June 6, 2025 • 33 mins
The Supreme Court shot down the Maryland AR-15 case with the acceptance that they are in "common use." It's significant because it protects the gun manufacturers. We got some insight into the Supreme Court's thinking with this case.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Talkbacks.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
You want talkbacks? How about you kiss Mike.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Oh wait a minute, it's Friday.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
Uh have a nice week.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
In Yeah, whenever youthink all of that, just back off.
So the gun case that I referred to that I
don't spend a lot of time on them all the way,
I think it's significant for a reason that mate, I'm
not sure a lot of other people are picking up
(00:29):
on the court again unanimously interestingly ruled yesterday that a
lawsuit was brought by the Mexican government. They were trying
to hold all, virtually all American gun manufacturers liable. The
case is uh, Mexico versus Smith and Western, or something
(00:55):
to that effect. Anyway, they wanted to rule that, they
wanted to rule. They were trying to get it decided.
They were trying to hold American gun manufacturers accountable for
firearm trafficking and for the cartel's violence. Now, this is
a huge decision for the US firearms industry because it
(01:18):
affirms the protections offered under the two thousand and five
Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act. I know it's
a mouthful, right, the two thousand and five Protection of
Lawful Commerce and Arms Act. In the case Smith and
Western Brams. Mexico alleged that US gun makers knowingly and
(01:39):
on purpose were actually facilitating the illegal sale of guns
to straw purchasers, who then took those guns and trafficked
those same guns into Mexico for use by the drug cartels.
So the Mexicans wanted ten billion dollars in damages, and
the argument was that the gun maker's actions fell under
the predicate exception to the Protection of Lawful Commerce and
(02:08):
Arms Act. That section allows lawsuits if a gun manufacturer
knowingly breaks the law, which is why gun manufacturers are
so very strict in how they manufacture and distribute their products.
Guess who wrote the opinion for the court? Do you
(02:31):
have any idea? Thomas Alito, Gorsuch, Roberts, Barrett cavanol Justice Kagan.
She stated that Mexico's complaint quote does not plausibly allege
that the gun makers aided or abetted illegal firearms sales,
thereby barring the barring blocking the case. Under the Protection
(02:57):
of Arms in Commerce, that law, passing two thousand and
five on a bipartisan basis, pretty much shields gun manufacturers
from liabilities for crimes committed with their products. Which only
makes sense. You manufacture a product, that product, indeed is
(03:23):
designed to kill. Sometimes it's designed to kill well, it
can kill just almost anything alive if you use it properly.
That sometimes if you use it improperly too. So the
purpose of a gun is to kill, for hunting or
for self defense. Now, the purpose of a gun is
also for sporting. You know they're sporting events. But how
(03:48):
can you hold anybody? Do we ever ever consider holding
the automobile manufacture liable for a drunk driver getting behind
the wheel. The vehicles designed to get someone from point
A to point B as efficiently and effectively as possible,
and in my case, as quickly as possible. But if
(04:12):
I make a choice to use that vehicle, you know,
forget the drunk driver. Instead, let's take all these yahoos
to keep taking cars and driving them into crowds and killing,
injuring and maiming people. Should we hold the automobile manufacture
of that particular auto that was used in that terrorist
(04:36):
attack liable? Because the auto was used in the terrorist attack,
Nobody in the right mind would think to do that.
But because a gun's a gun, everybody wants to try
to find a way to hold them liable. And that's
why this Act was passed in two thousand and five
to limit their liability. So back to the lawsuit filed
(04:57):
in twenty twenty one, even after seven major gun makers
and one wholesaler. It was filed of course in Massachusetts,
which dismissed the case in twenty twenty two. But then
the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Massachusetts, revived
it early last year and they ruled that the allegations
of aiding illegal sales warded further consideration. In other words,
(05:22):
well at least have a trial on it. Well, the
Supreme Court just shut it down and said no. Now,
according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and explosivelys
the ATF, somewhere between two hundred thousand and five hundred
thousand US made firearms or traffic tend to Mexico every
single year. You know, have you ever heard the phrase
(05:43):
Iron River. It's referred to as the Iron River. Nearly
half of the guns that Mexicans recover at Mexican crime
scenes are American made. Well, I'm not really surprised by
that at all, but and I don't have the ruling
right in front of me. But here's what I found
(06:04):
interesting about this case. One it upheld the product liability
protections for the gun manufacturers told Mexico to go pound sand.
But Elena Kagan, both in the oral arguments, and well,
let me rephrase that. Kagan in the opinion, and so
(06:26):
do Mayor in the oral arguments, made the case for
the AR fifteen. They without I can't read their minds,
but both of them referred to AR fifteens. And I'm
just paraphrasing here, just like you know, I don't have
(06:46):
this particular opinion in front of me. They both said
something to the effect that AR fifteens and all of
these weapons, including all of the other guns that were
involved in by these manufacturers, are weapons in common use
by Americans, and that there are some specifically referring to
(07:10):
the AR fifteen, that there are some twenty five to
thirty five I think was the number they used, millions
of those particular rifles in circulation and commonly used by
Americans for all sorts of purposes. Well, wait a minute, then,
(07:31):
why did they turn down the case earlier about the
ban on an AR fifteen when they themselves already know
that it's in common use, and you don't need to
wait for another circuit, as Kavanaugh was arguing for another circuit,
so we can have different opinions so we can decide
(07:52):
the case. Kagan's already pointed out that, and that's one
of the tests under both the Brewin case and the
Heller case about guns being in common use. Well, they've
admitted so. So while it's in my opinion, a significant
(08:13):
case because it protects the gun manufacturers, most people are
ignoring the fact that. And it look, let me be
perfectly clear here, the fact that they mentioned that in
the opinion and in the oral arguments has nothing to
do with the ban on the AR fifteens. But it
does give you some insight into their thinking. So if
(08:36):
I were involved in the other case, I would certainly
pull out those quotes from the oral arguments and from
this case. And when I'm making the case that the
ban on the AR fifteen is unconstitutional, I would point
out that at least two of the liberal Supreme Court
justices have pointed out that, oh, the AR fifteen is
indeed in common use and so therefore is protected by
(08:59):
the Second Amendment. Now, I want to mention one thing
which I was not going to do. But a Rod
brought it up. What'd you tell me? Dragon? What'd you
tell me? Ad that Steve Bannon is now out doing what.
Speaker 4 (09:14):
Steve Bannon is aiming to get some deportation going.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
I'm mister Elon Musk, are.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
You freaking kidding me? Steve Bannon? Shut up and sit down.
Speaker 4 (09:26):
He told Trump to investigate Musk's immigration status.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
This is why Republicans can't have nice things. My theory
about the fight between the two is take it behind
closed doors and quit talking about it. I know here
I am talking about it, but I'm talking about it.
I'm actually talking about Steve Bannon. This just feeds into
(09:54):
the Democrats. This just feeds into their Oh there's a
spot going on. So now Elon's lashed out of Trump
over you know, by the way, you're the thing that
he did the Elon did. He said, Oh, this is
why of the Epstein files haven't been released, because Trump
must be in there. This shows how Asperger's works, because
(10:16):
if you really thought about the Epstein files purely in
political terms, and if indeed now there's probably lots of
people now I can say I'm equivoctly. I've never even
flown on Epstein's plane, let alone, let alone gone to
the island or any of his other homes at all.
(10:38):
I never never met Jeffrey Epstein, but there are a
lot of people who flew with him to business conferences
or went to meetings, but didn't go to the island,
or didn't go to any of his homes. They went
to the you know, they went to the Four Seasons
for a conference together or something. Uh So, if just
(11:02):
if Trump's name was on a flight log somewhere other
than to a business conference or other than going say
from New York to West Palm. In other words, if
the Trump name was on the flight logs going to
the island, you don't think that that would have been released.
(11:26):
Oh I don't know, maybe by Hillary Clinton back in
twenty sixteen seventeen, or it wouldn't have been released by
Joe Biden back in the twenty twenty election. Come on,
Elon's losing it, and by doing so, he's giving all
sorts of firepower and argument to keep the story alive. Now,
(11:49):
I haven't really been paying attention to the monitors in
front of me this morning, but I don't think there's
been other than what I heard on Fox and Friends
earlier today. I don't think it's really been that big
of a deal. I think people are kind of like, yeah,
a couple of rich guys fighting, let them fight it
out and let's move on.
Speaker 4 (12:07):
Well, Steve Bannon thinks they should go even further than
just elon. He also said Trump should sign an executive
order calling for the Defense Production Act to be called
in on SpaceX and seize SpaceX.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Lordie, let's see what is it about the I know
that I've actually used the Defense Production Act to get
manufacturers to produce some materials that we needed in disasters,
but it was pretty much in nego shaded deal. I
think using the DPA to just seize property might be
(12:48):
in violation of the Fifth Amendment prohibition against the takings
of private property without due process. I don't think that's
gonna work too well. Steve Bannon shut up in Sam
Good to Canada for a moment. Crime rates are increasing
in colonized Canada because it's colonized, right, I mean, you
(13:10):
know they what was it? King Charles came over and
he was giving a speech in Parliament and he referred
to that we recognize that we are on the hallowed
grounds of whatever or Native Americans, whatever Indian tribe it was,
wherever it was in Ottawa that they were sitting. Yeah,
well whatever, you know what you won, You took over
the lands. It's over done. Forget it. Well anyway, here's
(13:33):
what the York Regional Police do with their time and
of course with a taxpayer money. The York Regional Police
participated in a drag Queen breakfast during Pride Month. The
event was organized by the York Regional Police Pride Internal
Support Network. It was aimed to celebrate diversity and inclusivity
within the police force and the broader community. Now I
(13:55):
would play the video for you, but it's just someone
in drag dancing and there's not really much to say here.
But they continue to host events promoting inclusivity and diversity.
They've got the Muslim Faith Family Day that's scheduled later
this month, which I find kind of interesting because if
you're Muslim and you're gay, or you're in drag and
(14:18):
you happen to be in a Muslim dominated country, well,
they're going to hang you by the cranes or they're
going to push you off the roof, I would suggest.
Because of the rising crime rates, that they might actually
spend more of their time. Oh, I don't know, defending
taxpayers from criminals. But then that might have a disparate
impact at the expense of inclusivity and diversity. I just
(14:45):
boggles my mind what goes on sometimes. The decline and
follow the Democrat Party is such a huge story that
yesterday CNN even noticed, Yeah, well, hang.
Speaker 1 (14:59):
On, here we go all of the waves.
Speaker 3 (15:01):
Cap Paul went after the last few months, the first
five months of the Donald Trump presidency, right of the
first four months of the Donald Trump presidency, that you
expect that Democrats are have this massive lead.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
On the economy. It ain't so.
Speaker 3 (15:12):
It ain't so the party that is closest to your
economic views. And November of twenty twenty three, it was
the Republicans by eleven points. Now it's still within that range,
still within that margin umber plus eight point advantage for
the Republican Party.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
How is that possible? Democrats? How is that possible?
Speaker 3 (15:27):
After all the recession peers, after the stock market's been
doing all of this, after all the terrorists that Americans
are against, and Republicans still hold an eight point lead
on the economy.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
Are you kidding me?
Speaker 3 (15:37):
If it was just the one CNN Paul, that would
be one thing. But take a look at Reuter's ipsos.
What do we see here, Party with a better Economic Plan? Well,
it may have twenty twenty four, just before Donald Trump
was reelected president, Republicans had a.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
Nine point advantage.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
Look at where we are now, it may have twenty
twenty five, the advantage actually went up by three points.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
Now, this guy's so animated, it's so he's about to
be his pants over these numbers. He's so upset about it.
CNN kind of sucks, doesn't it.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
Now Republicans have a twelve point advantage when it comes
to the Party with a Better Economic Plan. And again,
this is after months of supposing economic uncertainty, in which
the stock market's been going bonkers, in which the tariff
wars that Americans or against have been going on. And
yet despite all of that, the Democrats are down by
twelve points on the economy.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
This feaks the.
Speaker 3 (16:28):
Democratic problems on the economy better than basically anything that
you could possibly look at. The Republicans still hold an
advantage on the all important key issue of the day,
which is the Party of the middle class. Has been
a huge advantage for Democrats. I have polling from NBC
going all the way back since nineteen eighty nine when
Democrats had a twenty three point advantage twenty six.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
Now this is which is the which party is the
Party of the middle class? And he's pointing out the
going They have polling going back to nineteen eighty nine.
They show Democrats were up twenty three plus twenty three
in turn of which is the party of the middle class.
So that's where we're going. That's there was a there
was a cut in the editing of this video, and
(17:09):
that's that's where he's at now.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
Of the day, which is the Party of the middle class,
has been a huge advantage for Democrats. I have polling
from NBC going all the way back since nineteen eighty
nine when Democrats had a twenty three point advantage twenty
sixteen seventeen point evtage. But by this decade we already
started seeing declines. Back in twenty twenty two where you
saw that Democrats led but only by four points, well
within the margin of er And now in our latest
(17:31):
CNM poll among registered voters, which is the Party of
the middle class, it is tied. This I think speaks
to Democraticals more than anything of They have traditionally been
the party of.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
The middle class. No more.
Speaker 3 (17:42):
Donald Trump and the Republican Party have taken that mantle away,
and now a key advantage for Democrats historically has gone
Audios amigos, and now there is no party that is
the party.
Speaker 5 (17:51):
All right, Michael, Sorry he didn't have any talkbacks. I'll
add one. But you guys been doing a great job
all week. Well you know the point you could with
Dragon being gone. But yeah, I'll catch the taxpayer relief
shops coming up, and you know, we'll catch it this
weekend on the weekend show. So, I mean, you can
(18:11):
only do so much with the help they give you, right,
I know, I know, all right, I have a great
week athletic, you know.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
And and and the fact that his last name is Rodriguez,
you know, so it's you know, it's just that whole
what you get a broken finger back there? What was that?
Speaker 1 (18:27):
I stretch?
Speaker 2 (18:28):
Wait wait a minute, oh, because I'd hate to have
to start scrambling to find our HR department. No, I
just stretched just oh you're just stretching, just stretching those fingers.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
That's the finger you saw?
Speaker 2 (18:39):
Oh oh, oh, I see. By the way, do you
know where the HR department is? Because Dragon, I haven't
been able to find it anywhere.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
No, no, no, idea.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
What about the Engineering support department? You found that department?
To the engineering support Yeah? No, the what? Yeah? Yeah? Wait,
by the way, you may turn the light on so
we can have the little flashing. It'd be like a
little discoing here if I turn on those. We've got this,
we've got this panel of fluorescent Well you know my
(19:07):
bitch about the lights in the studio. Well, now one
of the panels that has the really nasty fluorescent bulbs
in it, two bulbs are doing the flashy. So I
would have like probably a migraine or I don't know,
maybe an aneurysm, or i'd have an epileptic fit if
I left them on for four hours.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
And they're called raves, Michael, they're called what raves?
Speaker 2 (19:29):
Oh, we're in a rage? Is that what we're doing? Well? No,
when somebody come in here and then kind of rave
me out of here real quickly.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
No, No, we're at a party. Oh yeah, you're welcome,
thank you. Yeah. You know, when you get older, you
know terminology.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
Well I know, and you know for me, this is
quite the wild party. I got a diet Go from
the quick trip.
Speaker 4 (19:57):
Yeah, you're seeing things. I think it's the lights.
Speaker 2 (20:00):
That's just me. The But we got a lot of
court cases talk about today because there's another one that's out.
But this is not the US Supreme Court. But I
want to start out with US Supreme Court because remember
Judge Boseburg, he was the federal district judge that told
Trump that he could not deport the illegal aliens from
(20:26):
Venezuela that were tied to Trenda Ragua, that they were
all due process. Well, the court, the US Supreme Court
intervened upheld Judge Boseburg's decision, but in doing so made
things worse by their opinion. Since that time, judges all
(20:48):
across the country, taking their cue from the Supreme Court,
keep halting all of these deportations that are being done
under the Alien Enemies at which is an act that
gives plenary power to the President that when they're you know,
(21:11):
in times of you've got an alien invasion and they
are illegal aliens and they present a national security threat,
they present a threat to the citizens of this country,
then you can take action to get rid of them. Well,
(21:32):
all these judges, because of the Supreme Court intervening where
they should not have intervened, we now get a court
that says, wait a minute, regardless of what the Supreme
Court says, I'm including, I'm going to conclude. Let me
just read the opinion. This comes from Judge John Holcombe.
(21:53):
Now he is a Trump appointee. He's on a federal
district court in Central California. But he made very clear
his view that the judiciary is trespassing on authority that
is granted exclusively to the executive branch. He wrote this,
This court concludes that while the court, meaning the Supreme Court,
(22:17):
may interpret the Alien Enemies Act, that interpretation is limited
to deciding whether the President has found that an invasion
or predatory incursion has been perpetrated, attempted, or threatened. And
because the President has made such a finding in this instance,
(22:39):
then this Court may not entertain the defendant's various challenges
to the findings contained in the proclamation or to the
president's exercise of his Alien Enemies Act authority. He continues,
the plain text of the Alien Enemies Act makes that
(23:00):
the president's authority to detain and remove non citizens hinges
upon the President's proclamation that quote any invasion or predatory
incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of
the United States. He continues to write the aea the
Alien Mmies Act grant of authority to the president is
(23:23):
very close to unlimited, and it includes the ability to
decide whether an invasion or predatory incursion has incurred. So
he then went on after making that statement to conclude
that the plaintiffs who were trying to stop from getting
deported is unlikely to succeed on the merits of his
claim that the proclamation itself is unlawful. It's really worth
(23:47):
a read because he's basically pointing out the premise for
him making Trump making these deportations is that there has
been an invasion, that they are a danger to the country,
they are a national security threat, and the Alien Enemies
Act requires me to make a proclamation declaring that that's
(24:11):
what I find because who exercises foreign policy, who exercises
national security? Now that's power that was given to the
president by Congress. So if you want to argue that, well,
Congress has a role to play. They played their role.
They played their role, and they gave that authority to
(24:31):
the president, and now he's taken What they're really pissed
off is he's taken that authority and he's declared that
the members of these cartels and MS thirteen and Trenda
Ragua present a national security threat to the country. And
we know that they do. How can I make the
(24:54):
claim that we know that they do well, they're involved
in human trafficking, sex trafficking. You look at what went
on out here in Aurora and in Denver, you look
at what they do all across the country. They are
a threat to the national security this country. Go back
to the case where Mexico sued about all of these
weapons that are going across the Rio Grande, and one
(25:16):
of the little fact toys that we kind of glossed
oliver is that close to one hundred percent of the
weapons committed by criminals in Mexico or American weapons, Well,
how do those weapons get there? The cartels. So they're
actually a national security threat, not just to us, they're
a national security threat to Mexico. And Mexico wants to
(25:37):
sue the gun manufacturers. Mexico fails to enforce their laws.
The Mexico is basically a failed state, and the cartails
are essentially in control. Well, if they are essentially in
control of a country the size of Mexico, with the
resources that Mexico has, that has a huge border with US,
(26:00):
that's a national security threat to US, separate and apart
from the activities that those gang members do inside this country.
So if you have a chance to read the case,
I would But the Texas case, this is the Bozburg case.
It's set for oral arguments before the Fifth Circuit I
(26:21):
think at the end of this month. And Judge James
Hoe has in that case eviscerated the Supreme Court for
kicking the case back to his appellate court. Now, once
the Fifth Circuit rules, and that could take months, the
entire Alien Enemies Act issue will finally get back to
(26:41):
the Supreme Court. Well, what then he gets back one
of the majority of justices agree with other judges that
have been making these restraining orders all over the country
and stopping these deportations. One if the majority of the
judges agree with other judges, including both Bergen Hulgm, that
(27:02):
the judiciary doesn't really have any role in the administration
of the Alien Enemies Act. If so then how can
the court nonetheless demand some sort of due process right
for those covered by the AEA the Alien Enemies Act.
You see as a big believer in due process, if
you're an enemy alien of this country. It's why, for example,
(27:26):
we took KSM clique Sheik Muhammad. It's why we took
him to Guantanamo Bay because we did not want him
on American soil where a lawyer could then claim that
he's entitled to all his due process rights. Well, if
you're declared to be an alien enemy and all we're
doing is deporting you, we're not charging with a crime. No,
(27:49):
we're not doing that. Although you're guilty of a crime
by being in the country illegally, particularly if you left
and come back, that doesn't at that point become a felony.
But that's not what we're doing. We're not taking them
to court to charge them with the crimes. We're simply
getting them out of the country. It would be as
if if maybe it's not a perfect analogy, but it
(28:10):
would be as if let's say Japan decided to invade
us again and they invade Pearl Harbor, and instead of uh,
you know, we would capture, we would capture whatever Japanese
we could, and then we would probably send them back
to Japan prisoners of war, ship them back to Japan.
Would we take them to a federal court in San
(28:31):
Francisco and try them because they destroyed federal property in
Pearl Harbor. No, we would treat them as enemies alien
and get them out of the country. They wouldn't be
entitled to DOE process. So, unintended or not, the consequences
of this debacle regarding the alien enemies that created by
(28:53):
the Spring Court is now beginning to play out in
Non Alien Enemies Act litigation. There was a appointed judge
just this week without allowing Trump administration to respond, and
it said to me, with just in a few hours
of the filing of the lawsuit halted the wife and
the children of the guy up and Boulder that attempted
(29:16):
to kill all of those people honoring the Jewish hostages.
Now the family members are also Egyptian citizens, and best
I can tell from the record, are also here illegally,
so why not deport them? Well, federal judge here stopped
that too. The Supreme Courts made a huge mess of this.
(29:37):
They got to clean it up, so they dumped. They
pooped out this stupid beast. On Tuesday, Lauren Competti was
watching the news with her husband at their home in
Cincinnati when she heard about the new federal policy about
who should get a COVID vaccine. She says, I started crying.
I was like, am I really not going to be
able to get this vaccine? Why? That's absolutely terrifying. She's
(30:00):
sold MPR now competitive who's thirty years old and about
five months pregnant. That means she's at high risk for
serious complications from COVID, But the CDC has dropped its
recommendation that healthy pregnant women routinely get vaccinated against the virus. Now,
(30:21):
I'm just reading the story because I you know, I
don't believe in the whole idea that the COVID vaccine
is actually a vaccine. It's a shot, doesn't It's like
a flu shot. So anyway, that means that many insurance
companies probably won't pay for the shops anymore. Now, if
insurance really doesn't pay the risky, generally unnecessary vaccines can
(30:42):
cost as much as two hundred bucks. The only reasonable
response to that crisis theme is to panic, and panic's
useful because it can then be exploited to justify all
manner of repression and of course wasteful spending by the
federal government. And here it's being used to rally the
useful idiots among us against Donald Trump, and Congress tried
(31:04):
to do that. Doctor Peter McCullough delivered one of the
probably the most powerful moments of a hearing on the
vaccine or on the shot. Senator Richard Blumenthal had previously
claimed that the COVID shots saved three million lives. Doctor
McCullum was sitting there, and he quickly dismantled that false narrative.
Speaker 6 (31:27):
When someone's signs consent for a vaccine center of bloementhal
does the consent forms say it's going to save their lives?
Speaker 1 (31:33):
Of course it doesn't. It's not on the FAQ.
Speaker 6 (31:36):
There's never been a prospective, randomized, double blind, pursuper control
trial ever showing that COVID nineteen vaccines reduced mortality or hospitalization.
There's not even a valid, non randomized study. Thankfully, COVID
mortality went down for three reasons because we all got
the infection vaccinated and unvaccinated, so we developed population natural immunity.
(31:58):
We developed early treatment credit to operation warp speed. We
used all the operational warp speed tools, additional drugs. We
treated patients with multi drug protocols at home so they
don't go to the er. So Governor Green never saw
the patients we treated because they were successfully treated at home.
And the third reason is the virus mutated to a
much milder form. Those things happen concurrently with rollout of
(32:21):
the vaccine. The vaccine cannot be falsely credited with saving
millions of lives.
Speaker 1 (32:27):
We can't allow false drug advertising to.
Speaker 6 (32:29):
Be put up on a poster behind one of our
public servants. We cannot accept that.
Speaker 2 (32:34):
So let me quit. The senator gets handed his hat.
Natural immunity did the heavy lifting. Obviously, early treatment with
a protocol of all sorts of combination of drugs kept
people out of the hospitals in the emergency rooms. The
(32:56):
virus naturally mutated into a milder form. So, as doctor
McColo says, you cannot conclude that or you cannot claim
that the vaccine credit can be credited with saving millions
of lives. It's just simply not true. And in fact,
he calls it false drug advertising. I'd love to see
(33:18):
them get shot down,
Talkbacks.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
You want talkbacks? How about you kiss Mike.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Oh wait a minute, it's Friday.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
Uh have a nice week.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
In Yeah, whenever youthink all of that, just back off.
So the gun case that I referred to that I
don't spend a lot of time on them all the way,
I think it's significant for a reason that mate, I'm
not sure a lot of other people are picking up
(00:29):
on the court again unanimously interestingly ruled yesterday that a
lawsuit was brought by the Mexican government. They were trying
to hold all, virtually all American gun manufacturers liable. The
case is uh, Mexico versus Smith and Western, or something
(00:55):
to that effect. Anyway, they wanted to rule that, they
wanted to rule. They were trying to get it decided.
They were trying to hold American gun manufacturers accountable for
firearm trafficking and for the cartel's violence. Now, this is
a huge decision for the US firearms industry because it
(01:18):
affirms the protections offered under the two thousand and five
Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act. I know it's
a mouthful, right, the two thousand and five Protection of
Lawful Commerce and Arms Act. In the case Smith and
Western Brams. Mexico alleged that US gun makers knowingly and
(01:39):
on purpose were actually facilitating the illegal sale of guns
to straw purchasers, who then took those guns and trafficked
those same guns into Mexico for use by the drug cartels.
So the Mexicans wanted ten billion dollars in damages, and
the argument was that the gun maker's actions fell under
the predicate exception to the Protection of Lawful Commerce and
(02:08):
Arms Act. That section allows lawsuits if a gun manufacturer
knowingly breaks the law, which is why gun manufacturers are
so very strict in how they manufacture and distribute their products.
Guess who wrote the opinion for the court? Do you
(02:31):
have any idea? Thomas Alito, Gorsuch, Roberts, Barrett cavanol Justice Kagan.
She stated that Mexico's complaint quote does not plausibly allege
that the gun makers aided or abetted illegal firearms sales,
thereby barring the barring blocking the case. Under the Protection
(02:57):
of Arms in Commerce, that law, passing two thousand and
five on a bipartisan basis, pretty much shields gun manufacturers
from liabilities for crimes committed with their products. Which only
makes sense. You manufacture a product, that product, indeed is
(03:23):
designed to kill. Sometimes it's designed to kill well, it
can kill just almost anything alive if you use it properly.
That sometimes if you use it improperly too. So the
purpose of a gun is to kill, for hunting or
for self defense. Now, the purpose of a gun is
also for sporting. You know they're sporting events. But how
(03:48):
can you hold anybody? Do we ever ever consider holding
the automobile manufacture liable for a drunk driver getting behind
the wheel. The vehicles designed to get someone from point
A to point B as efficiently and effectively as possible,
and in my case, as quickly as possible. But if
(04:12):
I make a choice to use that vehicle, you know,
forget the drunk driver. Instead, let's take all these yahoos
to keep taking cars and driving them into crowds and killing,
injuring and maiming people. Should we hold the automobile manufacture
of that particular auto that was used in that terrorist
(04:36):
attack liable? Because the auto was used in the terrorist attack,
Nobody in the right mind would think to do that.
But because a gun's a gun, everybody wants to try
to find a way to hold them liable. And that's
why this Act was passed in two thousand and five
to limit their liability. So back to the lawsuit filed
(04:57):
in twenty twenty one, even after seven major gun makers
and one wholesaler. It was filed of course in Massachusetts,
which dismissed the case in twenty twenty two. But then
the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Massachusetts, revived
it early last year and they ruled that the allegations
of aiding illegal sales warded further consideration. In other words,
(05:22):
well at least have a trial on it. Well, the
Supreme Court just shut it down and said no. Now,
according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and explosivelys
the ATF, somewhere between two hundred thousand and five hundred
thousand US made firearms or traffic tend to Mexico every
single year. You know, have you ever heard the phrase
(05:43):
Iron River. It's referred to as the Iron River. Nearly
half of the guns that Mexicans recover at Mexican crime
scenes are American made. Well, I'm not really surprised by
that at all, but and I don't have the ruling
right in front of me. But here's what I found
(06:04):
interesting about this case. One it upheld the product liability
protections for the gun manufacturers told Mexico to go pound sand.
But Elena Kagan, both in the oral arguments, and well,
let me rephrase that. Kagan in the opinion, and so
(06:26):
do Mayor in the oral arguments, made the case for
the AR fifteen. They without I can't read their minds,
but both of them referred to AR fifteens. And I'm
just paraphrasing here, just like you know, I don't have
(06:46):
this particular opinion in front of me. They both said
something to the effect that AR fifteens and all of
these weapons, including all of the other guns that were
involved in by these manufacturers, are weapons in common use
by Americans, and that there are some specifically referring to
(07:10):
the AR fifteen, that there are some twenty five to
thirty five I think was the number they used, millions
of those particular rifles in circulation and commonly used by
Americans for all sorts of purposes. Well, wait a minute, then,
(07:31):
why did they turn down the case earlier about the
ban on an AR fifteen when they themselves already know
that it's in common use, and you don't need to
wait for another circuit, as Kavanaugh was arguing for another circuit,
so we can have different opinions so we can decide
(07:52):
the case. Kagan's already pointed out that, and that's one
of the tests under both the Brewin case and the
Heller case about guns being in common use. Well, they've
admitted so. So while it's in my opinion, a significant
(08:13):
case because it protects the gun manufacturers, most people are
ignoring the fact that. And it look, let me be
perfectly clear here, the fact that they mentioned that in
the opinion and in the oral arguments has nothing to
do with the ban on the AR fifteens. But it
does give you some insight into their thinking. So if
(08:36):
I were involved in the other case, I would certainly
pull out those quotes from the oral arguments and from
this case. And when I'm making the case that the
ban on the AR fifteen is unconstitutional, I would point
out that at least two of the liberal Supreme Court
justices have pointed out that, oh, the AR fifteen is
indeed in common use and so therefore is protected by
(08:59):
the Second Amendment. Now, I want to mention one thing
which I was not going to do. But a Rod
brought it up. What'd you tell me? Dragon? What'd you
tell me? Ad that Steve Bannon is now out doing what.
Speaker 4 (09:14):
Steve Bannon is aiming to get some deportation going.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
I'm mister Elon Musk, are.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
You freaking kidding me? Steve Bannon? Shut up and sit down.
Speaker 4 (09:26):
He told Trump to investigate Musk's immigration status.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
This is why Republicans can't have nice things. My theory
about the fight between the two is take it behind
closed doors and quit talking about it. I know here
I am talking about it, but I'm talking about it.
I'm actually talking about Steve Bannon. This just feeds into
(09:54):
the Democrats. This just feeds into their Oh there's a
spot going on. So now Elon's lashed out of Trump
over you know, by the way, you're the thing that
he did the Elon did. He said, Oh, this is
why of the Epstein files haven't been released, because Trump
must be in there. This shows how Asperger's works, because
(10:16):
if you really thought about the Epstein files purely in
political terms, and if indeed now there's probably lots of
people now I can say I'm equivoctly. I've never even
flown on Epstein's plane, let alone, let alone gone to
the island or any of his other homes at all.
(10:38):
I never never met Jeffrey Epstein, but there are a
lot of people who flew with him to business conferences
or went to meetings, but didn't go to the island,
or didn't go to any of his homes. They went
to the you know, they went to the Four Seasons
for a conference together or something. Uh So, if just
(11:02):
if Trump's name was on a flight log somewhere other
than to a business conference or other than going say
from New York to West Palm. In other words, if
the Trump name was on the flight logs going to
the island, you don't think that that would have been released.
(11:26):
Oh I don't know, maybe by Hillary Clinton back in
twenty sixteen seventeen, or it wouldn't have been released by
Joe Biden back in the twenty twenty election. Come on,
Elon's losing it, and by doing so, he's giving all
sorts of firepower and argument to keep the story alive. Now,
(11:49):
I haven't really been paying attention to the monitors in
front of me this morning, but I don't think there's
been other than what I heard on Fox and Friends
earlier today. I don't think it's really been that big
of a deal. I think people are kind of like, yeah,
a couple of rich guys fighting, let them fight it
out and let's move on.
Speaker 4 (12:07):
Well, Steve Bannon thinks they should go even further than
just elon. He also said Trump should sign an executive
order calling for the Defense Production Act to be called
in on SpaceX and seize SpaceX.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Lordie, let's see what is it about the I know
that I've actually used the Defense Production Act to get
manufacturers to produce some materials that we needed in disasters,
but it was pretty much in nego shaded deal. I
think using the DPA to just seize property might be
(12:48):
in violation of the Fifth Amendment prohibition against the takings
of private property without due process. I don't think that's
gonna work too well. Steve Bannon shut up in Sam
Good to Canada for a moment. Crime rates are increasing
in colonized Canada because it's colonized, right, I mean, you
(13:10):
know they what was it? King Charles came over and
he was giving a speech in Parliament and he referred
to that we recognize that we are on the hallowed
grounds of whatever or Native Americans, whatever Indian tribe it was,
wherever it was in Ottawa that they were sitting. Yeah,
well whatever, you know what you won, You took over
the lands. It's over done. Forget it. Well anyway, here's
(13:33):
what the York Regional Police do with their time and
of course with a taxpayer money. The York Regional Police
participated in a drag Queen breakfast during Pride Month. The
event was organized by the York Regional Police Pride Internal
Support Network. It was aimed to celebrate diversity and inclusivity
within the police force and the broader community. Now I
(13:55):
would play the video for you, but it's just someone
in drag dancing and there's not really much to say here.
But they continue to host events promoting inclusivity and diversity.
They've got the Muslim Faith Family Day that's scheduled later
this month, which I find kind of interesting because if
you're Muslim and you're gay, or you're in drag and
(14:18):
you happen to be in a Muslim dominated country, well,
they're going to hang you by the cranes or they're
going to push you off the roof, I would suggest.
Because of the rising crime rates, that they might actually
spend more of their time. Oh, I don't know, defending
taxpayers from criminals. But then that might have a disparate
impact at the expense of inclusivity and diversity. I just
(14:45):
boggles my mind what goes on sometimes. The decline and
follow the Democrat Party is such a huge story that
yesterday CNN even noticed, Yeah, well, hang.
Speaker 1 (14:59):
On, here we go all of the waves.
Speaker 3 (15:01):
Cap Paul went after the last few months, the first
five months of the Donald Trump presidency, right of the
first four months of the Donald Trump presidency, that you
expect that Democrats are have this massive lead.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
On the economy. It ain't so.
Speaker 3 (15:12):
It ain't so the party that is closest to your
economic views. And November of twenty twenty three, it was
the Republicans by eleven points. Now it's still within that range,
still within that margin umber plus eight point advantage for
the Republican Party.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
How is that possible? Democrats? How is that possible?
Speaker 3 (15:27):
After all the recession peers, after the stock market's been
doing all of this, after all the terrorists that Americans
are against, and Republicans still hold an eight point lead
on the economy.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
Are you kidding me?
Speaker 3 (15:37):
If it was just the one CNN Paul, that would
be one thing. But take a look at Reuter's ipsos.
What do we see here, Party with a better Economic Plan? Well,
it may have twenty twenty four, just before Donald Trump
was reelected president, Republicans had a.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
Nine point advantage.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
Look at where we are now, it may have twenty
twenty five, the advantage actually went up by three points.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
Now, this guy's so animated, it's so he's about to
be his pants over these numbers. He's so upset about it.
CNN kind of sucks, doesn't it.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
Now Republicans have a twelve point advantage when it comes
to the Party with a Better Economic Plan. And again,
this is after months of supposing economic uncertainty, in which
the stock market's been going bonkers, in which the tariff
wars that Americans or against have been going on. And
yet despite all of that, the Democrats are down by
twelve points on the economy.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
This feaks the.
Speaker 3 (16:28):
Democratic problems on the economy better than basically anything that
you could possibly look at. The Republicans still hold an
advantage on the all important key issue of the day,
which is the Party of the middle class. Has been
a huge advantage for Democrats. I have polling from NBC
going all the way back since nineteen eighty nine when
Democrats had a twenty three point advantage twenty six.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
Now this is which is the which party is the
Party of the middle class? And he's pointing out the
going They have polling going back to nineteen eighty nine.
They show Democrats were up twenty three plus twenty three
in turn of which is the party of the middle class.
So that's where we're going. That's there was a there
was a cut in the editing of this video, and
(17:09):
that's that's where he's at now.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
Of the day, which is the Party of the middle class,
has been a huge advantage for Democrats. I have polling
from NBC going all the way back since nineteen eighty
nine when Democrats had a twenty three point advantage twenty
sixteen seventeen point evtage. But by this decade we already
started seeing declines. Back in twenty twenty two where you
saw that Democrats led but only by four points, well
within the margin of er And now in our latest
(17:31):
CNM poll among registered voters, which is the Party of
the middle class, it is tied. This I think speaks
to Democraticals more than anything of They have traditionally been
the party of.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
The middle class. No more.
Speaker 3 (17:42):
Donald Trump and the Republican Party have taken that mantle away,
and now a key advantage for Democrats historically has gone
Audios amigos, and now there is no party that is
the party.
Speaker 5 (17:51):
All right, Michael, Sorry he didn't have any talkbacks. I'll
add one. But you guys been doing a great job
all week. Well you know the point you could with
Dragon being gone. But yeah, I'll catch the taxpayer relief
shops coming up, and you know, we'll catch it this
weekend on the weekend show. So, I mean, you can
(18:11):
only do so much with the help they give you, right,
I know, I know, all right, I have a great
week athletic, you know.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
And and and the fact that his last name is Rodriguez,
you know, so it's you know, it's just that whole
what you get a broken finger back there? What was that?
Speaker 1 (18:27):
I stretch?
Speaker 2 (18:28):
Wait wait a minute, oh, because I'd hate to have
to start scrambling to find our HR department. No, I
just stretched just oh you're just stretching, just stretching those fingers.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
That's the finger you saw?
Speaker 2 (18:39):
Oh oh, oh, I see. By the way, do you
know where the HR department is? Because Dragon, I haven't
been able to find it anywhere.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
No, no, no, idea.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
What about the Engineering support department? You found that department?
To the engineering support Yeah? No, the what? Yeah? Yeah? Wait,
by the way, you may turn the light on so
we can have the little flashing. It'd be like a
little discoing here if I turn on those. We've got this,
we've got this panel of fluorescent Well you know my
(19:07):
bitch about the lights in the studio. Well, now one
of the panels that has the really nasty fluorescent bulbs
in it, two bulbs are doing the flashy. So I
would have like probably a migraine or I don't know,
maybe an aneurysm, or i'd have an epileptic fit if
I left them on for four hours.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
And they're called raves, Michael, they're called what raves?
Speaker 2 (19:29):
Oh, we're in a rage? Is that what we're doing? Well? No,
when somebody come in here and then kind of rave
me out of here real quickly.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
No, No, we're at a party. Oh yeah, you're welcome,
thank you. Yeah. You know, when you get older, you
know terminology.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
Well I know, and you know for me, this is
quite the wild party. I got a diet Go from
the quick trip.
Speaker 4 (19:57):
Yeah, you're seeing things. I think it's the lights.
Speaker 2 (20:00):
That's just me. The But we got a lot of
court cases talk about today because there's another one that's out.
But this is not the US Supreme Court. But I
want to start out with US Supreme Court because remember
Judge Boseburg, he was the federal district judge that told
Trump that he could not deport the illegal aliens from
(20:26):
Venezuela that were tied to Trenda Ragua, that they were
all due process. Well, the court, the US Supreme Court
intervened upheld Judge Boseburg's decision, but in doing so made
things worse by their opinion. Since that time, judges all
(20:48):
across the country, taking their cue from the Supreme Court,
keep halting all of these deportations that are being done
under the Alien Enemies at which is an act that
gives plenary power to the President that when they're you know,
(21:11):
in times of you've got an alien invasion and they
are illegal aliens and they present a national security threat,
they present a threat to the citizens of this country,
then you can take action to get rid of them. Well,
(21:32):
all these judges, because of the Supreme Court intervening where
they should not have intervened, we now get a court
that says, wait a minute, regardless of what the Supreme
Court says, I'm including, I'm going to conclude. Let me
just read the opinion. This comes from Judge John Holcombe.
(21:53):
Now he is a Trump appointee. He's on a federal
district court in Central California. But he made very clear
his view that the judiciary is trespassing on authority that
is granted exclusively to the executive branch. He wrote this,
This court concludes that while the court, meaning the Supreme Court,
(22:17):
may interpret the Alien Enemies Act, that interpretation is limited
to deciding whether the President has found that an invasion
or predatory incursion has been perpetrated, attempted, or threatened. And
because the President has made such a finding in this instance,
(22:39):
then this Court may not entertain the defendant's various challenges
to the findings contained in the proclamation or to the
president's exercise of his Alien Enemies Act authority. He continues,
the plain text of the Alien Enemies Act makes that
(23:00):
the president's authority to detain and remove non citizens hinges
upon the President's proclamation that quote any invasion or predatory
incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of
the United States. He continues to write the aea the
Alien Mmies Act grant of authority to the president is
(23:23):
very close to unlimited, and it includes the ability to
decide whether an invasion or predatory incursion has incurred. So
he then went on after making that statement to conclude
that the plaintiffs who were trying to stop from getting
deported is unlikely to succeed on the merits of his
claim that the proclamation itself is unlawful. It's really worth
(23:47):
a read because he's basically pointing out the premise for
him making Trump making these deportations is that there has
been an invasion, that they are a danger to the country,
they are a national security threat, and the Alien Enemies
Act requires me to make a proclamation declaring that that's
(24:11):
what I find because who exercises foreign policy, who exercises
national security? Now that's power that was given to the
president by Congress. So if you want to argue that, well,
Congress has a role to play. They played their role.
They played their role, and they gave that authority to
(24:31):
the president, and now he's taken What they're really pissed
off is he's taken that authority and he's declared that
the members of these cartels and MS thirteen and Trenda
Ragua present a national security threat to the country. And
we know that they do. How can I make the
(24:54):
claim that we know that they do well, they're involved
in human trafficking, sex trafficking. You look at what went
on out here in Aurora and in Denver, you look
at what they do all across the country. They are
a threat to the national security this country. Go back
to the case where Mexico sued about all of these
weapons that are going across the Rio Grande, and one
(25:16):
of the little fact toys that we kind of glossed
oliver is that close to one hundred percent of the
weapons committed by criminals in Mexico or American weapons, Well,
how do those weapons get there? The cartels. So they're
actually a national security threat, not just to us, they're
a national security threat to Mexico. And Mexico wants to
(25:37):
sue the gun manufacturers. Mexico fails to enforce their laws.
The Mexico is basically a failed state, and the cartails
are essentially in control. Well, if they are essentially in
control of a country the size of Mexico, with the
resources that Mexico has, that has a huge border with US,
(26:00):
that's a national security threat to US, separate and apart
from the activities that those gang members do inside this country.
So if you have a chance to read the case,
I would But the Texas case, this is the Bozburg case.
It's set for oral arguments before the Fifth Circuit I
(26:21):
think at the end of this month. And Judge James
Hoe has in that case eviscerated the Supreme Court for
kicking the case back to his appellate court. Now, once
the Fifth Circuit rules, and that could take months, the
entire Alien Enemies Act issue will finally get back to
(26:41):
the Supreme Court. Well, what then he gets back one
of the majority of justices agree with other judges that
have been making these restraining orders all over the country
and stopping these deportations. One if the majority of the
judges agree with other judges, including both Bergen Hulgm, that
(27:02):
the judiciary doesn't really have any role in the administration
of the Alien Enemies Act. If so then how can
the court nonetheless demand some sort of due process right
for those covered by the AEA the Alien Enemies Act.
You see as a big believer in due process, if
you're an enemy alien of this country. It's why, for example,
(27:26):
we took KSM clique Sheik Muhammad. It's why we took
him to Guantanamo Bay because we did not want him
on American soil where a lawyer could then claim that
he's entitled to all his due process rights. Well, if
you're declared to be an alien enemy and all we're
doing is deporting you, we're not charging with a crime. No,
(27:49):
we're not doing that. Although you're guilty of a crime
by being in the country illegally, particularly if you left
and come back, that doesn't at that point become a felony.
But that's not what we're doing. We're not taking them
to court to charge them with the crimes. We're simply
getting them out of the country. It would be as
if if maybe it's not a perfect analogy, but it
(28:10):
would be as if let's say Japan decided to invade
us again and they invade Pearl Harbor, and instead of uh,
you know, we would capture, we would capture whatever Japanese
we could, and then we would probably send them back
to Japan prisoners of war, ship them back to Japan.
Would we take them to a federal court in San
(28:31):
Francisco and try them because they destroyed federal property in
Pearl Harbor. No, we would treat them as enemies alien
and get them out of the country. They wouldn't be
entitled to DOE process. So, unintended or not, the consequences
of this debacle regarding the alien enemies that created by
(28:53):
the Spring Court is now beginning to play out in
Non Alien Enemies Act litigation. There was a appointed judge
just this week without allowing Trump administration to respond, and
it said to me, with just in a few hours
of the filing of the lawsuit halted the wife and
the children of the guy up and Boulder that attempted
(29:16):
to kill all of those people honoring the Jewish hostages.
Now the family members are also Egyptian citizens, and best
I can tell from the record, are also here illegally,
so why not deport them? Well, federal judge here stopped
that too. The Supreme Courts made a huge mess of this.
(29:37):
They got to clean it up, so they dumped. They
pooped out this stupid beast. On Tuesday, Lauren Competti was
watching the news with her husband at their home in
Cincinnati when she heard about the new federal policy about
who should get a COVID vaccine. She says, I started crying.
I was like, am I really not going to be
able to get this vaccine? Why? That's absolutely terrifying. She's
(30:00):
sold MPR now competitive who's thirty years old and about
five months pregnant. That means she's at high risk for
serious complications from COVID, But the CDC has dropped its
recommendation that healthy pregnant women routinely get vaccinated against the virus. Now,
(30:21):
I'm just reading the story because I you know, I
don't believe in the whole idea that the COVID vaccine
is actually a vaccine. It's a shot, doesn't It's like
a flu shot. So anyway, that means that many insurance
companies probably won't pay for the shops anymore. Now, if
insurance really doesn't pay the risky, generally unnecessary vaccines can
(30:42):
cost as much as two hundred bucks. The only reasonable
response to that crisis theme is to panic, and panic's
useful because it can then be exploited to justify all
manner of repression and of course wasteful spending by the
federal government. And here it's being used to rally the
useful idiots among us against Donald Trump, and Congress tried
(31:04):
to do that. Doctor Peter McCullough delivered one of the
probably the most powerful moments of a hearing on the
vaccine or on the shot. Senator Richard Blumenthal had previously
claimed that the COVID shots saved three million lives. Doctor
McCullum was sitting there, and he quickly dismantled that false narrative.
Speaker 6 (31:27):
When someone's signs consent for a vaccine center of bloementhal
does the consent forms say it's going to save their lives?
Speaker 1 (31:33):
Of course it doesn't. It's not on the FAQ.
Speaker 6 (31:36):
There's never been a prospective, randomized, double blind, pursuper control
trial ever showing that COVID nineteen vaccines reduced mortality or hospitalization.
There's not even a valid, non randomized study. Thankfully, COVID
mortality went down for three reasons because we all got
the infection vaccinated and unvaccinated, so we developed population natural immunity.
(31:58):
We developed early treatment credit to operation warp speed. We
used all the operational warp speed tools, additional drugs. We
treated patients with multi drug protocols at home so they
don't go to the er. So Governor Green never saw
the patients we treated because they were successfully treated at home.
And the third reason is the virus mutated to a
much milder form. Those things happen concurrently with rollout of
(32:21):
the vaccine. The vaccine cannot be falsely credited with saving
millions of lives.
Speaker 1 (32:27):
We can't allow false drug advertising to.
Speaker 6 (32:29):
Be put up on a poster behind one of our
public servants. We cannot accept that.
Speaker 2 (32:34):
So let me quit. The senator gets handed his hat.
Natural immunity did the heavy lifting. Obviously, early treatment with
a protocol of all sorts of combination of drugs kept
people out of the hospitals in the emergency rooms. The
(32:56):
virus naturally mutated into a milder form. So, as doctor
McColo says, you cannot conclude that or you cannot claim
that the vaccine credit can be credited with saving millions
of lives. It's just simply not true. And in fact,
he calls it false drug advertising. I'd love to see
(33:18):
them get shot down,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.