That's just the reality.
And so whether or not the risk of the vaccine is worse than the risk of COVID, you know, it's very hard to say.
There's a lot of factors involved in this.
And like even what we were saying before, right?
Even if I were to grant that the vaccine, let's say that number, the 95% number is completely accurate, right?
95% of the hospitalizations and deaths have been unvaccinated people.
Well, the next thing that you'd really have to figure out to get another sense of this is now what percentage of people who have natural immunity, right?
Because that's a whole nother thing that they're almost never taking into account.
Like, but what about someone who got COVID six months ago?
Like, if you got it and then beat it, where do you stand?
What's the need for you to get vaccinated from this?
Kratom vs Vaccination Risks00:13:45
So this is all, I'm sorry, go ahead.
I saw an Israel study.
It was quoted by Alex Berenson, who's got the best numbers on this.
He's great on this.
You've got seven times more protection from natural immunity than from the vaccines.
Right.
So that's that's okay.
So that's what one study.
And there's another study that after six months, the vaccines aren't working.
Right.
So all of these things, it's just not exactly clear how long you have natural immunity for, how long the vaccine gives you immunity for, which is better, which is worse.
Right.
So that's a whole nother factor that gets into this.
Right.
So if you're comparing the risks of the vaccine versus the risks of COVID for someone who's young and healthy, particularly for someone who's young and healthy and has some natural immunity, which a fair percentage of young, healthy people have at this point, right?
Because young, healthy people have pretty much been, you know, doing stuff for quite a while now.
And so there's just, it's a very difficult calculation to make, but, you know, certainly if there's just a very low risk, like an incredibly low risk of serious negative, You know, consequences, then there's just not much of an incentive to go get a vaccine, even if there were absolutely no risks to the vaccine.
You know what I mean?
Like, even if there are absolutely no risks to taking Advil, if I don't have a headache, I'm not very motivated to go get Advil.
You know what I mean?
Like, it's just so, so that's a big problem that they have.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is, of course, YoKratom.
Go to yokratom.com, check it out, get yourself a $60 kilo.
It's the world's best value in Kratom, shipped right to your door.
No questions asked.
Look, if you've never heard of Kratom, you can go ahead and ignore this ad.
We're not talking to you.
I don't want you to hear this and go try Kratom.
But if you're currently a fan of Kratom, go celebrate your freedom at yokratom.com, home of the $60 kilo, which is unheard of.
YoKratom.com is one of the biggest sellers of Kratom nationwide, and they made Yo Kratom so you can buy directly at wholesale prices.
This is quality Kratom.
We've heard feedback from the fans.
They confirm it's solid.
And like I said, it's the only place where you can get a kilo for $60.
So one 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.
Now, look, I'll say personally, okay, in the situation that I'm in, like, I'm unvaccinated, and I've never, you know, really felt very motivated to go get the vaccine.
However, I will tell you that with this Delta variant, I've known several people who have gotten it and gotten sick, you being one of them.
Bobby was pretty sick with it, a few other people who I know.
And I got a pregnant wife.
So I'm going out on the road and I'm doing some of these shows.
And like, yeah, I'm a little concerned about that.
Like, I don't want my wife's in her third trimester now.
I don't want her to get a virus.
I mean, I wouldn't want her to get the flu or any other virus either.
And if there's a nasty virus going along, going around, it's like, yeah, I'm a little concerned about giving it to her.
And I'm trying to be safe and smart about it.
Like, you know, we're whatever, taking our own precautions.
But now, so, so, in other words, I'm not concerned about getting the virus myself.
That's not a big concern to me, but I am concerned about transmitting it to my wife.
Not my daughter so much because she's young and it's really not a threat to her.
But I mean, you know, I don't want to give her anything.
But I am a little bit concerned about my pregnant wife.
But if now the official science is coming out and saying getting the vaccine makes you no less likely to transmit it to someone else, there goes my incentive.
So just giving you my personal example, and there's lots of other people like this too, right?
Who might have a grandparent in their life or someone who's immunocompromised in their life or someone like that?
So the incentive for that person to get the vaccine is now gone.
If the official narrative is now that you're just as likely to pass it along to someone else.
Now, again, in the calculation that you were talking about before, you'd also look, you'd have to calculate like the risk of like what your chances of getting COVID are times what the risk is.
You know what I mean?
And then compare that to the risk of being vaccinated.
It's a very hard calculation to make, but you can certainly see where now for large amounts of people, all of the incentives to get the vaccine have completely disappeared.
Now, what's scary about that and the fork in the road here is that if incentives don't work, what's the government's other option?
Force.
Yeah, that's right.
So it's either that, you know, like the government can either say we're going to tax cigarettes to incentivize you not to smoke, or they can say we're going to make them illegal.
Those are pretty much their two options.
I mean, both rely on force, but one is the more naked, you know, like version of it.
So that's kind of the creepy situation that we're in right now.
But the other thing, the other side of the fork in the road is that if the incentives won't work and there's too much popular resistance to the force, then perhaps this is how we skate and get out of here free.
But it is like, you know, you can say that the data changed.
And so that's why Fauci is changing his tune on this one, much like he's changed his tune on just about every single issue concerning the whole COVID, you know, authoritarianism.
But even if you're changing based on data, there's still kind of an admission of being wrong there that you didn't foresee the way the data would go.
You didn't foresee the way this would play out.
So a major blow.
The only propaganda angle I can think of is that they are trying to come through with some forceful measures.
And so they're trying to leverage the anger of individuals who have been vaccinated against the people who are unvaxed so that they can get popular support for measures of force.
And so that would create a reason why they would say, hey, listen, the reason we got a mask is because so many individuals are unvaxxed and it's allowing the virus to spread.
And then at the same time, they're going to try and get, I mean, they're purposely not tracking breakthrough infections.
That's on purpose so that they won't have the data, which is what we're talking about right now, to say that there really is no increased risk of transmission amongst the vaccinated.
And by the way, for healthy 25 to 30 year olds to 35 year olds, a lot of them got the shots, got sick for two or three days from getting the shots.
Now they're getting sick because of the virus anyways.
And the claim is, well, you would have ended up in the hospital, which is to me just totally unsubstantiated.
If you're a healthy 35-year-old and then you still got the risk on your plate that you've got a foreign protein spikes within your body, which I just heard Jimmy Dore, he was on Rogan yesterday saying he's getting treatment now for inflammation in his brain from it.
And I don't know if you saw that clip.
It was like a 12-minute clip, but he was talking about how he saw a doctor and the doctor's treating multiple individuals for this, but there's no coverage of that whatsoever.
Wow.
Wow, that's interesting.
Yeah.
Well, it's, you know, it really is something like, and I've seen a lot of people who are like, you know, really making these claims like what you just said that are just really ridiculous.
Like even I saw someone the other day who's was talking about someone who's who's elderly who they know who got the vaccine and then got the Delta variant and is very sick.
And people are saying, well, she'd be dead if she hadn't been vaccinated.
How do you prove it?
And it's like, yeah, I mean, that is really a stretch, really a stretch.
I mean, I mean, maybe, I'm not even saying like, I know for sure, but you certainly don't know for sure either.
We really just don't know.
Yeah, that's, that's interesting.
And of course, there's so much from, you know, the libertarian perspective to be upset about all of this stuff.
And I really do think like to me, and this is, I guess, the essence of why I am a libertarian, is that I just think that the voluntarism and lack of government interference would solve this problem as reasonably as it could be.
Just, hey, there are these vaccines.
If you want to go take them, you can.
If not, then not.
Private businesses can figure out how they're going to work around these things.
Well, actually, in a libertarian market, the vaccines probably wouldn't exist because there'd probably be some liability on account of companies either forcing you to get it or for these companies, if there turns out to be health risks in the future.
Yeah, perhaps.
Although you could also say that these vaccines maybe would have been introduced next to immediately when they first came out.
And perhaps some people would have been willing to roll the dice.
And there could be end arounds on that situation, right?
Like there could be waivers that people signed to give up the liability of the company for them to say, look, this is experimental and there might be problems that come along with this.
And if you're taking it, you're agreeing that you're taking that risk, right?
So that certainly could happen in a libertarian society.
However, the society that we're living in now is that these were taxpayer dollars funded the research for this.
Taxpayer dollars are funding the rollout for this and giving huge profits to the corporations.
And the liability is being enforced that without agreeing to give up, you know, your without agreeing to say, oh, yeah, these companies have no liability for the product that they're selling me, unlike all types of other products that people are selling you, right?
Like it's almost every other product you could think of.
If you stay home during the day one day and just throw on network TV, you're going to see a whole bunch of commercials with lawyers trying to convince you to go sue some company that ended up selling a product that fucked over a whole lot of people, whatever it might be.
Was that weed stuff that caused cancer, whatever.
There's like a bunch of them.
Yeah, Roundup.
That's right.
And yet you won't see that with this.
And that's all government interference.
So there's a whole bunch of angles, like just to be against all of this stuff.
But I will say that, you know, with COVID, it seemed, this has been pretty obvious from like April 2020 at least, that COVID really is a serious problem for people with underlying health conditions, immunocompromised people.
If those people have been offered the opportunity to take the vaccine and the rest of us, you know, are just as likely to spread it around even if we are vaccinated.
Logically speaking, that seems to be game over.
You know, so to your point, you're absolutely right about them kind of manipulating the anger of people who are vaccinated.
They get to blame now all of this on the unvaccinated.
You know, before the vaccines were available, they could blame it on Trump and the Trump supporters and the people who weren't masking up.
But now the target of their outrage is firmly planted on the unvaccinated.
They're the reasons why we're still in a pandemic, as Joe Biden said, that point blank.
They're the reason why we're still in this pandemic.
So that's definitely true.
And the other thing, right?
And this is the fork in the road, is that now they've laid the groundwork to, by their own logic, better justify mandatory vaccines or vaccine passports, right?
Because now they're at a point to say, well, we can't, we have no way of telling who has and who hasn't done this.
And the only way that things are going to work is if we mandate them.
Even, I mean, forget even the big hole in their logic, which is that you can still get it and still give it to other people.
But you could see them using this to push in that direction.
But you could also see this being used to push in the good direction, in the freedom direction, of just saying, like, well, you know what?
If you're not, if this isn't going to prevent me from giving it to other people, then I don't know what to say.
I guess we're right back to square one, where the people who are at high risk need to think about their own risks and the rest of us can live our lives.
The only saving grace of all of the thus far mandatory requirements that are coming out for vaccinations, and this is not true of companies, but this is true of the government, is that in every case that they're telling people it's an option of being tested weekly or getting the vax, right?
Testing weekly is, I mean, I can tell you because like those, the cheapest tests, which are fairly accurate, are the ones that we're using in the White House, which are available at CBS for like 20 bucks.
So that's going to cost you 80 bucks a month.
So it's kind of a question of who covers the cost.
What is that?
That's close to, it's like $900 a year.
So it's kind of, for some people, they probably can't handle that expense.
I mean, that is kind of like a crazy new expense to put on your plate.
But if it's a production question that if companies are buying it in bulk, it's not that big of a deal.
I'm just telling you to have to show up once a week and get your nose swabbed and have that 20-minute test done.
If it's not an actual cost to you, I got no problem with that.
Send people home with their tests.
You can do that at home.
Yeah, they cost nothing.
I forget the name of the test.
They got them at CBS.
They were using them in the White House.
Cost of Mass Testing00:02:24
I mean, they're not as good as the PCR test, but I think they're good enough for, if anything, they're going to create more false positives than false negatives.
And then you can get a false positive, go get a PCR test to validate it.
But it's probably a pretty good tool for screening.
So the real question is, I guess cost on doing mass testing in an efficient way, which with the rapid test, they might be like 80% effective or whatever they are.
To me, it's not, if they were to do some sort of a vacuum, I mean, not that the government should do mandatory things.
It could be left to private businesses to say, hey, I want some sort of a record of that you tested or being vaccinated, but at least the saving grace is all of the government mandates thus far that they've been talking about include testing weekly, which is just not that flagrant.
It's not that big of a deal.
Yeah.
Oh, well, listen, amongst in comparatively to other government-forced programs, like, yeah, that would be a lot better than other things that they could do.
You might hilariously end up with actually really good data of who is and who isn't getting sick.
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, that's right.
All right, guys, let's take a second and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Bambi.
When running a business, HR issues can kill you.
Wrongful termination suits, minimum wage requirements, labor regulations, and HR managers, their salaries ain't cheap.
An average of $70,000 a year.
Bambi, spelled B-A-M-B-E-E, was created specifically for small businesses.
You can get a dedicated HR manager, craft HR policy, and maintain your compliance all for just $99 a month.
With BAMBI, you can change HR from your biggest liability to your biggest asset.
Your dedicated HR manager is available by phone, email, or real-time chat.
From onboarding to terminations, they customize your policies to fit your business and help you manage your employees day to day, all for just $99 a month.
This is month to month.
There's no hidden fees and you can cancel anytime.
You didn't start your business because you wanted to spend your time on HR compliance.
So let Bambi take care of it for you.
Get your free HR audit today by going to Bambi.com slash P-O-T-P right now to schedule that free HR audit.
That's bambi.com slash P-O-T-P, B-A-M-B-E-E dot com slash P-O-T-P.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Stadium Mandate Gray Areas00:12:32
Well, listen, saying in terms of what you were just saying, like comparing this to other things that the government could do, let's check in with the hero, the now disgraced hero of the COVID regime, Governor Andrew Cuomo.
This is what he has to do.
And we have to get in those communities and we have to knock on those doors and we have to convince people and put them in a car and drive them and get that vaccine in their arm.
That is the mission.
That's pretty funny.
I didn't even know this part of it was attached to there.
This is from the Rubin report.
They stab him in the...
Well, what I love is...
Shout out to Dave Rubin, by the way.
I was hanging out with him this week in Freedom Fest.
I believe we have plans.
I have plans to do his show pretty soon.
So looking forward to that.
What I love about that is you could just vaccinate them at home.
So the whole put them in a van part is just being rapey about it, which is kind of Cuomo's thing.
Well, I think you just answered your own question right there, my friend.
Why is he going out of his way to be so rapey about this?
Now, look, to be fair, he did throw the word convince them, but when you start like when you go, the government's showing up to your home, convincing you, get in the van, go get a shot in your arm.
It sounds like that convincing is a little bit of strong arming more than just a true voluntary, you know, persuasion.
So, first off, the thing that jumps out at me, which is so crazy, is like, if your concern is that there's people out there that are skeptical about the vaccine, and let's get real, what a lot of the concern is, is based around conspiratorial notions, right?
The idea that this isn't what they're saying and that they're trying to force people to do this and they're propagandizing us and all.
I mean, wouldn't this just undercut your argument so much?
Like, wouldn't most people who skew conspiratorial look at that and go, holy shit, this is creepy?
Like, you'd think you'd want to like make an argument about how great the vaccines are and not start kind of threatening to show up at people's homes and throw them in a van.
As you pointed out, unnecessarily could just show up with the vaccines if we are going to be convincing them.
But yeah, so this is this is the type of thing that now politicians are just floating out, you know?
I mean, this is this is how much the Overton window has shifted to where the idea of the government just throwing people in vans and jabbing them in the arm is now just something that we can openly muse about.
You know, when I was on Reason the other day with Nick Gillespie, at one point he said something to me like, I don't remember exactly, but he said something about like, well, how do I feel about, you know, government like DeSantis or other people who were like floating out the idea of banning private businesses who wanted to say you have to be vaccinated to work here or other things like that.
And I thought it was, you know, it was an interesting moment.
And I did concede, not that it's much of a concession, but I did say, I was like, well, look, that would be a violation of like libertarian ethics the same way, you know, like, yes, libertarians believe in private property rights.
And for the government to tell a company they can't discriminate or they can't insist on masks or vaccines or anything like that would be anti-libertarian.
But I said, but then we can also live in reality and understand that the big threat right now that we live under is not that the government might not let people enforce vaccine mandates in private companies.
And particularly when you have governors, you know, just musing about things like this, you're like, I'm a bit more concerned about that threat.
You know what I mean?
Like, I'm quite a bit more concerned about the threat of governments mandating vaccines than I am about them mandating that you can't mandate vaccines in private companies.
What you have to give DeSantis credit for, and I know that this is at least one of the cases and instances in Florida where that was happening.
And I might not have this 100%, but DeSantis won a major lawsuit against the federal government to get cruise lines to be able to operate.
Once he won that case, the cruise lines turned around and said, well, we're only operating if we can mandate a COVID passport.
And DeSantis was a little bit, his line of reasoning, which in a way is fair, is I just won this case for you guys to go back and operate, but it was supposed to be not within the framework of what the government has been mandating of COVID passports.
The entire point of this is we're running without COVID passports.
I just won this for you.
So that's not exactly a, you know what I mean?
And then I, I would venture to guess that if you go down the rabbit hole of most, like, listen, if you're a private business, I don't know, let's say you're a 75-year-old lawyer and you got a small law firm and you don't want people coming in that aren't vaccinated.
You got every right in the world to make that decision.
You do.
Like, government should not tell you you have to have any employee whatsoever.
But if there's going to be government incentives at a federal level that are making larger employers, and when you start looking at the way capital markets are working now, I mean, the largest investor in the world is BlackRock.
I think they got like $9 trillion that they're investing, which is unheard of.
And they're using this money for ESG.
You look into why Coca-Cola and other companies were all of a sudden talking about the racism of voting.
It's like, it's hard to pretend that there isn't a lot of Fed money in the system and that like most of these decisions aren't being influenced by maybe a tie-in between Fauci, some grants, some college.
Like there's so much money.
It's tough.
Look, dude, that's why that's what you get into these areas where it's very, very tough.
So I said, one of the examples I used to him, right, to Gillespie, when I was talking to him, I was like, well, we were talking about mask mandates for a little bit.
And I was like, look, I'm not particularly concerned about, you know, small businesses mandating masks, like voluntarily, absent a government mask man.
I respect every small business.
I'm never the guy who yells at like a shop.
Sure.
Sure.
But I think like my view on it is that like, I really think the market will take care of this.
Like, I don't, I, and I said to him that I said, you know, like, haven't we all seen instances over the last 16 months where someone came into a business without a mask when the sign on the window said you have to wear a mask?
And have you seen a whole lot of business owners being like, no, get out.
I don't want your money.
Or are they more likely being like, okay, come on, like, make it quick and come on.
You know, I mean, like, so it's just like, to me, all of the incentives line up to everything small businesses have been through over the last 16 months.
I doubt it's going to be a major problem that they're going to be turning away customers.
I just, I'm comfortable with the market sorting all of this out.
But to your point, even when you talk about the Fed money floating around, I mean, there's a lot of different.
So I said to him, I go, well, look, I mean, when there are like professional sports that are, you know, say mandating masks or even in some cases, proof of vaccination, I mean, these stadiums were built with taxpayer money.
So how is a libertarian exact?
Now you could say that's a private company making a decision, but in reality, what happened here is that the people were robbed to build a stadium.
Now, many of those people, if given the choice, never would have built that stadium.
I mean, you know, like if you just, if you just said, hey, we want to build a stadium and we're raising funds voluntarily, do you think you would have gotten just as much money as when tax dollars go to it?
My guess is no.
I guess I don't know for sure, but I think they would probably just do it that way if they thought they could raise the money.
So you're forcing people, working people, to, you know, you're robbing them to build this stadium.
And then the people operating the stadium are going to tell you, oh, and you can't come here unless, I mean, the idea that libertarians are okay with the government discriminating against people in how they reimburse them for their stolen goods in a sense, yeah, that's pretty funky.
I mean, where exactly do you draw a clear libertarian line on that?
It's pretty hard.
And of course, libertarians can say, okay, we're against taxation to build these stadiums.
That's the pure libertarian position.
But that's already over.
It already happened.
So now we have to deal in reality.
And here, in that case, I just err on the side of like, no, I don't think they should have a right to do that.
Neither one is a libertarian solution.
So, why can't I just choose my preference within that narrow framework, right?
You know what I'm saying?
Like, it's like, I don't know, neither one of these are best.
I'll keep advocating the pure libertarian solution, but then in real life, I will say, okay, and I'd prefer this as of now.
So, that's, you know, that's how I feel about that one.
And this was kind of, you know, one of the things that we were talking about within the realm of tech censorship and all of this stuff, where it's it gets very difficult to slice and dice exactly what is a private company and exactly what is government influence, threats, funding, all of this stuff.
So, anyway, I just think that the, as I see it, so over it's overwhelmingly clear that the threat here, the major threat to liberty is not that some stadiums won't be allowed to discriminate based on vaccine status or mandate masks.
The major threat to liberty here is still the lockdown, the threat of another round of lockdowns, the threat of COVID passports, the threat of forced vaccinations.
That's the major threat to liberty here.
So, excuse me, if I'm going to be far more concerned, if I'm going to live in the real world and be far more concerned with the actual threats to liberty, prosperity, a peaceful, you know, stable society, I'm going to be more concerned with those threats than I am just living in this hypothetical, you know, world, you know, where like, you know, you have to say, well, it also would be unlibertarian to do things this way or that way, especially when there is,
you know, a lot of gray area in all of these things, like stadiums, for example.
It's a real, it's a real gray area.
I don't know, you know, like again, like I said, it's not exactly libertarian for the government to tell a sports franchise that they cannot mandate masks or that they cannot check vaccination status.
But it's also not very libertarian to rob the American taxpayer to build a stadium and then discriminate against them.
Neither one's a libertarian solution.
I hope they do unvaccinate and it's fucking awesome.
Yep, it's really funny that there was some business that did that.
Gillespie told me about it.
I didn't know this.
And then I saw it on Twitter.
I'm sure it was party people.
It was the people you want to hang out with.
It was only unvaccinated, which of course is just funny because there's absolutely no way.
I mean, it's difficult enough to track vaccinated status, but to track unvaccinated status, like if you were vaccinated and they were like, prove to me that you're not vaccinated, I'm not vaccinated.
They go, do you have a vaccine card?
No.
Okay, then come in.
I mean, it's impossible, but it's just kind of a funny troll.
You just got to prove that you're awesome.
That's it.
You just got to show your track record of the way you normally live your life and that generally speaking, you're cool and awesome.
And they're like, all right, I believe that you didn't get vaxxed.
Yeah.
No, you seem like this guy definitely wouldn't have gotten vaxxed.
You think you just ask questions like, do you believe that Fauci is or is not a vampire?
And if they go vampire, you're like, all right, man, you're cool.
Let's get real.
We'll take the risk.
Or is if they start getting offended by it, you're like, hey, if I call you gay, does that bother you?
You know what I mean?
Like, you just got to test their coolness.
And then if they're cool, you know, they're not vaxxed.
That's it.
Easy test.
And even if it bothers them, you have to see like why it bothers them.
Right.
Did it bother them?
Well, it's more like if I call this other guy gay.
Hey, that gay guy over there.
If I call him gay.
Now you're on something.
See, you already improved.
You already improved your tech, your test.
That's actually tremendously.
Yeah.
No, what was the shit?
Libertarian Philosophy Reality Check00:05:48
There was one other thing that I wanted to mention.
And then it slipped my mind during that fun little riff.
Oh, maybe it'll come back to me.
Oh, I don't know.
Damn it.
You were talking about that there was Nicoleps.
Nikolespi.
Gillespie.
Gillespie.
It's an interesting last name.
That's on him.
I know you're talking about Emma Wallace.
Yeah, yeah.
So one of the other things he said, this was like one of the things I was trying to get across, was that it's like, and this is something I've been trying to talk about a lot.
I guess not just lately.
This is kind of always my thought, that there are a lot of, you know, there are a lot of like libertarian voices and podcasters and stuff like that who were doing it before me, before us.
And we've like lapped them over and over again in terms of like audience size and popularity.
And one of the major reasons, and also one of the reasons why, you know, I was so critical of Joe Jorgensen's campaign and why so many other libertarians just don't get, they don't influence a lot of people, is that they live in this world of like libertarian philosophy rather than existing in the real world.
As the thing that Pete Quinonas says a lot, which I got to admit, I mean, I've disagreed with a lot of the takes that he's had lately on the LP and on libertarianism in general.
But I do agree with him when he says, stop living in Ankapistan in your head.
Like stop living there.
That's not to say stop having that as the end goal or stop being an ANCAP, but stop pretending that that's the world we live in because it's not.
And when you're just like, there are some of these guys, and I'm not going to name names because I'm not trying to shit on anyone.
And they're guys that I like.
I'm not like against them.
But there are these people who everything they want to talk about is the libertarian philosophy.
Now, I love the libertarian philosophy as much as anyone.
But like philosophy is only as valuable as it can be applied to real life.
And if you're just living in philosophy, you know, eventually this doesn't mean anything to anyone.
And I think one of the reasons why we've grown this show so much and we've been successful is that the focus of this show is always on the crises that are facing the country.
That's always what we're talking about.
We're always going at the empire, you know what I mean?
Like the fucking COVID lockdowns, before that talking about how they were trying to frame Trump all the time, before that talking about the Trump versus Clinton election, always blasting the corporate press, always talking about the things that are actually affecting people in real life right now.
And we try our best to connect those to the philosophy of free markets and non-interventionism and all this stuff.
But if you're not making that connection and you're just lost in philosophy, then it's pointless.
So there was this one point, and I was trying to make this point to Nick because he said the thing that I've heard a lot of libertarians say, and to me, this is indicative of that flaw, of the flaw of living in your philosophy and not in real life.
And this is what will prevent you from being able to persuade people that we have answers for them, that they should embrace libertarianism, is that you're like, dude, you're living in fantasy land and not in reality.
And so one of the things he said, which I've heard other libertarians say too, when we were talking about tech censorship, is he goes, he's like, oh, like he didn't say it this way, but I've heard a lot of other libertarians say like, oh, so you want Twitter to bake the cake, right?
And I don't know if you understand the reference there, but they're saying like when there was that whole thing about bakers have to bake cakes for gays.
Oh, when it came to that, you were all for freedom of association and it's a private company.
They can do whatever they want.
They can discriminate against people.
But now all of a sudden you're saying Twitter has to bake the cake.
And so Nick said some version of this to me, like some version of shouldn't the libertarian position be that they don't have to bake the cake and they don't have to platform anyone they don't like.
And fair enough.
I mean, I understand where you can make the argument that that is the libertarian position, that private companies should have a right to discriminate.
But I just said at one point, I go like, but don't you see the major difference there?
Just if we're living in the real world, isn't there a huge difference?
And the difference is that a baker not wanting to cater a gay wedding was never a legitimate threat to a gay couple's ability to get married, right?
I mean, even in the case that went to the Supreme Court, the baker literally was this Christian baker, and he just goes, look, I'm not going to cater a gay wedding, but I will give you the number to another bakery that will cater your wedding.
So even in the Supreme Court case that went all the way up there, he goes here, like, let me help you get this done, but I just don't want to do it.
So this was never really a threat to gay people's ability to have cake at their wedding.
However, tech censorship is legitimately a threat for a whole lot of right-wingers and some left-wingers as well to be able to speak.
Like, so like, look, I'm not saying abandon libertarian philosophy.
I'm just saying deal with the real world first and foremost.
So if your response to some right-winger who has a problem with that is like, oh, so you want Twitter to bake the cake, you're like, they are going to write you off understandably.
They're going to be like, you're just not living in reality.
You are more married to your own philosophy than you are to the problems that are actually in front of you in real life.
Tax-Free Crypto Trading00:02:07
All right, guys, let's take a quick break and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is iTrust Capital.
This is the best place to invest in Bitcoin, other digital currencies, and precious metals.
Everybody's been talking about crypto lately.
It's not just Jack Dorsey and all the central banks around the world.
Everybody knows how much money has been printed, not just in the United States of America, but again, all around the world.
And people are more concerned than ever about protecting their wealth.
The smart investors are doing this by investing with their IRAs and 401k retirement accounts.
And the easiest way to do that is with iTrust Capital.
All iTrust accounts are IRAs, which means you can invest and trade your crypto and gold tax-free on their 24-7 platform.
If you have an existing IRA or another retirement account, like a 401k, you can roll those over with no penalties or taxes.
iTrust Capital makes investing in crypto safe and easy.
You can log into your account 24-7 and invest at the push of a button.
Now crypto can be traded as easily as stocks.
No keys, no complex process.
iTrust Capital also makes investing in physical gold and silver easy.
iTrust uses a blockchain ledger that gives you digital ownership of physical gold held at the Royal Canadian Mint.
It's not a security or a derivative.
It's not a financial contract.
This is fully backed by physical gold that is deliverable upon request.
And the best part of all, iTrust Capital has low transparent pricing that is 90% cheaper than their competitors.
So if you're looking for an IRA to trade cryptocurrency and precious metals tax-free, go to itrustcapital.com.
And if you use the promo code P-O-T-P, you're going to get your first month for free.
Plus, they're going to send you a free crypto IRA and gold IRA investors guide.
One more time, that's iTrustCapital.com.
The promo code is P-O-T-P for your first month free.
And you can receive their crypto IRA and gold IRA investors guide at no cost.
If you're interested in getting some more information about iTrust Capital, I recorded a short conversation with their CEO.
It's posted on the Gas Digital sponsor page.
January 6th Committee Propaganda00:14:25
He was a great guy and really explained a lot more about what they do.
So go check that out and go to itrustcapital.com.
Promo code P-O-T-Pay.
All right, let's get back on the show.
And then I also, I don't think just based off of Jack Dorsey's love for Bitcoin, I don't think he's as into censorship as his Twitter platform has become.
I have to think that there's got to be some significant government influence in their decisions to deplatform.
I don't think, now, I've never met Jack Dorsey.
I don't follow him that well.
I just know that the way he's talking about Bitcoin and capital markets and the need for that currency, which I also believe in is very important as it will defund the government.
I just don't think a person with that perspective is that into censorship.
Yeah, no, I agree.
I agree with you on that.
And I also made that point when talking to Nick.
So, okay, so before we wrap this thing up, I did want to just talk for a couple minutes about this, the congressional hearings, I guess, or the investigation into January 6th, which is underway.
I have not watched any of it yet.
I just haven't felt like hurting myself that much.
But you said you did see a couple clips from I think what's important to note at first is Nancy Pelosi broke normal, not official policy, but the idea is usually when you put together these committees, people, Republicans get to pick some people for their team.
Democrats get to pick some people from their teams.
In hilarious fashion, they appointed Jim Jordan, who's one of the guys who's actually sharp and particularly good, especially being on TV and exposing lies and actually coming to the support of Donald Trump.
And he said he was going to look into what happened with Nancy Pelosi, that there wasn't the security that clearly was needed on that day.
If we actually want to look into what happened here and put us at risk, why is it that when both the FBI and networks that were later deplatformed, such as Parler, gave over warnings of, hey, I think something's going to happen on this day, why was that ignored?
And why wasn't there a significant police presence?
Nancy Pelosi instantly took him off the committee and said that he will, you know, whatever, that there's a real security threat that we have to look into here.
And Jim Jordan is an inappropriate pick.
It is very clear that this is the newest propaganda piece of the Democrats, possibly if you want to get really conspiracy about it, that the FBI was actually involved in the insurrection, but they're trying to do everything they can to make it look like white people are domestic terrorists or at least white people that support Donald Trump.
And that we need to do more to remove freedoms and to make sure that certain communities aren't able to congregate online or have political opinions.
And they're trying to do everything they can.
Like that, this is a propaganda piece.
Now, the person who I believe was running that meeting, or at least the one clip I saw was involved is Adam Schiff.
If you remember Adam Schiff, he was the guy who, I mean, in my opinion, worked with the CIA to create the whole Russia collusion storyline that undermines Donald Trump.
Whether or not he worked with them, he certainly was their champion.
For two whole years.
I mean, Donald Trump was not able to do some of the landmark things that he had campaigned for, such as building a wall.
And he lost Congress while, was it Senator Congress or whatever?
Okay, but beyond that, beyond the building the wall thing, I mean, one of the centerpieces of his campaign was to work with Russia to work out our exit from the Middle East, fight terrorists together, but not be involved in any of these wars and spend trillions of dollars trying to remake the Middle East.
And the only reason I picked that example over the wall is because I think that that was much more directly impacted by allegations that he's colluding with the Russians.
Because then if he were to go make a deal with the Russians, well then, oh, look, that's proof that he is a Russian pawn or something like this.
But anyway, I'm sorry, continue.
And yes, you're absolutely right.
They held that investigation out throughout the midterm elections, and it was one of the major focuses, the major focus of the corporate press throughout the entire midterm elections of 2018.
And they also milked Charlottesville for everything that it was worth.
They milked in, you know, distorted Trump's comments for everything it was worth.
So now this is their newest propaganda piece where they're trying to, and they basically got some of the cops that were there on that day that I'm sure had terrible experiences talk about how racist white Americans were screaming at them for their support of Biden and were horribly violent towards them.
And they're trying to create the propaganda they need to create this domestic terrorism title and to increase censorship and try and permanently get rid of Trump.
I'm taking that from the highlights and from what I understand of the mission of this commission to be, their 9-11 style commission.
So just to bring it full circle, if you really wanted to look into what happened on that day and we were interested in the safety of Americans, we should probably investigate whether or not the FBI or other government agencies worked to provoke it, help these people get in, whether or not there was the proper security forces, why Nancy Pelosi didn't offer the proper security forces.
So there's a whole other side to the story that really needs to be explored.
Sadly, the Democrats are currently in control.
And Jim Jordan, they're claiming that they're going to create their own commission and look into the other aspects of this.
But at the moment, you can look forward to Democrats just got the funding they need to, for the next, however long, keep coming up with reports for, look at these racist white Americans that are out there.
And this is why we need a domestic terrorism title.
So this was the first charade of getting, you know, black cops that were working on that day talking about the racist white Americans that physically harmed them and nearly destroyed the country.
So in other words, the Democrats are lying, using this event as a propaganda tool to greatly expand the power of the government.
And Republicans are promising to investigate in something that will clearly go nowhere, not get to the bottom of any of this, and allow the Democrats to win.
So basically, the way things have been working in Washington for quite a while.
I'll say this, okay, because I think that there are this is, you know, in many ways, just like the, look, man, just like the stuff with COVID and the vaccine passport proposals and again, this thing on January 6th.
It's like in real time, while you're getting this mountain of propaganda, like I always use the example of the Kurds in Syria, we can't leave because we have to protect the Kurds.
It's these moments are when you see who's who, okay?
Like who's willing to stand up against the propaganda when it's at its most extreme?
You know, it's easy later.
It'll be easy in a few years to be like, yeah, that wasn't really an insurrection, dude.
Like this was, you know what I mean?
But in the moment when everyone's shouting insurrection, it's like, ooh, and so it's easy again to, and you saw this with the thing in Syria, right?
It's easy in theory for a lot of people to say, I don't really think we should be fighting these wars.
But then Donald Trump is pulling out troops tomorrow.
Kurds, Kurds, Kurds, Kurds.
Who's still, who caves then?
And goes, yeah, I guess we Should stick around to make sure they're the Kurds, right?
That's kind of what's important.
So let me just say this because I have seen some libertarians, the usual suspects, not really the good ones, who have fallen right into this trap of being like, yeah, you know, January 6th was so awful.
They were trying to install a dictator.
They were going to use political violence or blah, blah, blah, whatever the point is.
And even if you could leave aside the fact that it is so obvious that the fucking Democrats and the national security apparatus are trying to use this event to greatly expand the war on terrorism and even more creepy, turn it inward, more so than it already has been with things like the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA and the NSA and all this stuff.
But that's clearly the goal here, right?
Is to start going after domestic terrorists.
And forget the fact I thought, this is naive me, I thought that when the former CIA director listed in that group of domestic terrorists libertarians, that maybe that might wake libertarians up to be like, hey, we don't really want to go along with this plan.
But forget all of that stuff for a second, okay?
Here's the bottom line.
And this is, and Ron Paul just had a thing about this because he's just the greatest.
And man, I wish if everyone who criticizes libertarians just used Ron Paul as the example of what a libertarian is, about 95% of the criticism just falls away, just doesn't exist anymore because you're criticizing like, you know, like some awful person and, you know, some whatever, just like the worst representative of libertarians and not actual libertarianism.
But here's the deal, right?
There are people who were involved in this thing in January 6th who did nothing other than walk into a building.
Forget for a second the ones who smashed a window, okay?
Forget those people.
Although I really don't think you can make much of a libertarian argument that the crime, like the punishment for smashing a government window, should be any worse than the punishment for smashing a storefront window or someone's window of their house.
You know, I mean, it doesn't seem to make sense that like if you were to smash a storefront window and get arrested for that, what are you going to be looking at?
Like probation or something like that?
But if you smash a federal government window, you're going to be in prison for years.
That doesn't seem right.
But forget that.
There are people who did nothing but walked into what is known as the people's house, uninvited or perhaps in some instances, quasi-invited, at least allowed to walk in, right?
And for that, they're facing decades.
Now, I'm sorry, there's no nuanced position to this.
There's no back and forth.
The libertarian position is clear as day on that.
That that is egregious.
Egregious.
And, you know, you may not, you know, the fact that you agree with those people politically or don't agree with those people politically has nothing to do with anything.
And it's interesting because I remember, you know, like of all those same libertarians, they would never give someone shit for, say, taking the position that I took on Anwar Alaki and his son, who were American citizens who were drone bombed in Yemen by the Obama administration.
And I was at the time saying, I go, this is an outrage.
Those are U.S. citizens.
And when you are a U.S. citizen, you need to be charged with a crime.
You get a lawyer in a suit and tie and a judge in a black robe and a jury of your peers.
That's what you get when you're an American citizen, period.
Non-negotiable, end of story.
And nobody would respond to that with like, oh, so are you defending Anwarlocki's views?
Like, what?
No, it has nothing to do with that.
You can defend somebody's rights to due process or their right to not be a political prisoner or to be, in this case, assassinated by the executive without due process.
This has nothing to do with whether you agree with their views or not.
So I don't care how you feel about Donald Trump.
The fact that people are looking at serious jail time for the crime of walking into a public building is something that all libertarians should be appalled by.
Period.
That's the libertarian position on that.
No exceptions.
Anybody who tells you anything else is just straight up not one of us.
I don't know what to tell you.
And this is just, it's unbelievable that there's actually anyone in our movement who just doesn't have the courage or the clarity to just blatantly say this was not an insurrection.
We did a live stream the night that it happened, and I wasn't for it.
I said this was stupid.
And I basically predicted that it was going to be exactly this, that people would be looking at decades in jail and they would use this as a big excuse to do all this crazy shit.
But that doesn't mean we have to sit here and live in their emperor's new clothes world where we pretend that this was a real attempted coup to overthrow the duly elected government.
It's just, it's ridiculous.
And so anyway, this whole clown show is absurd.
And I don't really care if cops got some mean names thrown at them.
I wouldn't care.
I mean, like, can you imagine like during the Black Lives Matter riots, these riots that went on all summer long in 2020?
And we're talking about way worse by any reasonable standard than January 6th.
Like dozens of people killed, billions of dollars in property damage, tons of people assaulted, tons of people just terrorized, you know, like all over the country.
So in those examples, and I did say at a certain point that if you were defending, like in the immediate act of defending your property or your business and you defend it against the mob, I understand that.
But if someone just showed up to one of those Black Lives Matter rallies and they were looking at decades in prison over that shit, I'd be appalled by that.
Like if they were saying not the ones who were violent or anything like that, they were just there and they're also now looking at these huge prison sentences, that would be insane.
It's like, no, even under a much worse situation, it doesn't justify that.
And imagine hearing a video from some cop talking about the mean words that were said to him by Black Lives Matter protesters.
Is there anything you could care about less?
Oh, did someone say something mean while you were being a police officer?
My God, let's get you therapy.
Oh, was it racially charged?
Oh, well, in that case, throw away the key.
This is just, this is insane.
So anyway, those are my thoughts on that.
Cop Therapy and Prison Sentences00:00:20
All right, let's wrap the episode there.
Come check us out.
DC, Rochester, and Robbie, you'll be in Nashville.
Nashville.
Yeah, that's going to be a party with BK Chris and then Run Your Mouth Podcast.