an't do that. But I would say it looks like that. You know from the outside it looks like he's someone who's completely confident that he is just him and he's not anybody else. He's not trying to be. So the fact that he's putting no effort into trying to look like somebody else, I think that gives him a little credit, doesn't it?

I think he's likable. I mean you know I like everybody with a sense of humor. So I know I would like him if he were in the same room. So you got that. But here's the other thing that I think people are missing in the story, the stories about all that, how all these top celebrity and attractive women all like him. Is that the real story? Because there's a part of the story they're leaving out. None of them wanted to marry him. Am I right? Why isn't that the story? The story should be zero people wanted to marry Pete Davidson. Now I don't know if he wanted to get married. Maybe not. But I'm not sure that women see him as a keeper. I think they might see him as just a great guy to hang around with because he looks like he'd be fun. I mean how would it not be fun? It would be hard to even, could you even picture in your mind hanging out with Pete Davidson and not having fun? Like you really can't even conceivably, can you? So I totally see his appeal. I don't think people are going to line up to marry him right away for a lot of the same reasons.

Rasmussen has a poll that Biden's approval is at 41, his disapproval at 57. But here's the weird thing. 57 percent disapprove of him but yet 64 say things are heading in the wrong direction. I don't know, maybe because it's not his fault. I would think that his disapproval would be closer to the same as the number who say it's heading in the wrong direction. It's in that neighborhood but I'd expect that to be closer anyway.

Where are all the people who thought things would be better under Trump because I don't think we got that right, or better under Biden than Trump. I don't think we got that. I wonder if people are noticing.

Brian Stelter was pointing out that the January 6 committee hearings were apparently being broadcast by CNN, but he points out that it wasn't being carried by Fox News, Newsmax, or One America News, all right-leaning news outlets. So what do you think? Does Stelter have a point? Because you've seen it in the other direction, right? You've seen the other direction where Fox News would carry something all day long that CNN would not. You could probably think of some examples of that. So does he have a point? Do you feel like you're being manipulated by the right-leaning media for not showing you that? Why don't you care? Why don't you care?

Now I can see why CNN wouldn't cover the Trump rallies because those are purely political. You don't care. Okay, here's my speculation about why the people on the right and therefore the platforms themselves don't carry it. See if this rings true with you. Because everyone on the right knows it wasn't an insurrection. So it's a committee to find out if an insurrection happened and how it happened and who was behind it. Everyone on the right knows it's not real. Everyone, I think everyone on the right knows there was no insurrection and that no one will be charged with one. Now I realize the insurrection is difficult to charge, but there's nobody even close, is there? They're being charged with individual crimes, which I think in most cases they did commit. So I don't, and here's the thing, are any conservatives complaining that the protesters who literally broke a law are subject to the legal system? I haven't heard anybody complain about that. We've complained about people being jailed for too long without the system dealing with them one way or another, and that looks criminal to me. But nobody's complaining about the fact that there's a thing called laws that apply to everybody.

All right, that's my theory, is that the people on the left need to see it because they could find out what's going on, but the people on the right already know there's nothing to find out. Why would you show an entire hearing of nothing? That's what it looks like on the right. Now I'm being too kind because obviously all the news organizations are in some way brainwashing tools. So if they choose to not show something or show something, that is a statement about brainwashing. But in this case CNN is doing the brainwashing, and the other entities already said everything they need to say. There's nothing there except individual crimes which need to be dealt with.

All right, here are some examples of recent mass brainwashing operations. And by the way I think we need to get away from our old words about the so-called news networks and social media. Collectively they're not really about news anymore, are they? It would be, I think it would be more accurate and without hyperbole, right? I'm going to try to be just straightforward on the facts and not exaggerate them. It'll sound like an exaggeration but I'm not trying to do that. I'm honestly trying to not exaggerate. I think the things we used to call the news are so clearly now just brainwashing operations that I have trouble even considering them as news entities. They just look like a brainwashing operation going in different directions. That's all it looks like to me. And now there is news there which gives them a reason or a cover story for existing I guess. But listen to all these. In my opinion these are brainwashing operations, meaning that somebody intentionally said let's convince somebody of something that's not true. As opposed to just fake news where it's just not true but somebody actually decided specifically let's see if we can sell this not-true thing.

You had the Russia collusion hoax. They knew that wasn't true. Here's a new one I'm adding to my list. Have you seen the chart that shows you that at exactly the same time Occupy Wall Street disappeared for no reason? Because what they were complaining about didn't stop. It got worse. The income distribution got worse, not better. But Occupy Wall Street just sort of went away and then there was replaced with critical race theory and Black Lives Matter and race, race, race, everything's race. Okay, that's not natural. That's a brainwashing operation. Obviously somebody decided Occupy Wall Street didn't work as a frame, and so they came up with a new frame. I don't know who they is. You know you could guess it's Soros. I know you're going to say Soros. I don't have personal reason to believe he's the one cause of all this stuff. But clearly there were numbers of people in important places that thought that race was going to be the new frame. And so I would call that a brainwashing operation because not much changed from two years ago. I don't know that much changed but suddenly it's the biggest topic in the world. So that screams brainwashing operation.

You saw the Waukesha story disappear. That's a brainwashing operation. They just make an inconvenient narrative disappear. Of course the fine people hoax, the drinking bleach hoax were two big brainwashing operations. They worked on the left and worked a little bit on the right amazingly. And then the thought that the courts have validated the election, that's a brainwashing operation. I think half of the country thinks that the courts looked at the election and decided it was fair. You know nothing like that happened, right? There were just a few cases brought to the courts, and in most cases they didn't have standing or it was too late or there was a reason that the court couldn't look at it or it was too early before anybody audited anything. But basically the courts looked at a whole bunch of nothing. There was a lot of it but all of it added up to nothing. So they can't prove there was no election problems. They can only prove they didn't judge that there was any, which is different.

All right, so those are just some examples. I just don't even see the news anymore as even intending to give you news. It looks like the intention is to brainwash.

I was talking to a gentleman online who had been brainwashed to believe there was an insurrection. And when I said it was a weird insurrection because the most armed segment of American life didn't bring weapons, and I was corrected that there were actually six guns retrieved from the protesters. We assumed there were more but six were discovered. Do you know how they discovered them? Well it wasn't because anybody had one out. I think you know they were probably arrested for other reasons or whatever and had guns. But this was given to me as a reason to believe it was an armed insurrection, that they had found six guns. And I pointed out that six guns is roughly the amount of guns in a Texas Walmart on any given moment. Am I wrong? If you go into a Walmart in Texas, do you think there are six guns in there? I'll bet. And then how many are in the parking lot? Six guns in the building but how many are in the parking lot? A hundred? That's probably every Walmart. So no, that doesn't mean anything that there were six guns in a gigantic gathering of conservatives. Conservatives bring guns in case they need them. It's just standard procedure for a lot of people.

True or false? The public needs an advocate for getting us out of the pandemic constraints. We need, the public needs an advocate. What we have are elected representatives. They're the wrong people. Not by personality and not by competence. The problem here is that the public, and this is a rare situation where the public's interest is just not the same as the government's interest. Normally they're really in lockstep. Normally the government has to do a good job for the people in a way that the people can observe and see, and that will help them get elected and would be good for the politicians. So we've designed a really good system compared to the alternatives. The republic with our democratic processes within is really good, really good, with flaws of course, but the best we have.

But here's the problem. The government has to manage for minimum death. What does everybody say is the number one job of a government? Protect the citizens. Am I right? Everybody would agree with that. The number one job of government is to protect the citizens. Somebody says it's not really. You would disagree with that statement. I'm saying that's the, if you listen to any politician they will tell you that their job is to protect people. Now that doesn't mean take their freedom away. That means protect them. Make sure you've got law enforcement, make sure you have a national defense, make sure maybe OSHA and stuff, make sure that you're not doing obviously dangerous things that are just ridiculous. Now of course they might go too far and that's another conversation. Go too far in trying to keep you safe. And I think that's our exact situation here.

With that, what the public wants is an objective risk management decision based on the best information. And for most of us that would indicate opening up sooner than the government wants. Am I right? That the public, not everybody, but the public, I'd say the consensus is clearly on the side of opening up sooner than later. Would you agree with that? I could be wrong about that but I think that's true. I see one wrong. But if the publi