Speaker 1: All right, News, roundup, information, overload hour. Here's our toll
Speaker 1: free number. It's eight hundred and ninety four one sean
Speaker 1: if you want to be a part of the program.
Speaker 1: A lot to talk about, the Schumer shutdown, the President
Speaker 1: taking on these narco terrorists. What should the role of
Speaker 1: the federal government be in all of this. We have
Speaker 1: an update on the issue in the battle and the
Speaker 1: conflict out of Russia with Ukraine. The President canceling this
Speaker 1: upcoming meeting with Putin because he won't agree to cease fire,
Speaker 1: which I think is the right message to send. We
Speaker 1: still have a lot you know, Hamas is not abiding
Speaker 1: by the agreement, which, as the President said, he's going
Speaker 1: to give the green light for Israel to go in
Speaker 1: there and pretty much annihilate Gaza and Hamas. If they
Speaker 1: won't do it themselves, this is sort of their last chance.
Speaker 1: We welcome back to the program, Senator Rampaul of Kentucky.
Speaker 1: The president's pretty pissed off of you.
Speaker 2: Know, I wouldn't go that far. We've had some spats
Speaker 2: in the past, and you know.
Speaker 3: I'd go that far. He's pretty pissed off.
Speaker 2: I've known the President for over a decade. You know,
Speaker 2: I've played golf with him dozens of times. We still
Speaker 2: have our moments, But I think at the same time,
Speaker 2: people in America, particularly Republicans, still want there to be
Speaker 2: a voice for balanced budgets, less spending, fiscal responsibility, and
Speaker 2: right now I'm in and so I think we'll continue
Speaker 2: to have that debate. But I still support the President
Speaker 2: on quite a bit of the agenda, lower taxes, I
Speaker 2: love what he's done with the border. So there's a
Speaker 2: lot of agreement as well.
Speaker 1: So I find myself in an amiable position. I'm going
Speaker 1: to have to defend something that I don't fully support,
Speaker 1: and principle I agree with you on And you know,
Speaker 1: I don't like government shutdowns in the sense that, all right,
Speaker 1: we know what happens with him, I'm not as afraid
Speaker 1: of them. I'm consistent when Democrats shut the government down,
Speaker 1: Republicans shut the government down.
Speaker 3: I'm like, it's not the end of the world.
Speaker 1: Everyone going to get a free vacation, come back and
Speaker 1: get back pay. That's how it always ends, one way
Speaker 1: or the other, and that's how this one is going
Speaker 1: to end. It's just now a matter of time. They
Speaker 1: had I think they had to get through their no
Speaker 1: King's weekend. Democrats were not going to piss off their
Speaker 1: base in the lead up to these protests this weekend,
Speaker 1: so you will not vote to reopen the government with
Speaker 1: a continuing resolution. Now, the problem that it gets more
Speaker 1: nuanced than complicated. As you know, Republicans don't have sixty votes.
Speaker 1: They the Democrats, with the exception of maybe John Fetterman
Speaker 1: and one or two others, you know, there are not
Speaker 1: enough votes. The Democrats are holding the country hostage by
Speaker 1: demanding one point five trillion in new spending. That includes
Speaker 1: you know, billions for hundreds of billions for moneies for
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants.
Speaker 3: Healthcare.
Speaker 1: That includes continuing the Obamacare subsidies that Joe Biden put
Speaker 1: in place during COVID, which was supposed to be to
Speaker 1: That includes funding MPR and PBS and DEI initiatives around
Speaker 1: the globe.
Speaker 3: That's insane.
Speaker 1: That's never going to happen, and I think it's only
Speaker 1: a matter of time till they cave. Then they go
Speaker 1: to a continuing resolution, which is where negotiation begins. But
Speaker 1: Republicans don't have the votes to do what you want.
Speaker 1: Your caucus doesn't have them. And I'm just looking at
Speaker 1: it from a realistic standpoint, and I know you're taking
Speaker 1: a principal stand. I admire principal stands. I just we're
Speaker 1: never going to get to where you want unless we
Speaker 1: take first steps.
Speaker 2: In my view, Well, the debate is over what the
Speaker 2: spending level should be. So the Republican Continuing Resolution would
Speaker 2: add about two trillion in debt over the next year.
Speaker 2: The Democrat plan would add over three trillion. So I'm
Speaker 2: opposed to the Democrat plan, but I'm also opposed to
Speaker 2: the Republican plan because they both add two trillion to
Speaker 2: three trillion in debt. And there is another alternative. I've
Speaker 2: put it forward. It's a Penny Plan, and it would
Speaker 2: balance the budget over five years. Each year the deficit
Speaker 2: would be less Now, if I'm gone, and if everybody
Speaker 2: marches lockstep and everybody just does what they're told, that
Speaker 2: there'll be no Penny Plan, there'll be no voice for
Speaker 2: the Penny Plan, There'll be no voice for balanced budgets.
Speaker 2: I don't have the votes now, but if you ask
Speaker 2: the people across the country that people listening to this program,
Speaker 2: are they with me that we should be balancing the
Speaker 2: budget and lessening the debt? Or should I vote for
Speaker 2: the Biden spending levels from last year. See the Republican
Speaker 2: c Are is a continuation of the Biden spending levels
Speaker 2: from December of last year. The irony is every Democrat
Speaker 2: up here actually voted to these spending levels last December.
Speaker 2: A lot of conservatives voted against them. Now the roles
Speaker 2: have switched for the exact same spending numbers. You've got
Speaker 2: Republicans voting for the Biden spending levels and Democrats voting
Speaker 2: against them. And I'm the only voice up here talking
Speaker 2: about that the debt instead of being two trillions, should
Speaker 2: be less. And people say, well, I.
Speaker 3: Want to be clear.
Speaker 1: And you've been on this program and we've discussed the
Speaker 1: Penny Plan many many times over the years. I've been
Speaker 1: a long time I'm advocate of the Penny Plan since
Speaker 1: Connie Mack introduced it many years ago in the House.
Speaker 1: Maybe we're up to the two cent plan or five
Speaker 1: of the Nickel Plan.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: But to me, there are two things that are that
Speaker 1: are going on simultaneously that give me hope. One is
Speaker 1: the President has commitments of seventeen trillion dollars in new
Speaker 1: manufacturing monies for semiconductors, automobiles and pharmaceuticals. Also a new
Speaker 1: deally made on rare earths with Australia eight point five trillion.
Speaker 1: I think it's going to be critical for national defense.
Speaker 1: The President also has opened up energy dominance, and I
Speaker 1: think that's going to lead to an enormous impact on
Speaker 1: the economy over time. When Reagan dropped the tax rates
Speaker 1: from seven eight to twenty eight percent, we doubled revenues
Speaker 1: to the government and it led to twenty one million
Speaker 1: new jobs, longest period of peacetime economic growth. The problem
Speaker 1: back then is the problem we faced today. Congress spent
Speaker 1: a buck twenty five for every new dollar he brought
Speaker 1: in he doubled revenue. So I'm with you on the
Speaker 1: Penny Plan. I just you know, at this time, with
Speaker 1: the Senate configured as it is, I don't see any
Speaker 1: Democrats supporting it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they don't. And what's going to happen, though, is
Speaker 2: in the end the big government, Democrats and Republicans will
Speaker 2: join hands. This is what always happens. The government will
Speaker 2: open up. They won't stay close forever. It's going to
Speaker 2: open in the next week or two, and the Democrats
Speaker 2: will join the Republicans. But there still has to be
Speaker 2: a voice. Historically, there's been a voice more than one person.
Speaker 2: Right now, it's me my. Historically, there have been other
Speaker 2: Conservatives that did not vote to raise the debt ceiling,
Speaker 2: that did not vote for Republican plans to raise the debt.
Speaker 2: Now they're all moving in lockstep, and I'm ostracized. You know,
Speaker 2: I'm the one that's catching the flack. But if I'm
Speaker 2: not here, there is no voice left if I'm not.
Speaker 3: You have you had this conversation directly with the president.
Speaker 2: I have, and sometimes it goes well and sometimes not
Speaker 2: so well. It depends on his mood. But I think
Speaker 2: he fundamentally has agreements, and he's just been told by
Speaker 2: you know, the people influencing him the most now are
Speaker 2: actually the establishment Republicans, not the conservative Republicans. He's influenced
Speaker 2: by the leadership, and he's influenced by let's just get
Speaker 2: rid of these things.
Speaker 3: We can't do this.
Speaker 2: We don't have the votes, so we're going to do that,
Speaker 2: And some of that is the expediency of the day.
Speaker 2: But I don't think we have fundamental disagreements. That's why
Speaker 2: I downplay how much he may or may not be
Speaker 2: angry with me because, like I say, I've not him
Speaker 2: for a decade, and there are many things I like
Speaker 2: about him. I'm still the voice that liked the president
Speaker 2: who didn't like the Iraq war, the president who didn't
Speaker 2: like Obama's Libyan war, and so I continue to be
Speaker 2: that voice. But if I'm quiet, or if I am
Speaker 2: just become a rubber stamp, there's nobody from the you know,
Speaker 2: less interventionist wing on foreign policy. He's only hearing the interveners,
Speaker 2: he's only hearing the bombers, and so there has to
Speaker 2: be people who stand up for things. It doesn't mean
Speaker 2: we always have to agree. I mean, look, you and
Speaker 2: I I have had a lot of great conversations. We
Speaker 2: don't always agree, but you're always respectful to me, and
Speaker 2: I like coming on. And the thing is is we
Speaker 2: don't have to agree on everything.
Speaker 1: Well, let me there's only two ways to fix the deficit.
Speaker 1: Reduce spending, okay, which is like, you know, an exorcism
Speaker 1: for DC, and increase revenues. I'm pretty confident that the
Speaker 1: President's you know, tax cuts, his energy policies, the seventeen trillion,
Speaker 1: and new investments in the country, which is unprecedented.
Speaker 3: We've never had.
Speaker 1: That is going to increase revenues to the government so
Speaker 1: that that side of the equation is done. Reducing spending
Speaker 1: is always going to be the hard part, and you know,
Speaker 1: these guys, you know, think they get their power by
Speaker 1: increasing spending. Let me ask you on the foreign policy front,
Speaker 1: were you against taking out Iran's nuclear sites.
Speaker 2: I think that we when we have an action of
Speaker 2: war against another country, should be voted on by Congress first.
Speaker 2: Any kind of offensive action. I think the founders intended
Speaker 2: that Congress would vote on these. It's what the Constitution mandates.
Speaker 2: So I'm not for having unchecked executive power. Now, whether
Speaker 2: that was a good thing or bad things another discussion,
Speaker 2: you know, whether or I would have voted for it.
Speaker 2: I think that there, you know, were reasons to think
Speaker 2: that it would succeed, and it did. But as far
Speaker 2: as with it.
Speaker 1: The president does have sixty days to act without going
Speaker 1: to Congress if he's going to engage a military action
Speaker 1: at you know, enumerated powers and the Constitution. As commander
Speaker 1: in chief, you don't disagree with.
Speaker 2: That, Well, the Constitution says that to declare war, an
Speaker 2: offensive action that is planned has to be voted on
Speaker 2: by Congress.
Speaker 1: First, well, you know, if you go back historically, no
Speaker 1: president has ever been abiding by any of these resolutions.
Speaker 1: And I think, as commander in chief, do you not
Speaker 1: agree that Iranian the Iranians with nuclear weapons is an
Speaker 1: existential threat to the entire way world because it was
Speaker 1: obvious to me in a window of opportunity opened up,
Speaker 1: and I believe it's fully constitutional the president out of
Speaker 1: the authority to do so. Well talking about the War
Speaker 1: Powers Act, to be specific, the.
Speaker 2: Debate with the Founders was pretty explicit, from Hamilton all
Speaker 2: the way over to Jefferson. They disagreed on a lot
Speaker 2: of things. They disagreed on the extent of the central government,
Speaker 2: but they all agreed that the president shouldn't declare war
Speaker 2: have offensive actions without the approval of Congress. You know,
Speaker 2: there have been times we have voted to go to
Speaker 2: war and we've been much more united as a country.
Speaker 2: World War II was one. It was a defensive war
Speaker 2: fought against people who attacked us. After nine to eleven
Speaker 2: we were attacked as well. We voted in Congress to
Speaker 2: vote in Congress. I think it was four hundred and
Speaker 2: thirty four to one on the House side, and I
Speaker 2: think ninety nine to zero. In the Senate side, I
Speaker 2: think we can people think, oh, it's impractical to vote
Speaker 2: in Congress. It actually brings us together. It also means
Speaker 2: that all the representatives bear responsibility. If we don't all
Speaker 2: vote for it, we go to war on a decoration
Speaker 2: by the president, then what happens is I think people
Speaker 2: could nitpick and backstab and do to that, and we've
Speaker 2: become less united as a country. If we all vote
Speaker 2: for it, then it's the responsibility of everybody voted for it.
Speaker 1: Oh to me, if you know, this was the problem
Speaker 1: with the lead up to the Iraq conflict in my
Speaker 1: view is we were telegraphing, telegraphing, telegraphing, and it allowed
Speaker 1: I believe at the time, you know, everybody to prepare
Speaker 1: and then put our troops in greater harms way.
Speaker 3: I think.
Speaker 1: Look, I like the Trump doctrine. I believe he's right
Speaker 1: with no forever wars. I think the military actions that
Speaker 1: he's taken, whether if he did, his defeat of the
Speaker 1: Caliphate was critical for world security and for American security.
Speaker 1: Taking out Solomani, the world's worst terrorist, was the right
Speaker 1: thing to do the same with Bagdaddy. I thought at
Speaker 1: the time it was appropriate to drop the mother of
Speaker 1: all bombs on Afghanistan. And I think again, in the
Speaker 1: case of taking out the Iranian nuclear sites, we had
Speaker 1: a window of opportunity and a president as commander in chief.
Speaker 1: I believe as the authority. Past presidents seem to have
Speaker 1: agreed with me. No president has agreed with your interpretation
Speaker 1: of what our framers founders said, and it's been in
Speaker 1: dispute since, you know, for decades and decades now that
Speaker 1: if you have a window of opportunity to make the
Speaker 1: world a safer place in the long run, and he
Speaker 1: did it without creating a forever war. I kind of
Speaker 1: like the Trump doctrine, and I would think that part
Speaker 1: of it you like too.
Speaker 2: I think most presidents up through Roosevelt, up through World
Speaker 2: War Two did agree that we didn't go to war
Speaker 2: without a vote, even George Bush.
Speaker 1: Really there wasn't called way you defining as a war.
Speaker 1: Every military action is not necessarily a war.
Speaker 2: I would say that a planned offensive action is if
Speaker 2: your ship through attack at sea. So let's say your
Speaker 2: ships are off because of yeahmen and they're being bombed
Speaker 2: by the Hooties. To respond to those as is not
Speaker 2: an act of war because it's a defensive action attacking
Speaker 2: and self defense, the same as the Barbary Pirates was
Speaker 2: an act of self defense. When you're being attacked by
Speaker 2: all means, you always have the mind the ability to
Speaker 2: respond without a vote of Congress.
Speaker 1: Well, we know Iran and killed the Americans in Iraq
Speaker 1: and Afghanistan and elsewhere, and they've been fomenting terror throughout
Speaker 1: the region and targeting American.
Speaker 2: Well, then the vote should be pretty easy. You bring
Speaker 2: it to Congress, and I think Congress probably would have
Speaker 2: approved of it. But I think these debates need to
Speaker 2: happen because there's still some unknowns. Well, right now, it
Speaker 2: looks like it was a really good, well planned executed
Speaker 2: and the result was good. There is still a question
Speaker 2: although the uranium still still exists, the uranium didn't disappear,
Speaker 2: there is a question will they continue on and we
Speaker 2: don't know because they would do this in secret. Will
Speaker 2: they continue on with development of the bomb because of
Speaker 2: the attacks or will they be chastened? And I think
Speaker 2: there is some evidence that they are chasing I think
Speaker 2: there is a great deal of evidence at this point
Speaker 2: the bombing had good effect that their ancillary.
Speaker 1: Goal do you worry that we're putting troops at risk
Speaker 1: because we surrender the element of surprise.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't think anybody was surprised by this either.
Speaker 2: They talked for it for two bloody weeks, you know,
Speaker 2: before he bombed them. It was explicitly discussed in the
Speaker 2: media for weeks and weeks that it was coming, and
Speaker 2: that the resolution isn't to bomb you any certain day
Speaker 2: and time or place. The resolution is that we are
Speaker 2: a state of war. The reason it makes a difference too,
Speaker 2: is because then you don't have to have any process.
Speaker 2: You kill the enemy. It's the same problem we have
Speaker 2: with Venezuela. Now, without any kind of decoration of war,
Speaker 2: we are killing people accused of running drugs, but we
Speaker 2: don't have any evidence of who they are or that
Speaker 2: there actually are smuggling drugs. All we have is an accusation.
Speaker 4: And you can do that.
Speaker 2: In a war. But you can't let the president declare
Speaker 2: a war. You have to go through Congress. So there
Speaker 2: is a much more uniform or much more universal approval
Speaker 2: of the war.
Speaker 1: Well, no modern day president has followed those rules, as
Speaker 1: you know, and I think that it is I think
Speaker 1: the enumerated power as president commander in chief. He's got
Speaker 1: to be able to take military strikes when opportunity presents
Speaker 1: itself to keep the nation safe. I think he did
Speaker 1: the right thing in the case of Iran. I love
Speaker 1: the fact that twelve days later there was even peace
Speaker 1: with Israel and Iran. So and the world is safe
Speaker 1: for place as a result of it. People that are
Speaker 1: smuggling drugs in our country, I'm sorry they are attacking
Speaker 1: Americans and trying to kill Americans. I don't care if
Speaker 1: you guys have a vote on it or not. Frankly,
Speaker 1: I'd love to put the Democrats on record being against it.
Speaker 3: Anyway.
Speaker 1: Always fun. We appreciate your time, Senator ram Paul, Thank you, sir.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right to our busy phones as we say hi
Speaker 1: to Jeffrey in Washington State. Jeffrey High, how are you,
Speaker 1: and We're glad you called.
Speaker 5: I'm well, Sean. I'm just want to say personal thanks
Speaker 5: to you and your team for the great work you
Speaker 5: do keeping this the electric informed of what we need
Speaker 5: to be informed about to keep our country great.
Speaker 3: It's our pleasure to be here every day.
Speaker 1: You make it possible for us to continue doing this job.
Speaker 3: We appreciate you.
Speaker 1: And it's our goal every day to give you news
Speaker 1: information in a little bit of an entertaining way to
Speaker 1: you know, you know, it's our job is kind of easy.
Speaker 1: We're the opposite of the mainstream media. You know, they
Speaker 1: don't talk about what we talk about. They just kew
Speaker 1: everything and they're just you know, locked up in Trump's
Speaker 1: arrangement syndrome twenty four to seven.
Speaker 3: But thank you. It is my main point.
Speaker 5: Yeah, for sure. As I've been following the issue regarding
Speaker 5: the Blue state resistance to the federal government's help and
Speaker 5: the National Guard recently the exposure of the bounties and
Speaker 5: the threats from the cartels, gangs and Antifa, it's caused
Speaker 5: me to ask the question, is there any impact from
Speaker 5: these organizations on say the governor of Illinois or the
Speaker 5: mayor such that that's them to look away or to
Speaker 5: push back because they're getting pressure from themselves personally or
Speaker 5: for a particular threat to their power in their state.
Speaker 5: And I just haven't heard anything. Wondered if your group
Speaker 5: had had had heard anything to that effect.
Speaker 1: Look, I know of no such connections. Nothing in this
Speaker 1: day and age and all the years I've been doing
Speaker 1: this would shock me or surprise me. I don't know why.
Speaker 1: You know how you can be the governor of a state,
Speaker 1: have four thousand people dead, have five times the homicide
Speaker 1: murder rate than New York City, and you're more mad
Speaker 1: at Donald Trump for trying to for offering you help
Speaker 1: to secure safety and law and restore law and order
Speaker 1: in your state. Is beyond any understanding comprehension I have.
Speaker 1: It defies all logic, It defies all common sense to me.
Speaker 1: But that is Chicago, that is New York City. New
Speaker 1: York City now is on the precipice of electing a
Speaker 1: guy that wants to hire social workers and replace police
Speaker 1: with social workers. You're on the precipice of the you
Speaker 1: know here you have the largest tax city in the nation,
Speaker 1: and he's gonna raise taxes further. He's offering everything for free,
Speaker 1: free buses, you know, more, rent, free apartments. He lives
Speaker 1: in a rent stabilized apartment, which is unbelievable to me,
Speaker 1: considering he's a man of means. He has plenty of
Speaker 1: money to pay for a free market apartment. And I'm
Speaker 1: telling you what the net predictable net result is gonna be.
Speaker 1: They're gonna leave and people that can afford to leave
Speaker 1: will leave, and people that can't afford to leave will
Speaker 1: be stuck. And all these promises that it's it's I
Speaker 1: wrote a whole chapter and live for your die always
Speaker 1: ends the same way, unfulfilled promises, more poverty, not less,
Speaker 1: and a loss of freedom in the name of false
Speaker 1: government security. And if you don't believe me, ask yourself.
Speaker 1: You know, how are things working out in your town
Speaker 1: or city with government run schools, with defund dismantled no
Speaker 1: bail laws. How are things working out where democrats are
Speaker 1: in charge? Not very well. So you know, we'll watch,
Speaker 1: we'll learn it's going to be a case study over
Speaker 1: time that this is all a failure. But you know,
Speaker 1: I New York City is New York City. There's a
Speaker 1: reason I don't live in the state of New York anymore.
Speaker 1: I mean, when I say I'm out of New York,
Speaker 1: I am totally disconnected from New York.
Speaker 3: I am done. I am out. That's it.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 1: I'll occasionally go see my sister, occasionally, you know, do
Speaker 1: an event for Fox.
Speaker 3: Short of that, I don't go there.
Speaker 5: Well, Hey, we appreciate all you're doing. We can sure
Speaker 5: use your input out here. In Washington State, that's for sure.
Speaker 1: Washington. You might want to consider, you know, Idaho next door.
Speaker 1: You might want to consider Vegas or Nevada or Arizona,
Speaker 1: or you know, there's a lot of great states you
Speaker 1: could move to. Maybe Montana, Wyoming. I don't know, and
Speaker 1: I guess Liz Cheney is still in Wyoming, but the
Speaker 1: politics are much better there.
Speaker 3: Anyway, appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Jeffrey eighth and nine four one sean number if you
Speaker 1: want to call in Margaret, New York, New York.
Speaker 3: What's up, Margaret? How you doing.
Speaker 6: I'm doing well, Shawn. Thank you for taking my call,
Speaker 6: and thanks for your team as well, for all the
Speaker 6: efforts that you put out for us, we the people.
Speaker 6: So you highlight things a lot about You talk about
Speaker 6: Chicago crime, and people who say that Trump doesn't have
Speaker 6: any business being in Chicago have clearly not actually experienced
Speaker 6: any of the crime in Chicago.
Speaker 4: Because it's bad.
Speaker 1: Oh it's horrible. I have I have five times the
Speaker 1: murder rate of New York City. That tells you everything
Speaker 1: you need to know, doesn't it?
Speaker 6: It does? And you know my son who lives just
Speaker 6: west of Bucktown. I don't know if you know the
Speaker 6: area of Bucktown or Chicago, but he just lives west
Speaker 6: of Bucktown and he's he've been in two gang shootouts
Speaker 6: just because he was on the street walking to his
Speaker 6: car and one time had to dive under a car
Speaker 6: to escape the bullets. And then more recently, my son
Speaker 6: and his wife were walking in broad daylight and they
Speaker 6: were held up at gunpoint and robbed in broad daylight.
Speaker 1: That that's life in the big city. I mean, I
Speaker 1: told you they have the lowest They have the lowest
Speaker 1: population now in Chicago than they've had in decades, and
Speaker 1: it's declining. What's happening. People are are leaving with their feet.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you what else is going to happen.
Speaker 1: Here's my prediction to when when the Trump seventeen trillion
Speaker 1: of manufacturing gets online and energy dominant policies and jobs
Speaker 1: created get online, when the tax cuts kick in, and
Speaker 1: you know, you see the economy churn like it did
Speaker 1: under Reagan. You know, seventy to twenty eight percent on
Speaker 1: one million new jobs are created. What I'm urging people
Speaker 1: to do is consider removing any self imposed obstacle to
Speaker 1: success in your life. And what I mean by that
Speaker 1: is is going to be coming online, and we're on
Speaker 1: track now to create high paying career jobs that probably
Speaker 1: won't be in your town or your city. Now you
Speaker 1: can put a self imposed limitation on your life, or
Speaker 1: you know, you could look at these opportunities for new
Speaker 1: auto manufacturing plants are going to be built, find out
Speaker 1: where they're built. Put in an application if you want one.
Speaker 1: Same with pharmaceuticals new manufacturing schedule to be online, put
Speaker 1: in put in an application, the same thing with semiconductor chips.
Speaker 1: I mean, every one of these industries that are going
Speaker 1: to be building out the next year are going to
Speaker 1: be career, high paying jobs for working Americans. And the
Speaker 1: same in the oil industry. And we did this. You know,
Speaker 1: years ago, we were able to match companies with people
Speaker 1: and they'd moved to North Dakota or they'd moved to
Speaker 1: Texas or Oklahoma. And people that were making thirty thousand,
Speaker 1: forty thousand dollars a year, well, you know, we started
Speaker 1: making one hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year and
Speaker 1: to transform their life. So emerging people pay attention, be
Speaker 1: ahead of the curve, and there's opportunity coming, and it's
Speaker 1: coming quickly. And and I urge the people in this
Speaker 1: audience to be smarter than everybody else, because you already
Speaker 1: are smarter than everybody else. But if I found myself
Speaker 1: in a position I wasn't happy with what I was
Speaker 1: doing with my life, and I wanted, let's say I
Speaker 1: wanted a better career, wanted to make more money, wanted
Speaker 1: maybe a nicer house and a safer neighborhood, whether I
Speaker 1: want to get an F one fifty whatever. You know,
Speaker 1: that opportunity will exist if you if you just simply
Speaker 1: think ahead. Does that make sense?
Speaker 2: It does.
Speaker 6: And my son and his wife, you know, are definitely
Speaker 6: going to be leaving Chicago, especially after the last violent
Speaker 6: incident against them. But you know, talking about moving, the
Speaker 6: other thing that's moving Sean in Chicago is the crime.
Speaker 6: Because the crime when we talked to the police after
Speaker 6: they came to you know, after this happened, they said
Speaker 6: that the crime was actually leaving the South Side and
Speaker 6: some of the West areas and moving into these other
Speaker 6: areas that never had high crime. And he said that
Speaker 6: this was really a direct result of that safety Act
Speaker 6: that they put in place. And these police officers said
Speaker 6: that they're really emboldened now to move to these other
Speaker 6: areas and they can go after them, but they can't
Speaker 6: convict them. And it was interesting because this police officer said,
Speaker 6: you know, I'm a minority. He was a minority, and
Speaker 6: he said, I don't care what color their skin is.
Speaker 6: They belong in jail. They don't belong on the streets.
Speaker 6: You know, they don't have They shouldn't be out there
Speaker 6: committing crimes and taking away the freedom of the regular
Speaker 6: guys around the street, whereas these criminals are given the
Speaker 6: freedom to go on to mind all these crimes on
Speaker 6: the streets.
Speaker 3: So he was very listen.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying to people, if I was stagnant and
Speaker 1: I had a limitation, well, I'm only gonna do radio
Speaker 1: where I live, I never would have been successful in
Speaker 1: my life. And I've lived in six different states and
Speaker 1: it was the best experience ultimately in my life too.
Speaker 1: And I'm just telling people opportunities coming. There are nicer
Speaker 1: places to live, There are nicer people to be around
Speaker 1: than the people in big cities. And I predict that,
Speaker 1: you know, this migration out of New York and California
Speaker 1: and Illinois. And if New Jersey doesn't vote for Jack Chadarelli,
Speaker 1: I would argue New Jersey's probably right there on the
Speaker 1: list as well. And this is New Jersey. This is
Speaker 1: your last shot. You're in the game here according to polls,
Speaker 1: you got a shot. And I would urge you to,
Speaker 1: you know, every single one of you in New Jersey
Speaker 1: that here's this show, go out and vote and you
Speaker 1: have a chance to maybe salvage Jersey and it's maybe
Speaker 1: your last chance. But look, Margaret, I appreciate the call.
Speaker 1: God bless you. Eight nine one, Sean if you want
Speaker 1: to be a part of the program. Uh, Tommy Michigan
Speaker 1: next on the Sean Hannity Show. Hey Tommy, how are you?
Speaker 4: Sean? How you doing? Thank you?
Speaker 3: What's going on?
Speaker 2: Hey?
Speaker 4: I got a question. You know, all these judges that
Speaker 4: oversee like when they try to put Trump in jail
Speaker 4: for you know, one hundred years and all these other Republicans.
Speaker 4: You know, why is it sewn that it always seems
Speaker 4: like there's a far left, liberal Trump hating judge that
Speaker 4: oversees the case and they don't get a fair trial,
Speaker 4: especially with the jury pool, like say in New York.
Speaker 4: And then now when Trump's going after some of these people,
Speaker 4: you know, like you know, Komy and Bolton, and it's like,
Speaker 4: I'm thinking they're gonna get They're gonna get a Trump
Speaker 4: hitting liberal judge. It's going to be on their site.
Speaker 4: Aren't there any Aren't there any conservative right wing judges
Speaker 4: in the system? Is it? Like just luck?
Speaker 3: Not a lot of them.
Speaker 1: I mean there are some, you know, they tend to
Speaker 1: be in red states and red jurisdictions, and you know, like,
Speaker 1: for example, the problem we have, especially with Komy and
Speaker 1: the House Judiciary referring former CIA director Brennan to the
Speaker 1: DOJ for lying to Congress, and we went through that earlier.
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan will be on TV to talk about it tonight.
Speaker 1: Is the statute of limitations on many of the things
Speaker 1: we're discussing as long since expired. This is the remaining
Speaker 1: low hanging fruit. It's it is not the crux of
Speaker 1: what I believe they were involved in. That's my own
Speaker 1: personal opinion, you know, having covered these stories now for
Speaker 1: years and years and years, it's frustrating to me, but
Speaker 1: it is what it is. And yeah, we have a
Speaker 1: two tier justice system. You have judicial activism on the
Speaker 1: left and then you have constitutionalists, which is what you
Speaker 1: prefer on the court.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you had that one March se on it's like, oh,
Speaker 4: you know what. He he hated Trump, and it's like,
Speaker 4: you know what, And they said, oh, it was a
Speaker 4: pool of judges. There weren't all liberal Democrats. It just
Speaker 4: happened to he flipped up and he was going to
Speaker 4: be the one. And it's like, I don't believe that
Speaker 4: for a second. You know, if you do, I got
Speaker 4: ocean front property in Iowa for sale. You know, it's
Speaker 4: like some of these I don't. I just don't get
Speaker 4: it sewn.
Speaker 1: And it just well, I mean, because you have you
Speaker 1: have a sense of honesty, fairness, and a belief that
Speaker 1: you know, a coequal branch of government should be objective
Speaker 1: and not subject to a bias and prejudice and an agenda.
Speaker 1: What liberals cannot get done at the ballot box, so
Speaker 1: they can't get done legislatively, they race to these activist
Speaker 1: justices and jurists in the hopes that they will implement
Speaker 1: this policy.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's.
Speaker 4: Insane and yep.
Speaker 3: I mean the story that I.
Speaker 1: Mentioned earlier that the Appeals Court rules that Trump can
Speaker 1: send troops to Oregon. The fact that Donald Trump, you know,
Speaker 1: had to deal with one hundred and fiftieth suit that
Speaker 1: has been brought against him. They're trying to drown him
Speaker 1: in legal issues even to this day because they just
Speaker 1: mad they lost the election. Anyway, my friend, I do
Speaker 1: appreciate you, appreciate your call.
Speaker 3: Right, that's gonna wrap things up for today.
Speaker 1: Hannity Tonight, say a DVR, nine Eastern on the Fox
Speaker 1: News Channel. We have Donald Trump Junior, We have Ted Cruz,
Speaker 1: Mark Levin, the Great One, Jim Jordan announcing that they
Speaker 1: have put forward a referral to the DOJ. On John Brennan,
Speaker 1: we'll have all those details. Brett Behar, Joe Conscious say
Speaker 1: DVR Hannity tonight, nine Eastern on Fox. Will see you
Speaker 1: then back here tomorrow. Thank you for making this show possible.