Biden Says He's Ok With Limiting Freedom

Attention. You're listening to the Todd Huff radio show America's home for conservative, not bitter talk radio. Be advised the content of this program has been documented to prevent and even cure liberalism. And listening may cause you to lean to the right. Here's your conservative, not bitter host, Todd Huff.
That is right. You are listening here to the home of conservative, not bitter talk. I am your host, Todd Huff. We're going to navigate today. Second Amendment. We're going to navigate today Joe Biden. Navigate today, gun control gun rights gun legislation. Gun, exactly. executive orders, all sorts of things here on the program. Today, it is good to be here. Thank you for joining us email addresses Todd, The Todd Huff show.com can also join us on a multitude of platforms, so long as those platforms allow us to be there. Which who knows how long that will actually be? Facebook, Twitter. YouTube, is where we find ourselves here at the moment who knows that they'll continue to let us be there. That's why you should either download or subscribe to our podcast totally free. The Todd Huff Show or you can also subscribe to our free email newsletter, The Todd Huff show.com slash subscribe. So let us let us begin today by talking as I referenced here off the top about Joe Biden and about his desire to implement gun control. That's what we're talking about here. Today he says we're not it's amazing though he says we're not talking about gun control. But everything he wants to do controls guns. So we're going to talk about that this morning. Gonna play some sound bites from him also have a conversation with MATLAB, MATLAB assistant editor of the college fix. He joins us once a month to update us on the lunacy that we see on college campuses. And in the media as well share a bit of that conversation here as the program unfolds today. But let's start here with Biden yesterday, rolling out six, six, that's the number six one number short of Georgia stands is preferred name for his first son Seven, six executive orders yesterday, were rolled out by President Joe Biden, on gun control. Even though I'm looking at headlines in the media, the media doesn't even know how else to define this. I jr.com Biden rolls out six executive actions on gun control. Here's what they are. It's not funny what he's doing. I just Biden's up. They're literally telling us this isn't about gun control. This isn't about limiting the Second Amendment. He also says something that's bizarre to me, which I think will be in one of these sound bites I play. You can't none of these amendments give you What's the phrase he uses basically limitless freedom, so to speak and the left always this is the only example I've ever heard, by the way when it comes to free speech. Because the point is, well, free speech is limited because you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. That's not free speech. So therefore, I guess you can't have the right to keep and bear arms is what Biden's saying because we're not coming after your second amendment rights. We're just trying to protect citizens. This isn't gun control. Even that's even though the media doesn't know how else to even describe these things besides using the phrase gun control. Anyway, Biden, let's let's sit there for a moment just for a moment. On this. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater argument. What is what's what's First of all, another example I'd like to hear another example of where speech is limited. It's not really under the First Amendment. It is unfortunately, under the PC police under the rules that had been instituted by social media. But that doesn't make it constitutional. That doesn't make it defensible. The reason you can't yell fire in a crowded theater is because it serves no purpose other than to cause disorder, chaos and injury to people. Right.
I mean, that's that's the idea. You can't, you can't yell something that's, that's false. Obviously, if there is a fire, you can say that there's a fire. But you can't walk into a theater, speak things that are untrue, that are designed to cause panic, chaos, tumult, kind of like electing a democrat to a public office. Kidding, not kidding. But yell fire in a crowded theater. And there's nothing productive from that, right? There's not an exchange of an idea. There's not someone contributing to discourse. This isn't an expression of something that is important, or something that the individual needs to be able to express and make argument for. There's no idea there's no concept. It's just designed to cause chaos, and terror and disorder and probably injuring maybe even worse, right? That's the idea. That's the reason it's not, it's not that you aren't allowed to express. And now we're getting to the meat of the issue here is not that you are not allowed to express certain ideas or beliefs that you have now we're getting to the meat. President Biden, you want to use the example you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Okay. Let's talk about that. Let's talk about why let's then let's then look at what you're trying to do and see if it's the same or similar sort of thing with the Second Amendment with gun control. Would you tell us this is not about it's not about anyone's Second Amendment rights? Well, unless you fall on the list of people say, for example, who would be targeted by red flag laws? Which sound to the ears of some folks, that sounds like a very promising thing, keep guns out to people who are gonna use them to harm somebody? Now we're into predictive policing, you have to give up your rights because someone thinks you might abuse them. Do we not see how the government could in turn abuse that you look at how yesterday I spent a whole program, talking about how the left redefines everything, they redefine everything, no word means anything to the left.
It means what they want it to mean at the moment it does not have a cast in stone, so to speak definition has a fluid definition. Right? For example, infrastructure now involves things according to Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator from the state of New York, that infrastructure was never intended to include a childcare I think was childcare. That's part of infrastructure. Infrastructure means roads and bit bridges, and roads, railways, and maybe airports and ports, that sort of thing, travel way to get move around the country. Right. That's what that's what it means. Until the democrats want it to mean something else. Until the radical left has an agenda. They're trying to force on the American people, which, by the way, they've been pushing for gun control. This is no surprise. They've been pushing for gun control and the limits of your second amendment rights for a long time. So if the First Amendment, you know, first and foremost, we all have to understand that our rights come from our Creator, they do not come from your government. They do not come from Joseph r Biden. They do not come from Kamala Harris. They do not come from Nancy Pelosi, they do not come from any of these jokers, any of these pretenders any of these Sophos any of these professional deceivers, they come from Almighty God. That's who gives you your rights. When you are created and born in this world. You are given from your Creator certain unalienable rights, this was recognized by our founders in the Constitution, the declaration, right? life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is what it says, and the declaration and the Constitution. These rights are enumerated though they are not meant to be interpreted as an exhaustive list of your rights. Back there's a thing in there called the 10th Amendment, which said that basically the things aren't the things that aren't listed here. The things that are not listed, the liberties that are not listed are reserved by the people in the States. Just because it's not listed here and the original 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, just because it's not in the original 10 does not mean does not mean that it's suddenly under the purview and control of the federal government. That is not what that means. And government cannot limit your rights and freedoms. those freedoms come from Almighty God government is not God although the radical left wants you to believe that because they in fact do believe that the radical, godless wing of the of the liberalism liberalism's movement of the so called progressive though it's really regressive movement. Those folks, to them, government is God. Government is God, they're going to solve all of our problems, they're going to provide salvation to humanity. They're going to make this a utopia heaven on earth, they cannot share in all these things, things that only God can do, the government can do, and you better shut up and get in line. That's basically how this goes. And so and so they're here to protect us, from ourselves with things with things that literally make no sense. They just they don't make any sense, folks, a lot of these things, and I know that they sound good to some people. But let's look at the rights, the rights that we have, that are enumerated in the Constitution, which is not an exhaustive list again, but they are a list of rights, the First Amendment, the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom of assembly, the right to protest, and to seek a redress of grievances against the federal government, against your government. Those things are not given to us by our government, those things are given to us by Almighty God. And so basically, this is an amendment that acknowledges that we have certain we have we have our own conscience, we have our own beliefs, and we're free to have those, and we're free to express those. And yelling fire in a crowded theater is not is not a part of that that is designed for chaos that is designed to harm others that is not designed for a no you can't even make the argument. Unless there's an actual fire which is not what this analogy that's overused by the way. What this analogy is meant to convey. It's meant to convey you're not exchanging an idea, a belief, even a even a stupid belief, you're doing nothing but causing damage. That's not at the core what the First Amendment is designed to do.
The first amendment does not limit your ability to talk about what you believe or who you believe God is, or you believe God isn't. Whether there is or is not a guy, the First Amendment doesn't do any of that. And let's shift over casually here to the Second Amendment. The second amendment gives you the right there's two fundamental things at play. It's really one fundamental thing, but it's, I suppose there's two aspects of this. Number one, the right to keep and bear arms comes from our God given rights to protect ourselves. That's it. That's that's the core now, from that you can say, Who are we protecting ourselves from? The founders understood that a overreaching tyrannical government was a threat. And the founders also understood. The founders also understood that individual people not acting on behalf of the government, just people acting in accordance with their own I guess you could say sinful nature or criminal nature, whatever that might be. acting out the criminal taking criminal actions to threatening your family, your property, your livelihood, you have the right to protect yourselves against those individuals. This is not complicated. And anything that prohibits you or makes it harder for you to defend yourself against whatever the enemy might be, which could include I know people today they think that it's antiquated, probably not you in this audience with some believe it's antiquated to think that there's such things as tyrannical government, ironically, as we come out of the century, the previous century killed 100 million people plus were killed by their own government tyranny, not a problem in the minds of some today. So this seems to be outdated and antiquated to some. But even if they're not prepared to accept that they should at least accept the reality that guns for example, stop sexual assaults and rapes, right? Guns prevent all sorts of crimes. In fact, most times that again, stops a crime. The gun doesn't even have to be used. The perpetrator just asked to know the individual has a weapon. And that surprisingly, shockingly, causes that individual person trying to commit a criminal act to stop said criminal act. There's plenty of studies that show this and the numbers of crimes that have been stopped by guns without even being fired is pretty overwhelming. But yet none of that seems to seems to matter. And and perhaps the other part of this that's bad. That truly is bad is by talking about guns. This insatiable desire to limit Americans access to, to weapons to firearms, legally held firearms, this insatiable desire to do so we're not addressing the real problem here, we're not addressing the real problem is to what causes someone to kill someone with the gun. Or by the way to kill someone with a knife. Lots of people are stabbed to death or to kill someone with a hammer, or to drive through a crowd of people walking down the sidewalk, or to create a bomb and ship it to someone. See, the first murder I don't mean to be the, you know to be the spoiler here for the radical left. But the first murder when Cain killed Abel, he didn't have a gun, you know that this may be surprising. I don't know if Biden knows this. Cain did not have a gun. You know, at some point you ban I've heard someone say next step is the banning of pointy elbows at some point. Murder flows from the heart of man. And yes, there's the mental health issue. And I don't want to just glide over that or pass by that because that is a real concern as well. But I'm telling you, many crimes are created because of the condition of the heart of mankind, humankind that's not meant to be sexist, or based in gender. Anyway, got to get time out. Can't get to the sound bites right now. We'll try to get to those here a little bit later. But I've got a conversation with Matt lane that we're going to play here in the next segment, talking about what's going on college campuses, talking about what is happening with our media, professional deceivers and so forth. But a timeout is in order sit tight. Be back here in just a minute.
Welcome back, my friends. Once a month, we speak with Matt Lam assistant editor of the college fix, and going to share that conversation with you. And then the balance of the program. We'll probably be talking about these executive orders and the second amendment and so forth. So that being said, it is my honor to share this conversation with Matt Lam, executive editor of Soomi, assistant editor of the college fix, hope you enjoy.
This is the college fix interview series brought to you by apprentice University. If you're tired of your team's Christian conservative values being persecuted, visit us at apprentice University in Brownsburg where students gain real life experience and confidence through unique learning and networking opportunities.
Well, it's all you all you know, lunacy abounds on college campuses today with all sorts of woke individuals, professors, students, movements, all sorts of things and to help wade through some of this stuff. We've got Matt Lamb of the college fix. He's with us once a month. Matt is a pleasure to have you back on how are you sir?
Good. Good. Thanks for having me.
Well, I am really interested about this. You just sent me an article this morning here headline, I hate white people. black student leader says maybe share a little bit about what's going on here. And and we'll talk about this, but what what is going on? I hate black. I hate white people, according to a report that you all have posted today.
Sure, and people can watch the video at our website and see the full clip, of course. So a law student at the University of Miami in Florida. Her name is Jordan, Gary. She posted a video on Instagram in early March that someone sent us where she said that she hates white people. We tried to find, you know, a longer clip to see if there's some sort of context she seems to be talking about some sort of racial incidents or maybe just broadly, you know, different political issues. But yeah, I mean, she she says in the Instagram video, we of course reach out to comment we we reached out to the law school, but no one would really respond, which is interesting because this school actually has a history of punishing other people for their political speech.
They do are there are other examples that you are aware of specifically?
Yes, so there was actually a professor at the Oregon instructor at the law school named Dan Ravager, who was a conservative professor, and he had made fairly neutral comments I thought about different voting patterns of Hispanics and African Americans. And he also made a comment when Biden was elected or look like you know your neighbor election. made a joke about okay everyone better you know, get our guns now because Gun Control is coming. And he actually was kind of forced out of the university. They said, Well, we didn't fire him. We just didn't renew his contract, or we suggested that he should not come back or something like that. But, you know, this is clearly like a racist statement she made, saying that she hates an entire race of people. Really no way around it. But the racist message?
Well, there's no way around it. You're right. Except for there always will be a proposed way around that when you look at these radicals. And what they say it's just amazing to me how this stuff is this is becoming acceptable. This is becoming almost something that's people are expected at some point, some level to be with some of these, these radicals, this sort of stuff has to be stopped. racism in all shapes, sizes, forms is is a terrible thing. So keep an eye on that and see what happens. But another thing that caught my eye from something you all have reported on is this recent survey, or survey here. I'm pulled up the wrong article here. Survey here that says campus expression finds survey finds students reluctant to share views on controversial subjects topics. What What can you tell us about that, as far as conservatives, and I think the article even says white students and Republican students, they're reluctant to share their views, which no disrespect to the article, but it's not surprising to me, right? I mean, so maybe tell us a little bit about about this.
Sure. So heterodox Academy did this report. It's basically like a group of bipartisan group, I guess you'd say, of professors and other people involved in education, who, you know, promote free expression, promote discussion, and they do a survey every year, they actually will survey campuses, university leaders want to know about the climate. And they found that between 44 to 48% of Republicans were reluctant to discuss politics, the 2020 presidential election or black lives matter. In a classroom setting. They found that 30% of white students were reluctant were reluctant to talk about race and class. 27% of Asians were also also expressed reservations about discussing race, they were actually the other thing is when they asked the people who said, You know, I don't feel comfortable sharing my views, they asked him why. And 60%, they could choose multiple answers as the 60% that other students would criticize my views as offensive. And then the next three are basically all about, my professor would criticize me, my views as offensive, my professor would say, my views are wrong, or my professor would give me a lower grade. So basically, the top three reasons are, other students would say that I'm offensive, which can actually carry a label, it's not just a disagreement, right? Students should disagree in classes, that's great. College. And then basically, the next three are all my professor would punish me or ostracize me from it.
Which is exactly the opposite of what we would want, right? In the university university setting this one's near and dear to me, because it strikes a chord because even though it's been 150 years ago, I, I can relate to this on the college level, because I remember, when I was at American University, I was pretty much the only conservative the definitely the most vocal in class. And I remember, you know, debating against what seemed to be the rest of the, whatever it was 25 students in my class, but as I, you know, as I stopped to think about it, there were usually I don't know, four or five, maybe eight people that were vocally challenging the things that I was saying, but there were a lot of people that were quiet. And I had always assumed that those folks were in agreement, and maybe they were with those that were on the liberal side until one day one of those students was walking to lunch with me. And he said, you know, Todd, you just have so much common sense. And so this isn't probably a new phenomenon. But I do think that the stakes are higher. I mean, this is this is stuff that with with the environment and total on college campuses, is definitely something that students I would think, take into consideration today. Do you agree?
Yeah. And I think that professors should really be concerned about this. I had a professor saying I had a liberal professor at Loyola undersell that I had many liberal instructors at Loyola in Chicago. And no one told me at the end of at the end of the semester, she said, I don't think I've ever disagreed with a student more than I disagree with you. But I've never had as much classroom discussion. Because once you started talking, other students wanted to chime in to argue with you. And so it was sort of like a left handed compliment of like, Well, you know, I guess I'm glad that I had a conservative student class because it actually got discussions going. So I think professors need to look at this. Of course, this doesn't mean in every single classroom, this happens in every single professor, but I think it's worth reflecting on professors should really take a look at this survey and consider how are they implicitly or explicitly encouraging or discouraging discussion?
Yeah, and it's obvious in most cases, as you alluded to, with your comment there most cases, professors are at least left leaning, if not even off the chart to the left side. And, you know, it's, I learned, this is my opinion, but in that classroom, you know, the real world doesn't have to intersect, it's the politics of the professor. And if they want it to be the rule of the law of the land, so to speak, they can enforce that as heavily as they want. And that can certainly cause students who don't agree to be fearful of speaking up about maybe getting a bad grade, those things crossed my mind. And in today's world of social media, I'm sure you also have in there the concerns of having your comments, videotaped and edited, as it did the Governor desantis here to make it look like you're saying things that maybe you really aren't. There's all sorts of things that I think today's college student has to deal with that maybe I didn't have to deal with 120 120 years ago.
So I think that I think that's a great point. Yeah.
So we've got that going on college campuses. We've also got one other story I wanted to get to Well, there's two more. Let's look at this. Let's look at this. CBS News really misrepresents university research into Asian American incidents? Tell us what's that what that's about?
Sure, and this is a problem I'm seeing. I saw the Harvard student newspaper made this problem, too. So there's been there's two separate reports. Basically, CBS News ran this whole segment about violence against Asian American and but they mixed up two different statistics. So there's a couple professors in California have this website called stop AAPI. Hey, Asian American, or Asian American Pacific Islanders, I think is what API stands for. And they report anonymous incidents of hate against Asian Americans. I mean, about 80 to 90% of these are shunning or like avoidance, or verbal harassment. So of course, hate all that is awful. But, you know, avoidance or dirty looks is not a crime. And the research is very clear to say these are not crime. We're not closing all these crimes. What happened is, CBS News billion dollar News Corp said that there have been nearly 4000 crimes against Asian Americans in the past year linked to you know, Coronavirus, stereotypes, President Trump saying Kung Fu, et cetera, et cetera. That's not that's not what the report said. They actually interviewed one of the professors who did this report with CBS still mix them up. And then they said there's like 150% increase in hate crime, which is based off mainly more hate crime. reported in New York most some places went from like zero hate crimes to to hate crimes, which of course, all crime is bad, but it doesn't necessarily spell a you know, a national crisis. Really, if New York would just focus on reducing hate crimes, there wouldn't have really been that much of an increase. And but so it's really important because the average person isn't going to dig into this. They're going to read it. 30 seconds go, oh, there's 4000. There's 4000 hate crimes against Asian Americans. That's terrible. But, you know, I checked yesterday, I'll check again today. But TBS still hadn't corrected it. I've reached out to them. I've tweeted at them. I've commented on their Facebook posts, emailed them, no correction, and it's really, it's really disappointing to see that from News Corp makes such an obvious mistake.
So the differences is that there was a website or a place where people can self report incidences versus actual crime, which is Caplin, another, another database, is that is that correct?
Right. And so something incidents could be like, perceived avoidance Exactly. Well, maybe with social distancing, maybe if you were just moving aside, you know, the other side of the street because they're trying to be respectful of people, you know, wanting to keep their distance for, you know, public health reasons.
Yeah. And it could be a number of reasons, not just that, hey, this person is an Asian American or whatever. But that's, that can be the perception of the person. The other individual certainly but that's much different to your point, then, then a crime a crime having being been committed, is much different than a perceived this sign of disrespect or what have you. So but Okay, Matt. Well, you always you always increase my, you know, I know that things are difficult and challenging on college campuses and in the media as well. But you know, you never cease to, I guess amaze me with some of the the depth of some of the stupidity. We have to contend with that here. So I appreciate what you do tell folks where they can read more about these articles or other things that you and the college fix are reporting on on a daily basis.
Yep. So the college fix comm is the best place. If you go to some of our recent articles, we link at the bottom to all of our alternative platforms rumbled gab, me, we were still on Facebook and Twitter, sign up for our emails so we can make sure we read to just bookmark our page honestly, and you know, every morning or every afternoon, check us out. We post articles throughout the day. And, you know, we'd love to have everyone's readership, please share articles and yeah, continue reading us.
Well, you do good work, and you do an important work and I appreciate it very much. It's always good to have you on here, Matt, Lamb of the college fix. Matt, thanks so much for joining us, sir.
Welcome back. Hope you enjoyed our conversation with Matt Lam assistant editor of the college fix. We do that by the way once a month. Once a month we have him in and I appreciate his time and expertise on the issues we talked about. Thanks Matt. I do appreciate it by the way program Brought to you in part by glove plumbing, glove plumbing folks. They offer gas line repair and replacement sewer water repair and replacement plumbing inspections pipe repair, root removal, garbage disposal, repair, water purification, septic Plumbing Repair, sump pump, repairing installation, leak detection, Water Heater Installation and clogged drains. For more information, visit them online glofx plumbing that's gl UFF glofx plumbing.com or call them 765-721-6789. Be sure to tell them that you heard them on The Todd Huff Show. So back to this series of executive orders that had been enacted are in the process of being enacted by Joseph arbeiten. A summary of those six orders is as follows. I'm looking here, in a in an article This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and titled Biden rules out six executive actions on gun control. Here's what they are. Issue number one issue a proposed rule to stop the proliferation of quote ghost guns. The DOJ Department of Justice will issue a proposed rule within I will excuse me with 30 days on a shouldn't be within 30 days on how to stop the distribution of ghost guns. kits that contain components of a gun and directions on how to ascend, assemble them within this says within 30 minutes. I don't know if that's really accurate. I've heard from some of you who know more about this than I do. I it's it's funny, in a sense, I had a gentleman build an AR 15 for me, and I was familiar with some of this stuff just from dealing, you know, talking with him along the way. Ironically, I just want to say this for the record for public record, that ar 15 it was a crazy thing boating out in the middle of Lake Michigan. That thing is lost at sea in a boating accident. So I just wanted to make sure that that was public record out in the middle of Lake Michigan, that thing is totally and completely unrecoverable. I don't even know where that thing when we're the deepest part of Lake Michigan, by the way, anyway. So that's what the first executive order has to deal with. quote unquote ghost guns. ghost guns. Number two restrict arm braces for pistols. The DOJ will have 60 days to issue a proposed rule to restrict the use of arm braces. The White House knows that such devices effectively turns a pistol into a short barreled rifle. Dude, hearing count democrats and the radical have described guns you realize they know nothing about these things. They don't know anything. I've read articles about some liberal journalists firing an AR 15 and was terrified and couldn't believe how loud it was and that sort of stuff. But anyway, this is again, what these these orders are designed to do. Number three draft red model red flag legislation for states this is the one that should be Concerning to people, when they get to decide who's who's mentally incapable of carrying a gun, just look at how they've redefined everything else. This should be one that concerns you bloggity bring him along, because of the interview long and the segments that I said, tie back here in just a minute, and we'll continue this discussion.
Welcome back. So the other three executive orders here by Biden one, make investments in quote, evidence based community violence interventions, I think says, Well, again, I'm from the government and I'm here to I don't look, I'm not suggesting that the government cannot do anything ever. But I just just the the faith that we put in this and what we're willing to potentially risk on the other side of this with with the limitations on freedoms is something that has to be discussed that has to be discussed and weighed in the public discourse. And this stuff shouldn't be happening by executive action. This is the other president that takes pride Joseph Biden, taking pride in the president is now openly considering the limitation of rights. I mean, that's basically what he said when he said, Look, your rights aren't limitless. Your Rights don't allow you to yell fire in a crowded theater. So therefore, I'm going to place these restrictions on on guns. The fifth is to direct the ATF to release annual reports on firearm tracking, okay, the sixth is to nominate David Shipman to lead the ATF, not the most friendly of individuals to the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. So anyway, folks, the NRA governors are stepping up against this governor saying, basically, we're going to be calm Second Amendment sanctuary states, many have come out and said that Governor Abbott of Texas JEA, the governor of Iowa, Wyoming came out. There's others as well, I don't have a list in front of me. But this is something we all need to pay attention to whether or not I know some folks, you know, many conservatives obviously care about gun rights, and you should you should care about the Second Amendment. But not everybody is a gun owner or I don't know. And I think that maybe sometimes that can that runs the risk. I'm not suggesting is the case here. But it runs the risk of maybe losing people to sleep because they think I don't really it doesn't really directly affect me it does, because it impacts the way the government looks at what your liberties are, and what they can do to change those liberties, potentially here. So important issue. Timeout is an order though I'm going to take a break. Sit tight back here in just a minute.
Welcome back. I do want to say this in closing, here's we've got one minute or so I guess left? Is this what unifying a country looks like? Is this what unifying a country looks like? Because that's what we were told Biden was going to do. He's going to ride into town. Stop the nonsense of Trump causing division. dissension, turmoil, tumult, chaos, disorder, Nazi hizam whatever else right. gonna come in and save the day. Is this what unifying a country looks like? is trying to work around the filibuster and change the filibuster rule without without actually changing the filibuster rule? Is that something that is unifying this country is governing governing by Fiat and executive order and decree as the Emperor Biden would see fit? Is that what unifying a country looks like? Is this what it means the build back better? That's a question right that was Biden's you might not remember that because by didn't campaign at all, but build back better, we're gonna build back better. Come on, man. We're gonna build back better. And probably awkward pauses in his sentences, not knowing when he's going to say next. Anyway. Anyway, build back better. Is this what this looks like? Building back better again, I asked by what measure by what objective measure has anything. I mean, this has anything improved under the Biden ministration. I know 90 days in, but in another way. in another sense we're only 90 days in. Right? We're only we a long way to go is my point by what objective measure is anything better? anything better what objective measure. In fact, I would contend that by any measure I can come up with things are getting much worse. But I don't want you to lose hope, folks, we're still engaged in this fight. People are still if you look at some of these surveys, you see that people want to see common sense voter legislation passed and so forth. People are conservative at heart. I've got to go SDG see Monday. Take care.