at doesn't have the problems of homeschooling. Oh yeah there are problems. And doesn't have the problems of public school. I feel like it's going to be clusters of people who band together maybe with the help of an app or some parent company and form groups of 12 people for homeschooling. Get together at somebody's house, put on the big screen TV. All you need is a parent somewhere in the house. Something like that. There's going to be some model that's neither pure homeschool nor pure public school. That's inevitable.

All right. I've been trying not to follow this Virginia governor's race with Terry McAuliffe and somebody whose name I forget, Youngkin. Do you know this whole story is fake news? The whole Virginia governor race, whatever you heard about it, it's fake news. Let me give you an example.

There is a governor's race. That part's real. So I guess Terry McAuliffe at one point in the past said, when making his point about the limits of parental behavior versus the school's responsibility, he said something like parents can't just go in and ban books on their own in the school. Do you agree with him? Do you agree that parents shouldn't be the ones who just unilaterally go in and say well there are 20 of us who hate this book so this book is gone? Do you agree that we shouldn't be banning books based on some small group of people thinking they should be banned? That's what Terry McAuliffe said. And that got turned into parents can't have any say about their school. Right? So that got turned into somehow he doesn't want parents to have input in the school. That's just fake news. Literally nobody thinks that. Literally nobody thinks that parents should have no input in the school.

Now there's a way to do it right and there's a way to do it wrong but literally nobody thinks that. So if you believe that Terry McAuliffe, who I'm not supporting by the way, I'm just telling you what the fake news is, if you believe that he didn't think parents should have a say in their public education, I don't think that's true.

All right. Now if you think you heard it, I'm not going to be able to talk you out of it. Old fool Scott. That's the comment on YouTube. The old fool. He said that. Now some of you are saying my God Scott he said it directly. No no he didn't.

What does this sound like? It sounds exactly like when you thought or the news thought Trump called neo-Nazis fine people. And the argument was we saw it Scott, don't tell us it didn't happen when we saw it. And I'm not the only one. Millions of people saw it. So how could it not happen if we saw it? We heard it. We saw it.

Easily, easily. Here's my statement for why. Without even watching it, without watching what you watched, so I didn't watch those debates but without even reading the transcript, without reading the transcript, without educating myself on the topic, without watching any of the videos, I'm going to say with complete confidence that there's nobody, including Terry McAuliffe, who has the opinion that you have given to him. Nobody has that opinion. Nobody. Not the whole world including Terry McAuliffe. That's all I'm going to say. If you believe that you saw it with your own eyes and heard it with your own ears and read it in the transcript, I say you didn't.

Okay, it's uncomfortable isn't it? It's pretty uncomfortable because the reason that you watch me is that I've been right more than I've been wrong. I've been wrong my fair share of course, of course. But it's uncomfortable isn't it? Because you know that my perception on this has been right more than it's wrong and if it differs with yours you're saying to yourself right now is that possible? Could I be this positive that this really happened and it never happened? That's what I think. I think you're positive it happened. You're positive you saw it and it didn't happen because it couldn't happen.

It's the same argument with the hoax that Trump said drink bleach or the hoax that Trump said neo-Nazis are fine people. The reason you know it didn't happen, it couldn't happen, it wouldn't have with anybody anywhere in any reality. Those things can't happen so this also can't happen. It didn't happen in my opinion. It's not an analogy. It's an example. An example is slightly different than analogy. You can give examples to show that it happened but it would be proper to pick on the analogy.

Let's hear some more. Here's a, Geraldo on The Five yesterday. They were talking about inflation and Geraldo who's now sitting in as the liberal leaning kind of player on The Five, he said that inflation is partly a good thing because that way employees would get raises. So there's some pressure on employers to give raises to people and raises are good things. So maybe you should see that inflation is not all bad. It's not all bad because people got raises.

Have I ever mentioned to you that not everybody understands economics and a lot of these people are in the news business? As someone quickly pointed out to him on The Five, it didn't take long, their salaries are going up but only in the same amount as the prices are going up. So you're not going to be able to buy more gas with your raise. You'll buy the same as you used to because the price of gas went up too. So now that would be good if nothing else went up but if everything's going up then everybody getting a raise, what's better than not getting raised? But it's not good. It's not positive. It's just keeping up with something.

Let's talk about this story about the boy in the skirt who assaulted two times and once in a bathroom. Number one you would like me to say Scott, Scott, Scott you were so right when you were so wrong when you said I don't think that there's a transsexual element to the story but then we found out that the boy does in fact wear a skirt. Now I called him a boy but that may be incorrect because I think he says he's non-binary. Is that right? Non-binary or was it gender fluid? Which one was it? Gender fluid.

Now here's my understanding of the story. The reason it's a national story, is it a national story because there was an assault? Is that what makes a national story? No, unfortunately, because assaults are every day but we don't make them national stories. Was it a national story because this is the second time he did it and the administrators or somebody in charge should have made sure he didn't do it a second time? Is that what makes it a national story? No, unfortunately, because repeat offenders are very very normal. So that didn't make it a national story.

Was it a national story because we were worried that, not we because I wasn't worried, but there was a lot of worry that the transgender rights would allow people who were born with male equipment to pretend to be female and go into a woman's restroom and then do some ravaging. And this looks like exactly that, doesn't it? Exactly what you were worried about isn't it? Oh my God as soon as you let these what you would call men in quotes into the ladies restroom there's going to be sexual assaults. It's going to be. And they hear it and sure enough here it was. Is that what happened?

Because I don't think that's what happened. I think it looks like, here's how it looks to me and this is really just a framing so this would be an opinion not a fact. The way it looks to me is that there was a kid who had two issues. One issue is that he either wanted attention or was gender fluid or whatever. And then the second issue is that he was a sexual offender. And I don't know that the two are connected.

Let me ask you this. Could we prevent sexual assaults in the whole world by keeping men out of women's restrooms? Like how much of a difference would it make? Let's say you had some magic way to keep anybody who was born with male equipment, they could never go into a woman's restroom forever. That just would never happen. How much of a difference in the world would that make in terms of sexual assaults? Some, maybe some. I don't know that it would make much of a difference.

So I don't think, here's what it looks like to me. It looks like the world on the right, you know sort of the ones who are not buying into the trans rights arguments entirely, I think the people on the right were looking for the perfect story and this one came along and it wasn't quite it but it was forced into the perfect story because it needed a perfect story to match that narrative that the trans thing is going to lead to assaults in bathrooms. I don't think this was a trans situation was it?

And here's my question. Why does someone who is gender fluid get to use the other restroom? Is that a rule? If you're telling me that transgenders can use the restroom of their choice I'd say that's one issue. You could agree or disagree but that's a separate issue. But gender fluid, whoever said that gender fluid people could use whatever restroom they wanted? Has that ever even been a conversation? Has it? I always thought it was limited to the trans people who have made up their mind who they want to live as. I've never heard it applied to people who weren't sure or wanted to be a little of both. I've never heard of that. Have you?

So it looks to me like the way this fake news was manufactured is taking something that reminded you of a trans situation but wasn't and made you think that that's what was happening. That's what it looks like. It looks like fake news. Now the real part was the assault and the real part apparently was the skirt which I predicted you wouldn't find to be true so I was wrong in that prediction about the skirt. But it doesn't look like it fits the model to me. And I'm hearing here that the real story is the cover-up. So I understand that there was a cover-up but that doesn't make it a national story in any way whatsoever, right?

So all the things that you thought were important about this were really just something that happened to some individuals and it was tragic. It doesn't look like a national story to me in any way. Then add the Merrick Garland part. Oh now this is perfect.

So suddenly this one anecdotal story makes us think about the parent of the victim of that story. That parent caused some trouble at a school board meeting I guess and had to be removed. And so that makes us think, you know we think of this one story and then we think well there's a lot of this happening. And then the fake news is that Merrick Garland was siccing the FBI on parents. How many do you think that's what happened? How many of you believe the fake news that Merrick Garland wrote a memo saying that the parents at school boards were sort of like domestic terrorists and they should be looked at by the FBI for their domestic terrorism stuff? How many think that that really happened?

Okay, nothing like that happened. Now I'm using the same standard which is that I'm not saying CNN's correct and Fox News is incorrect. I'm saying that whichever says it didn't happen is right on any story, political story. Any political story. If one side, it doesn't matter which, was Fox News or CNN, if one side says it didn't happen you can depend on it. It didn't happen. Doesn't matter which side said it didn't.

So here's what did happen. There was apparently the administration worked with some national school board association and did write a letter. So this was not Merrick Garland but this association wrote a letter saying that these parents were like a form of domestic terrorism. But then after the blowback they withdrew it and apologized. All right. So having nothing to do with Garland, completely separate from him, some other organization called parents domestic terrorists. But separate from that there does seem to be some kind of an uptick in maybe parental energy at these meetings. And given that the energy and the divisiveness is high it looks like Merrick Garland was asked to make sure that the FBI could be a resource should things get out of hand. And so Merrick Garland wrote a letter that had nothing to do with parents being domestic terrorists but simply offered that the FBI would work with the local law enforcement should there be a reason.

So there was no truth to the story that Merrick Garland called parents domestic terrorists nor that he wrote a letter that would treat them as such nor that he was behind anything that would categorize them as such. And denied it completely and there's no evidence of it.

Now you probably watched Ted Cruz talking about it and some of the other Democrats and the way they couched it it made it look as though if you saw the videos out of context it made it seem as though Merrick Garland had in fact been siccing the FBI on parents and framing them as domestic terrorists in some cases. Nothing like that ever happened. Nothing like that ever happened. There was a letter by the school board that was overblown and they took it back. So that's done. They apologized and took it back. So that letter's done. Nobod