From Liberal to MAGA: Why One Podcaster Switched Sides

Send us a text

Deception runs deep in American politics, and it's coming from both sides of the aisle. This eye-opening episode cuts through the noise to examine how our leaders consistently mislead us while claiming to act in our best interests.

Starting with a bombshell revelation, we dissect the CDC's own published study on face masks that plainly states: "Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza." Despite this scientific finding from May 2020, politicians nationwide continue pushing mask mandates. This blatant contradiction raises an urgent question: are our leaders following science, or something else entirely?

The conversation shifts to a jaw-dropping interview between Tucker Carlson and Senator Mike Braun of Indiana. When pressed about his endorsement of Black Lives Matter, Braun couldn't articulate what the organization actually stands for or explain why he's pushing legislation to eliminate qualified immunity for police officers. This exchange perfectly illustrates how establishment Republicans often abandon their principles to appease the media, writing legislation that actively harms their constituents.

Perhaps most fascinating is the unexpected conversion story of a liberal podcaster who, after six months of researching current events, decided to support Trump. "I'm voting for Trump," he states plainly, explaining how immersing himself in unfiltered information rather than mainstream narratives completely changed his perspective. His journey demonstrates the power of independent thinking in an age of media manipulation.

The marketplace of ideas requires both good and bad viewpoints to function properly. When we censor opposing perspectives, we lose the ability to distinguish beneficial policies from harmful ones. Whether you're conservative, liberal, or somewhere in between, this episode challenges you to question everything you're told and think critically about who truly represents your interests.

Subscribe now and join the revolution of independent thinkers who refuse to be peasants in the political game. Your perspective matters – but only if you're willing to defend it.

Support the show

https://1776live.us/peasants_perspective

www.PeasantsPerspective.com

www.LeftBehindandWithout.org

www.givesendgo.com/GEJWJ

www.DollarsVoteLouder.com

buymeacoffee.com/peasant

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
And when they went to the queen To tell her Her
subjects had no bread, do youknow what she said?
Let them eat cake here.
You take the bomb.

Speaker 2 (00:15):
We're getting screwed , man.
Every time we turn around we'regetting screwed.
Oh, the revolution's gonna bethrough podcasting for sure.
That's the only way we talk.
It's the little guys, thelittle guys that take the brunt
of everything.
It's gotta stop.
Peasants, man, we're justpeasants, every one of us.

(00:40):
You watch those old movies.
You see the peasants in thebackground with the kings and
queens walking around.
We're those people.
We're those people.
All right, welcome to anotherepisode.
Peasants, I really appreciateyou coming out and joining me.
Okay, today we're going to well.
No, we're not going to jumpright in.

(01:00):
I'm supposed to read all mysocials and stuff.
So you can find me on Twitterat PeasantsPod.
You can find me on Parler atPeasantsPod.
You can find me on Facebook atthe Peasants Perspective, and
you can email me at PeasantsPodat gmailcom, and I do appreciate
the feedback I've gotten andyou know some of you guys send
me different links and differentvideos and things like that,
and I really appreciate it.

(01:20):
You know it helps out a lot.
Every now and then there'ssomething that I haven't seen or
maybe a video that I haven'tkept track of, and I really
appreciate it.
One of the listeners sent in avideo from Jordan Peterson and
it was a great video.
It was a little bit longer,longer videos I can't share on
the podcast because then thevideos become the podcast, but
it's really great aboutpostmodernism and I think Jordan
Peterson just nails it.

(01:41):
So thank you for sending methat.
A couple other things People areso mean the Sarah Brady
interview, which I think is agreat interview.
I've gotten a lot of commentson the Facebook post.
I've actually deleted quite afew just because some of them
are just kind of atrocious.
It's amazing to me and it kindof goes along with the
postmodernism.

(02:01):
For anybody who doesn't knowwhat postmodernism but basically
it means that everything's badand you have no personal
individual identity and it'skind of the underpinnings of
Marxism, so to speak.
And so, anyways, it's quiteinteresting to see people just
not understand theconstitutional issues that are
involved.
Oh, she's arrested because ofthe way she reacted.

(02:22):
No consideration to the factthat maybe she shouldn't have
even been asked to leave, noconsideration to any of the
surrounding situation.
And it's interesting to me.
This is a boomer quality.
So I'm talking to my boomeraudience.
You are a generation of ageneration that had to go to war
.
You're a generation of ageneration that had to go to war

(02:45):
.
You're a generation of ageneration that had to be, that
was hardened and the only thingthat worked to survive as a
nation was conformity.
The nation had to gethomogenous.
This is critical for you tounderstand.
You're the product of yourparents, who are not necessarily
the best.
Remember, your parents are theones who put Japanese in
internment camps.
Your parents are the ones whowent into a war that they didn't

(03:06):
know was justified.
People have to understand WorldWar II.
When people went into World WarII, they didn't know about
Hitler in the concentrationcamps, they didn't know what the
Imperial Japanese were doingand, quite frankly, we did the
same thing to Asians on our ownshores.
So we've kind of justified itin the rear view mirror and I
think that rightly so.
Rightly so we have.

(03:27):
But nonetheless, keep in mindwe were going to a war for
Imperial interests.
Uh, we pushed Japan intobombing us.
Essentially.
Now, the reason I'm saying thatis because you have to recognize
your parents became homogenous.
They taught you to.
You know, children should notbe seen it.
Children should be seen but notheard.
Don't become too individual,don't make a stink.

(03:48):
Boomers hate to dye their hair,they hate to be individuals,
right, but boomers boomers'children.
In a lot of cases.
The beginning of them were theones that became the children of
the 60s and 70s.
Okay, but anyways, my point insaying this is the boomers have
a certain mentality and it'sacceptable and it's fine.

(04:09):
It's part of what helps yousurvive, right?
There's a huge amount of herdmentality with the boomers.
That's why young kids look atboomers and they go okay, boomer
, because what you say is whatevery single person in your
generation would say.
And I get called boomer too.
Sometimes I'm kind of on theedge of the bottom side of the
boomer generation, butnonetheless that's important.

(04:31):
It's funny to me how manyboomers get on and say well, she
shouldn't have talked back tothe cop?
Oh, I'm sorry.
Is six months in jail theconsequence for talking back to
a cop when you think the cop isdoing something wrong?
Do you see where this is?
Everybody has a right to take astand.
Everybody has a right to sayfrom here, I go no further.

(04:52):
And she just decided to make astand that day.
She said no, there's no reasonfor you to kick me off the park.
And she challenged the cop toarrest her.
And he did.
Somebody had commentedsomething about.
Oh well, you know she couldhave done something different,
she could have protested in adifferent way.
What other way?

(05:13):
What other way would there be?
Like you know, when you seethese protests going on right
now and these people are yellingin their faces and we say, well
, they could do it another way.
What other way?
Okay, what other way?
Sarah is doing it the right way.
She protested, she said ifyou're going to stand your
ground, arrest me.
And she turned around and madeit easy for him to arrest her.
And that was that.
I mean, what better way toprotest?
It's just amazing to me.
Some people don't see past the,they don't see the signal

(05:37):
through the.
You know, they can't hear thesignal through the noise.
It's just interesting to me.
Another thing too.
I need to issue a correction.
I misstated yesterday thedeaths of COVID in Idaho being
at 1,000.
They are much lower than that.
They are closer to 1,000 cases.
So I misstated that and Iapologize for that.
It happens I do this showpretty much in one take, and

(05:57):
sometimes I do.
I do I just make simplemistakes, lips to the tongue and
sometimes I understand thingsincorrectly too.
That's always a a rare, a veryrare possibility that I
understand something incorrectly.
But you know, you know how thatgoes.
Okay, a couple of things I wantto.
I want to um point out here.
I want to kind of set the stagea little bit for what.

(06:18):
I'm continually kind of harpingon this, this idea that we're
kind of getting lied to, and Iget messages, pretty often
actually from people who say, oh, remember years ago when we
were talking and you were superliberal.
Remember years ago when we weretalking and you were super
liberal?
I'm glad you've come around toour side.
And I always chuckle a littlebit because yeah, I've come
around.
I've come around quite a bit incertain aspects as far as

(06:42):
conservative values go, but Iactually don't really think I've
changed all that much.
I don't really think that Iwould talk about things
differently.
I mean, I would love to talkabout social welfare programs
and things like that Notsocialist programs, but social
welfare programs I think areimportant.
There's a lot of things that Ithink are beneficial, but I
think we've just reached a pointin time where the

(07:02):
postmodernists have taken over,the communists have taken over,
the Marxists have taken over andwe're no longer having a
discussion about American values.
We're having a discussion aboutthe underlying opinions of
Western culture, and that's aline that we have to draw, and I
find it a little bit ironicthat the people who say that to
me are the people who didn'tcouldn't articulate exactly.

(07:24):
How do I say this?
I'm thinking of one specificperson who made a comment
recently and I just kind ofthought to myself well, my
opinions as far as thediscussions we used to have,
have not changed one inch.
The difference is, you know,you have a party that's just
gone so far left that they're nolonger even in the American
camp, and so it makes peoplethink, hey, you're super

(07:45):
conservative Republican, I am,I'm Republican, I'm going to
vote all red because that's justthe right thing to do and
that's where the American valuesare right now.
And there might be a correctionin the Democrat party after
this election.
I mean, there very well couldbe a correction, but they might
not.
I mean, I think we've got quitea bit.
This battle's not done.
This cultural war is not over.

(08:06):
I want to play this video here.
This is from Ted Gunderson, andTed Gunderson was the FBI
director, the FBI chief, and hedied on July 31st 2011.
And he was thought to be bypoisoning, but this was a little
conference he did after he wasthe director of the FBI, and I
want you to hear what he'stalking about because I'm going
to tie this into kind of thebigger picture here.

(08:28):
This is the former FBI director.

Speaker 3 (08:32):
He investigated the Oklahoma City bombing case.
Huge cover up.
Jack Kennedy's assassination.
Huge cover up.
World Trade Center hugecover-up.
Okay, terrorism they're usingit as an excuse to take away our
constitutional rights and ourcivil liberties.

(08:53):
Cosmic flame the Bilderberg's,the Illuminati, Bilderberg, New
World Order, globalists are theelement behind this.
It dovetails into the satanicmovement and this movement has

(09:17):
infiltrated into ourintelligence community, the once
great FBI and the CIA.

Speaker 2 (09:25):
Okay, the reason I play that, okay, we're not going
to go talking about all thosescandals and all those different
things today, but the reason Iplay that is because we're in
upside down world.
Okay, that's the former FBIdirector telling you that the
Oklahoma City bombing, cover-up,9-11, cover-up Kennedy
assassination huge up Kennedyassassination, huge cover up.

(09:46):
Robert Kennedy cover up right,why, why?
Well, you got this.
The Bilderberg group who's theBilderberg group?
Sometimes they're looped inwith the Illuminati.
But the Bilderberg group hasbeen around for a long time and
the way I understand itbasically is it's essentially a
lot of bankers, compromised ofbankers.

(10:06):
But they also invite otherworld leaders.
They meet every year.
Alex Jones has done a lot ofundercover work with them.
In fact, he followed theBilderberg group all the way to
the Bohemian Grove and actuallyinfiltrated the Bohemian Grove
and has, as far as I know, theonly footage of the Bohemian
Grove.
So there's kind of these littlejokes out there about oh, you
guys are the Illuminati, just abunch of guys standing out in

(10:28):
the woods naked, ha, ha, thatcan't be real.
That's not real.
No, it's real.
We have footage of it.
Now we actually have Alex Joneswho was with Joe Rogan, by the
way, like 20 years ago, theyinfiltrated the Bohemian Grove
and got footage of their crazywood rituals.
These are world leaders goingout in the woods dancing around

(10:52):
an owl named Moloch right, andTed Gunderson here is talking
about the same type of stuff,you know, and it dovetails in
with the satanic.
The reason I'm saying this is Idon't want to go into all the
details there today, althoughI'd love to explore these topics
more thoroughly, but the thingsthat we're going to talk about
when you say, hey, why is thegovernment lying to me?
Why do things don't make sense?
That's your government folks.

(11:14):
That's who's sitting in some ofthose chief seats is people who
are involved in those cover ups, who've got a lot to hide,
who've got everything frompersonal financial interests.
If there's one thing this showdoes, is that we as the peasants
have to dissect what ourleaders and elites are doing.
We've got to understand it sothat we can prevent it from
happening in the future, so thatwe can hire and vote for new
politicians who understand theseissues and can change them, do
something about them, figure outwhere we're going off the rails

(11:37):
.
Okay, so now that I've justintroduced that, I kind of just
wanted to get it out there onthe record so I could talk about
it.
But also, I want you tounderstand, there are scams
going on left and right folks.
So let's talk about masks.
Okay, I am reading from thecdcgov Okay, and this is a study
that was done.
Let's see, this was published uh, mate, may 2020.

(12:00):
Okay, so let's see, it doesn'thave the day that it was
published, it's just May 2020.
It's when the CDC released this, so May 2020, and this is
non-pharmaceutical measures forpandemic influenza in
non-healthcare settings,personal protective and
environmental measures.
So what's going on across thecountry right now is you've got

(12:20):
different governors, republicanand Democrat, that are trying to
appease the mob, appease thepeople that Ted Gunderson just
talked about running the show,right, whatever the swamp or the
medical establishment, we don'teven know who these people are
appeasing at this point.
Right, because they keep sayingthe scientists, the scientists.
But I'm about to read you whatthe scientists have written.

(12:41):
Okay, so what are they askingus to do?
They're asking us to wear amask.
Why are they asking us to weara mask?
Because it's just a good ideato protect people for other
people's health.
I've heard everything.
I've heard it all.
Let me tell you exactly whatthis study goes through.
So in this, in this study itgoes, there were three influenza
pandemics, and so this is theabstract.
There were three influenzapandemics in the 20th century

(13:02):
and there has been one so far inthe 21st century.
Local, national andinternational health authorities
regularly update their plansfor mitigating the next
influenza pandemic in light ofthe latest available evidence on
the effectiveness of variouscontrol measures in reducing
transmission.
Here we review the evidencebased on effectiveness of
non-pharmaceutical personalprotective measures and
environmental hygiene measuresin non-health care settings and

(13:24):
discuss their potentialinclusion in pandemic plans.
Although mechanistic studiessupport the potential effect of
hand hygiene or face masks,evidence from 14 randomized
controlled trials of thesemeasures did not support a
substantial effect ontransmission of
laboratory-confirmed influenza.

(13:46):
We similarly found limitedevidence on the effectiveness of
improved hygiene andenvironmental cleaning.
We identified several majorknowledge gaps requiring further
research, most fundamentally animproved characterization of
the modes of person-to-persontransmission.
So let me break that down foryou 14 studies, randomized

(14:08):
controlled studies.
That means these are as good asthey get right.
These are as good as they getas far as determining if you
know the personal protectionissues here.
So they've done it based offinfluenza.
Now I can project out there anargument that people would have.
Well, that's influenza, that'snot coronavirus, that's not the
Wuhan flu, the Kung flu as thepresident calls it.

(14:29):
Well, so what?
Everything we've learned so farabout this virus is guess what
it's like every other influenzaand every other coronavirus
which we're very familiar with.
It doesn't seem to be, you know, exempt from the traditional
rules that viruses go by.
So let me, if anything it mightbe, you know, it just doesn't

(14:50):
make any sense, okay, so, so wego down here.
They talk about hand washing.
So, when it comes to handwashing, they say it seems to be
effective, although we're not ahundred percent sure.
Hand hygiene is also effectivein preventing other infectious
diseases, including diarrheadiseases and some respiratory
disease.
So basically, the hand hygiene,what they found here.
This is what it says.

(15:11):
For instance, the control groupwould not typically have zero
knowledge or use of hand hygienein the intervention.
Sorry, I'm missing thepunchline there In support of
hand.
Sorry, this is, I might noteven be looking at the right
paragraph.
Hold on, okay.
So on the hand washing here.

(15:32):
So I found it here.
So it basically it's sayingthis with hand washing it's
effective.
We don't know why it'seffective, but it's effective.
So hand washing is good.
You should definitely wash yourhands because in their
controlled studies, when peopleshook hands and things like that
, the virus did potentiallyspread, and so that was
something that they wanted to.
Uh, wanted to do nowRespiratory etiquette.

(15:53):
They went through here and theysaid you know some basic,
obvious things like coughinginto your elbow, um, and stuff
like that.
However, uh, the rationale fornot coughing into hands is to
prevent subsequent contaminationof other surfaces or objects.
We conducted a search onNovember 6, 2018 and identified
literature that was available ina database similar incidents of

(16:14):
self-reported respiratoryillness, and they also did a
study of US pilgrims with orwithout practicing respiratory
etiquette during the Hajj, whichis a religious event that they
go to.
They also did not specify thetype of respiratory ailment.

(16:35):
The etiquette is often listedas preventative measure for
respiratory infections, so thisis like coughing into your
shoulder, coughing into your youknow, just basically not
coughing into your hand.
So they've done these studiesand they said the respiratory
etiquette is often listed as apreventative measure for
respiratory infections.
However, there is lack ofscientific evidence to support

(16:58):
this measure, whetherrespiratory etiquette is an
effective non-pharmaceuticalintervention in preventing
influenza virus transmissionremains questionable of worthy
of other research.
So what they're saying here,okay, the good old advice, right
, when, when, when, when you'rea little kid and you sneeze, you
either sneeze just out in theopen or you might put your hand
up and then eventually yourparents go don't put your hand

(17:19):
up, cause then your hands dirty.
So you go cough into your elbowor cough into your sleeve or
something else.
Here's the bottom line.
We don't know that it works.
We find no scientific backingthat that works.
Cough into your hand, coughinto people's faces, don't be
rude.
But there's no scientificbacking.
So essentially what they'resaying is they've scientifically

(17:39):
confirmed now that it's an oldwives' tale that that prevents
the spread of disease or spreadof infection.
Now here's the kicker face masks.
We're going to read this aboutface masks.
Now there's some numbers andmumbo jumbo in here, scientific
stuff.
I'm going to kind of skip overit because it's just not worth
reading.
But let me just read this.
It's a couple paragraphs butit's worth reading Because this

(18:02):
is important.
Our leaders are lying to us.
Our leaders are asking us to dosomething for nothing.
It cannot be more clear.
And they'll cite the CDC.
They claim the CDC is tellingthem to do this.
They're lying to you.
Face masks In our systematicreview we identified 10 RCTs

(18:24):
that reported estimates of theeffectiveness of FaceMax in
reducing laboratory-confirmedinfluenza virus infections in
the community from literaturepublished during 1946 to 2018.
In pooled analysis we found nosignificant reduction in
influenza transmission with theuse of face masks.
Face masks One study evaluatedthe use of face masks among

(18:46):
pilgrims from Australia duringthe pilgrimage and reported no
major difference in the risk oflaboratory-confirmed influenza
virus infection in the controlor mask group.
Two studies in universitysettings assessed the
effectiveness of face masks forprimary protection by monitoring
the incidence oflaboratory-confirmed influenza
among student hall residents forfive months.
The overall reduction in ILI orlaboratory-confirmed influenza

(19:10):
case in the face mask group wasnot significant In either
studies.
Study designs in the sevenhousehold studies were slightly
different.
One study provided face masksand P2 respirators for household
contacts only.
Another study evaluated facemask use as a source control for
infected persons only, andremaining studies provided masks

(19:31):
for the infected persons aswell as their close contacts.
None of the household studiesreported a significant reduction
in secondarylaboratory-confirmed influenza
virus infections in the facemask group.
Most studies were underpoweredbecause of limited sample size.
Some studies also reportedsuboptimal adherence to the face
mask group, which, guess whatguys?
Is the norm, right?

(19:52):
Not everyone's wearing an M95face mask, which, by the way,
isn't designed to keep the virusin.
It's designed to keep the virusout, so it's not protecting you
.
Okay, it's not protecting otherpeople.
It might possibly be protectingyou anecdotally.
So basically, they're saying itwasn't a huge study, that's
they're out, but at the sametime they're like yeah, but also
people don't, you know, peopleare going to mess with their

(20:13):
face masks.
That's one of the inherentproblems of the whole thing.
Disposable medical masks, alsoknown as surgical masks, are
loose-fitting devices that wereto be worn by medical personnel
to protect accidentalcontamination of patient wounds
and to protect aware againstsplashes or sprays of bodily
fluids.
There is limited evidence fortheir effectiveness in
preventing influenza virustransmission and coronavirus,

(20:36):
either when worn by the infectedperson or the source control,
or when worn by uninfectedpersons to reduce exposure.
Our systematic review found nosignificant effect of face masks
on transmission oflaboratory-confirmed influenza.
We did not consider the use ofrespirators in the community.
Respirators are tight-fittingmasks that can protect the

(20:58):
wearer from fine particles andshould provide better protection
against influenza virusexposures when properly worn
because of higher filtrationefficiency.
However, respirators such asN95 and P2 masks work best when
they are fit tested and thesemasks will be limited supply
during the next pandemic whichwe saw.
These specialist devices shouldbe reserved for the healthcare

(21:19):
settings or the specialsubpopulations, such as
immunocompromised persons in thecommunity.
First responders are thoseperforming other critical
community functions and suppliesas permit In low-income
settings.
It is more likely that reusablecloth masks which is all we're
seeing running around, isreusable cloth masks.
I know some of you, mylisteners you got one on your
face right now will be usedrather than disposable medical

(21:41):
masks because of the cost andavailability.
Use rather than disposablemedical masks because of the
cost and availability.
There are still fewuncertainties in the practice of
face mask use, such as whoshould wear the mask and how
long it should be used for.
In theory, transmission shouldbe reduced most if both infected
members and other contacts wearmasks, but compliance in
uninfected close contacts couldbe a problem.
Proper use of face masks isessential because improper use

(22:05):
might increase the risk fortransmission.
Thus, education on proper useand disposal of face masks
include hand hygiene is alsoneeded.
Did you guys catch that?
Did you guys catch that whatthey did there in this little
study?
Now, keep in mind, this studywas just published, right before
all of the face mask rules cameout.
So on one hand, they've justgone through hand washing works,

(22:29):
we don't know why.
They've just gone through, uh,coughing into your elbow, and
things like that don't seem towork.
Okay, so it's just a matter ofnot being rude and coughing and
sneezing in people's faces, uh.
And then we get to face masksand they basically say they
don't work.
Uh, but you might, in a lowincome setting, wear a cloth one

(22:52):
.
Did you catch it?
I mean, did you catch how sillythis is?
So I just find it hilariousthat here we are being told to
wear masks because the CDC toldus to, and they're telling us
masks don't work even though youwear them.
I mean, literally that's justwhat they did here.
They just went through and saymasks don't work unless they're

(23:15):
N95 and P2, and even then theyhave to be fitted and should
only be used by healthcareproviders.
And in low-income settingsyou're likely to wear a cloth
mask, so clean it, but it's noteffective.
So why the mandate?
Why the mandate?
So why the mandate?
Why the mandate?

(23:35):
Folks, folks, there's a bigagenda here.
I could go on and on.
I can go on and on about allthe lies.
You know this virus has beenhere way longer.
I've got here from Uncovered DC.
They've broken a story.
An Alabama man nearly died fromCOVID-19 in the first week of
January and they've got pictures.
They've got his lung scans.
They've got his whole storyhere and it was pretty brutal.

(23:59):
I mean he obviously got thisnasty, nasty virus.
I mean he ended up beingintubated for a while.
They ended up doing a plasmatreatment, taking his plasma and
cycling it.
They didn't know what it was.
Anyways, he finally got better,finally came home and then he
went home.
So I'm looking here at somechest x-rays and, oh my goodness

(24:21):
, I mean his chest is justcompletely filled in these ones.
But anyways, it sounds like itwas brutal.
But here's the thing.
So he's put his story out thereand said, hey, I had COVID.
He's got the COVID antibodies.
That's when he was antibodies,that's when he was sick, that's
when he was hospitalized.
This was well before China hadacknowledged that this was a
human-to-human transmission.
This was before we closed theborders.

(24:42):
This is in the first week ofJanuary and there's a lot to
this.
Right, this virus has been here.
It was in Alabama, that's theother thing.
It was in Alabama, that's theother thing.
It was in Alabama.
So all these like one of thethings that we're seeing right
in front of our eyes.
I covered it yesterday.
The CDC said my bad on thesetesting.
They've been counting theantibodies with the infection

(25:04):
rate.
So if you go get an antibodytest and come back positive but
you were sick a month ago,you're not a new infection.
But the CDC, up until literallyjust a few days ago, was
counting it as a new infection.
So, keep in mind, I keephearing people say, well, we've
got to shut, we've got to goback into a lockdown mode
because we've had all these newinfections.
Have we really, have we really?
Or is it the nine to oneantibody to virus test that

(25:27):
we're counting all the peoplewho had it?
I mean, are we literallygetting to the?
What's going to happen?
The way we're, the way the CDCwas counting it was, we're going
to test through the country andwe're going to find out
everybody that had it andeverybody that has it, and
everybody who had it or has itis going to end up going on a
quarantine, which is what theyhave to do, and then and then
eventually this thing will runout and then one day we'll test
and then it will be like thelast person that has had it and

(25:49):
then it'll just drop off to zerobecause now everybody's been
tested, everybody who got it hasgot it, we've got some kind of
herd immunity and we're justgoing to go.
Oh, I guess the virus isn'tspreading anymore.
No, ding bad.
It hasn't been spreading for awhile.
It hasn't been spreading for awhile.
It's just that you werecounting your antibody tests,
antibody tests as if they werecurrent patients.

(26:10):
You have to realize one of thethings about this coronavirus we
know is there's asymptomaticpeople.
People get it, they don't getsick.
They're carriers for it, right,lots of people get viruses and
sicknesses, but then theythemselves don't get sick.
The vast majority of people whoget coronavirus will not show
any symptoms.
Right, it is definitelysomething that goes after the
elderly and it goes after peoplewho do not have the Neanderthal

(26:35):
gene.
Okay, that's, that's kind ofthe general gist.
So obviously it's a real virus,it's out there, but it's not
what they're saying.
Also, where are the flu deaths?
I read before.
6,000 flu deaths this year sofar.
That's pretty incredible.
Weren't we supposed to havelike 40 or 50,000?
We all know what's happening isif you go into the hospital

(26:57):
with a sniffle, they code you asCOVID.
They don't even necessarilyhave to test you to count those
numbers.
Okay, the next thing I wannacover is I wanna cover a little
bit of a longer piece, and thisis by Tucker Carlson and this
piece features Mike Braun.
Now, tucker Carlson and thispiece features Mike Braun.
Now, it's a little bit of alonger piece, quite a bit longer
.
So I'm going to have to breakit up as we go and I want to

(27:17):
inject some analysis into this,because when we, you know we
talk about systemic racism, letme talk about systemic idiocy
here.
Let me talk about what ishappening with our leaders that
are selling us up the road, andI'm going after Republicans
right now.
The Democrats are a lost cause.
Okay, the Democrats are a lostcause.
So just recognize that Ifyou're in a Democrat state, just

(27:39):
vote red.
Red is better.
Okay, I will take Mike Braunover some other Democrats,
although I don't know, I mean atleast the other Democrats.
I know their colors.
We don't know these guys.
Like Mike Braun.
They're wolf in sheep'sclothing and we're going to see
that more than anything rightnow.
So listen to Tucker Carlson,pick apart Mike Braun.
For those of you who don't know, mike Braun is the senator for

(28:00):
I believe it's Ohio.
So here he is, and whatTucker's talking about is the
defund, the police movements,and he's saying few have stepped
up to help, and then he's goingto introduce Senator Mike Braun
.

Speaker 4 (28:12):
To defend the police from totally bogus accusations
of quote systemic racism.
Some are repeating that slur.
One Republican, though, hasgone farther than that.
As we told you last week,senator Mike Braun of Indiana
has introduced legislation tomake it easier for left-wing
activists to sue police officers.
We must do this, senator Braunexplained, in part because
Rayshard Brooks' death wasegregious.

Speaker 5 (28:36):
I wanted to put a template out there that protects
law enforcement from frivolouslawsuits but holds the egregious
departments and individualsaccountable in these egregious,
you know, instances of a GeorgeFloyd or Rayshard Brooks or
Breonna Taylor.

Speaker 4 (28:55):
In case you suspect, we somehow selectively edited
that clip.
Here's Republican Senator Braungoing all the way in endorsing
Black Lives Matter.

Speaker 5 (29:04):
Do you support the Black Lives Matter movement.
I support that movement becauseit's addressing an inequity
that has not been solved.
You know, from a grassrootslevel.

Speaker 4 (29:22):
After our segment on Thursday, senator Braun asked to
come on this show to detail hisposition.
Of course we're happy to havehim.
Senator Braun, thanks so muchfor coming on.
Before I ask you aboutqualified immunity and your
attempts to water it down, I wasvery surprised by that
endorsement that you gave oncamera of Black Lives Matter.
Black Lives Matter has, ofcourse, called for the murder of
police officers.
Why do you support it, and arethere any other race-specific

(29:45):
revolutionary movements that yousupport?

Speaker 5 (29:48):
So, tucker, thanks for having me on in the first
place.
I know when you came out and Ilike it when somebody does
challenge, especially somethinglike this, when you're talking
about changing something that'sbeen around for a while.
And, tucker, I come from MainStreet, your viewers are my
supporters and I've got one ofthe most conservative voting

(30:09):
records.
No, that's true.
You'd have to check with them,just like I checked with the
Indiana State Police.
Indiana Sheriff's AssociationReturn of Order Police spent
over an hour with them last weekto make sure I wasn't off base.
And here's where I come from.

Speaker 4 (30:24):
I'm sorry, I'm confused.
Really quick, hold on, you'reoff base in your support of
Black Lives Matter, yourendorsement that you just gave.
Have support of Black LivesMatter, your endorsement that
you just gave.
Have you read their website?
Or are you in favor ofabolishing the nuclear family?

Speaker 2 (30:35):
Okay, so I'm going to jump in here.
We're going to jump over to theBlack Lives Matter website and
we're going to take a look atthis.
He endorsed Black Lives Matter.
Oh, they have an inequity toaddress.
This is an elected senator,this is one of a hundred men who
breathes the rarefied air ofthe Senate and he's endorsing
Black Lives Matter.
So you would think, like heknows what Black Lives Matter is

(30:55):
all about.
Right, or is he a panderer?
Okay, so listen to this.
I'm just going to read them.
Black Lives Matter.
You go to their about section.
You go down to what we standfor.
I'm just going to read.
I'm just going to randomly readsome of the paragraphs that
they have here.
We disrupt the Westernprescribed nuclear family
structure requirement bysupporting each other as
extended families and villagesthat collectively care for

(31:16):
another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers,
parents and children arecomfortable.
Okay.
Now, if you don't like raisingyour kids, that sounds great.
Okay, well, I'm going to gethelp from my neighbors.
But we all know that this iswhat this means they get to be
the parent of your kid.
So whoever's in charge of thefuture government disrupts the
Western prescribed nuclearfamily in order to let the

(31:38):
village raise the kids.
So your children are nowproperty of the state.
Do you understand the transitionthere?
We foster queer affirmingnetwork when we gather, we do so
with the intention of freeingourselves from the tight grip of
heteronormative thinking, orrather the belief that all in
the world are heterosexualsunless she, he or they disclose

(32:01):
otherwise.
All right, so, like 2% of thepopulation is gay.
But okay, we are guided by thefact that black lives matter,
regardless of actual orperceived sexual identity,
gender identity, genderexpression, economic status,
ability, disability, religiousbeliefs or disbeliefs,
immigration, status or location.
Okay, I believe your livesmatter, but it's kind of.
You know, a lot of this isabout sexual orientation.

(32:23):
You'd almost wonder if this wasa trans group.
Let's see, here we areunapologetic, black in our
positioning.
We affirm black lives matter.
Uh, we see ourselves as part ofthe global black family anyway.
So as you go through here, yourealize okay, you know, couple
this with everything they'vebeen telling us about their
marxist, marxist bent and whatit is they're trying to

(32:46):
accomplish.
You see, really quickly, youshouldn't be endorsing black
lives matter if you're a electedrepublican.
I, let's just be honest here.
So just keep that in mind.
Mike Braun, an electedRepublican, has endorsed Black
Lives Matter because they've gota grievance, but he has no idea
what Black Lives Matter is.
Same thing with Mitt Romney anda bunch of these rhino

(33:07):
Republicans.
One of the problems with theSenate is because they've got
the longest terms and they'veand they're the most elite
politician other than thepresident.
They kind of have thisimpression that they just don't
they're above the day-to-daythings that are going on.
They just think this issomething that will come and go
and blow away and and they'lljust kind of get in there.
They're practicing Hegeliandialect, which is basically

(33:29):
where you go one direction withthe conversation, but because
you have two opposing sides,you're able to go exactly where
you want.
But the people who are watching, or pay or or a part of it,
think that they're like pickinga side and there's like this
battle back and forth, whenreally there's no battle.
They're just agreeing andthey're just creating basically
a public spectacle of debate.
That's what we see here.
So let's continue.

Speaker 4 (33:49):
What do you support exactly?

Speaker 5 (33:53):
Not at continue.
What do you support exactly?
No, I'm not at all.
What does that mean?
I support anybody that doeshave a grievance to be able to
air it, and that's it.
That doesn't mean all livesdon't matter.
It just means that if you thinka certain sector of society has
a grievance, it ought to bethrough transparency and the
willingness to debate it and getit out there.
I'm going to always go on themerits of the particular case

(34:15):
and going back to what I learnedlast.

Speaker 2 (34:17):
Okay.
So before he moves on to thenext part of what he's about to
say here, we can't do this.
He's going to get pressed alittle bit more, but we can't
give an inch.
So in this case, he endorsesblack lives matter because they
have a grievance and we shouldsupport the protesters.
Folks, don't get sucked intothat thinking.
Pay attention to what it isthey're saying, what it is
they're protesting and what itis they want to accomplish.

(34:40):
He's just trying to pay alittle bit of lip service.
He has no idea the damage he'sdoing.
People are listening thataren't up on these topics, that
don't everything.
Black lives matters, all thepeople who just put blackout
Tuesday, all the people who youknow what I mean.
Like he is speaking to thisignorant crowd because he
himself is ignorant.

(35:01):
Okay, now he's going to getinto the details of of of it.

Speaker 5 (35:05):
So let's week first of all, uh, law enforcement in
Indiana thought was talkingabout eliminating it or
drastically modifying it.
This was to find that sweetspot to where they said they are
being unduly stigmatizedbecause of these events, because
in some cases their own aren'theld accountable.

(35:26):
And when they knew that, theybasically said we need to be in
the discussion.
Look how we got rolled withObamacare when we refused to
discuss it 10 years ago.

Speaker 4 (35:36):
Wait, wait, hold on, hold on, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
We just showed tape of youSenator saying that we need to
pull back.
We need to make it easier tosue the police because of quote
egregious incidents like thedeath of Rayshard Brooks.
You said you wanted to speakabout specifics.
Do you believe that he waskilled unjustly?
Do you believe Officer Rolfedeserves the death penalty which
he now faces?
What did you mean by that,please?

Speaker 2 (35:57):
I believe you ought to.
So Rayshard Brooks is the manwho was shot in Atlanta.
So if you remember, he's theone who was the child beater who
was sleeping in the Wendy'sparking lot.
The cops came up to his window,said, hey, man, can you pull
over, sleep over there, get outof the drive through.
He immediately fell back asleepafter the cop had talked to him
.
The cop went back over, said,hey, now that you've like fallen

(36:19):
back asleep, I'm going to haveto go.
He went through the whole DUIthing.
They spent 45 minutes talkingto him and then when they went
to arrest him, the guy startedfighting.
He fought with the two policeofficers that were there.
He took the taser, shot one ofthem with a taser and then he
still had the taser and while hewas fleeing, turned around,
pointed the taser and shot thetaser.
Click, you know, shot the taser, pulled the trigger on the

(36:41):
taser at the pursuing officerwho then shot Rayshard Brooks
twice, who was kind of in theback as he was fleeing away, and
then and then proceeded to doCPR on him until the paramedics
arrived.
So that's the Rayshard Brookskilling.
Okay, so that's the.
That's what they're referencinghere.
This is the incident where itlooks like what the cop was
doing was justified, but he'sbeing charged with murder.

Speaker 5 (37:01):
Have the ability to just like, when anyone's civil
rights would be violated, thatyou've got access to due process
to have your case heard.

Speaker 4 (37:12):
But they do.
But they do have that right.
Qualified immunity Hold on.
Qualified immunity has nothingto do with that case.
He's been charged.
They have the right to sue himunder qualified immunity, as you
know, since you're writing thechange to the law, so that's
irrelevant.

Speaker 2 (37:24):
OK, so I love that Tucker points this out, but this
is critical.
This is a senator.
I can't keep saying this.
Stop looking at your leaderslike they know what they're
talking about.
Stop it.
This guy's a moron.
Ok, mike Braun shouldn't bewriting a bill taking away
qualified immunity from copswhen he doesn't even understand

(37:47):
some of the basics of the case.

Speaker 4 (37:50):
Ok, we'll just let Tucker Tucker's going to fillet
him, but unfortunately Tuckerdoesn't have enough time, so but
we'll hear it and I'm askingabout the case you cited it Do
you believe that the officer nowfacing the death penalty
deserves to face the deathpenalty and if you don't tell us
what he should have done?

Speaker 5 (38:06):
I think that that's going to be determined by the
court.
And when it comes to that civilyou cited it, so what do you
wait?

Speaker 4 (38:11):
hold on.
You cited it.
What do you think of it?
You're the one who called itegregious.
So why don't you tell us whatOfficer Roth should have done
when this man fired a taser athim?
What do you think?

Speaker 5 (38:21):
I think that you probably should have had the
judgment that in a traffic stoplike that you don't shoot
somebody in the back.

Speaker 2 (38:28):
So if we In a traffic stop like that.
He has no idea that RayshardLewis was drunk, that he was
sleeping in a Wendy's parkinglot, that he was released on
covid probation.
Mike Braun has no idea thoseissues, he just thinks it was a
traffic stop.
Oh, this is just.
This is just another one ofthose shootings, right, I mean
this guy just keep doing that,so what should he do?

Speaker 5 (38:52):
No, hold on.

Speaker 4 (38:53):
No, no, no.
I want you to explain.
I think it's fair.
You're an office holder.
I don't normally press peoplelike this, but it's not fair for
you to filibuster withoutanswering my question, which is
very simple.
The officer facing the deathpenalty had a guy fire a weapon
at him.
What should he have done then?

Speaker 5 (39:10):
Probably not have killed the guy.

Speaker 4 (39:13):
And that'll come out in court.
So what should?

Speaker 5 (39:15):
he have done.

Speaker 4 (39:15):
He should have probably not, you're the one
saying it's egregious Let him go.

Speaker 5 (39:18):
Do you think he was going to get away?

Speaker 4 (39:21):
They were going to fine him?
You tell me.
You tell me You're the onejudging the officer, so maybe
you could explain why you'rejudging him.

Speaker 5 (39:29):
Tucker, that'll all come out in the court process
and all I'm saying.
Let me finish this.
If we don't get better at itfor all of us on Main Street,
Democrats are going to spin it.
Chuck Schumer's already decidedhe can make hay of this in the
election, and we'll end up onthe short side of it again.

Speaker 4 (39:46):
If you're wanting to say absolutely— who controls the
Senate?
Does Chuck Schumer control it?
I thought Republicanscontrolled the Senate.

Speaker 2 (39:52):
One of the biggest accusations with the Senate is
that the Republicans have nospine.
So this is Mike Braun Tucker'spointing out appropriately the
Republicans control the Senate.
Who gives a crap what ChuckSchumer cares?
Right now Mike Braun is takinghis marching orders from the

(40:13):
minority leader.
Because Mike Braun, along withhis cohorts, are rhino
Republicans.
What that means is they run ona slightly Republican platform A
few key issues like beingpro-choice or yeah, no, not
pro-choice, pro-life.
They'll be pro-life and sothey'll just automatically get
the Republican nomination or theRepublican ticket.

(40:34):
But in every other aspect theyare flaming liberals.
I mean, this is just.
This is a great example of it,and I'm so glad Tucker actually
pressed him.
This is a rare moment of goodinterviewing against a Senator.
This is great.

Speaker 4 (40:52):
So you're taking your cues from Chuck Schumer?

Speaker 3 (40:55):
You're saying Chuck.

Speaker 4 (40:56):
Schumer might criticize me.
Therefore, I have to pass a lawthat makes it easier to sue
police Tucker.

Speaker 5 (41:00):
You know you have to have 60 votes in the Senate to
get anything done.
You can check my record.
They're about to change thatwhen?
They take over, and even lawenforcement in Indiana thinks
that in some of these cases it'sgiving them a bad name and bad
apples.
There ought to be due processthere for the victim.

Speaker 4 (41:18):
So what law enforcement groups are endorsing
your bill?

Speaker 5 (41:21):
They're not endorsing it, but they said it was a good
template to work from, but whyaren't they endorsing it?

Speaker 4 (41:27):
then You've cited them twice as supporters of this
idea, but they're not endorsingyour bill, so they don't
actually support it.
So why are you bringing them upas?

Speaker 5 (41:34):
evidence that it's a good idea.
They think it's a better ideato be in the discussion than be
outside of it.

Speaker 4 (41:41):
But if you care what they think, why don't you write
something they'll endorse?

Speaker 5 (41:45):
And that doesn't necessarily mean we won't get
there.
That's not going to be donetoday.
The Democrats now think theycan win with it in the election,
and that's why we needed to beengaged now in a way that would
have kept it on the table.

Speaker 4 (41:57):
So you need to write a bill that law enforcement
won't endorse.
The country is burning notbecause cops are burning it down
, but because the mob is.
But you think the morallyculpable party is the police, so
you're making it easier forleft-wing groups to sue them.
Am I missing something?

Speaker 5 (42:11):
You are missing it.
You're trying to put words inmy mouth.
I don't think you can justifyany of the looting.

Speaker 2 (42:18):
So do you see what Tucker just did?
He just reduced his argumentdown to the actual steps that
he's taking.
And don't put words in my mouth.
Well, what words did I put inyour mouth?
Feel free to fill me in,because that's exactly what he
just said the rioting.

Speaker 5 (42:34):
And if you don't address the underlying issue,
you think it's going to fixitself on its own.
You think it's going to getbetter.
You think the underlying issueis Rayshard Brooks being shot?

Speaker 4 (42:43):
So you're telling me that what's happening now is the
result of police behavior?
It's the police, it's the faultof the police.
That's what you're sayingpolice behavior.

Speaker 5 (42:53):
It's the police, it's the fault of the police.
That's what you're saying,because you know I'm saying what
they're getting by with on theother side is trying to
generalize on the specific andthey'll get away with it if we
decide to do nothing.
That's just a generaldisagreement and approach.

Speaker 4 (43:05):
What about?
Are you making it easier forbusiness owners to sue the mob
for burning their businessesdown?
I haven't noticed that billcoming out of the Senate
business owners to sue the mobfor burning their businesses
down.

Speaker 5 (43:13):
I haven't noticed that bill coming out of the
Senate.
Hey, if we're not in thediscussion, Tucker, we're going
to be on the sidelines like weare on so many issues as
conservatives because we fail toengage and they run circles
around us in the end run.

Speaker 2 (43:25):
What issues that we fail to engage in?
What he's talking about is theyrun circles around us.
He's talking about the media.
Who's running circles?
Not the Democrats, they're notrunning roughshod, it's the
media.
He's kowtowing to the media.
He's not standing on anyprinciple.
He wants to be in theconversation.
He wants to not be run awaywith because traditionally, in
the pre-Trump era, yeah, themedia becomes so left-leaning.

(43:50):
You had to lean left to get anyairtime.
Well, guess what?
That's not the case anymore.
In fact, courage is contagious.
Stand up for what you believein.
You know why Donald Trump has a96% approval rating in the
Republican Party Because hestands on his principles,
regardless of the cost and theconsequence.
Guys like Mike Braun, he's ajellyfish.
He doesn't have a spine.

(44:10):
He's literally caving in to theMarxist BLM group, endorsing
them, not knowing what theystand for.
Writing a bill that takes awayqualified immunity from police
officers to punish the policeofficers for the rioting and
looting.
That's literally directlycaving in to the mob's demands.
You're giving ground to them.
Rather than overfunding thepolice, rather than giving them

(44:31):
more training or more tools, no,no, no.
We're going to take money fromthem.
We're going to defund them.
We're going to make it easierfor people to sue cops.
He's saying well, I want to bein the conversation.
Guys, it's a non-starter.
The Democrats can't push a bill, they can't put one out.
So why does Mike Braun feellike he has to?

Speaker 5 (44:52):
You think you're going to keep the Senate in the
fall on this platform.
I think we're going to keep theSenate if we at least are
willing to engage in issues thatare important to the American
public and that we don't alwaysstand on the sidelines until
it's too late.

Speaker 4 (45:04):
It's more about when you get involved in the issue.
I don't think the publicsupports you at all on this.
With respect, I just don't.

Speaker 5 (45:11):
I think law enforcement knows they need to
have a better system than whatthey got now, because it's
stigmatizing them unduly.

Speaker 4 (45:21):
Okay, senator Brown, thanks for joining us tonight.
I appreciate it, you bet.

Speaker 2 (45:24):
All right, what a fool, what a fool.
And there's so many otherpoliticians just like him.
They've got to be weeded out,guys.
They've got to be weeded out,like it's just egregious.
Okay, last video, last video.
This is going to leave you on alittle bit of a slightly better
note.
So we've talked about the CDC'sguidelines for masks that

(45:46):
essentially, they know forscientific facts masks talked
about the CDC's guidelines formasks that essentially they know
for scientific facts, masks donot prevent the spread of
viruses, influenza,coronaviruses and things like
that, but yet we're being toldto wear them.
Who are we being told to wearthem by?
By spineless jellyfishes likeMike Braun, who are getting
bullied around by the mob Notjust the protest mob, the media

(46:07):
mob, right, the medical mob.
There's mobs out there andthere's people who've learned
they're the tantrum babies ofthe world.
These are the people who learnthat just by screaming louder
and louder and kicking theirfeet louder and louder, they
could get what they wanted.
They're the people who'd liketo rule from the minority,
ruling with fear, ruling withintimidation, right, all that.
Guys like Mike Braun arejellyfishes.

(46:29):
All they see is those people.
That's the people that are intheir sight all the time.
The longer and longer they stayin politics, the less and less
they care about the people outin the field in Indiana farming
corn, and the more and more hecares about the select activist
interest groups that areconstantly banging on his door.
In his office he has lost sightof the American people.

(46:50):
He has lost sight of hisconstituents.
He's in an echo chamber ofpolitics.
He's in an echo chamber wherehe's writing a bill that will
cost police officers life andlimb because of Black Lives
Matter, because of RayshardBrooks, because he was killed
unjustly.
Do you see how he's passed thatjudgment?

(47:10):
He says it was egregious.
What is he talking about?
He's going to write a bill andpush it through over that.
Come on, folks, it's not justthe Democrats that are screwing
us, it's the Republicans too.
In fact, it's the Republicansthat we oftentimes overlook.
We think that they're doing agood job passing these bills,

(47:30):
but these bills are horrible.
Okay, just because we passed abill on one side of the aisle
doesn't make it a win if it'sbad for the American people.
Mike Braun is bad for thepeople of Indiana.
Mike Braun is bad for thepeople of America.
Other politicians same thing.
If you're got a Republicangovernor that's putting you on a
lockdown right now or askingyou to wear masks.

(47:53):
They're bought and paid for.
They are just like Mike Braun.
I want you to understand andinternalize that Some of the
areas that are like moreconservative and I just I can
use Idaho as an example.
I'm from Idaho.
I understand how Idaho thinks.
I actually interned in theIdaho state Capitol.
I know how the Capitol works.
I've been in the undergroundtunnel tunnels.
I've, I've, I've sat incommittee meetings at the state

(48:15):
Capitol.
I love the Idaho state Capitol,I think it's awesome.
But I also know that when yougo to the Idaho state Capitol,
all of the commercial leases allaround that Capitol are filled
by lobby organizations.
Okay, that's where everybodyelse interned was at one of
those NGOs or one of those PACs.
So they're out there and guys,guys like Mike Braun, guys like
Brad Little, they get in theselittle echo chambers and they

(48:38):
think that because they're in aconservative state with
conservative values, that theydon't have to fight for them.
But what they they?
But because they're constantlydealing with the Democrats and
negotiating, they just give andgive and give.
Make the Democrats give.
Make the Democrats give upground.
The Democrats are the take aninch, they take a mile.

(48:58):
And you, as a Republican, areover there giving them the rope
Take an inch, give them an inch,they take a mile.
And guys like Mike Rahn aren'tholding on to the rope, they're
just letting it go.
They're just letting it go.
We want to be in theconversation.
I just want to be in theconversation.
I want to get on CNN from timeto time, all right.
So this next one is a littlevideo.
This is from a podcast.
It's from the Tim pool groupand, uh, this is.

(49:19):
These guys started a podcastabout six months ago and I need
you to close your eyes, unlessyou're driving.
If you're driving, don't closeyour eyes.
I need you to close your eyes.
I need you to imagine one ofthose, uh, one of those like
Snapchat emojis, or I guess theyhave them on Facebook now or
different things, but it's justan emoji.
It's a white guy with a beard.
He's got a pretty skinny face.
Okay, it's pretty skinny.

(49:39):
It's got long hair down downpast his shoulders.
He's a man long hair down pastshoulders, got a beard.
He's wearing round glasses.
He's wearing a gray hoodie thatcomes down to his eyebrows,
right, so you know real class,and he's wearing gray shirt.
So gray shirt, gray hoodie,long brown hair down down past
his shoulders, little beard,round glasses and he's wearing

(50:00):
headphones because he's on apodcast.
Okay, so that's the image ofthis guy.
These guys started a liberalpodcast.
They started a podcast justlike mine, except it was
liberally oriented, right?
So they started it about sixmonths ago.
Listen to what he says.
This is a liberal guy.
These are guys who got on torag on Republicans, rag on
Donald Trump and basically doexactly what I'm doing, but from

(50:23):
the other side of the aisle.
Okay, listen to this.

Speaker 6 (50:26):
Learned from our history and gotten to here.
So now you want to destroy allthat history and all these
people?
I personally, just talkingabout myself, I'm pissed Me too.
I don't, I don't like it.
I I'm, I'm voting for Trump,I'm okay with it.
I'm talking about it Like I'llopenly say it, like yeah, I am.
I think he is doing a lot ofthings that I didn't understand

(50:51):
and I didn't like him before.
But now, over the past four orfive months, how long have we
been doing this show?
Month six I am immersing myselfin what is going on in the
world and I see it.
I'm not an idiot, I'm alogical-based.
I follow the logic, I followyou know what's actually
happening and I think he's doinga lot of things that we need to

(51:15):
have had happen.
The Democrats work with China.
It's like.
That scares me.
I am frightened of China.
They clearly want to controlthe world and what a great blurb
there, man.

Speaker 2 (51:28):
I mean.
I mean, guys, if you payattention to what's going on,
you know that we have one guywho's not like mike braun, who's
standing on principle, andthat's donald trump.
I'm super concerned about thepeople around him.
I have a major concerns aboutmark meadows, his chief of staff
.
Love him and hate him right.
On one hand I like him.
He's a fire breather, you thinkhe's got things going, but on
the other hand, I know for afact he gave the clinton.

(51:50):
He had the chance to go afterthe clinton foundation.
He had the uh, the doyles inthere with their all their irs
and all their tax fraud case and, and you know, mark meadows
gave him a pass.
Who knows mark meadows notgoing to tell donald trump to
give hillary clinton a pass?
I mean, these are seriousissues and serious concerns, but
there's one guy that standsapart and that's Donald Trump,

(52:11):
and it's just kind of fun.
Okay, I like that.
A couple of things that I justwant to briefly mention.
You've got the news right nowthat you know Russia was paying
the Taliban to kill our soldiers.
First of all, they probablyalways do that covertly.
They probably probably never doit, um, you know overtly uh,
sounds like it was kind of somebad intelligence or wasn't

(52:32):
really verified intelligence notworth passing up the chain.
Anyways, democrats are tryingto take a run at this
specifically.
Adam Schiff now is going tostart.
He's got a whistleblowersomewhere in the DOD that's
going to come forward.
So they're going to try to makeanother run at impeachment or
another run at some embarrassinghearings and see if this
thing's got legs.
It's got no legs.
That dog don't hunt.
It's been debunked four waysfrom Sunday, but I think they're

(52:54):
going to run with it because itkind of plays bad in the media.
And that's where we're at.
We're at a spot where just it'sabout sound bites, right, it's
just about a blurb that can playbad, like Mike Braun isn't
wrong in his assessment wherehe's like if we don't have a
bill, chuck Schumer, they'vejust determined they can win on
this thing and they're going topound it and pound it, and pound

(53:14):
it.
Here's the thing.
If they think they can win onit, let them pound away.
It's a bad idea.
In the marketplace of ideas, badideas come to die.
Okay, that's what thisgentleman right here is saying.
He's in the marketplace ofideas Now that he's immersing
himself in the current eventsand then he's contrasting that
with his ideas.
Guess what he's realizing?
I was wrong.
Right, and Donald Trump isright.
Guys, ideas, in the marketplaceof ideas, good ideas will boil

(53:37):
to the top, bad ideas will godown.
When you suppress anything, whenyou censor free speech, book
burning, all of those things,what that does is it takes out
both the good and the bad ideas.
When we bookburn, we thinkwe're getting rid of bad ideas,
ideas that we think are bad.
But you don't realize that thereason your ideas are good is

(53:58):
because you're able to contrastthem with the bad.
As soon as you take away thebad, all of a sudden your good
idea doesn't seem so goodanymore, because you don't know
what the bad is.
You know, one of the reasonswhy Marxism is rising in America
is because nobody reads theGulag Archipelago.
Go read the Gulag Archipelagoand then come back and tell me
you want a Soviet state or youwant a communist country.
Go read the Red Scarf Girl.

(54:20):
Go read the Red Scarf Girl andthen come back and tell me you
want to have a culturalrevolution here in our country
and tell me that it's worth it.
But when you take those booksout.
When you remove those books,you remove uh, you remove you,
you, you know you you remove theopposition to the good.
So it's just a bad, bad idea.

(54:42):
Marketplace of ideas.
Let everything come out, let itboil up.
Stop thinking in two minuteblurbs, right, two Two-minute
media hits although that's all Iever play on my show right.
But start thinking about thereal issues, the core
fundamentals.
What do you believe in and howdoes the things around you
compare to that?
Use your eyes.
You're an independent,individual person.
What makes sense to you?

(55:03):
Recognize you've got yourgenerational ideas, which are
fine.
You needed your generationalideas, which are fine.
You needed your generationalideas to survive.
But you know what, if you were,if you were, growing up in my
generation taking the advice ofthe boomers?
It didn't work.
Go to school, get a good job.
Those that advice didn't work.
It worked for the boomersbecause in that society it
worked.
Things change, right, but oneof the problems we haven't,

(55:24):
we're having right now say it amillion times is everybody's
just not working off the samesheet of music.
Everybody's not working off thesame sheet of music.
So let's get on the same sheetof music.
All right, I'm out of time.
I appreciate you joining withme today.
You can find me at the PeasantsPod on Twitter and Parler the
Peasants Perspective on Facebookand peasantspod at gmailcom.

Speaker 1 (55:49):
Look forward to talking to you tomorrow.
Who are the Britons?
We all are.
We are all Britons and I amyour king.
I didn't know we had a king.
I thought we were an autonomouscollective.
You're fooling yourself.
We're living in a dictatorship,a self-perpetuating autocracy,
in which the working class is oh, there you go bringing class
into it again.
That's what it's all about.
If only people would hearPlease, please, good people, I

(56:10):
am in haste.
Who lives in that castle?
No one lives there.
Then who is your lord?
We don't have a lord.
What I told you.
We're an anarcho-syndicalistcommune.
We take it in turns to act as asort of executive officer for
the week.
Yes, but all the decisions ofthat officer have to be ratified
at a special bi-weekly meeting.
Yes, I see, by a simplemajority.

(56:32):
In the case of pure internalaffairs, be quiet.
But by a two-thirds majority inthe case of more major, be
quiet.
I order you to be quiet.
All the waves he think he is.
I'm your king.
Well, I didn't vote for you.
You don't vote for kings.
Well, how do you become kingthen?
The Lady of the Lake, her armclad in the purest shimmering

(56:52):
samite, held aloft Excaliburfrom the bosom of the water,
signifying, by divine providence, that I, arthur, was to carry
Excalibur.
That is why I'm your king.
Listen, strange women lying inponds distributing swords is no
basis for a system of government.
Supreme executive power derivesfrom a mandate from the masses,

(57:14):
not from some farcical aquaticceremony.
Be quiet.
You can't expect to wieldsupreme executive power just
because some watery tart threw asword at you.
Shut up.
If I went round saying I was anemperor just because some
moistened bint had lobbed ascimitar at me, they'd put me
away.
Shut up.
Will you Shut up?
Ah, now we see the violenceinherent in the system.

(57:35):
Shut up.
Come and see the violenceinherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed, bloody peasant.
Oh, what a giveaway.
Did you hear that?
Did you hear that?
Eh, that's what I'm on about.
Do you see him repressing me?
You saw it, didn't you?