Speaker 1: Why from Vall, heart Blind and the Crossroads of America.
Speaker 2: It's Tony Katz today. We're talking low key ladies and gentlemen,
Speaker 2: which may or may not be different than a war
Speaker 2: on the down low. I don't actually know if there
Speaker 2: is a difference. I do know that a low key
Speaker 2: war is not actually a thing. I mean, if you
Speaker 2: just want to sit there and keep up the economic
Speaker 2: sanctions and slowly starve around, you can. But these are
Speaker 2: people who are fine with being starved. They're fine with
Speaker 2: waiting you out. They've actually said they're fine with waiting
Speaker 2: you out. Maybe that's their whole plan, the belief that
Speaker 2: they can, the belief that it's no problem, no issue,
Speaker 2: they can last, because the United States can't last. Isn't
Speaker 2: that their game? Isn't that their approach? The United States
Speaker 2: can't handle the idea that somehow oil prices will go up.
Speaker 2: I think we can. I just think you have to
Speaker 2: sell people on the idea, something that President Trump.
Speaker 3: Did not do.
Speaker 2: It's amazing the amount of things that could have been
Speaker 2: thwarted in all of this if the White House had
Speaker 2: just done the basics. But dear Lord, we actually think
Speaker 2: that low key is a thing, and if it is
Speaker 2: a thing, exactly how does it work?
Speaker 3: I'm a man with questions.
Speaker 2: And while Axios is talking about low key, how about
Speaker 2: the Wall Street Journal with a story that doesn't connect
Speaker 2: at all? I'm gonna break this down for you. Tony Katz,
Speaker 2: Tony Kats Today, Good to be with you, guys. Find
Speaker 2: everything I do at Tony kats dot com, live streaming
Speaker 2: on YouTube and rumble Tony Katz. Just look for Tony
Speaker 2: Kats Tony Kats Today and get in there, get in
Speaker 2: the chatroom. Good to see everybody. As everything's building up
Speaker 2: and people are piling in. Axios reported that President Trump's
Speaker 2: plan is to be low key. We are only seven
Speaker 2: negotiating with them. We are just watching around with its
Speaker 2: huge inflation and the fact that they have no money.
Speaker 2: Their economy has been.
Speaker 3: In bad shape for forever.
Speaker 2: It hasn't stopped them from engaging in bombings of US bases.
Speaker 2: Can the strategy, the siege mentality actually work, Sure it can,
Speaker 2: of course it can. But anytime the Iranian regime feels uppity,
Speaker 2: are you okay with taking a series of bombs in
Speaker 2: a series of drones to a base in Jordan or
Speaker 2: to an area in Kuwait or somewhere in Saudi Arabia,
Speaker 2: et cetera. That's the question. Low key, that's what you said.
Speaker 2: If that's so low key means okay, that's low key
Speaker 2: all of this. So you can possibly keep the strait
Speaker 2: somewhat open. As long as oil is under seventy five
Speaker 2: dollars a barrel, everything's going to be all right. That's
Speaker 2: not the right approach, mister president. By the way, oil
Speaker 2: is at eighty one dollars and fifteen cents a barrel,
Speaker 2: So again, not the right approach. And I know what
Speaker 2: you're saying, Tony. You got to give the president time.
Speaker 2: You don't understand he's playing nine D chess. Sometimes the
Speaker 2: man can just be wrong. Can I help you? The
Speaker 2: people out there are like Senator Chris Murphy and others,
Speaker 2: these progressives who want to see America lose. They're amongst
Speaker 2: the most disgusting people on planet Earth. The President isn't
Speaker 2: approaching this right, and you got to stop pretending that
Speaker 2: he is. You got to stop loving on him so much,
Speaker 2: doting on him so much that you don't look at reality.
Speaker 3: Would you cut it out? I get the argument the.
Speaker 2: Press never notices when their guy is falling apart Joe Biden,
Speaker 2: as Hunter Biden describes, it has prostate cancer and it
Speaker 2: has spread. It should be understood that Democrats were willing
Speaker 2: to lie to let that guy be president. He'd be
Speaker 2: dying in the Oval Office right now. They didn't care.
Speaker 2: They didn't care near a tandent and caringe John Pierre
Speaker 2: and all the rest. They didn't give a good HOLI
Speaker 2: damn you think Kamala Harris gave a damn. They needed
Speaker 2: that debate to happen more than oxygen to move him out.
Speaker 2: They would have let this happen to the country anything
Speaker 2: for power reason number nine. But Jillian, why, I'm not
Speaker 2: one of them. I'm not gonna be somebody who looks
Speaker 2: at the way Trump is handling this war and say, hey,
Speaker 2: he's he's got a maneuver in a plant. You just
Speaker 2: watch how this all works out. I'm watching. It's not
Speaker 2: working out the way I would like. Hey, look, if
Speaker 2: the president wants to continue to go down this road,
Speaker 2: he can. You want to deal with an idea of
Speaker 2: economic pressure and low key, you knock yourself out, go
Speaker 2: right ahead, But don't tell me about negotiations anymore.
Speaker 3: Don't tell me about any of it.
Speaker 2: Don't put Scott Besen out there to lie, to mean,
Speaker 2: don't put jd Vance out there to be ridiculous. And
Speaker 2: when it comes to foreign policy, don't do it. I
Speaker 2: want to see you win. I don't know why you
Speaker 2: don't want to see you win. I don't know why
Speaker 2: you want.
Speaker 3: This this way. We should be clear.
Speaker 2: That there are no deals to be made. So if
Speaker 2: you keep telling me, old man, they want to make
Speaker 2: a deal so badly, it's a lie.
Speaker 3: Stop lying. Stomp it.
Speaker 2: How dare you, tony? President Trump is the guy who
Speaker 2: makes the deals. That's what he does. He makes deals.
Speaker 2: There's no deal to make. Why not grow up? Stop
Speaker 2: being ridiculous, Stop being in the cult, stop buying into
Speaker 2: the colon. No better than all these lefties who told
Speaker 2: me that Joe Biden was of good health. Same garbage.
Speaker 2: Not interested in the garbage. There's no deal to be made.
Speaker 2: There's no one to make a deal with. I have
Speaker 2: been somebody discussing that when you were talking about the
Speaker 2: Iranian regime. These are people who want the caliphate right,
Speaker 2: they want they are Islamists and they want to see
Speaker 2: a total take over, total control. Somebody had written it
Speaker 2: was a really really good piece about the idea that
Speaker 2: and I can't remember they're on substack and I can't
Speaker 2: remember their name. It's killing me that what if it
Speaker 2: isn't about that. It is about power, but a different
Speaker 2: kind of power. It's about staying in power for survival.
Speaker 2: That if we were to take a look at the
Speaker 2: Iranian regime and see how fractured it is, there's nobody
Speaker 2: making decisions there. And we've already discussed this because the
Speaker 2: people making the decisions are the members of the IRGC,
Speaker 2: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Court. But the IRGC is not
Speaker 2: working in tandem and concert with each other. They're their
Speaker 2: own factions, their own fiefdoms. That seems obvious too that
Speaker 2: what we have had happen here is that because of
Speaker 2: the bombings that we have done, which.
Speaker 3: Have been successful, let's not kid ourselves.
Speaker 2: Don't believe the Chris van Hollins or the Chris Murphy's
Speaker 2: or any of these beta male progressives, we have done
Speaker 2: great damage to Iran. To say otherwise is laughable in
Speaker 2: its ignorance. And what we have done is we have
Speaker 2: eliminated the ability for a singular person to be a
Speaker 2: person of power, and so Therefore, the idea of a
Speaker 2: leader or leadership as a whole has been replaced by
Speaker 2: what I guess one could call faction. We're dealing with
Speaker 2: a group of IRGC members over here, in a group
Speaker 2: of IERGC members over there, and on, then there's this
Speaker 2: group over there, and then there's that guy over there.
Speaker 3: He's just nuts.
Speaker 2: Nobody even talks to that guy, and they're all acting
Speaker 2: in their own best interests to be able to create
Speaker 2: their own wants. Some of these wants are about power
Speaker 2: and control and money. Some of these wants are about power, control, money,
Speaker 2: and the caliphate. Not everybody may be connected on that
Speaker 2: ideological tip when it comes to survival, so they all
Speaker 2: act in independent ways in order to best achieve this.
Speaker 2: Then there are those parts of the IRGC that are
Speaker 2: working with those outside of Iran to be able to
Speaker 2: move sanctioned oil to them to get sold, as we
Speaker 2: saw from someone in Turkey making millions.
Speaker 3: Of dollars that way.
Speaker 2: A lot of people working in a lot of different areas,
Speaker 2: all for their own interests, and none of those interests
Speaker 2: involved making a deal with the United States. Who cares
Speaker 2: about that money's made the other way, the other side,
Speaker 2: that doesn't matter, especially if you're gonna calculate that Trump's
Speaker 2: gonna be all low key on the thing and nobody
Speaker 2: is going to wake up to find that they've been
Speaker 2: bombed to death. No beepers are going to go off,
Speaker 2: no buildings are going to explode. There's gonna be no
Speaker 2: guided missiles or drones from the Israelis.
Speaker 3: Nah.
Speaker 2: Now, there's no pressure at all. There's money to be
Speaker 2: made until there's not until they are stopped, until they
Speaker 2: are thwarted. There is no doubt that the Iranian desire
Speaker 2: is the end of the United States and Israel. But
Speaker 2: if we get a little more granular, they could argue
Speaker 2: that the desire is to get rid of the United
Speaker 2: States and Israel, or certainly US or Israeli power in
Speaker 2: the region, so they can.
Speaker 3: Be the power in the region. And when you're the.
Speaker 2: Power in the re and you could set your own
Speaker 2: price for everything. If you think Iran is a problem
Speaker 2: without a nuclear weapon, imagine them with a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 2: Which is why when we go back to Tucker Carlson,
Speaker 2: or we go back to Marjorie Taylor Green or Thomas Massey,
Speaker 2: none of them are America.
Speaker 3: First. They're so full of crap.
Speaker 2: It is to be believed.
Speaker 3: They're full of it. They're not America first.
Speaker 2: If you don't believe in ending this regime, you are
Speaker 2: non America first. Now I don't know how other people
Speaker 2: define America first. I define it as us over the terrorists.
Speaker 2: I didn't know that that was such a huge stretch.
Speaker 2: But Oran never did anything to us. We shouldn't bother
Speaker 2: with them. This is a forever war. That is Marjorie
Speaker 2: Taylor Green is the Karen of her generation. She might
Speaker 2: as well be a leftist wine mom from the suburbs.
Speaker 2: Oran never did anything to us. It is an argument
Speaker 2: too stupid to actually be taken seriously. Taking out the
Speaker 2: regime matters. It's my take. I don't think low key
Speaker 2: does that. I think it actually allows them to figure
Speaker 2: out other ways to profit and to be a problem.
Speaker 2: Now we could take in another direction, and we could
Speaker 2: discuss the fact that their economy is cracking. They have
Speaker 2: massive problems. We do have huge economic sanctions. We've applied
Speaker 2: massive economic pressure. Maybe we shouldn't have given them any
Speaker 2: money when we signed the memorandum of understanding. And certainly
Speaker 2: we can't listen to the Wall Street Journal when they say, oh,
Speaker 2: the Iranians wanted one hundreds of billions of dollars in
Speaker 2: order to reopen the straight.
Speaker 3: This is their argument.
Speaker 2: This was the Wall Street Journal headline, and it read
Speaker 2: Trump thought opening the Straight of Hormuz was imminence.
Speaker 3: Iran had other plans.
Speaker 2: Start with the baseline, don't you ever take an article
Speaker 2: from the Wall Street Journal at face value, especially an
Speaker 2: article that only discusses sources. Senior aids, I don't know
Speaker 2: what their sources are. I must tell you that I
Speaker 2: don't know what their sources are. For weeks, President Trump
Speaker 2: has been laying the groundwork to declare victory in Iran
Speaker 2: should Tehran fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz, even floating
Speaker 2: the idea privately to Senior AIDS that he's willing to
Speaker 2: walk away without a nuclear deal. At that moment, I stopped.
Speaker 2: I have always known, like you've always known, the President
Speaker 2: Trump could declare victory at any time. He'll call anything
Speaker 2: he wants victory. This is nothing new. We are people
Speaker 2: who understand the two rules of trump. The first rule
Speaker 2: of Trumpism is Trump wins. The second rule of trumpsm
Speaker 2: is that a deal can always be made as long
Speaker 2: as it adheres to the first rule of TRUMPSM. We
Speaker 2: know this, we're all down for this, we understand it.
Speaker 3: Walk away without a nuclear deal.
Speaker 2: But he can't do that. He said, uh Aaran will
Speaker 2: never have a nuclear weapon. This is a legacy he's
Speaker 2: talking about here. He's willing to tarnish the whole legacy
Speaker 2: by allowing them to enrich uranium. So we're clear, he
Speaker 2: leaves the area and they start enriching uranium, legacy, shot
Speaker 2: to hell, John, I don't care what his supporters say.
Speaker 2: I don't care what he says.
Speaker 3: I would laugh in his face.
Speaker 2: No legacy if they enrich uranium, if they rebuild a centrifuge.
Speaker 3: None.
Speaker 2: So no, he can't be willing to leave even if
Speaker 2: they have a nuclear weapon or the ability to make
Speaker 2: a nuclear weapon. Now you say to me, Tony, I
Speaker 2: thought he obliterated their nuclear capability at Naton's at Fourdeaux
Speaker 2: and Isfahan. That's what he said. Words coming back to
Speaker 2: haunt him because he couldn't keep his powder dry on
Speaker 2: the subject. Oh please, don't get me wrong in my frustration,
Speaker 2: don't get me wrong in my pleasure of seeing those
Speaker 2: three areas bomb da hell.
Speaker 3: Making it more difficult. This is a good thing.
Speaker 2: I supported it, then I support it now, and I
Speaker 2: say bravo. But don't say obliterated and then come back
Speaker 2: to the idea that you got to keep doing it.
Speaker 2: Don't double speak and triple speaking and talk about deals
Speaker 2: and all the jazz. You just sounds ridiculous and you're
Speaker 2: making yourself look look weak. You are, you are, But
Speaker 2: I am not about to buy into these The story
Speaker 2: this reporting from the Wall Street Journal that Iran has
Speaker 2: got all the cards and they want hundreds of billions
Speaker 2: of dollars in the US to pull out and then
Speaker 2: they'll open the straight Because Trump is so desperate for
Speaker 2: lower oil prices that'll do anything going into the midterms.
Speaker 2: I could argue that he's willing to let things sit
Speaker 2: for a few months until the midterms are over and
Speaker 2: try and have fairly okay oil prices. They could argue
Speaker 2: that's even a strategy. I could argue that the low
Speaker 2: key and just waiting them out economically is a strategy.
Speaker 2: It's not a strategy for the long term. Walking away
Speaker 2: is not a strategy. Low key is not a strategy
Speaker 2: for the long term. In the end, the deal doesn't
Speaker 2: have to be made with Iran. The deal has to
Speaker 2: be made with Saudi Arabia and Bakrain and the UAE
Speaker 2: and Jordan. They are the ones who have to get
Speaker 2: this problem done with because it's theirs. Just like we
Speaker 2: made Russia NATO's problem. We have to make Goran the
Speaker 2: Middle East problem. They have to handle it. We were
Speaker 2: discussing this last week and I'm more and more convinced
Speaker 2: that this is the right course. You have to get
Speaker 2: them out, you have to get the regime ount and
Speaker 2: that's the deal that the President has to make. But
Speaker 2: if he walks away with them being able to even
Speaker 2: think about a nuclear weapon, that is legacy shattered and
Speaker 2: not Trump's want. This is Tony Katz today. I'll keep
Speaker 2: it in the military family and talk about this leaker,
Speaker 2: the story of this secretary where the Pentagon has accused
Speaker 2: the former Secretary of I believe secutary of the Air
Speaker 2: Force of leaking information about Air Force one, Tony Katz.
Speaker 2: Tony Katz today an absolute pleasure. Sean Park now as
Speaker 2: Pentagon spokespersons that effective immediately, the Department of Wars revoked
Speaker 2: former Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendal's eligibility for
Speaker 2: access to classified information and his ability to hold any
Speaker 2: sensitive position. This action follows his unauthorized disclosure of classified
Speaker 2: information regarding Airport one's capabilities to a media outlet. Safeguarding
Speaker 2: classified information is a non negotiable duty. Well, that's correct,
Speaker 2: that is absolutely correct. Now this goes back to Trump
Speaker 2: and the administration putting out a subpoena for New York
Speaker 2: Times journalists because the New York Times, remember we talked
Speaker 2: about this at the press conference when the President was
Speaker 2: in Turkey, he was in Achera, and we're like, are
Speaker 2: they trying to get him killed by talking about air
Speaker 2: Force one? And why aren't you doing this? And why
Speaker 2: aren't doing that? What's wrong with air Force one? What
Speaker 2: were they doing? Because they reported that the new seven
Speaker 2: seven gifted by Katar was swapped out because of a
Speaker 2: security precaution, and then the reporters were like, well it
Speaker 2: wasn't retrofitted with sufficient security measures, and then there are
Speaker 2: questions about whether it had the proper missile defense systems
Speaker 2: and other modifications. If that information was leaked out, yeah, goodbye,
Speaker 2: and I think it should be jail time. And then
Speaker 2: of course we asked the question, it's one thing to
Speaker 2: have the information, it's another thing to report the information. Yes,
Speaker 2: in a world, in a nation of free speech, not
Speaker 2: a world of free speech, the reporter can report they.
Speaker 3: Didn't get it through any illicit mean got the information?
Speaker 2: Should they? Well that's a conversation for a bourbon But
Speaker 2: it's not enough to just take away the classified opportunities
Speaker 2: of the leak or they've got to be charges, they
Speaker 2: got to be put through hell and then some in
Speaker 2: a very very large scale way. Leaking information is just
Speaker 2: not acceptable on any level. And we need to go
Speaker 2: after leakers with everything in us. And they have to suffer.
Speaker 2: They have to suffer terribly. Absolutely, they have to suffer,
Speaker 2: and so they should. Oh, we never should have taken
Speaker 2: the plane from Qatar, and the idea that we would
Speaker 2: fly at air Force one that doesn't have all the
Speaker 2: proper safety protocols criminally insane. If indeed that's the way
Speaker 2: it flew. Uh representative of COSU Cortez wants to change
Speaker 2: the game. Keep it here. This is Tony Cox today.
Speaker 2: Nothing says everything is going super well for the political left.
Speaker 2: Nothing says everything is going super well. That's not what
Speaker 2: I wanted. Nothing says, as things repeat themselves, everything is
Speaker 2: going super well for Tony Tony Katz today, guys a pleasure.
Speaker 3: Sorry about that.
Speaker 2: Uh, nothing says everything is going super well for the
Speaker 2: political left, like Joe Scarborough on MS now screaming at Democrats.
Speaker 3: But please, I.
Speaker 4: Don't need people telling me, oh, you have to just
Speaker 4: turn a blind eye to people saying that women getting
Speaker 4: rate on October seventh didn't matter in the grand scheme
Speaker 4: of things that no Americans aren't going to support that.
Speaker 2: This is not about me.
Speaker 3: This is about the.
Speaker 5: Democrats once again fumbling the football on the two yard
Speaker 5: line when they have a chance to make great gains
Speaker 5: but being so woke.
Speaker 3: I don't know if you want to.
Speaker 2: Call it woke one, woke two, or woke three, but
Speaker 2: being too woke to call out the obvious.
Speaker 4: I swear to God, it's really it's crazy that we're
Speaker 4: even having this conversation.
Speaker 2: He's yelling, and I think he's yelling because he understands
Speaker 2: that the madness is coming from inside the house and
Speaker 2: it's going to cost them the midterms. Now, I'm going
Speaker 2: to dig into this in a little bit, what the
Speaker 2: numbers say versus what the reality says. But what is
Speaker 2: he talking about?
Speaker 3: Woke one, woke two, woke three, So glad you woke. Asked.
Speaker 2: This was Alexandria A Cassio Cortes.
Speaker 3: She was on with Jonathan Carl on ABC.
Speaker 2: And it should be understood that this is, I believe,
Speaker 2: the first time she has done a sit down TV interview,
Speaker 2: network interview. I think in two years, you.
Speaker 3: Understand that she sees herself and it can't.
Speaker 2: Have been two years, could have been two years. She
Speaker 2: sees herself as a presidential contender. There's a twenty twenty
Speaker 2: eight conversation about alexandri Acatio Cortez. There's a Senate conversation.
Speaker 2: She could run against Chuck Schumer and send him packing.
Speaker 2: That much I believe could happen. I think the presidency
Speaker 2: thing is still kind of dreamy, which is to say,
Speaker 2: a dream for her, a nightmare for the rest of us.
Speaker 2: But she said this. She's talking to Jonathan Carl on
Speaker 2: ABC and she said this, by the.
Speaker 6: Way, just a quick definitional thing. What in your mind
Speaker 6: is the difference between socialism and communist Oh oh.
Speaker 3: Wait, wait, wait wait, I'll get to this.
Speaker 2: I will get to this, but I need to get
Speaker 2: to where she's talking about. Woke one, did you or
Speaker 2: did you not hear about this where she's talking about
Speaker 2: woke one point.
Speaker 3: Oh, it's a true thing. Here here she is.
Speaker 2: Right here, and we'll play it all. I'll get to it,
Speaker 2: I promise. Let's start where we start.
Speaker 6: So you have Wisconsin coming up next, Francesca Hong, who
Speaker 6: is the Democratic Socialist of America supporting candidate for governor.
Speaker 6: Are you you haven't endorsed her? Are you going to?
Speaker 7: No, I haven't endorsed in that race.
Speaker 8: My focus has been in winning back to Congress, winning
Speaker 8: back the House, and positioning ourselves to have the best
Speaker 8: chance possible to win the Senate. So I've been focused
Speaker 8: on those legislative What do.
Speaker 6: You make of those controversial statements. I'm sure you've seen.
Speaker 6: I mean, she's you know, the Thanksgiving dust up, she says,
Speaker 6: she doesn't you know, still believe that. But you know
Speaker 6: the abolished prisons, abolished police, which is also positions that
Speaker 6: have been taken by a lot of the progressive candidates
Speaker 6: who have won. How do you get around that? Yeah,
Speaker 6: not positions that are by right.
Speaker 8: I mean I think that a lot of these races,
Speaker 8: even right now, they'll have a tendency to be nationalized.
Speaker 8: But these races ultimately are local and all politics are local.
Speaker 8: My understanding is that is that Francesca Hang has made
Speaker 8: clear her present stances.
Speaker 3: To her leg moved away from one, right, she's.
Speaker 7: Moved away from it. And I have.
Speaker 8: A local city councilman that has this saying woke one
Speaker 8: was crazy?
Speaker 3: Oh my woke one? What is woke one?
Speaker 2: And what the bloody hell.
Speaker 3: Is woke too? And are we on woke tour? Are
Speaker 3: we on woke three?
Speaker 2: Or four? I can't keep up. First, all politics are
Speaker 2: local is a very true statement, right. We don't question
Speaker 2: whether or not we agree with the statement all politics
Speaker 2: are local? Was that Tip O'Neil who first said that,
Speaker 2: who where does the I know where the quote come?
Speaker 3: I can picture it.
Speaker 2: But no one who's a member of the Democratic Socialist
Speaker 2: is dealing.
Speaker 3: With any local anything.
Speaker 2: There are no local subjects, none whatsoever. Everything comes from
Speaker 2: on high, from a group of people who absolutely want
Speaker 2: to do away with the constitution, who want to do
Speaker 2: away with prisons, and when confronted, cannot answer a single
Speaker 2: question on their own. They can't, they don't have any capacity.
Speaker 2: If you speak to these people, you check out what
Speaker 2: they are really about. They cannot answer a question on
Speaker 2: their own, they don't have it. When confronted, they just
Speaker 2: fall apart. These socialists are amongst the most nutty and
Speaker 2: the most dangerous and the most ignorantly stupid group of
Speaker 2: people who ever existed. This is the co chair of
Speaker 2: the dssay, in her own words, but we.
Speaker 7: Do believe in taxing the hell out of millionaires?
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, Well what is taxing the hell out of them? Mean? Uh? Yeah,
Speaker 2: you know.
Speaker 7: Again, I don't have like a solid.
Speaker 2: But should I think?
Speaker 3: But shouldn't you?
Speaker 9: I mean, if you're the co chair, if you're the
Speaker 9: co chair of the DSA, shouldn't you be more specific
Speaker 9: than just taxing the hell out of something?
Speaker 2: What exactly do you mean?
Speaker 10: So again, it's democracy, right, and we have to look
Speaker 10: at what we need to spend and what we need.
Speaker 10: We don't want to depend on the existence of millionaires
Speaker 10: because that means people are still getting.
Speaker 7: Ex So yeah, we need to look at what we.
Speaker 10: Need to pay for in the interim, what sort of
Speaker 10: tax base we need for that to happen.
Speaker 2: And she doesn't know what tax the hell out of
Speaker 2: the means because she's not willing to say we're going
Speaker 2: to put a gun to their head, and we're going
Speaker 2: to take everything. The millionaire cannot exist because she just said,
Speaker 2: if the millionaire exists, somebody is being exploited. So we
Speaker 2: have to get rid of all the millionaires. Therefore, we
Speaker 2: have to take what is theirs, including putting a gun
Speaker 2: to their head, which is why we run to run
Speaker 2: for office so we can have the guns. We run
Speaker 2: for office so we can have the guns to put
Speaker 2: it to their head, to be able to take their
Speaker 2: money because they don't deserve it. That's the point of
Speaker 2: the DSA. That's not all politics are local. That is
Speaker 2: their entire agenda. In a nutshell, they don't know. They
Speaker 2: can argue they don't know what they mean by tax
Speaker 2: the hell out of them, but what they mean is
Speaker 2: take everything.
Speaker 3: And after they get the millionaires, they'll.
Speaker 2: Take down the seven hundred and fifty thousand airs, and
Speaker 2: then they'll take down the five hundred thousand hours and
Speaker 2: then the fifty thousand airs. If they will take all
Speaker 2: the money, that's the goal. That's who they are. So
Speaker 2: is this now woke two point zero And what in
Speaker 2: the world is she talking about with woke one point oh?
Speaker 2: Woke one point oh? Notice what she's trying to do
Speaker 2: in this conversation. Notice what she is trying to say
Speaker 2: in this conversation about woke. Let me play this for
Speaker 2: you again, for the people in the cheap seats in communisty.
Speaker 8: I think, to me the fundamental difference.
Speaker 2: She's saying that woke one point, oh was yesterday. Now
Speaker 2: we're on to today. Why aren't you focused on today?
Speaker 2: That's the argument. Let's go back and listen to it
Speaker 2: one more time.
Speaker 8: Her present stances to her, she moved away from one, right, she's.
Speaker 7: Moved away from it.
Speaker 8: And I have a local city councilman that has this
Speaker 8: saying Woke one was crazy, And I think that what's important.
Speaker 3: Is and why is she smiling and laughing about it?
Speaker 3: She was part of it?
Speaker 2: What is with these radicalized communists and they're constant smiling
Speaker 2: while they look aggressively to take your rights in life
Speaker 2: from you.
Speaker 3: These people are creepy as can be.
Speaker 2: Mom, Donnie's always smiling as he's talking about ending a
Speaker 2: Western civilization.
Speaker 3: Woke one, you see. So if you're.
Speaker 2: Still talking about those things, you're living in past. Why
Speaker 2: are you talking about what happened yesterday? We're on to today.
Speaker 2: Why are you living in the past? Why are you
Speaker 2: re litigating that. Move on? Tell them to move on
Speaker 2: from January sixth Our point is that we can't move
Speaker 2: on from Anthony Fauci. We just got the proof that
Speaker 2: he lied. You want me to move on. He's a
Speaker 2: liar and a fraud. Why isn't he in jail. He
Speaker 2: ruined lives? Move on from woke one point zero. You
Speaker 2: mean during the George Floyd ryots where you burned businesses
Speaker 2: to the ground, you destroyed lives, people got killed, and
Speaker 2: now we're supposed to be like, oh whatever, We're on
Speaker 2: to the new stuff, the new stuff. The old stuff
Speaker 2: was so damn murderous. What new stuff? These people, these
Speaker 2: people are horrifying in every way. You're not wrong one
Speaker 2: point zero. She's trying to do away with the past
Speaker 2: while positioning herself as a leader. The Democratic Socialists are
Speaker 2: enable or incapable of explaining their positions. I mean, this
Speaker 2: goes back to where we started. You try and get
Speaker 2: a Cossio Cortes to explain the difference between a communist
Speaker 2: and a socialist.
Speaker 6: By the way, just a quick definitional thing. What in
Speaker 6: your mind is the difference between socialism and communist I think,
Speaker 6: to me.
Speaker 8: The fundamental differences. I mean there's many. One prevailing one
Speaker 8: is democracy, and I believe that democratic socialists are fundamentally
Speaker 8: pro democracy, and we believe in the ballot.
Speaker 2: Box fundamentally pro democracy.
Speaker 3: Let's take.
Speaker 2: They are fundamentally pro democracy, so they say as opposed
Speaker 2: to the communist Can I ask if anybody believes that
Speaker 2: if they were pro democracy, how come they're so supportive
Speaker 2: of working with the Islamists. Who doesn't believe in democracy
Speaker 2: at all? And never mind that all the socialism always
Speaker 2: leads to communism, which has nothing to do with democracy.
Speaker 2: What possibly is she discussing here? Who does this actually attract? Well,
Speaker 2: it attracts the people who already believe, and certainly it
Speaker 2: might attract the twenty year old. This is what we're
Speaker 2: up against. But this is Wilson, what America is seeing,
Speaker 2: and they seem to be to the point that Joe
Speaker 2: Scarborough was making. Turning against this is some maddening talk.
Speaker 2: We're going to further break this down and explain exactly
Speaker 2: how rough it's going to be for them in the
Speaker 2: midterm going down this road that's coming up. Keep it here, guys,
Speaker 2: I'm Tony Katz, and this is Tony Katz today as
Speaker 2: I was reading that story.
Speaker 3: About President Trump and.
Speaker 2: Iran and you know it's gonna be like a low
Speaker 2: key war, and I was like, oh, holy heck, low key.
Speaker 2: That's that is something else, Tony Katz. Tony Katz today,
Speaker 2: an absolute pleasure. Guys, great to be with you live streaming,
Speaker 2: YouTube and Rumble. Come check it out and get in
Speaker 2: the chat room. A lot of good people there, some
Speaker 2: of them have snacks. I caught this story about Bernie Sanders.
Speaker 2: Sanders calls for AI development pause, and I scratched my
Speaker 2: head a little bit and I said, only a low
Speaker 2: rent comie come up with that. Not Hey, have we
Speaker 2: taken a look at safeguards regarding the usage of AI.
Speaker 2: That's not that's a developments pause. You can't you can't
Speaker 2: unring the bell. You're not gonna stop companies from working
Speaker 2: on developing AI technology. You're not gonna stop them from
Speaker 2: dealing with an ever advancing China.
Speaker 3: What kind of thing is this?
Speaker 2: You want to stop that from happening. This is the
Speaker 2: kind of person. Bernie Sanders are the kind of guy
Speaker 2: who would have stopped car manufacturers from making cars.
Speaker 3: He would have stopped the wright brothers. Nope, you cannot fly.
Speaker 2: I need to make sure this is okay and figure
Speaker 2: out how we get money from it. That is that
Speaker 2: is my That is my Bernie Sanders. It isn't great.
Speaker 2: It is a great but it's not bad. It's not bad.
Speaker 2: How are you gonna what would make government think they
Speaker 2: could do this? You didn't understand anything about the stuff.
Speaker 2: You don't understand anything about it. You're Bernie Sanders. You've
Speaker 2: never created anything in your life. You never signed the.
Speaker 3: Front of a paycheck.
Speaker 2: Your whole life is taking government money as an elected guy.
Speaker 2: You've never created anything. Why would I listen to you
Speaker 2: about AI development safeguards is a different thing.
Speaker 3: Maybe there's a role for government in that development.
Speaker 2: Stay out of the way, Tommy, you don't know how
Speaker 2: to do anything.
Speaker 1: I'm Tony Kahm Why from ball Hartbland and the Crossroads
Speaker 1: of America.
Speaker 2: It's Tony Katz today. I admit to you that I
Speaker 2: don't know anything about Dja Carrington. What I know is
Speaker 2: she had the flagrant fowl against Sophie Cunningham in that
Speaker 2: WNBA game and she got ejected from the game, right,
Speaker 2: And I know that people said, well, Sophie Cunningham. She
Speaker 2: did exactly the same thing last year and she got ejected.
Speaker 3: What's the big deal. Here's no big deal.
Speaker 2: It was a foul, it was.
Speaker 3: A flagrant fowl and she got ejected.
Speaker 2: When Sophie Cunningham did it, it was a flagrant fowl
Speaker 2: and she got ejected. Makes perfect sense. The difference is
Speaker 2: that Sophie Cunningham didn't then go to social media and
Speaker 2: claim white privilege. The racism and bigotry of the w
Speaker 2: a on full display, which has always been there, and
Speaker 2: they have not come to a reckoning too. That's all right,
Speaker 2: that's fine. The reckoning has come to them. It's time
Speaker 2: for the ladies to have to deal with that reality.
Speaker 2: Tony Katz Tony Katz Today, guys, great to be with.
Speaker 2: You find everything at Tony kats dot com t O
Speaker 2: n y k A t Z that's how you spell
Speaker 2: my name Tony Katz dot com and of course live
Speaker 2: streaming on YouTube and Rumble.
Speaker 3: Check it out for yourself.
Speaker 2: Just go to Tony Kat's Tony Kats Today on either
Speaker 2: platform on the Twitter ex Tony Katz, Facebook, Tony Kats Radio.
Speaker 3: Ianez Kant and Royce White have declared.
Speaker 2: For the WNBA draft. These are men who have taken
Speaker 2: a look at the rules and said, well, there's nothing
Speaker 2: here that says I can't declare for the WNBA draft.
Speaker 3: So I'm gonna declare for the WNBA draft.
Speaker 2: I'm going to say, hey, I am I am of
Speaker 2: the lady folk, and that's that, you know what, I'm
Speaker 2: not even of the lady folks. I just identify and
Speaker 2: you don't get to ask me what that means. You
Speaker 2: don't get to have any rules about this. It's absolutely
Speaker 2: joyous that this is happening. Allow me to further define joyous.
Speaker 2: Everything involving the idea that men think that they could
Speaker 2: be women is sick, is ugly, is mental illness on display,
Speaker 2: and is horrifyingly bad. I don't believe in attacking the
Speaker 2: mentally ill. I also do not believe in buying into
Speaker 2: their nonsense. The political left did this. Not only did
Speaker 2: they believe in buying into the mental illness, they demanded
Speaker 2: that you bought into the mental illness as well, which
Speaker 2: is why everybody now has their pronouns on LinkedIn. I
Speaker 2: had somebody try to connect with me today on LinkedIn,
Speaker 2: and they have pronouns, and I said, no, thank you.
Speaker 2: I won't take anybody new. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 2: I should go through and I should get rid of
Speaker 2: everybody i'm connected to who uses pronouns. If you share
Speaker 2: your pronouns with me, why in the world would I
Speaker 2: want to be connected to you on LinkedIn. You're not
Speaker 2: interested in the work. You're not interested in working for me.
Speaker 2: You're not interested in working with me. You're not interested
Speaker 2: in what you actually do. You're interested in posturing. I
Speaker 2: don't need anybody who postures. I can find somebody who
Speaker 2: postures everywhere. I need people who could do the work.
Speaker 2: I need people who know how to work with content creators.
Speaker 2: I need to work with people who know how to
Speaker 2: get better results via social media. I don't need somebody
Speaker 2: who says my pronouns are they them? No, I don't
Speaker 2: want you. I don't want to work with you. You're
Speaker 2: not good enough to work with me because you're not
Speaker 2: focused on the right things. Not in the slightest the
Speaker 2: WNBA should have dealt with this, just like they should
Speaker 2: have dealt with the racism of their league. They didn't.
Speaker 2: In the Sophie Cunningham story, where she writes Dejene Carrington
Speaker 2: writes white privilege well, this is a league that sees
Speaker 2: itself as a league for black women and gay women.
Speaker 2: It always has, It always has, I'll say it again,
Speaker 2: it always has. And they don't like the fact that
Speaker 2: Caitlin Clark has come to town. They don't like the
Speaker 2: fact that Caitlyn Clark is popular. They absolutely cannot stand
Speaker 2: that it is popular, that she is popular. They can't
Speaker 2: stand that Sophie Cunningham would now be popular. Don't you
Speaker 2: know that that's not supposed to be. This is a
Speaker 2: league for this group and that group, but not those girls.
Speaker 2: The bigotry on full display and display from players and
Speaker 2: coaches and the league and the media, etc. Put that
Speaker 2: all to the side. Anybody who would say hashtag white
Speaker 2: privilege to fouling Sophie Cunningham and getting thrown out of
Speaker 2: the game is a fool. Is someone not worth knowing,
Speaker 2: no leadership skills, no value to the league, no value
Speaker 2: to young women.
Speaker 3: And so I'm perfectly clear.
Speaker 2: If you're a black woman who looks at that and says, yeah,
Speaker 2: good on her, my god, are you wrong? You just
Speaker 2: want the racial divide, you want it, And I think
Speaker 2: that's pretty weird. That's pretty ugly stuff. Now we get
Speaker 2: into the part two of the WNBA. They already have
Speaker 2: a bigotry problem, they've had one for years. The Part
Speaker 2: two is this story that they can't define what a
Speaker 2: woman is and they've had two men declare for.
Speaker 3: The WNBA draft.
Speaker 2: It's also a Sophie Cunningham story, because this Sophie Cunningham
Speaker 2: story goes back to February when she was asked a
Speaker 2: question and she said, I think girls sports should be
Speaker 2: for girls, which is the most normal thing to say.
Speaker 3: In the world.
Speaker 2: And it just got re released a couple weeks ago
Speaker 2: and everybody's been talking about it and losing their minds
Speaker 2: over it.
Speaker 3: What did we say right from the beginning.
Speaker 2: I'm I'm on the record. She did not say, Sophie
Speaker 2: Cunningham did not say anything remarkable.
Speaker 3: She said something normal. She said something rational.
Speaker 2: There was no need to comment on it other than that.
Speaker 3: And yet the.
Speaker 2: Left one to attack her and the right wanted to
Speaker 2: glorify her, and both were wrong. Girl sports should be
Speaker 2: for girls is the most normal thing ever. There's nothing
Speaker 2: new to it, nothing at all. But people decide to
Speaker 2: lose their minds and then people want to go out
Speaker 2: there and protest, like you're mad at Sophie Cunningham. What
Speaker 2: you're mad at? And it seems very obvious. And if
Speaker 2: the league doesn't want to address this, this is no
Speaker 2: concern of mine. You are upset that straight white women
Speaker 2: who are attractive to a lot of people are being
Speaker 2: noticed because you don't want the league to be about that.
Speaker 2: You can't stand that the league has any of that.
Speaker 2: You can't handle the fact you hate the fact that
Speaker 2: there might be attractive people in the league. Well, why
Speaker 2: didn't they notice these attracted people? Are that attractive people?
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Oh, it's because everybody's a racist. Fine, great, everybody's a racist.
Speaker 2: Do you feel better? Did that get you anywhere? Screaming
Speaker 2: that everybody is a racist did not get you charter
Speaker 2: flights you were flying commercial. Screaming that everybody was a
Speaker 2: racist didn't get you sponsors. Now you've got sponsors. Screaming
Speaker 2: everybody was a racist didn't get you. Sold out arenas.
Speaker 2: Now you have sold out arenas. When the Indiana Fever
Speaker 2: and Caitlin Clark and Sophie Cunningham come to town, oh, in
Speaker 2: a whole host of other players. I will keep saying
Speaker 2: it for as long as I can. Eleiah Boston has
Speaker 2: been fantastic for that team in a lot of ways.
Speaker 2: A great pickup in the draft, and dear Lord, get
Speaker 2: her the ball more often. I'm in Indiana, I pay
Speaker 2: a little bit of attention to the fever. I can't
Speaker 2: say this about other teams. You can't. You don't accept
Speaker 2: the fact that somebody doesn't look like you.
Speaker 3: Is popular.
Speaker 2: Maybe those people being popular will get other people to
Speaker 2: notice the people you want them to notice. Great, terrific, wonderful,
Speaker 2: But now you can't even describe what a woman is.
Speaker 3: Your rules WNBA.
Speaker 2: When Sophie Cunningham said this and the league decided to
Speaker 2: get split on this, and coaches like from the Minnesota
Speaker 2: Lane decided to wear shirts that say trans kids belong.
Speaker 2: What do you mean belong? The coach of the Golden
Speaker 2: State Valkyries. Sports is about belonging. No, it's not. Jennifer
Speaker 2: Say of XXXY Athletics said it correct. This is about
Speaker 2: the elites. This is about the elites. The last thing
Speaker 2: about this is not inclusive at all. It's totally exclusive.
Speaker 2: This is a very special club. But they wouldn't say
Speaker 2: that this is a league for women. They wouldn't stand
Speaker 2: up for women. You didn't like what Sophie Cunningham said. Okay, fine,
Speaker 2: I don't know what she said is weird, odd or strange.
Speaker 2: It was totally normal. But now, when confronted with this,
Speaker 2: you won't even say, Look, this is a women's league
Speaker 2: and there's a difference between women and men. You won't
Speaker 2: say it. So don't blame this on Sophie Cunningham. Blame
Speaker 2: this on the coach of the Lynx, Toshryl Reeves, and
Speaker 2: blame them on the coach of the Golden State Valgyrie Nicasi.
Speaker 3: They're the ones who did this.
Speaker 2: And all of those people who decide to scream and
Speaker 2: yell about Sophie Cunningham, they created this situation. And so
Speaker 2: you've got Enes Canter also known as enes cantor Freedom,
Speaker 2: and Roy Swhite, who I know nothing about, saying they're
Speaker 2: going to enter the draft because there's nothing that is
Speaker 2: in there that can be utilized to question him him.
Speaker 2: I understand he's a man.
Speaker 3: Please accept.
Speaker 2: This formal document is my official written notification to the
Speaker 2: Women's National Basketball Association my voluntary decision to enter the
Speaker 2: playerpool for the twenty twenty seven and WNBA draft consistent
Speaker 2: with the current league collective Bargaining Agreement. I'm submitting this
Speaker 2: notice to exercise my draft rights and to affirm that
Speaker 2: I at least at twenty two years old and I
Speaker 2: have no remaining intercollegiate eligibility. As required, I requested the
Speaker 2: WNBA League Office verify I receipt of this document and
Speaker 2: direct any future communication to my personal email address listed above.
Speaker 2: Thank you for your official processing and my registration into
Speaker 2: the twenty twenty seven draft pool, respectfully submitted this sixth
Speaker 2: day of August twenty twenty six. They can't explain what
Speaker 2: a woman is in the WNBA, and now they're having
Speaker 2: a meeting to do just that. WNBA Commissioner Kathy Ingelbert.
Speaker 2: Is it Ingelbert Ingelbrecht? Isn't it Ingobrect? That's what I
Speaker 2: thought it was, the commissioner, Yeah, it's Ingobrect. Thank you.
Speaker 2: The Commissioner puts out a memo that says I wanted
Speaker 2: to reach out to share how we are approaching these
Speaker 2: conversations at the League office and to thank those of
Speaker 2: you who have responded to questions from the media with
Speaker 2: thoughtfulness and professionalism. We recognize that this is a complex
Speaker 2: and nuanced topic, and we will continue to have important
Speaker 2: conversations with all of you and the Players Association in
Speaker 2: the weeks and months ahead. We also plan to give
Speaker 2: an additional discussions and offer listening sessions for any team
Speaker 2: leaders who would like to participate. Your perspectives and feedback
Speaker 2: are invaluable, and I appreciate those who have already reached
Speaker 2: out to share their thoughts. It's not nuanced and it's
Speaker 2: not complex. Djna Carrington is a bigot and the league
Speaker 2: is shocked full of bigots who hate the fact that
Speaker 2: white women are seeing success. They hate it. That's on them,
Speaker 2: not on me for noticing. You can send me any
Speaker 2: email you want. Go right ahead, knock yourselves out. You
Speaker 2: want to send me some hate mail, feel free. Let's
Speaker 2: send it to Mark Levin at yahoo dot com. I
Speaker 2: don't want to hear your crap. Blame her for being
Speaker 2: a bigot. That's on the racism side, not complex, not nuanced,
Speaker 2: on the side of what makes a.
Speaker 3: Woman, not complex and not nuanced.
Speaker 2: That you say it's a complex and nuanced topic, Kathin Engelbrecht,
Speaker 2: makes you the problem commissioner because you can't say what
Speaker 2: is so obvious. There's a difference between women and men.
Speaker 2: Men are not women, and men are not welcome in
Speaker 2: this league. Can't say the words. You can't say the words.
Speaker 2: You're so afraid of the players. You're so afraid of
Speaker 2: the coaches. You're so afraid, afraid seemingly of the ownership.
Speaker 2: You're so afraid of the fans. You're so afraid to
Speaker 2: not be invited to the Christmas party that you can't
Speaker 2: say there's a difference between women and men. You can't
Speaker 2: speak the truth. You have been broken. They control your speech,
Speaker 2: they control your honesty, they control your decency. You're so
Speaker 2: afraid of them, you are so afraid you can't say
Speaker 2: no inenus cancer. You can't join because you're a man,
Speaker 2: and this is the league for women. Have a nice day.
Speaker 2: The W stands for women. There's a difference between men
Speaker 2: and women. And just because Katanji Brown Jackson, Supreme Court
Speaker 2: justice is too stupid to note the difference doesn't mean
Speaker 2: we are of course we're smarter. And then it's.
Speaker 3: Supreme Court justice.
Speaker 2: You can't do it. Leftist women can't stand up for women.
Speaker 2: Neither can leftist men. They can't stand up for women,
Speaker 2: and when they do, they get ostracized, They get pushed
Speaker 2: to the side they get called turfs or whatever bloody
Speaker 2: heck term they want to put out there for JK.
Speaker 2: Rowling and Martina and to Rachelovo, who's wrong in a
Speaker 2: bunch of things, but not on this. I don't care
Speaker 2: how much pain, how much pain they feel, I don't
Speaker 2: care how upset they get. By the way, it's Engelbert,
Speaker 2: not engel Brecht. I don't know why I get that wrong,
Speaker 2: and I apologize. Kathy Engelbert b e Rt. Kathy engel
Speaker 2: Breckt is someone completely different. She's the commissioner. She can't
Speaker 2: say this, she cannot say the basics. The control the
Speaker 2: left has over these people, control their thoughts, control their speech,
Speaker 2: so much so that they can't say the basic truths.
Speaker 2: And at that moment you realize that Atlas Shrugged was
Speaker 2: a really good book. I'm just gonna sit back, eat
Speaker 2: some popcorn and watch. I'm gonna watch them just absolutely
Speaker 2: destroy themselves, just absolutely devour themselves. It is shameful. We'll
Speaker 2: see if they figure it out. But two guys declaring
Speaker 2: for the WNBA, because you know the w NBA wants
Speaker 2: this and now they've got it. Oh, oh, those must
Speaker 2: be some great meetings. This is Tony Kats today. I
Speaker 2: was discussing the DSA earlier and I think, I mean,
Speaker 2: I part of me thinks I should save this for
Speaker 2: for three more things. But it's gonna all lead into
Speaker 2: a conversation about what exactly is happening in the mid terms.
Speaker 2: I mean, I hate to to break this to people.
Speaker 2: I don't mean to scare anybody with with with this
Speaker 2: kind of commentary, but you all, you all understand that
Speaker 2: we are officially in midterm election season. What don't don't
Speaker 2: boom me. I didn't do anything wrong. Don't get upset
Speaker 2: with me. It's August. The election is November third. We
Speaker 2: are in it. The kids went back to school. That
Speaker 2: is the firing pistol. We are an election season, and
Speaker 2: how is it that they see victory? Where do their
Speaker 2: victories come from? If this is the kind of stuff
Speaker 2: that the leader of the Democratic Socialists, which is now
Speaker 2: controlling the party, is putting out into the world.
Speaker 9: Tended on October eighth pro Palestinian Prohamas rally, which many
Speaker 9: people saw as a justification of the October seventh attack,
Speaker 9: and some of her tweets have been extremely ugly on
Speaker 9: this score and on others do you fully support her
Speaker 9: in all these activities and what she said to say?
Speaker 10: I think darielis I can speak for herself certainly, and
Speaker 10: I think she's apologized for some pieces of that and
Speaker 10: not forthtending that rally, not unapologetic about other pieces of that.
Speaker 3: And do you support her yourself and that?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I do you support the murder of twelve hundred,
Speaker 2: the rape of women, the women, the setting of children
Speaker 2: on fire.
Speaker 3: That's the dsay.
Speaker 2: I'm Tony Katz. Three more things, Tony Katz, Tony Katz today, guys.
Speaker 2: It's great to be with you. So here's how we work.
Speaker 2: Three more things. These are things that should be front
Speaker 2: page news, but because of all the things on the
Speaker 2: front page, doesn't make the front pages. So I bring
Speaker 2: these things to you. These are stories that you should know.
Speaker 2: Of course, we've got a Ran on the front page,
Speaker 2: and President Trump is we're in a low key war. Now,
Speaker 2: we're in the low key war with Iran. I don't
Speaker 2: know what that's supposed to mean at all. I don't
Speaker 2: know I'm supposed to do with that information. Low key
Speaker 2: We're just going to keep up the sanctions and we're
Speaker 2: going to keep the economic pressure on but that's it. See,
Speaker 2: this is in the hopes that we've got some good,
Speaker 2: solid oil prices going on.
Speaker 3: They're all up today. All the barrel price stuff.
Speaker 2: Is up today, having right, you know, at least in
Speaker 2: the midday, being up over eighty dollars a barrel. But
Speaker 2: if that's that's why the President wants to play it, fine,
Speaker 2: Just don't tell me that a deal is coming, because
Speaker 2: a deal is never coming. There's no one to make
Speaker 2: a deal with. Then you have Columbia with a seven
Speaker 2: point four magnitude quake. The early estimates has seventy three
Speaker 2: people dead, and I think that that's going to be
Speaker 2: a low number based on what they're already showing in
Speaker 2: the imagery some churches collapsing in on themselves right there.
Speaker 2: It could be that it avoided really populous areas, but
Speaker 2: this number can grow. Forty one hundred people in this
Speaker 2: community where the epicenter was. But seven point four is
Speaker 2: going to be felt across the region for sure.
Speaker 3: While more on that tomorrow.
Speaker 2: Todd Blanche confirmed as the Attorney general.
Speaker 3: The vote was fifty to forty nine.
Speaker 2: As we discussed it would be right here, fifty to
Speaker 2: forty nine is the vote. Why because you had Susan
Speaker 2: Collins and Lisa Murkowski vote no, that would have made
Speaker 2: it fifty one forty nine.
Speaker 3: Then you had Mitch McConnell.
Speaker 2: Who has not been in the Senate. He is now
Speaker 2: at home recovering after being in a rehab center from
Speaker 2: I don't actually know what. He did not vote. Therefore
Speaker 2: no tiebreaker was needed from the Vice president. The vote
Speaker 2: was fifty to forty nine. And Todd Blanche is the
Speaker 2: Attorney General. There should have been no one, no one
Speaker 2: at all who.
Speaker 3: Voted again Todd Blanche.
Speaker 2: There was just no need for it, no reason for it.
Speaker 2: If Merrick Garland can be confirmed, Todd Blanche could be confirmed,
Speaker 2: then you have the Senate of voting to not shut
Speaker 2: down the government. They voted to have a continuing resolution
Speaker 2: through December, going past the midterms, avoiding us all together,
Speaker 2: now sending it to the House for their vote. I
Speaker 2: guess Democrats decided that there was going to be no value.
Speaker 3: In a shutdown.
Speaker 2: Maybe they saw that the shutdown didn't really do them,
Speaker 2: didn't do them well, didn't make their life worthwhile or valuable,
Speaker 2: didn't give them a good bit of a political life.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm happy, I'm happy that the shot down
Speaker 2: is going to be avoided. Then you have an interesting
Speaker 2: note about a billboard in New York. There's this billboard
Speaker 2: that is in New York, and if you see it,
Speaker 2: you'll note that the billboard is in Arabic. But the
Speaker 2: billboard is put up by the city of New York.
Speaker 2: Why in the world would there be this billboard that
Speaker 2: is in Arabic from the city and that has something
Speaker 2: to do with some I don't know, like a subway
Speaker 2: card or something like that. But as got noted, twenty
Speaker 2: two point seven percent of New Yorker speaks Spanish, Chinese
Speaker 2: is five point four percent, Russia is two and a half,
Speaker 2: and Golli is two point one. Yiddish is one point one,
Speaker 2: Hebrews point six, and Korean point five, Arabic point four.
Speaker 2: Why is.
Speaker 3: The billboard in Arabic going up?
Speaker 1: Why?
Speaker 2: Why is this happening? Why is this happening? From Zarn Mamdani,
Speaker 2: I I think people have ideas and thoughts and concepts
Speaker 2: on conquering and and I must really push back against
Speaker 2: those people who want to pretend that somehow it's wrong
Speaker 2: to notice society, it's wrong to notice Islamic history. It's
Speaker 2: not wrong to notice Christopher Hitchens was talking about this
Speaker 2: stuff years ago regarding Islam, that this is not a religion,
Speaker 2: it's a political system and it is meant for conquest.
Speaker 2: And I'm sorry if anybody who is Muslim is offended.
Speaker 2: The reality is reality. History is there. You can scream
Speaker 2: about Apak and Israel all you want. Wars got started
Speaker 2: with Israel. Israel won them, took some of the land,
Speaker 2: and then gave the land back. You don't have an argument.
Speaker 2: Islamists take land and believe it's their land for forever
Speaker 2: and walk through societies engaging in the desire of conquest.
Speaker 2: This is not new. This is what they are moved
Speaker 2: to do. Thus the reality. And when the conquest comes,
Speaker 2: of course everybody has to do what they say and
Speaker 2: you have to live by their rules otherwise you get
Speaker 2: taxed something called the jizya. Jizya. It's a political system.
Speaker 2: It's not a religion. You have to stop thinking, give
Speaker 2: it like a religion. Not angry. Just stating a fact
Speaker 2: that it is incompatible with Western civilization is a fact.
Speaker 2: It's not even a surprising fact. There's nothing new about it.
Speaker 2: There's no like I didn't say anything shocking it just is.
Speaker 2: And so when Nancy Mace puts out that Muslims shouldn't
Speaker 2: be elected, people are so absolutely offended. Nancy Mace doesn't
Speaker 2: do a good job of explaining anything.
Speaker 3: She doesn't.
Speaker 2: I think that she's a woman who had opportunities and
Speaker 2: she let the opportunities slip her by and decides to
Speaker 2: be just a.
Speaker 3: Little too nutty.
Speaker 2: Margie Taylor Green exactly the same, just a different kind
Speaker 2: of nutty. Are we going to pretend that there isn't
Speaker 2: an issue taking place, that we're not seeing the Islamist
Speaker 2: desire to do away with Western civilization and somehow there
Speaker 2: should be changes to this. We have seen this in
Speaker 2: spots of Michigan. We've seen this in spots in Texas.
Speaker 2: It is a political system that simply cannot be trusted,
Speaker 2: is incompatible with the republic. So therefore it can't be.
Speaker 3: That, is it.
Speaker 2: You can't tell me that the Islamist is not an issue,
Speaker 2: But Waco was. Those people were just living their lives, dude.
Speaker 2: We can have a deep conversation about Waco, like we
Speaker 2: can have a deep conversation about Ruby Ridge. But they
Speaker 2: were Americans and they just didn't want to participate in
Speaker 2: what the rest of us were doing. I have noticed
Speaker 2: that the Islamist also does not want to participate in
Speaker 2: what we're doing, but somehow we can't notice.
Speaker 3: That's that's pretty mad, that's pretty nutty.
Speaker 2: But it isn't the only thing that I've got. There
Speaker 2: is a fascinating story about gen Z and in New York,
Speaker 2: The New York Post went and talked to some twenty
Speaker 2: somethings about cigarettes, and it turns out that cigarettes are
Speaker 2: considered cool.
Speaker 3: By gen Z.
Speaker 2: Why is that. It's because they want to be connected
Speaker 2: to something. They want an actual experience, they want to
Speaker 2: be a part of something. I was telling the story
Speaker 2: early that my oldest we were in a thrift store
Speaker 2: and there was a stereo system. It didn't have the
Speaker 2: individual components where all the components were put together, the
Speaker 2: old Sony ones, you know, and you couldn't afford the
Speaker 2: individual components, so.
Speaker 3: You got this.
Speaker 2: And it had the five CD carousel and had the
Speaker 2: two cassette players that had a small equalizer. He was mesmerized,
Speaker 2: couldn't figure out how the cassettes worked. So I hit
Speaker 2: eject into the slow open and he was like, oh,
Speaker 2: that's amazing, And then he went he plugged it in
Speaker 2: and was able to open the carousel. He's like, the
Speaker 2: thing spins and you can put all the distance up.
Speaker 3: And why were we in the thrift store. He was
Speaker 3: buying CDs.
Speaker 2: Because it's tactile and it's connected and this generation is
Speaker 2: exhausted by all things digital in all places. They want
Speaker 2: that connection. We've talked about it before. Smoking now. My
Speaker 2: oldest has said, I have no interest in smoking, but
Speaker 2: admittedly it looks cool. And I said, if you're smoking cigars, yes,
Speaker 2: everything else can't.
Speaker 3: I'm not down with that.
Speaker 2: And also if I said this earlier too, give me
Speaker 2: ten gen Zers who want to have a cigar one
Speaker 2: on one class and I will host it. I will
Speaker 2: take care of it. I will do cigars one on
Speaker 2: one with gen Z, happy to put that together. They
Speaker 2: want connection. I think it's great.
Speaker 3: No, don't think.
Speaker 2: I don't think smoking cigarettes is great. I'm not going
Speaker 2: to be the guy who's down for that. But I
Speaker 2: think that they want connection, that they want to be
Speaker 2: a part of something. They want something real in their
Speaker 2: lives and not just some stupid screen. Amazing, absolutely spectacular.
Speaker 3: Oh.
Speaker 2: I have got a lot of hope and a lot
Speaker 2: of faiths for gen Z I do. I don't think
Speaker 2: they're radicalized.
Speaker 3: Are those some are? I don't think they're ridiculous? So
Speaker 3: the some are.
Speaker 2: I think a lot of them just want to be
Speaker 2: able to have something real in their lives. And man,
Speaker 2: I think there's a lot that can be discussed with them.
Speaker 2: I think they could see if you want something real,
Speaker 2: the Left ain't offering that kittens, not at all. If
Speaker 2: you want to do something also, that's good for you.
Speaker 2: You got to fight the data brokers where they are,
Speaker 2: and you got to do that Withincogni, because you've got
Speaker 2: a file on the Internet that is chock full of
Speaker 2: all of your information. It's got your name and address
Speaker 2: and your email address, it's got your medical records, it
Speaker 2: has your kids' names, and it gets utilized against you
Speaker 2: in those phishing scams, you know, those text messages where
Speaker 2: someone knows way too much about you and they want
Speaker 2: you to send money or do this. The scam calls
Speaker 2: the data brokers. It's a multi billion dollar industry. Your
Speaker 2: file gets collected, it gets packaged, it gets sold, all
Speaker 2: of it legal, and you get scammed. Scammers taking advantage
Speaker 2: of an American citizens to the tune of twenty billion
Speaker 2: plus dollars each and every year. These scammers are prepared.
Speaker 2: You have got to fight back. You do that withincogny
Speaker 2: I n cogn I, in Cognity dot com slash cats.
Speaker 2: They're the ones who go to the data brokers and
Speaker 2: say delete this file, your file so it can't be
Speaker 2: utilized against you. And if any of that information creeps
Speaker 2: back online, in Cogni is there to get it gone
Speaker 2: from the data brokers.
Speaker 3: Again.
Speaker 2: It's an on, NonStop battle and in Cogni wins it.
Speaker 2: Go to Incogniti dot com slash cats Katz use promo
Speaker 2: code cats to get sixty percent off right now in
Speaker 2: cognity dot com slash cats In cognity dot com slash
Speaker 2: cats get sixty percent off. Take your private life off
Speaker 2: of the market. Tony Katz, Tony Kats today.
Speaker 3: We'll be all right back.
Speaker 2: We really do think there is something to this idea
Speaker 2: of as we're in midterm season, I mean, this is it.
Speaker 2: Primaries are basically done and me you've still got Wisconsin
Speaker 2: this week, a couple of small things, but everybody's in it.
Speaker 2: We're in midterm season. The midterms are November three. Tony Katz,
Speaker 2: Tony Katz today, and I take a look at generic balloting.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna get more into this. Democrats are up a
Speaker 2: little bit plus seventh the generic ballot.
Speaker 3: Then again, they.
Speaker 2: Told us that abdul say Ed was up like thirteen
Speaker 2: against Haley Stevens.
Speaker 3: He won by one. So maybe the posters are wrong,
Speaker 3: And maybe the.
Speaker 2: Reason they're wrong is because there's madness like this, this
Speaker 2: conversation that Ross Doubtad had.
Speaker 11: Are you listening or overweighting the votes of younger people
Speaker 11: or assigning the youngest eligible voters proxy votes for the
Speaker 11: unrepresented children of our country? So those are edgy, why
Speaker 11: not assign them to those children's parents? Well, because there's
Speaker 11: a divergence of interest between parents and children, and I
Speaker 11: think it's likelier that young people, not people who are
Speaker 11: raising families, will have the best insight into the interests
Speaker 11: of children, whereas you, if you were awarded five, I
Speaker 11: think that's death.
Speaker 12: I think it's absurd to imagine that a twenty four
Speaker 12: year old recent college graduate has a better assessment of
Speaker 12: the interests of my own children than I do. And
Speaker 12: I say this with all due respect to twenty four
Speaker 12: year old recent college graduates of whom I hope to
Speaker 12: be the parent of in nine years or so.
Speaker 11: I think parents generally confuse the interests of their family
Speaker 11: with the interests of their children.
Speaker 2: That's the left, the person saying that's deaf. That's Roth
Speaker 2: Dathat formerly The New York Times, now with sixty minutes.
Speaker 2: But that's the left. You don't have your children's best
Speaker 2: interest at heart. So therefore we have to take it
Speaker 2: away from the parent, because we have to have the
Speaker 2: children's best interest at heart. Who's we people you want
Speaker 2: to let near your children? How do you expect to
Speaker 2: win elections like this? That's the question. I'm Tony kats.
Speaker 1: Why from vall Hartbiner and the Crossroads of America.
Speaker 2: It's Tony Katz Today. The vast majority of people in
Speaker 2: America know nothing about the Great Barrington Declaration. And the
Speaker 2: reason they don't know about it is because, well, it
Speaker 2: didn't get much play. Oh it was outrageously important. It
Speaker 2: was doctors and health professionals and scientists saying, you know
Speaker 2: what we're doing regarding COVID. This was in the middle
Speaker 2: of COVID, in the heat of COVID. This is not
Speaker 2: in any way smart or proper or good. This is
Speaker 2: a horrible way to go about things. We don't know
Speaker 2: what doctor Fauci or doctor Burks or any of these
Speaker 2: other people pretend that they are doing, but they're gonna
Speaker 2: hurt a lot of people. There's a better way to
Speaker 2: do this. And as you know, and I know, and
Speaker 2: we know, many of those messages got silenced, whether it
Speaker 2: be from some of the leading doctors and scientists and
Speaker 2: health professionals, or whether it be you asking a basic.
Speaker 3: Question on social media.
Speaker 2: Tony Katz, Tony Katz today, good to be with you. Well.
Speaker 2: In the treasure trove of things the Senator Ran Paul
Speaker 2: released from the diary of Anthony Fauci, Doctor Anthony Fauci emails, etc.
Speaker 2: Was this notification You can find it. I've got it
Speaker 2: over at tonykats dot com. This email that Fauci sent
Speaker 2: to doctor Debra Burks, you know, the one who wears
Speaker 2: the scarves, asking her to come out against the Great
Speaker 2: Barrington Declaration. Phil Magnus joins me right now. His work
Speaker 2: is at the Independent Institute, where he is a Senior
Speaker 2: Fellow in the day with Jay Threau Chair in Political Economy.
Speaker 2: He also works with the American Institute for Economic Research,
Speaker 2: where he was formerly the fa Hiak share in economics
Speaker 2: and economic history, which means he knows a lot of
Speaker 2: things that we don't, which is good because this does
Speaker 2: have a lot of economic connotations to it. He is
Speaker 2: also the author of the sixteen nineteen project Myth and
Speaker 2: Cracks in the Ivory Tower the Moral Mess of Higher Education,
Speaker 2: both of which touch on the concept of what it
Speaker 2: is we are told versus what it is that is.
Speaker 2: Phil Magnus, thanks for taking the time. I appreciate it.
Speaker 2: You got a heck of a resume there. But I
Speaker 2: want to discuss the Great Barrington Declaration. Let's start where
Speaker 2: we start, which is what is the Great Barrington Declaration.
Speaker 13: Absolutely so, I was one of a very small number
Speaker 13: of people that was actually in the room when the
Speaker 13: thing was signed in October twenty twenty, and this is
Speaker 13: a document basically challenging the eye idea that lockdowns were
Speaker 13: the way to deal with the pandemic, that pointed out
Speaker 13: that lockdowns not only were on a very swim evidentiary
Speaker 13: basis they didn't work, but on top of that, they
Speaker 13: cost all sorts of social harms, economic harms. They put
Speaker 13: people out of work, caused mental health issues, kept kids
Speaker 13: out of schools. And this was a document that came
Speaker 13: together right during the second wave of COVID. If you remember,
Speaker 13: in fall twenty twenty, the cases were ticking up again
Speaker 13: and all of the people who had locked us down
Speaker 13: back in the spring started revisiting those ideas, and in
Speaker 13: some cases many states and many countries are in the world,
Speaker 13: they did re enact lockdowns again in the fall of
Speaker 13: twenty twenty. But what happened is we got a group
Speaker 13: of scientists together, and this was Jay Bonticheria, who's now
Speaker 13: Fauci's replacement boss figure at the NIH Donald Trump appointed
Speaker 13: him in part because of his reputation. After this, Martin
Speaker 13: Koldorf of Harvard at the time, and Sinetric up to Oxford.
Speaker 13: So three physicians came together, we held a conference on
Speaker 13: the case against lockdowns and they articulated those principles in
Speaker 13: a short to sake summary statement to challenge the return
Speaker 13: of this policy that Fauci and Burks and some of
Speaker 13: the other figures in the so called public health establishment
Speaker 13: we're pushing at the time.
Speaker 2: One of the things the Great Barrington Declaration estates, and
Speaker 2: Great Barrington is where air is located. Correct, that's the
Speaker 2: specific town that it's in. It reads coming from both
Speaker 2: the left and right, and around the world. We have
Speaker 2: devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are
Speaker 2: producing devastating effects on short and long term public health.
Speaker 3: The result, to name a few, include lower childhood.
Speaker 2: Vaccination rates, worse than cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings,
Speaker 2: and deteriorating mental health lead into greater excess mortality in
Speaker 2: years to come, with the working class in younger members
Speaker 2: of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of
Speaker 2: school is a grave injustice.
Speaker 3: When we think of the time October twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: As you're describing it, sir, this was a very neu
Speaker 2: radical thing to say. Everything we're hearing from on high
Speaker 2: is wrong. It's a danger. Let us say so it
Speaker 2: gets signed. What was the reaction and the response to
Speaker 2: the Great Barrington Declaration.
Speaker 13: Well, initially it was very positive. It kind of went
Speaker 13: viral on the internet, got picked up in some major
Speaker 13: news media sources. I think the Wall Street Journal covered it.
Speaker 13: Fox News picked it up, and they pointed out that
Speaker 13: this is finally somebody is challenging Anthony Fauci and this
Speaker 13: policy that he has been pushing for several months now,
Speaker 13: that doesn't seem to be working, doesn't seem to be
Speaker 13: addressing the pandemic, and oh, by the way, it has
Speaker 13: all these other costs and consequences. So that was the
Speaker 13: initial reactions, generally positive, kind of recognizing, hey, we could
Speaker 13: finally have the scientific debate we were denied in the spring.
Speaker 13: And then all of a sudden, this is probably about
Speaker 13: three or four days after the decoration was signed, the
Speaker 13: media turned outright hostile against it, attacks on the authors,
Speaker 13: calling them fringds epidemiologists. We got de boosted on the
Speaker 13: Google links, Google searches from it. It used to appear
Speaker 13: on the top page, along with the news media coverage
Speaker 13: of it, and then suddenly, all of a sudden, it's
Speaker 13: on page four behind crazy conspiracy blogs announcing the Great
Speaker 13: Barrington Declaration is going to kill us. All so very
Speaker 13: rapid switch in the public discussion around it, And it
Speaker 13: was kind of mystifying at the time of why that
Speaker 13: had happened, because all we were asking for was a
Speaker 13: public debate over the science, a public debate over whether
Speaker 13: lockdowns actually did what they promised to do.
Speaker 2: Talking to Phil Magnus, Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute,
Speaker 2: David J. Throatshare and political economy and his work with
Speaker 2: Aier the American Institute for Economic Research, where he was
Speaker 2: formerly the fa Hiak Chair, and economics and economic history.
Speaker 2: And we could certainly tie in a lot of what
Speaker 2: we saw in the COVID days to what we have
Speaker 2: seen in economic reality today. But there's also an economic
Speaker 2: reality of what we have done to generations and what
Speaker 2: it is we were doing in trying to from other
Speaker 2: groups silencing this kind of talk you talk about all
Speaker 2: of a sudden it was removed from search engines, etc.
Speaker 2: This brings us to this email that doctor Fauci sent
Speaker 2: out to Deborah Burks saying, so, just a heads up.
Speaker 2: Over the past week, I've come out very strongly publicly
Speaker 2: against the Great Barrington Declaration.
Speaker 3: This was from October.
Speaker 2: Sixteenth, twenty twenty, and asking her to do the same.
Speaker 2: To come out against this. In a world of so
Speaker 2: called science, people can be hey, I disagree. What was
Speaker 2: it like for him to come out against it? How
Speaker 2: did that play out?
Speaker 13: Well, we found out after the fact. You know, all
Speaker 13: this sudden explosion of hate and demonization that was occurring
Speaker 13: around the Great Bearrington Declaration. It actually had a cause,
Speaker 13: and Anthony Fauci was a major player in that cause.
Speaker 13: So I filed a Freedom of Information Act request with
Speaker 13: the NIH office where Fauci worked, way back in twenty
Speaker 13: twenty one, and it actually kind of opened the door
Speaker 13: to looking into this. So all the committee investigation that
Speaker 13: ran Paul has pursued ever since then, a couple of
Speaker 13: the lawsuits around it. Kind of the starting point was
Speaker 13: the discovery of an email, and this is an email
Speaker 13: from Fauci's boss at the time, Francis Collins, to him saying,
Speaker 13: this Great Bearrington Declaration things going around. It has all
Speaker 13: these fringe epidemiologists that are challenging lockdowns, and Colins ordered
Speaker 13: Fauci said, the I want you to write and publish
Speaker 13: a devastating published takedown of these authors and basically as
Speaker 13: a directive to get this underway because we need to
Speaker 13: counter it. And Fauci, it turns out, is that new
Speaker 13: email we got from ran Paul's committee and new foyas
Speaker 13: that have come true. He actually engages in a very elaborate,
Speaker 13: coordinated campaign to smear the Great Marrington Declaration in the media,
Speaker 13: in the press, behind the scenes, in the White House.
Speaker 13: He is a consummate political actor, not a scientist, is
Speaker 13: what all these emails tend to confirm. He's not looking
Speaker 13: at the evidence on lockdowns or the arguments that were
Speaker 13: being made. He's circulating political editorials in favor of lockdowns
Speaker 13: and calling friends in the White House to try to
Speaker 13: suppress anti lockdown voices. So one of the members of
Speaker 13: the COVID Task Force that was a skeptic of lockdowns
Speaker 13: is doctor Scott Atlas, who's from Stanford University. He was
Speaker 13: brought in to kind of be a counter voy to Fauci,
Speaker 13: and it turns out right around the time of the
Speaker 13: Great Bearrington Declaration, Atlas, who had been favorable to it,
Speaker 13: gets on Fauci's bad side, and Fauci starts this campaign
Speaker 13: with Burks to try to get him fired and removed
Speaker 13: from the COVID deask Force because they don't want any
Speaker 13: dissent internally that's pushing for a document like the Great
Speaker 13: Bearrington Declaration. They wanted to be able to call the
Speaker 13: shots on lockdowns. So rather than this being Fauci the
Speaker 13: science as he often declared himself to be, it's actually
Speaker 13: Fauci the political operative, who is trying to maintain control
Speaker 13: of the narrative and control over the policy and steer
Speaker 13: it toward lockdowns.
Speaker 2: So the reason I speak to you certainly your connection
Speaker 2: to the Great Barrington Declaration. But this view of this
Speaker 2: in terms of the economics, right economics we think of
Speaker 2: his dollars and cents, But economics is taking a look
Speaker 2: at a situation and asking ourselves, how can we predict
Speaker 2: the consequences? Right this suth Milton Friedman describe economics, how
Speaker 2: do you predict the consequences of changes in circumstances? And
Speaker 2: I do find myself to be a Milton Friedman guy.
Speaker 2: Thomas Sowell guy. I would be more of an fa
Speaker 2: Hiat guy. But just the reading is so incredibly boring.
Speaker 2: It's so just if he could write the way he
Speaker 2: would think, I would be a happy man. But the
Speaker 2: writing was just tedious, as I'll get out.
Speaker 3: But we talk about the.
Speaker 2: Economic consequences to which there were none that came into
Speaker 2: the thinking. And it seemed to me that the Great
Speaker 2: Barrington Declaration dealt with all of the potential consequences. And
Speaker 2: doctor Fauci, doctor Burke's mainstream media cared not about consequences,
Speaker 2: but cared about fear for a purpose? Is that the
Speaker 2: correct assessment in your view?
Speaker 13: I think it's absolutely the case. You know, as you mentioned,
Speaker 13: incentives matter, secondary and tertiary effects of decisions we make.
Speaker 13: They matter. And one of the things that happened with
Speaker 13: the lockdowns, it's not just shutting society down to keep
Speaker 13: this disease supposedly contained, although we find out that doesn't
Speaker 13: work either under lockdowns, like the whole theory behind it
Speaker 13: was wrong. Shutting down society also means that people can't
Speaker 13: go to work. They also can't go out to the
Speaker 13: store unless they're wearing a mask and walking in the
Speaker 13: direction of the stickers on the floor and approved hours.
Speaker 13: Non essential businesses are shut down, And you start thinking
Speaker 13: about this, what are some of the consequences of that.
Speaker 13: That means that if I'm living paycheck to paycheck and
Speaker 13: suddenly my job, my business, my restaurant that I work at,
Speaker 13: is no longer allowed to be open, that means I
Speaker 13: no longer have a paycheck coming in. And if you're
Speaker 13: sitting there in COVID and say you're a reporter for
Speaker 13: the New York Times, you can do your job at
Speaker 13: home on a laptop. You can watch Netflix you can
Speaker 13: get Uber eats or door dash or something to deliver
Speaker 13: your meals, and life is actually pretty good, it's not disrupted.
Speaker 13: But if you're just working, you know, paycheck to paycheck
Speaker 13: and a service industry job, and you're basically being told
Speaker 13: you're no longer essential, you're out of work, and maybe
Speaker 13: you have a rent payment or a car payment due
Speaker 13: next month, well you're out of luck. And this is
Speaker 13: a real economic strain, and we saw it early in
Speaker 13: the pandemic. The states that had the more restrictive lockdown
Speaker 13: policies shot up in unemployment. You had very clear state
Speaker 13: level measures of this that the worst the lockdown state
Speaker 13: was the higher the unemployment rate. And states that remained
Speaker 13: relatively open or that ended the lockdowns early on, like Florida,
Speaker 13: well their economies rebounded, and it sounds tangible effects on
Speaker 13: the quality of life and the ability to even get
Speaker 13: by for working class Americans, and those were completely disregarded
Speaker 13: by Fauci and people I would call the laptop class
Speaker 13: who could have the luxury of working from home and
Speaker 13: ordering Uber eats and sitting there on their laptop. Will
Speaker 13: the service industry suffered.
Speaker 2: Is there concrete data you can point to regarding we
Speaker 2: did this and here's the result we see it. We
Speaker 2: take a look at inflation right now, which certainly I
Speaker 2: could have with you the conversation regarding whether or not
Speaker 2: tariffs are still leading to that as an increase in
Speaker 2: cost and keeping too much cash in the system. We
Speaker 2: could take a look at specific job sectors and see
Speaker 2: whether or not they've recovered and whether or not it
Speaker 2: has been investment in AI that's actually been leading to
Speaker 2: certain issues. As opposed to damage done. We could take
Speaker 2: a look at education outcomes as well. What can be
Speaker 2: pointed to as this is the result of this shutdown
Speaker 2: and here is the damage done, or maybe you can
Speaker 2: tell me the other way, Well, here's a surprising success
Speaker 2: that came from it. And if the damage is done,
Speaker 2: what does it take to get out of it.
Speaker 13: Yeah, so I guess there's two direct implications of and
Speaker 13: one was the media, and I sort of mentioned was
Speaker 13: like the shutting down of the economy caused people to
Speaker 13: lose their jobs. And yes, when we reopened those jobs
Speaker 13: came back, but we were more or less operating in
Speaker 13: an enforced recession for about a year during COVID. That
Speaker 13: means people are worse off regardless. That means that not
Speaker 13: only as an economic arm to disruption to their everyday lives,
Speaker 13: and we saw that in the unemployment data. We saw
Speaker 13: that in the economy essentially crashed in early twenty twenty
Speaker 13: and it took a while to rebound. The second, the
Speaker 13: longer term effect is what did we do in response, Well,
Speaker 13: politicians of course panicked when the economy was shut down,
Speaker 13: when people were closed out of their jobs, says well,
Speaker 13: we need to pass stimulus checks. We need to create
Speaker 13: all these government programs to hold people over. If we're
Speaker 13: going to lock them down, let's throw them a bone. Basically,
Speaker 13: so we had the succession of these stimulus checks that
Speaker 13: were payouts essentially done on debt from the US government.
Speaker 13: There wasn't any revenue to pay for it, but it
Speaker 13: was just to whole people over. And those stimulus checks
Speaker 13: basically get absorbed into the macroeconomic situation of the federal
Speaker 13: government and become one of the major emphasises in twenty
Speaker 13: twenty two. So a couple of years later, in the
Speaker 13: inflationary crisis, we dumped a bunch of money into the
Speaker 13: economy and we pretended as if it was you know,
Speaker 13: basically no big deal and it would take care of
Speaker 13: itself and work its way through the system. Well, Joe
Speaker 13: Biden mismanaged the inflationary crisis because it was all supposed
Speaker 13: to be transitory and passed through. And here we are,
Speaker 13: you know, four years later, still dealing with the repercussions
Speaker 13: of that, which traces back to the stimulus checks, traces
Speaker 13: back to policies that we had to enact during COVID
Speaker 13: as a result of the fact that we shut down
Speaker 13: the entire economy.
Speaker 2: Phil Magnus, he is senior Fellow at the Independent Institute,
Speaker 2: David J. Throadchair and Political Economy, and his work at AIRE,
Speaker 2: the American Institute for Economic Research, where he was the
Speaker 2: fa Hiak Chair. I appreciate you taking the time to
Speaker 2: be with us, give us the breakdown. We'll talk economics
Speaker 2: in the future. I hope more to get to keep
Speaker 2: it here. This is Tony Kats today. Low key. So
Speaker 2: that's where we're at. Now we're at, we're at having
Speaker 2: a war with Iran. But it's you know, it's low key,
Speaker 2: which is different than keeping it on the down low.
Speaker 2: Maybe possibly, I mean, nobody knows what it means, so
Speaker 2: it can mean anything you wanted to mean Tony Katz,
Speaker 2: Tony Katz today, good to be with you. The president,
Speaker 2: as reported by the people at Axios, saying that you know,
Speaker 2: the war with Iran will continue, but it's gonna be
Speaker 2: low key. We're just gonna keep the economic pressure on.
Speaker 2: We're not gonna worry about bombings and this and that
Speaker 2: and what have you, and.
Speaker 3: That's it now.
Speaker 2: Axios says that Trump expresses no anger or frustration about
Speaker 2: the fact that a deal hasn't been signed with Iran
Speaker 2: and they're getting all tough about the strait. It was
Speaker 2: the Wall Street Journal that reported that Trump's losing interest
Speaker 2: in the war and Irans wants hundreds of billions of
Speaker 2: dollars in order to keep the strait open, and that
Speaker 2: Iran has the advantage over Trump because Trump needs the
Speaker 2: oil prices down. He doesn't have the stomach for this. Oh,
Speaker 2: he's getting tired of this whole thing, and the Iranians
Speaker 2: believe that they could just weight him out. I believe
Speaker 2: that the Iranians do believe they can wait him out.
Speaker 2: They believe they could wait anybody out, which is why
Speaker 2: no negotiation with them will ever work, which is why
Speaker 2: one should not negotiate with them, one should end them.
Speaker 3: Also, we have it clear.
Speaker 2: And understood that there is no way to negotiate with
Speaker 2: you're dealing with the IRGC, which is working in different
Speaker 2: factions all to their own interests, not too necessarily. And
Speaker 2: this is a solid point that I saw somebody else
Speaker 2: make him like that is a various two to observation.
Speaker 2: It's not even to the Islamist point of view, although
Speaker 2: they want Israel gone and America gone because those things
Speaker 2: are the things that keep them from moving forward as
Speaker 2: pushing the caliphate, but rather they are also things that
Speaker 2: keep them moving forward from being the power in the region,
Speaker 2: which is why they want a nuclear weapon. If you
Speaker 2: think Iran is a problem now, a Ran with a
Speaker 2: nuclear weapon is impossible. And anybody who doesn't believe in
Speaker 2: ending this regime and stopping this threat is in no
Speaker 2: way America.
Speaker 3: First.
Speaker 2: I say that about Tucker Carlson, I say that about
Speaker 2: Thomas Massey, I say that about Marjorie Taylor Green. They're laughable,
Speaker 2: but so is the idea that a deal can be made.
Speaker 2: Can't be made. So if you want to use economic
Speaker 2: opportunity to in sanctions to choke them off, it's the
Speaker 2: seeds mentality, which we discussed with a military analyst Mike
Speaker 2: Lyons on this show weeks ago. Fine, that's what we're doing.
Speaker 2: That's what we're doing. Great, terrific and wonderful. But when
Speaker 2: they don't give you're gonna have to throttle them. You
Speaker 2: got to stop talking about a deal can be made. No,
Speaker 2: it can't stop saying. This is Tony Katz today. Else
Speaker 2: iad wins. I will not vote Democrat. I'll switch over
Speaker 2: and I'll vote for a candidate with character, whoever.
Speaker 8: That might be.
Speaker 3: That's a Democrat talking.
Speaker 2: That's a Democrat talking in Michigan just as the election
Speaker 2: was taking place, and Abdul, I'm sorry, I'll do rock
Speaker 2: on El sayed, Oh if you don't say his whole name,
Speaker 2: you gotta keep his name out of your mouth. He's
Speaker 2: such a pseudo tough guy. Oh what a punk Tony Katz.
Speaker 2: Tony Katz today, Abdul gives all the vibes of a
Speaker 2: guy who peepes sitting down. He really does the tough
Speaker 2: guy stuff. He's been doing boring.
Speaker 3: He's done it a.
Speaker 2: Couple times now. It's it just doesn't play at all.
Speaker 2: But this was a Democrat saying he'll vote for, He'll
Speaker 2: vote for someone else. He'll vote for someone with character.
Speaker 2: And this perfectly brings us into the midterms because as
Speaker 2: much as we may like it or not like it,
Speaker 2: you know, it's sometimes things happen whether.
Speaker 3: We like them or not.
Speaker 2: We are in the full on election mode, ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 3: We are in election season.
Speaker 2: My god, Okay, it's happening.
Speaker 4: Everybody's say, what's a procedure.
Speaker 3: That's it.
Speaker 2: We are here, and it is horrifying. This is us
Speaker 2: from now until November third. It's not my fault.
Speaker 3: Oh please, don't.
Speaker 2: Get me wrong. I have plenty of other things to
Speaker 2: talk about, plenty of other things to get to.
Speaker 3: But we're in it.
Speaker 2: We are in it. And one of the things that
Speaker 2: I noticed was that the generic ballot Democrats versus Republicans
Speaker 2: congressional generic ballot has Democrats up by seven. Now it's
Speaker 2: a little higher than where they were. They were a
Speaker 2: plus four. I'm like, this is nothing. Plus seven, you
Speaker 2: can see is something? And the last five one, two, three, four, five,
Speaker 2: the last five polls plus seven plus eight, plus eleven,
Speaker 2: plus six and plus six. Get rid of the plus eleven,
Speaker 2: get rid of the plus six. Right, the bottom score
Speaker 2: and you're left with a plus seven advantage over the
Speaker 2: last couple of weeks. I can't tell you why that is.
Speaker 2: What I can tell you is this is happening while
Speaker 2: conversation like that one you just heard. It is happening
Speaker 2: where someone's like, I'm just gonna switch over. Then there's
Speaker 2: the story of this guy. This was a Democrat, a
Speaker 2: former chief counsel for the House Judiciary Democrats, and he
Speaker 2: makes a video. His name is Julian Epstein. I don't
Speaker 2: think there's any relation on the Epstein side.
Speaker 3: He is a guy.
Speaker 2: I think he's in Michigan and this is his conversation.
Speaker 14: I have been criticizing the Democratic Party for a long
Speaker 14: time as being far to the left of the median voter.
Speaker 14: So just as a matter of practical politics and pragmatism,
Speaker 14: I think the party has gone way too far left.
Speaker 14: But I think the party has also lost its moral center.
Speaker 14: I'm Julian Epstein. I'm a longtime Democrat. I was formerly
Speaker 14: the chief counsel of the House Judiciary Committee and the
Speaker 14: staff director of the House Oversight.
Speaker 2: Committee for the Democrats.
Speaker 14: I'm the former CEO of the consulting firm LMG, which represented,
Speaker 14: amongst other people, Hillary Clinton for president. If this is
Speaker 14: where the party's going, this is not a party I
Speaker 14: want to have anything to do with.
Speaker 13: Now.
Speaker 2: I want to be clear that you could find Republicans
Speaker 2: who are like I don't want anything to do with
Speaker 2: Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: You can find that, of course it exists.
Speaker 2: So in that regard, there's nothing necessarily I knew here,
Speaker 2: except it is something to hear Democrats come out and
Speaker 2: say this party has gone too far to the left.
Speaker 2: Abdul say ed was too much for that Michigan voter.
Speaker 2: The Democrats in Toto too far to the left. I
Speaker 2: had stated with clarity. This goes back to February. I
Speaker 2: had done the event Trump one year later and a
Speaker 2: fantastic event we did in Indianapolis, and I laid out
Speaker 2: the plan for how Republicans can win in November because
Speaker 2: I saw the opening, I understood the opening, and the
Speaker 2: opening involved a series of things going right. But and
Speaker 2: this I did the event just as we had heard
Speaker 2: of the first attacks on Iran by the United States.
Speaker 2: I mean, I've got this ballroom in downtown Indianapolis, and
Speaker 2: we're setting it up and we're getting the information. And
Speaker 2: there I am while people are setting up and rewriting
Speaker 2: the presentation to give the update and what just happened
Speaker 2: and how it's going to play out, and how do
Speaker 2: you prognosticate in six hours.
Speaker 3: I didn't do bad.
Speaker 2: I didn't do bad at all. But one of the
Speaker 2: things I said was was that oil will need to settle,
Speaker 2: and you're going to need low gas prices because people
Speaker 2: make their decision about the midterms. I don't think sex
Speaker 2: necessarily in the days before they set their sale where
Speaker 2: they think they're going to go in the summer. And
Speaker 2: I had said this on the show, So you guys
Speaker 2: did know this that by the summer, it's going to
Speaker 2: dictate what's going to happen. And if I were a
Speaker 2: guy just taking a look at oil prices and taking
Speaker 2: with the economy, Republicans are going to get chalacked, get
Speaker 2: their stuff handed to them in a massive, massive way.
Speaker 2: Except that's not where I see it.
Speaker 3: And part.
Speaker 2: Of the story is that the oil prices, while they've
Speaker 2: been higher, I don't actually believe they've got everybody as
Speaker 2: upset as the media wants to.
Speaker 3: Believe it is.
Speaker 2: I just don't they're higher, but they're not the thing
Speaker 2: that's really bothering they're not the everyday things being discussed
Speaker 2: by friends. Grocery prices are, insurance prices are the basics.
Speaker 2: It isn't so much gas prices, which I found kind
Speaker 2: of unique that it has gone that way. It hasn't
Speaker 2: been in the anecdotal the big story. It's been a
Speaker 2: media big story, but still it matters. I'm surprised it
Speaker 2: hasn't moved more. But when I was doing this this presentation,
Speaker 2: I said, the problem with the left is that they're nuts,
Speaker 2: and nobody wants the nuts. And that is more and
Speaker 2: more starting to show up. That's becoming more and more
Speaker 2: of a storian, more and more of a wild card conversation.
Speaker 2: Does America think the Left is crazy? Do they think
Speaker 2: that they are these wild radical communists which they are unquestionably,
Speaker 2: unquestionably are, Which brings us back to this guy, Julian
Speaker 2: Epstein and the argument he's making this is from Fox News.
Speaker 14: My piece in the New York Post today basically says
Speaker 14: that I'm jumping ship, that I am going over to
Speaker 14: the Republican side in the Michigan Senate race, and I'm
Speaker 14: supporting Mike Rogers. And this is because I think the
Speaker 14: Democrats have gone off the deep end. I think the
Speaker 14: lunatics are in charge of the asylum.
Speaker 2: I think that.
Speaker 14: There is no room in the tent for people that
Speaker 14: want to destroy our constitution. There's no room in the
Speaker 14: tent for people that want to align themselves with radical Islam.
Speaker 14: There's no room in the tent for people that want
Speaker 14: to align themselves anti Semitism. And there's no room in
Speaker 14: the tent, I think, in my view for people that
Speaker 14: don't have any interest in building for the next generation,
Speaker 14: but only want to redistribute what others have created.
Speaker 2: Now that is something that you and I would wholeheartedly
Speaker 2: agree with. They don't want to build, they don't want
Speaker 2: to create. They actually have no plan for building, no
Speaker 2: plan for creating. They only have a plan for taking.
Speaker 2: And we've discussed this before. These DSA people are children.
Speaker 2: They're little boys and little girls. They're violent little boys
Speaker 2: and girls. But when it comes to mentality, they can't
Speaker 2: back up their own statements, they can't back up their
Speaker 2: own actions. They just want to win so they can
Speaker 2: utilize the power to take from you. Everything about them
Speaker 2: is forced. They don't believe in togetherness, they don't believe
Speaker 2: in unity, they don't believe in the collective. They never have,
Speaker 2: they never will. They believe that they have to get
Speaker 2: what it is that they want. They have to get it,
Speaker 2: and they will get it by any means necessary. They
Speaker 2: do not care what force has to be used. They
Speaker 2: don't care who they have to hurt. It means absolutely
Speaker 2: nothing to them, nothing at all. So this is in
Speaker 2: a stude observation that they don't create. And that was
Speaker 2: this guy Julian Epstein and I found the article there
Speaker 2: at the New York Post. I'm a longtime Democrat fighting
Speaker 2: for GOP's Mike Rogers and my party's soul in Michigan.
Speaker 2: I wonder if this applies to other Democrats, and does
Speaker 2: it apply to justin Michigan Democrats who have no interest
Speaker 2: in voting for this rabbid anti American abdul l si ed?
Speaker 2: Does it apply in other parts of the country.
Speaker 14: And want to basically tear down the free market that
Speaker 14: has been the most effective anti poverty liberation machine that
Speaker 14: human beings have ever invented. If you want to start
Speaker 14: taking these lunatic positions, then I'm.
Speaker 3: Just not going to be part of it.
Speaker 2: And I suspect more this isn't about me.
Speaker 14: I suspect you're going to see a large group of
Speaker 14: Democrats starting to defect. And I think this is what
Speaker 14: you're watching in real time. Here is a party that
Speaker 14: is jumping off a cliff.
Speaker 3: Now let's say that that is true.
Speaker 2: We then take a look at the generic ballot and
Speaker 2: we say these two things are in conflict. No, I
Speaker 2: don't believe one poll. I'm looking at an amalgam of poles.
Speaker 2: If I take a look at the last eleven polls,
Speaker 2: Democrats at the least are up by three, at the
Speaker 2: very very least. In all the generic polls, the Democrats
Speaker 2: are up. What I had argued when it was plus three,
Speaker 2: plus four, plus five is that that's not enough. That
Speaker 2: is not enough to guarantee control of the House of Representatives.
Speaker 2: It's just not I think Democrats have given up on
Speaker 2: the idea of control of the Senate. I really do.
Speaker 3: They're not in a great place.
Speaker 2: But if I take a look at all of it,
Speaker 2: up plus seven is in a better place. And that
Speaker 2: is in conflict, direct conflict with what it is. Julian
Speaker 2: Epsteina is saying here, So what's right? In what's wrong?
Speaker 2: I'll point you to two things. Number One, if we
Speaker 2: take a look at the polling in Michigan. Right, we
Speaker 2: take a look at that Senate race. Right, the primary
Speaker 2: race in Michigan. They had Abdul el Sayed up massive.
Speaker 2: Let me give it to you. This was el Saied
Speaker 2: versus Haley Stevens. Right primary, we just saw. This was
Speaker 2: the last three one, two, three, four, five, six, last seven, no,
Speaker 2: last six. In the last six polls, Stevens was up
Speaker 2: in one of them, and then El Sayed was up
Speaker 2: in five by double digits, which to the Real Clear
Speaker 2: Politics average, having l Sied up ten point two. Right, never,
Speaker 2: you can throw out the top and bottom one. We
Speaker 2: can do that again. It was l Sayed up by
Speaker 2: double digits by ten points, was the average.
Speaker 3: He won by one point. Do you know how off
Speaker 3: you have to be?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 2: No, no, never mind it, never mind anybody's politics. We
Speaker 2: agree on things, we disagree on things. Who cares. Let's
Speaker 2: take a look at the pollsters, a series of different
Speaker 2: polling outfits. They all had l Sayed up by double digits.
Speaker 2: He won by a point. That is missing the mark
Speaker 2: up thirteen up sixteen, up ten up, fifteen up fourteen.
Speaker 2: That's without that poll that Steven's up by seven, which
Speaker 2: in that average they had l Saied up by thirteen
Speaker 2: points and he won by a point. Is possible that
Speaker 2: the polling on the generic numbers that have the Democrats
Speaker 2: up by seven are equally skewed, equally flawed, equally wrong.
Speaker 2: Because if that's the case, Republicans take the House. I
Speaker 2: can't guarantee that, though all I can do is look
Speaker 2: at the numbers, and very often a number needs to
Speaker 2: be looked at multiple ways. The people who want the
Speaker 2: story that they want will read the top line. The
Speaker 2: people who want to understand the story will actually dig in.
Speaker 2: I have got Democrats who have a story writing in
Speaker 2: the New York Post or that they're leaving.
Speaker 3: The Democrat Party.
Speaker 2: And I've got numbers from the last big race where
Speaker 2: everybody was paying attention and l Sied wins by.
Speaker 3: A point when you're supposed.
Speaker 2: To win according to the last five polls by thirteen.
Speaker 2: That's a story. So the first question is do we
Speaker 2: believe the polls at all? Not necessarily, but now the
Speaker 2: same question gets asked'ce the part two?
Speaker 3: Do we believe the people?
Speaker 2: This guy putting the video out there with Fox News,
Speaker 2: writing the article in the New York Post, Okay, that's
Speaker 2: his story. Is that all the stories? Well, I did
Speaker 2: have a second guy who said he wasn't gonna vote
Speaker 2: for else. I ed, well, that's Michigan and that's the
Speaker 2: center race. Is that the story and Toto that they
Speaker 2: won't vote for the bigotry, they won't vote for the
Speaker 2: jew hate, they won't vote for the America hate, they
Speaker 2: won't vote for the communists, they won't vote for this stuff.
Speaker 2: Is that the story across the board? And I can't
Speaker 2: answer that yet, but that could very well be the
Speaker 2: difference maker that I was correct in The thing that
Speaker 2: is most motivating in this election won't actually be the economy. Okay,
Speaker 2: it wasn't correct about that part. The economy usually is
Speaker 2: the most motivating factor. It's the fact that these leftists
Speaker 2: are nuts and nobody trust them. Is that becoming the
Speaker 2: main motivator? That's what we're gonna start watching for. Keep
Speaker 2: it here. It's Tony Katz today. The Senate avoids the shutdown.
Speaker 2: I am as shocked as anyone else. Tony Katz. Tony
Speaker 2: Katz today and absolute pleasure will see what the House does.
Speaker 2: But the Senate, they decided over the weekend to allow
Speaker 2: for funding of the government until December eleventh, averting the
Speaker 2: shutdown before the midterms. They send the bill to the House,
Speaker 2: they go on a five week recess, which sounds lovely
Speaker 2: right about now, Tony Katz, Tony Katz today, I don't
Speaker 2: know what the House is going to do. The story
Speaker 2: here is that Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats didn't want
Speaker 2: the fight, and the only reason they didn't want the
Speaker 2: fight is that it was not going to benefit them.
Speaker 2: They don't they don't actually care about the things they
Speaker 2: care about, the power, and they wouldn't mind shutting it
Speaker 2: down and hurting a whole lot of people if they
Speaker 2: thought it was going to get them some power. Not
Speaker 2: because that really opposed There is no real opposition to
Speaker 2: any of these things. But the fact that there wasn't
Speaker 2: tells you a story that this shutdown thing didn't work
Speaker 2: for them. Didn't work for them, and just like we're
Speaker 2: talking about the midterms, they made the calculation that would
Speaker 2: be valueless, as a matter of fact, harmful. So government
Speaker 2: stays open at least for another couple of months. Find
Speaker 2: everything at Tony kats dot com. I'll catch you tomorrow. Everyone,
Speaker 2: take care