Hold The Line w/ Buck Sexton - 06-03-22

as they do something right. That's what they seem to think. Friends, it's time for hold the line. Welcome to hold on. I'm Buck Sexton. He had another chance last night, Joe Biden, President of United States. Better for worse. I think we

all see it's pretty much always for worse. But he had an opportunity to bring together the American people and say some intelligent things, first of all, about the national healing process that should still be underwear in the aftermath of the horrific shooting in Uvalde, amongst some other shootings as well in recent days that having gotten nearly as much attention but also atrocious the shooting in Oklahoma, for example.

But Joe Biden took the opportunity to give a speech that was rooted in emotional blackmail, a lot of untruth, a lot of misdirection, and was basically just an opportunity to attack his political opponents instead of actually looking at what would be serious about trying to stop violence in this country. Joe Biden wants to tell you how much he hates the NRA and the gun owners out there who don't want to go along with this. Here he says, though,

that he has by partisan legislation to do something. This time, we have to take the time to do something, and this time it's time for the Senate to do something. But as we know, in order to do any get anything done in the Senate, we need a minimum of

ten Republican senators. I support the partisan efforts that include small group of Democrats and Republicans centers trying to find a way, But my god, the fact that the majority of the Senate Republicans don't want any of these proposals even to be debated or come up for a vote, I find unconscionable. We can't fail the American people again.

Do what, Joe, That's really what this comes in. Okay, do what we'll talk about some of the things that he said should be done, and see, the reason they want to get so much of the emotion out there is that they just want a mobilized mentality on this issue without having to explain how then the actions that they want taken wouldn't actually change anything that we've seen going on. I mean, for example, Biden mentioned there have

been twenty mass shootings. Now, how you define mass shootings is something that people There are different definitions of it out there, but usually it's three or more people who have been shot. Often these mass shootings involve gang activity and other criminal activity that is completely in a different category from the kind of mass murder that we saw

in that school in Uval Day. But here's Biden saying, there have been twenty mass shooting since you've all day watched, since Valdi just over a week ago, there have been twenty other mass shootings in America, each with four or more people killed or injured, including yesterday at a hospital in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a shooter to liberally target a surgeon using an assault up and he bought just a few hours before his rampage that left a surgeon, another doctor

receptionist and a patient dead and many more injured. That doesn't count the carnage we see every single day. It doesn't make the headlines. So how would any of the things which include an assault rifle, band, magazine limitation, How would any of these things that he wants, safe storage requirements, red flag laws, would they have stopped? He said there have been twenty mass shootings. Would they have stopped any

of those mass shooting? If the answer is yes, Joe Biden should tell us how and which mass shooting would have been stopped. Let's just say, for example, the shooter in Tulsa, Oklahoma, had been told sorry, there's an assault rifle ban. In effect, shooter could have just bought a pistol, just as lethal, could have used two pistols, like the horrific mass shooting at Virginia Tech, where it was two pistols. It was not a rifle that was used in that

mass shooting. In fact, if you look at the ford Hood shooting, another mass shooting, high casualty account, many debts attributed to that incident. That horrific incident, pistols, not a rifle. So changing the weapon isn't going to actually change the lethal intent of psychopathic hillers, So how would it have stopped anything? He doesn't even pretend that he has an answer to that. But what he does want, of worse

is political mobilization. Here. He wants people who are Democrats and I guess some independence, although he's not winning over any independence with this from the numbers that we can see. He wants his political rivals, the Republican Party, to suffer the consequences of not going along with these proposals that quite clearly would do nothing to stop gun violence in any meaningful way. Why. I've been in this fight for a long time. I know how hard it is, but

I'll never give up. Congress fails, I believe this time a majority of the American people won't give up either. I believe the majority of you will act to turn your outrage into making this issue central to your vote. Enough enough, No, he's wrong, that's not going to happen. But it does make the left wing anti gun base

feel good about themselves. Really, so much of Democrat politics around guns is just they don't like gun owners in general, lawful gun owners, criminals Democrats always have a soft spot for, but lawful gun owners they do not like and they want to always remind everybody of that fact in whatever ways they can. Um Karine. Jean Pierre says that Biden knows how to get things done because he's taken on

the gun lobby. Watch thanks. If the resident thinks that Congress must act immediately to end this apidemic of gun violence, is he going to bring any of the key players from Capitol Hill to the beach with him tonight? Okay? Um uh So, I don't have a whole thing that he knows how to get things done. He does, he does. I mean, he's he's beating the gun lobby before he has. But it's not it's not say this is how it's done,

but it's not his thing. It's actually fact we saw he did that in the Senate during his crow Congress days, that he beat the gun lobby. Think about this beat the gun lobby as if there's some all powerful enemy out there. That's the gun lobby. The problem that they have is gun owners, as in Americans who have Second Amendment rights who don't agree with this nonsense. That's it. At the end of the day. By the way, since we're talking about ending or rather limiting mitigating violence to

the greatest of your possible loss of life. Look at Democrat policies and cities all across the country. Do you think they're really strict about enforcing gun crimes when it comes to when it comes to people who are associated with gangs, people who have a previous criminal history. Not in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago. Oh no, no,

they're letting them walk. In many cases, they're giving them plea bargains that they should never be handing to people with any kind of violent intent who are carrying firearms on the streets. But you know, social justice. And then there's this Oregon's decriminalization of drugs, for example, Democrats push this Oregan's first in the nation's scheme to decriminalize drugs and encourage those possessing them to seek medical help has

been blighted with problems. They've had a seven hundred percent increase in overdoses in the past year seven x. Another Democrat policy like going soft on crime, like defunding police that results in people dying in large numbers. Why don't they address that because there is large numbers of people that are dying from this one hundred thousand plus overdoses last year. Now Democrats would rather just do a lot of virtue signaling. All right, we'll have more on this

situation with the author and columns David Marcus. When we come back. Let's talk about protecting her home first. I don't know if you saw this. There was a recent story about an Arizona real estate agent who found that the home she lived in was listed for sale. That's fine, right, except no, he wasn't actually selling her home. He was a victim of home title fraud, a devastating crime that

happens all over the country. According to the experts at home title lock, the crime is incredibly profitable and hard to detect. An identity thief simply creates a fake title transfer for your home and refiles as the new owner. Then he can take out loans on your home or sell it. Typical identity theft services don't cover you, and

neither does homeowners insurance. Home title lock does. Home tutle lock puts a barrier around your home's title the instant they detect anyone tampered with their home's title, they help shut it down, and they help get your home back in your name. So go to hometutlelock dot com. Now tell them that Bucks sent you for thirty free days our protection. That's home tuttlelock dot com Again hometitlelock dot com.

David Marcus stopped by in a moment. Support from my podcast is brought to you by Manscape, the best and men's below the ways Grooming. Their products are precision engineered tools. Manscapes Performance Package is the ultimate men's hygiene bundle. Join over four million men worldwide who trusts Manscape with its exclusive offer for you twenty percent off and free worldwide

shipping with the code buck at manscape dot com. The Performance Package four point zero includes a ton of men's grooming products like the Lawnmower four point zero trimmer, the weed Whacker, Era No's hair trimmer, Performance boxer, briefs, and a bunch of other great men's hygiene products you never knew you needed, plus a travel bag to hold it all. The lawnmower trimmer is the best. It's got a cutting edge ceramic blade to reduce grooming accidents, and it's waterproof

so no more messes on the bathroom floor. You'll also get the waterproof weed Whacker nose, an ear hair trimmer with proprietary skin safe technology which helps reduce nicks, snags and tugs in all those delicate areas. Get twenty percent off and free shipping with the code buck at manscape dot com. That's twenty percent off with free shipping at manscape dot com and use code buck to unlock your

confidence and always use the right tools with Manscape. You will not stop us from advancing the Protecting Our Kids Act today. You will not stop us from passing it in the House next week, and you will not stop us there. If the Filibuster obstructs us, we will abolish it. If the Supreme Court of X we will expand it. And we will not rest until we have taken weapons

of war out of circulation and our communities. That was New York Congressman Mondare Jones laying the blame for mass shootings squarely at the feet of Republicans who refuse to support new gun control regulations. On the other side of the aisle, Congressman Jim Jordan gave an equally impassioned response, take a look, now, we know where they want to go. They just said it in the filibus. Or expand the court, forget the Constitution, now we know Democrats blame guns, they

criticize the NRA, they call Republicans names. Let's be honest, they've told us what they want to do. Their real beef is with the Second Amendment. A lot of heated words, but ultimately the federal government is unlikely to do all that much to address the issue of mass shootings. Author and columns David Marcus argues that both sides are at fault for a lack of action, and a piece on foxnews dot Com, he writes both the right and left in America responsible for a lack of action to bring

mass shootings to an end. Lie of the right is that our Second Amendment and freedom to own guns are somehow not connected to our wildly high number of gun debts alive. A left is that we can achieve the results of Europe or Australia without gun confiscation and the destruction of a constitutional right. Interesting provocative stuff. Let's talk to about it. Join me now, Author and columist David Marcus. David, thanks for being with us, Thanks for having me so.

In your piece, you wrote that the real conversation we should be having is this is a conversation we refuse to have a debate between accepting the horrible risks of freedom or of living our lives under greater control limitations the name of safety. It is a conversation that requires courage and one that we must no longer avoid. Freedom is dangerous. It is no use pretending it isn't end quote. Tell me more so, what do you you know philosophically?

I think I understand the point that's being made. So what do you think about the call to action? A lot of people say we have to do something, Okay, what do we do? I think I have to be very careful about the call to action, and especially when it's rooted in emotion and fear. I think COVID taught

us this. Really, they're legitimate competing interests here. I think that it's okay for gun rights advocates, and I consider myself to be one to acknowledge that if you make a choice to have hundreds of millions of privately owned guns in your society, there's going to be some gun violence as a result of that. But you have to

treat that as an adult. I mean, you have to be able to get away from the immediate emotion of something horrible like a school shooting and think about the big picture, because what happens otherwise and what happens every time is for five days, everybody gets very upset and Congressman Jordan and Congressman Jones yell at each other and then it goes away and nothing happens. Yes, yes, and well I think it part David, because we had very

similar discussions. And I remember this right after Sandy Hook and there were some states like New York for example, past I think the Safe Act that got rid of assault rifles you couldn't buy ansault rifles. State of New York, well their definition of assault rifle because first of all, there are a lot of weapons that are as effectively lethal as an assault rifle that are that are also rifles.

So then there were cosmetic changes made to be compliant with New York regulation, and at the end of the day, it didn't do anything. So I think maybe one of the problems is that some of the we have to take action and then we say, okay, fine, here what is the list of things you want to do. And Joe Biden, for example, in the speech last night, talked about safe storage requirements. I mean, even theoretically, if that were to pass, who's going to enforce safe storage requirements?

And so if somebody get if someone steals somebody's gun, let's say, and does something horrible with it, someone steals

it out of their home. Where if if a teenager gets gets their parents gun and goes and shoot somebody with it, you're going to throw all the safe storage charge on top of the of the charge of You know, this is you start to wonder when you said we should have an adult conversation, at what point do we just say we can't actually control all human behavior and there are already a lot of laws that are trying

to do that that fail to do that. No, I mean I think I think that's what you have to say, right, I mean I think that all of this low hanging fruit. I mean, look, I'm not going to say that it's silly. I think that as long as we're not throwing money away, if you want to spend more money on mental health, if you want to spend more money on these sort

of like things around the margins, that's fine. But if you're talking about addressing the problem, and by the problem you mean we want perfect safety, We want nobody to ever get killed by guns. You'd have to repeal the Second Amendment. I mean, it's it's it's a deeply Unamerican way of looking at the problem, because the United States is founded on individual freedom, and really the main point of that piece is free them is dangerous. When you

give people freedom, bad things can happen. Also, really wonderful things can happen, and that's the risk that you take. Yeah, I mean it does remind me at some level of the conversations early on from COVID, where you know, people were saying, oh, but you know, if we can create all these we can shut down the economy. Let's say, keep everybody at home. I think we all realized now that was just a completely asinine idea, but that is what you know, for a week, for two weeks, maybe

to let the hospitals get capacity. That's how they sold it to us. And then it was just we're gonna wait out the virus. And everybody realized, well, that can't happen, and people like I don't remember if you were making this argument, I was making the argum at the time. You probably were two. A lot of people die in car crashes every year. You could eliminate all you could

limit all traffic fatalities. If you made the speed limit fifteen miles an hour and you don't have to take away everyone's car, make the speed limit fifteen miles an hour and take away the car off anybody who breaks the speed limit, you'd basically maybe you still have, like you know, fifty traffic fatalities year. You wouldn't have ten thousand and fifteen thousand whatever it is we see a year and a year out. People don't want to do that. No, And when you made that point early on in COVID,

you were called a ghoul. Right, And it's exact same it's the exact same playbook, right, Because if today you say, listen, the Second Amendment is worth some really horrible things that may happen as a result of it, you're called a ghoul. Right. It really is the same playbook. And unfortunately you can't base public policy on the idea of saving every single human life. It's it won't work, It'll usually backfire. And again it's it's just not how adults deal with these

kinds of situations. What do you What did you think? I mean? I'm meant to ask you this the top, but I found your broader philosophical point something we should dive into right away. The speech Biden gave last night, does he really think that anything is going to be done? It just feels to me like this is the playbook. They give the speech, laundry list of things, basically nothing happens, and then they just go back to what we hate. Republican. Yeah,

I mean, he had two choices last night. He could have delivered a very narrow speech tailored to that low hanging fruit, like you know, background checks, red flag laws that the bipartisan group in the Senate is working on, and and sort of tried to shepherd that through. That's not what he did, As you say, he gave the classic Democrat speech that says, I'm not going to take your guns away. Here's fifteen ways I'm going to take your guns away that you know we've been hearing for,

you know, decades. The one in particular that I really wish, I just it is stupid, almost beyond comprehension, is the Second Amendment is not absolute. And I sit here in New York City where you'd have to to get a pistol, not even an assault rifle, a pistol. You're looking at about a nine to twelve months wait, lots of processing, fingerprinting about a four or five hundred dollars processing fee. So you can get a gun, you could only keep

it home. You cannot carry, and you have to keep in a lock box, and you have to keep the ammunition in a separate lock box, and you can't even leave the city of New York with it. I don't think that's an absolute right. I think I think we're in the land of stupidity when that's even talked about. No, I mean, look, I think that's exactly right. And I do think that, you know, it may be that people in New York City don't want everybody on the subway

carrying a gun. I mean that that might not be what people in New York want, And that's okay, right, And we have different laws in different states, and and these are also sort of arguments on the margins where I get that there's people from other states who want to be able to carry in New York. And I don't know, like like those are debates that we can have, um. But you know, on the big on the big issue, we need gun rights in the United States and we

need to accept that. You know, that comes with some risks. It's true. Good boy, David, thanks for being with us, appreciate it, thanks for having me. Man administration has announced new rules that may defund school lunch programs of school districts don't allow trans people to use the bathrooms of their choice. We'll have more on that with senior policy analyst at the Independent Women's Forum in s Stepman. First, I want to talk to you about for checking your

online data. A lot of companies promise your privacy is guaranteed, but we know that's not true. That's why you need a new privacy and cybersecurity application tool called Secure. It's spelled SEK. You are. Secure is using proprietary encryption and offering secure instant messaging and email. But Secure all of your communication is based on servers and data centers hosted in Switzerland without using any of the big tech platforms. Privacy is a big issue now. Without real security, people

can read your emails, messages, even your bank information. Secure will never mind your data and never ask for your phone number. You can send emails your doctor, banker, lawyer, or anyone else with pomocomfidence. You're not being spot on by your internet provider or Big Tech. Secure is your solutions to stop the constant theft of your digital identity. Cost only five dollars for the messenger only ten dollars to the messenger and email combination package. Go to secure

dot com and take back your privacy today. That's sekure dot com and use promo code buck for twenty five percent off. We'll be right back with more. Hold the line. The idea that I'm going to say, which I would never do. An unaccompanied child ends up at the border, We're just gonna let him starve to death and stay on the other side. No previous administration's debt either except Trump.

I'm not going to do it. That was Joe Biden last year, assuring us that his administration wouldn't allow immigrant children to go hungry, But apparently he'd be okay with letting a lot of kids in America go hungry. According to an article from The Washington Examiner, the Department of Agriculture announced that it would interpret Title nine to include sexual orientation and gender identity. This means schools will also be subject to this definition of that's certain federally funded programs,

such as school lunches. That's right, school lunch tied to the trans agenda and gender identity. So you better go along with this or you go hungry. Apparently, according to Biden, joined me now to discuss senior policy analysts of the Independent Women's Forum in as Stepman. Yes, thanks be with us, Thanks for having me, Buck. This is a kind of wow moment, I think just because it's one of those headlines that read, you say, that can't be right, but is it right? Because it seems like we've had a

few reports on this. Now Yeah, not only is it right, it's actually just the first salvo of what are probably a bunch of departments that are going to issue reg's getting in line with the General Promulgation of Regulations on Title nine that the Department of Education is working on and what's supposed to release, you know, a month and a half ago. Now they're saying it'll be some time this month. They're playing with us a little bit as

to when they actually release it. But we know what the substance of those regulations are and is rather and the major piece of that is that, in fact, they're going to include gender identity as part of the definition of sex, which is going to force every single school that takes a dime from the federal government, whether that's through a school lunch program, whether that's through for example,

a textbook program. So it could sweep in a lot of private schools, and then of course public schools all the way from K twelve and then all the way up through the university university level, all of those schools are impacted by Title nine, and their regulations are essentially going to say you must accept boys who identify as women in every sort of women's in girls' space, or

you will lose your funding. So yeah, I mean you wrote in a Wall Street Journal op ed that without congressional authorization or other constitutional authority, the Biden administration is writing new Title nine rules to socially engineer every aspect of the educational experience, from students speech and school athletics to high school locker room use and relationships between adult college students. I mean, that is a that's a sweeping span of things that they're going to try to socially

engineer or under Title nine. I mean, so you mentioned the gender identity component. What are some of these what are some of these other aspects? I mean, you just talk about students speech, we are what are they hoping to force on people that's outside of just the gender identity issue. Yeah, I mean, there's a very good argument to be made. This is the biggest, most sweeping change the law that's ever been made by unelected bureaucrats. There's

a very good case to be made. So not only does it essentially implement, in the context of education more or less the Equality Act, which is something that failed in Congress, by the way, it also overturns in two main buckets of constitutional rights regulations that are promulgated by the Trump Department of Education, which are in line with Supreme Court precedents. So it's not just that are overturning regulations from the previous administration. They're contradicting Supreme Court precedent

in two very critical areas. Ones due process and the other is free speech. Due process. Everything that happened to Cavana, right, that's been happening on college campuses for a long time. There have been nearly two hundred federal cases decide on due process favorably, mostly for boys and men who have been sued because they were denied their due process rights and they were punished on the mere accusation of any

kind of sexual misconduct. So that's one one bucket that is going to be reversed and those protections taken away in an unconstitutional manner. And on speech, it's because college campuses mostly this is mostly a university issue. They've defined sexual harassment way beyond how the Supreme Court has defined

it and starting to sweep in things that are protected speech. So, for example, there is actually a liberal feminist professor who had was investigated under Title nine for publishing a public article about sex roles. Okay, so like this is sweeping and protected speech. This is not what people think of as sexual harassment. This is I heard something about you know, sex, gender, sex roles, whatever, and it offends me, and that's harassment

under Title nine. So that's an huge impingement on freedom of speech, both of these due process, free speech, fundamental constitutional rights. This is I mean, this is this is us. And so it sounds like essentially, let's let's just say if I am a university student and I am and someone says, well, I go by the I go by the pronoun they, because that is my preferred pronoun. Under

the Biden administration's new interpretation of Title nine. I could theoretically, if I refuse to use the plural they pronoun for an individual who claims to be transgender, could I be sanctioned under Tuttle nine? Is that is that where we're heading, Well, the school will be sanctioned, right, So then sanctioned you right, So like school will either lose its funding or be subject to investigation. This is already happening because of course, as we know, schools are already very happy to do

a lot of this. They're very happy to impinge on constitutional rights. They're very happy to read a fine sex and so schools are already pointing to Title nine, even though these regulations are not in place yet. So we had this this episode in Wisconsin. Within am I believe it was a middle school, right, an eighth grade boy refused to use the preferred pronouns of a they them classmate, and the school shut it down and punished the kid

on the basis that. And then they pointed to Title nine, and they said, we have to do this because Title nine requires it. This is a violation, that's a Title nine violation. We have to punish this eighth grader for not calling his classmates. They then so there's a Daily Mail headline. My team, My team just told me about this furious parents rally at Virginia Middle School as boards suggests punishing children for dead naming if they use trans

classmates old names. I mean again, I read this headline, I think, come on, that can't really be. But it is happening, isn't It's absolutely happening. And if these regulations there will be a notice in comment period people can and should write in their opinion because it occupies bureaucrats as they have to answer every single substantive concern. But when these regulations are released, that will be the position of the federal government on our most powerful federal laws,

which is civil rights law. Right, So this is important, just so I know how far along? First of all, how do we know that this is what they're planning? Like, what is that? What is that basic? And also how far along in the process, And do we know when this rule should is supposed to be announced? So it was supposed to be announced back in April. They continued meetings through May. Now they're saying they're going to release

it in June this month. I don't know when exactly they're going to promulgate this, but they did leak it to Politico, probably on purpose, to Politico and the Washington Post. The substance of these regulations, so it's not really that much in doubt. I mean, things may be phrased one way or another way, but these three buckets of changing the definition of sex, attacking due process, attacking free speech, those three buckets are likely to come out in the

proposed rule very similarly. I honestly think they're playing with us because they know they can rely on schools to actually implement these changes ahead of the rule actually going into effect. So I think what they're trying to do

is minimize or delay the backlash. I wouldn't be surprised that these REGs don't formally drop until after the election, for example, I was going to ask you, because they have to know that what we've seen in Loudon County, Virginia, and now in Florida with Disney and the trans thing for kids, this is turning into an outside of their base and outside of the deepest blue states. It's a

political liability for them. It's absolutely a political liability for them. Again, they're saying, and maybe it's true that they're going to release them in June. Maybe they just are taking longer than usuals every bureacratic process always does. But I tend to suspect there's at least the possibility that they aren't going to want to delay putting this forward until after

the election. And the meantime, they have schools who are like this Wisconsin school are enforcing it anyway, so they kind of have their cake and get like they eat their cake and have it too, or whatever how that phrase goes. They're actually these REGs are being implemented as

we speak by schools across the country. They get all the substance they want, and they get to a delay the political backlash for having actually promulgated rules this broad and this dismissive of fundamental constitutional rights and as really interesting stuff. Good work. We'll talk to you again about

it soon. Thank you, Thank you. The White House has announced that children under the age of five will likely be eligible to receive the COVID nineteen vaccine in the coming weeks, which is totally unnecessary if you actually look at the data. We'll have more on that with the first TVs T and Aloe in a moment. Stay with us. Each morning, the President of the United States receives a highly classified briefing on the most important issues facing the country.

It's called the President's Daily Brief or PDB. It's delivered by America's spies and analysts. Well, now you can hear your very own PDB in the form of a podcast hosted by me Brian Dean Wright, a former CIA operations officer. Each morning at six am Eastern, I'll bring you fifteen to twenty minutes of the most important issues facing the country, giving you the critical intelligence and analysis you need to start your morning. Let's talk about what we know at

this moment. We know that many many parents are eager to vaccinate their youngest kids, and it's important to do this right. We expect that vaccinations will begin in earnest as early as Tuesday, June twenty first, and really roll on throughout that week. White House COVID nineteen Response Coordinator doctor Ashish Jah says children under five years old could receive their first vaccine before the end of this month. But our parents really that anxious to get their really

young kids vaccinated. Contributor here at the first TV Tiina Lowe joins me now to drop some truth bombs here, Tina, What is wrong with these government bureaucrats who seem to think that there is a frenzy from parents to get their four year olds vaxed? What's going on? All you have to do is look at the most blue areas of America to see how little vaccine uptake there has been for those five through eleven even in you know,

Indigo blue Washington, DC. I think it's you were, than half of all five through eleven year old children have been vaccinative. And that's you know, DC's ninety two percent of Washington d C voted for Joe Biden. You really couldn't get a more representative data set of what the president's base looks like, and you know, they aren't taking

it up. So it seems really unclear that there is going to be a mad dash for the under fives, especially considering that virtually no under fives have died of this. And it also just goes to show that the priority from this White House is not in ensuring that those seniors, who again are the ones who are actually dying of this thing, ensuring that seniors are you know, getting vaccinated,

getting boosters. Instead, we're focusing on what literally dozens of death I mean, even under seventeen, barely one thousand Americans under the age of eighteen have died from it, just once again shows it is about appeasing a very very specific,

over educated, white millennial women demographic. The President has been courting this in his COVID campaign, no focus on global COVID outreach, no focus on just you know, keeping the hospitalization wrote with the hospitalization rate low with seniors, and instead all about just this performative anxiety about risking the idea that you know your kid could be one of a dozen four year old who guys of COVID children currently representing about eighteen point nine percent pretty specific there

of all COVID nineteen cases reported in the US. So that's more than thirteen point three million infections. I mean, we've had lots and lots of kids who have gotten the disease, and to your point, they're basically fine, and we also are to believe, based on the data, that they're very unlikely compared to adults, to even spread it to other people. So on what basis do children need the vaccine at all? I guess I just wonder why are we even still having this I mean it's not

just conversation. I mean the government is pushing this no, and I mean I think the only good thing is that you see globally, you know, global liberals have really and Europe has really put us to shame and the idea of for them. You know, some of these countries that even had very stringent vaccine mandates for adults really

made noish like Bush to vaccinate children. You have a place like France where they had a very hardcore vaccine mandate for adults for a couple of months in place got through adult vacs numbers up really high, and now there was never really any regulation for the kids. I mean from school closures to now you know, vaccs mandates and requests, the US has been a global outlier, and I suppose the only good thing about it is, you know, you can't get a majority of parents in DC to

vaccinate your five year old. I don't know how there will be a I am Bush to get you know, newborns vaccinated. And again for COVID. This has been true when we've known this. You know, we can pretend March twenty twenty no one knew what the hell was going on. But by April and May twenty twenty, we did know that this was quite literally just the flu four kids, and especially those youngest kids. We aren't even talking about college campuses, where you do have more pre existing conditions

like obesity, like asthma, like type two diabetes. Among these youngest kids, they don't have any of those preexisting risk factors right now. The biggest risk to their home is that they get locked in at home wearing a mask and gained a bunch of weight because they aren't allowed to go play out on the playground and socialize. By the way, speaking of the playgrounds and what's going on with kids still in the COVID what should feel like the post COVID era, But we're really not entirely there,

at least in the Blue States. People live in you know, Texas, Nebraska, Florida, they're like, what are you even talking about? If you live in New York in California. I think Oakland just put masked mandates back in place, and New York still has them, And people are upset about this on Toddler's here and parents are really annoyed with Mayor Eric Adams for keeping the mask man at least some parents are They're saying it's an absurdity. I mean, here he goes

a New York resident. I voted for Adams because his whole platform is that he would get things back to normal. It's just been really frustrating because it seems like Mayor Adams is doing nothing about it. There's been no update about what they'll be in the summer, and as a parent, it's very frustrating. Makes me question whether New York City is the right place to raise my family. That's Danielle Pollock,

a wron's mother of two. I mean, you know, I can just say anecdotally, I think this is increasingly representative TNL of what people are feeling here, which is so no one else's mass. Basically, adults aren't mass, and kids twelve year olds not masked, eighteen year olds not masked, four year olds are massed, Like what are they doing? No? Eric Adams explicitly ran on major platforms, one combating crime as he was the Brooklyn Police commissioner, and two bringing

New York back. He has made this major push to have all of the office buildings in Midtown and downtown reopened, to have normal traffic back in restaurants, but his big thing has been the workplace. Now here he is mistaking effect and cause he does not realize that by keeping kids in this mask regime, you have tons of parents who have gone out to Connecticut, who have gone to Godford, mid New Jersey because they don't want their kids going

to school in this permanent masking state. I know personally, a bunch of people who consider themselves lifelong Manhattanite who have decided to DeCamp do you know, Greenwich, Connecticut. And you will not get those office buildings back to capacity so long as you have parents terrified either because they have the mandatory school closures based on quarantine annuals, which we know are still insane in New York, or because

they just want to forego the masking regime entirely. You know Eric Adams, he's been spotted jumping around with models like Kara Delavine at nightclubs, hitting up you know, the most expensive spot, going to the met Gala. These kids are still in mask. Not a mask to be seen on Eric Adams. And that's fine because he should understand it.

As a healthy person who is that you know, upwards of a year at this point to choose to get the vaccine, not get the vaccine, whatever, But why but the most onerous regulation on the demographic least likely vaccinated or not to come down in any severe case of COVID. And you know, Eric Adams, he's had a hundred days in office, he's he's he's had an ample honeymoon period. But I think Prime isn't getting any better. And the mask thing is just really rubbing New Yorker's nose in it.

The last we actually have some some data on this team. Parents of school age children say masks harm their kids. Forty six percent say masked harm kids social learning interactions, thirty nine percent say masked harm kids mental and emotional health. This is a politico Harvard survey, so yeah, parents do realize this is actually bad. This is a problem. Yes.

And the craziest thing about that political Harvard bull is when you know bifur kate between Republicans and Democrats, even Democrats, you still have on all those figures a majority either think it harmful or does nothing. We as citizens accept a regulation. We do not do so because it is useless. We accept a regulation as a populist because a majority of people are supposed to think that it is helpful.

And the fact that not a majority of Democrats think that these mass mandates are helpful for their children just goes to show how much you know, these federal bureaucrats, and these blue state and blue city bureaucrats have just completely lost the plot on what people care about. Tina, Thanks for being with us. Always good to see him. Thank you, Buck. After the creepy porn lawyer Michael Avanati learns his fate, it probably wasn't what he was hoping for.

We'll have that in quick Kits, stay with us. President Biden is living in fantasy lamb when it comes to the American people and the economy. Plus, Michael Avenati gets a four year term, just not the one that he'd hope for those stories on quick Kids. Let's get right to it. First of all, the economy sucks. We all know that inflation is at a forty year high. The cost of everything that you need to just live your life is much much higher than it was before Biden

took office. People know this. Three quarters of the American people think the economy is on the wrong track, So that includes a whole lot of Democrats. Although someone almost say it's not Biden's fault. Yeah, right, whatever point here being, it's not good out there. Everyone kind of knows that at some level. But Joe Biden knows that his party is coming up. Party in power, Democrats. They have the House, they have the Senate, they have the Biden Ministry, I mean,

they have the Biden White House. He knows that they are heading for a shell lacking in this midgim election. So what is he gonna do? Well, try whatever he can to convince the easily suede that, oh no, that economy that you think is so bad, it's actually great. Watch since it took office, families are carrying less dead, their average savings are up. The recent survey from the Federal Reserve found that more Americans feel financially comfortable than

any time since the survey began in twenty thirteen. It's just great out there. Joe's a genius when it comes to the economy, don't you know. He's doing a great job. Heck of a job for Joe Biden, ensure you. But what are they gonna say, it was all a mistake, We lied to you. Joe Biden's a moron. No, they're not going to say that even though we can kind

of all see what's true what's not. Michael Vinati, who was aptly dubbed by Hucker Carlson a Fox News the creepy porn lawyer Avanadi, you will recall, at one point in recent history, back in twenty eighteen, was the single most frequent guest for a few months on CNN. That's

actually true. He was the most aired guest on CNN's air who was not an employee of the network for a few months, and he was talked about even by some Democrats as a possible last minute, if you will, or possible out of nowhere presidential candidate for the Democrat Party. Turns out he is a creepy porn lawyer. He's a scumbag, and now he is going to four years in prison

for stealing money from his client, Stormy Daniels. So yet another time where we see here the Left was willing to elevate human refuse in order to attack Donald Trump, and this guy was treated like some kind of a hero. I mean, if you go back and listen to what they were saying about him on CNN, on MSNBC, and the kind of articles that are being written in the most widely read Democrat publications. They acted like Michael Labanatti

was a great hero of the Republic. He is a scumbag lawyer who steals from clients, lies to people, and has no ethics whatsoever. And now he's going to federal prison. But those are the kinds of people they're willing to tell you are great as long as they were useful in attacking Donald Trump in some capacity. There's David Hogg, the anti gun activist who tweeted this out, Non Americans should not come here until our country does something about gun safety. Your kids are not safe here, and neither

are you. Please request your government put out a travel advisor to your citizens telling them it is not safe for citizens to visit the US. I mean, he's just not smart. But again, when he was entering the world of politics, he was not yet technically an adult. I think he was seventeen. So they put him forward because he had survived the shooting at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School. He had been one of the students at that high school. They put him forward as a survivor of the shooting

and as a child or as a non adult. So if you criticize his policy ideas you were a bad person. They did the same thing with Greta Thunberg on climate change for example. So you're not allowed to criticize. You have to sit there and listen to somebody who in this case, as we all see now that he's an adult, I can say plainly, he's a moron, a little moron knows nothing, but they elevated him to hero status as well.

Noticing noticing a pattern here, folks, Then Biden had a snarky response to the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, who was concerned about the economy. Watch Elon Musk has asked, has said that he has a super bad feeling about the US econies. Hang say Elon Musk and has feeling about the economy. Jade Diamond has said similar things. Well, let me tell you well, Belon Musk has talked about

that Ford is an increasing their investment overwhelmingly. I think Ford is increasing investment in bibuilding new electric vehicles six thousand new employees union employees. I might add in the Midwest, the former Chrysler Corporations slaunis they are also making similar investments and electric vehicles. Intel has added twenty thousand new jobs or making computer chips, so you know, lots of luck Inness trip to the Moon. I mean, I don't, I mean yeah. Who do you want to listen to

when it comes to the economy? Self made richest man in the world or the guy who can only create jobs for his crack addict son to get paid off by Russian or rather Ukrainian and Chinese oligarchs and corrupts his interest. You know the answer. That's everything I told the line The no Spin News of Bill O'Reilly is next Shields High. Each morning, the President of the United States receives a highly classified briefing on the most important

issues face in the country. It's called the President's Daily Brief or PDB. It's delivered by America's spies and analysts. Well, now you can hear your very own PDB in the form of a podcast hosted by me Brian Dean Wright, a former CIA operations officer. Each morning at six am Eastern, I'll bring you fifteen to twenty minutes of the most important issues facing the country, giving you the critical intelligence and analysis you need to start your morning.