A

Hey, folks, welcome to the Dark Horse podcast, Inside Rail. I am sitting this evening with Bobby Ann Cox, who is a repeat visitor to Dark Horse. She is a civil rights attorney, a fellow fellow at the Brownstone Institute, and a courageous freedom fighter in the state of New York and in the battle against Covid tyranny. Before I say anything else, welcome back to Dark Horse.

B

Thank you. It's great to be here, Brett.

A

Yeah, I wish it was under better circumstances. I should just, I think, set the stage for people. We have a number of topics we want to talk about today, but the one that brings us here is that we have lost a good friend and fellow warrior in the battle against tyranny. Warner Mendenhall died early this morning after a brief but intense battle with cancer. Now, I realize most people listening to this will have no idea who Warner was, and it is important that you do know because he was behind the scenes, very important in the quest to turn this ship around and effectively restore the Republic to equal protection under the law and etc. So, in any case, Bobby Yan and I are going to try not to cry during the podcast. One of the things that I will tell you about Warner was that he was a fierce warrior, but he always fought with a smile on his face. I've almost not known somebody who was so capable of keeping joy about him even as he was dealing with ghastly crimes. So in. In that spirit, we're going to try to keep a smile on our face here. I will say that I first became aware of Warner at the same time I became aware of you, Bobby Ann. I was invited to the Brownstone Institute. I really didn't know what it was. I was aware. I had seen publications. I had seen Jeffrey Tucker on X. And I had admired a lot of what I had seen, but I didn't know if it was, you know, a publishing imprint or a club or. I wasn't sure. And I got invited a retreat, and I showed up. And, you know, it was small, maybe 40 or 50 people and carefully curated, but very diverse. There were scientists, there were lots of doctors, there were journalists, there were conspiracy theorists who were unashamed of the fact that that's what they did. And they did it well. It was just a very eclectic mix. And I remember sitting, listening to the various talks. They were all fascinating. You know, it's the kind of conference you go to where you really don't want to have to get up to go pee because you're going to miss something. Right. Sort of the opposite of a regular conference. And I remember being very struck as somebody who had been on the front lines of the battle during the COVID so called pandemic. You know, that battle had a particular character. It was bewildering. We were constantly back on our heels facing, you know, sock puppet accounts and bot farms that would just flood the zone with all kinds of nonsense and ferocious attacks from former friends. It was really quite awful. And the key thing about that battlefield is there were no rules. You just had to fight based on the attempt to persuade people that what you were saying actually made sense in spite of all of the noise. And I watched Warner give his talk at Brownstone, and then I watched you give your talk, and I thought, wow, thank God for the lawyers. And like, I couldn't believe that I was, like, formulating that phrase, because how often does anybody say thank God for the lawyers? But in this case, we had lawyers who had an architecture that actually allowed for a kind of elegant kind of battle. And as broken as our courts are, it was a place that you could score a decisive win because there actually were rules. And so, anyway, I've become close with both of you partly on the basis that you're just fighting in an entirely different way that is invisible to most people. So, first and foremost, let me just say thank you to you and thank you to Warner for being in the battle in that position.

B

Yeah, absolutely. It's definitely been a rough road the past six years, but it has been an honor to fight for our Constitution and my fellow Americans. And I know Warner felt the same exact way. That's why he and I instantly bonded. And even though he was in Ohio and I was in New York, and we were doing parallel work and many similarities between our work and we were fast friends and colleagues, and I'm just devastated. It's not common for me to be speechless, but I feel like I'm not sure, you know, the right words to form. I just think, you know, I'm in shock, and it's such a massive loss. I mean, an absolute. He was so positive. And, you know, this work is so negative that, you know, we're. We're in courts where the judges don't want to rule in your favor. You know, I mean, and Warner and I would compare notes, and it was a lot of times very similar, the fights and the battles and the problems with the courts. And, you know, I can't tell you how many times Warner would, you know, get punched in the stomach or I would get punched in the stomach, and I'd be talking to him about it. And he would just have a positive outlook, words of encouragement and a smile on his face by the end of the conversation with his genuine laugh and say, we're going to win. We're going to beat this. So, you know, we might have lost this battle, but we're not going to lose the war. And that's really who Warner was, this incredibly caring and positive force in our movement to preserve the Constitution, preserve civil rights, preserve freedom. And I. He's going to be so missed.

A

Yeah, he. Yeah, he was a powerful force legally, and also just in terms of the morale of the troops. He did have the sort of sense that we are going to win despite every setback. And it really is the only manner that allows you to fight in a battle like this, at least in the legal context. You know, when you have one, you know, the judgment comes down in your favor. So I did want to just say a little bit about the particular thing that he is most closely associated with in that battle. In addition to being a, you know, a contributing intellectual force within Brownstone, he was. I don't know what his exact position with respect to the Brook Jackson case was, but he was certainly one of the lead architects of it. And the Brook Jackson case, you know more about it than I. I will just say this is a case in which Brooke Jackson had discovered evidence of egregious fraud in the Pfizer trials for their MRNA vaccine and had, despite all odds, with Warner's help and Robert Barnes and others, taken it to court. How much can you tell us about the Brooke Jackson case case and where it stands?

B

Yeah, so this was really a. A pivotal case that, I mean, Warner's been working on for years, and he was one of the lead attorneys on this. And as you said, Brooke Jackson was someone that was working with Pfizer on the Pfizer trials, saw a lot of inconsistencies that were going on in those trials for the COVID 19 mRNA shot. And she ended up saying something a couple times to, you know, within the organization, to her higher ups, and when she wasn't just backing down and going away, they ended up firing her. And she became a whistleblower. And Warner was really instrumental in her lawsuit, and they filed a lawsuit against Pfizer, and there were a couple other defendants in there. But with this, the main argument was under the False Claims act, which is a federal law that allows you to sue, it allows a private person to sue the doj, the government can step in and become the plaintiff in the case. But for the first Couple years they hadn't. So it was Brooke Jackson who was the plaintiff in the case. But then the DOJ did step in and kind of took, you know, usurped her spot in the case, became the plaintiff. But then the case got dismissed, basically under the argument that, well, this is the wrong cause, cause of action. You can't sue under this argument of False Claims act because in essence, Pfizer did what they were contracted to do by the government, which was create, you know, COVID 19 shot, which they did. And so they dismissed the case. It's now on appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is like the middle tier court. After that, it would be the United States Supreme Court if it, if it goes up another level. But as I understand it, that was just. That appeal was just argued the end of last year, December 2025. So a decision has not been rendered on that yet. So, you know, we're waiting to see. But that, that was. I mean, really, Warner was very passionate about that case. I mean, he and I have been literally all over the country and have done speeches together and panel discussions, and we've been on, you know, at conferences together, speaking about our work. And he always talked about that Pfizer case. It was really a huge part of what he's been working on the past few years.

A

All right, I want to ask you

C

a couple of things.

A

One, am I right that it is particularly important as a case because if fraud were proven, it would potentially have an impact on Pfizer's claim to immunity from liability for harm caused by those shots? Am I understanding that correctly?

B

Well, so I'm, I'm not sure all of the allegations that they have in that case, it's, it's pretty in depth. But one of the things that for sure, all pharmaceutical companies do not want is to have that liability shield taken away from them. For those of your viewers that are not aware of what we're talking about, there's a lot there. Congress passed a law in the 1980s which gave pharmaceutical companies this incredible. It's a shield from liability. It's exactly what it is. It's a. It's basically saying, you cannot. Nobody can sue a pharmaceutical company for making a vaccine that injures you or injures your child or, you know, one of your family members. You're not. Unless you can prove that they did it on purpose, right? There was intent and malfeasance purposely to harm you, you're not allowed to sue the manufacturer. You're also not allowed to sue the administrator of the vaccine. So you can't sue the doctor that gave your, gave you or gave your child the vaccine, Anybody, the nurse you know, anybody that administers the shot, or the manufacturer.

A

I want to, I want to add

C

a couple things here.

A

You can't sue no matter the level of negligence. It would require actual intent on the part of the vaccine manufacturer in order to justify a lawsuit. Is that fair?

B

Yeah, yeah. You can't sue them for, you can't say like, oh, you should have known, you know, I mean, yeah, look at all these negative results. No, you can't sue them. They have a liability shield.

A

But the second thing is they were given that liability shield because they argued, the pharmaceutical companies themselves argued to the federal government that vaccines could not be made safe and therefore if they were forced to carry the burden of liability, they would stop making the vaccines. So the federal government immunized them from liability claims because vaccines are not safe. And one of the head spinning facts of modern times is that we are routinely told that these products are inherently safe, which they aren't. The vaccine companies themselves argued that they weren't at the point that they got their liability shield. And they are of course likely to be even less safe given that they are manufactured in the context of a liability shield, which means they don't have to worry about getting sued, so why would they worry about harm?

B

Right? So that last part that you just said is so important for people to understand. We have manufacturing liability in, in our country, in our society, meaning if a manufacturer creates a product and then sells it on the open market, you buy that product and then you're injured by that product, you have the right to sue them. Right? You've been injured. Now that pertains to anything, right? Automobiles. You know, your, your really anything that you purchase on the open market is, is a, it's an incentive. It's a built in incentive for the manufacturer to make their product as well as possible as safe as possible. Because they know if they don't, if they start cheating and chintzing and putting in materials that aren't good or, you know, plastic that'll bend under, you know, five degrees of heat or whatever, they know if they do that they're going to get sued and they're going to lose. So it's an automatic built in incentive for them to do the right thing and make a good product. When you take that away and you're telling the manufacturer that you can't be sued, don't worry about it guys, then, well, what's their incentive? To put all the proper testing in, to put all the proper ingredients in, to use all of the proper steps in a procedure and follow it, you know, to the book. Where's your incentive if you know that, well, I can't get sued, you know, my company is not going to go belly up. We're not going to have to pay out all these claims. Now they did create what's called a vaccine court under that same law which says that if you do take a vaccine or your child takes a vaccine and they are injured, you can go to this special court and file a claim and say, hey, you know, I took the xyz, whatever it is, vaccine, and here's the injury that was sustained and you know, I want to be compensated. That was Congress's, you know, that's, that was their way of saying, hey, you know what? We're doing one thing that's not great, you know, giving them this liability shield, but we're going to give you some way to find compensation. But in reality, that vaccine court is very, very rarely tapped or it is tapped and they refuse to pay out.

A

Yeah, it's very unlikely. It's stacked in favor of the defendants and I believe it also frequently, if not always, comes with a gag order. Am I wrong?

B

It probably does. I, I don't know if that's on every case and, and every complaint filed. I have read some articles about cases, you know, coming out of vaccine court, but it's just so rare that you actually have an award paid out from, you know, the funds and stuff. So it's not really the right thing to do by the American people. But I, I think the key is that if one lawsuit in this country undoes that liability shield, then you're going to have a, and I think this is what they're afraid of. You're going to have a flood of cases filed saying, hey, look, look what they did in that case, you know, that they broke down that liability shield. They said it was, you know, unconstitutional or, or, you know, whatever the grounds may be. You will definitely see the floodgates open and lawsuits start flying, which is probably one of the biggest concerns that Big Pharma has. You know, they don't want to lose this shield and if they do, they're in big trouble.

A

Especially with respect to the COVID so called vaccines, where you have more adverse event records in the VAERS system than for all other vaccines combined over the course of 30 years. So there's a lot to be lost if fraud is proven, and I think fraud is clear on multiple counts, including the fact that the vaccine that was tested as poorly as it was tested for safety. The vaccine that was tested was not the one that was delivered to the public. They were made by two. Two different methods. And the one that was delivered to the public had DNA contamination, including the SV40 promoter, which is a known carcinogen. So, anyway, there's a lot to be gained, which explains in part why I think Warner was so focused on this case. It's not just one case of one incident. It is a. It is the way to open the door. It is the way to open the books and look at all the fraud that was committed and to actually allow the people who were harmed to recover some compensation for their injuries or the loss of their loved ones. Truly important. Now, you mentioned the DOJ had stepped in and had effectively taken over the position of the plaintiff in this case. What may. Do you know, what role they played in what the court decided, this decision, that, that the basis of the. Of the case was illegitimate.

B

Yeah. So I think the DOJ was, Was not. You would think if you, if you're a private plaintiff and you start a cause of action and the law allows the government to step in, the doj, the Department of Justice, to step in and take over the case and become the plaintiff, you would assume that they would pick up the reins where you left them off and, you know, keep. Keep the horses running in the same direction. But that's not what happened in this case, as I understand it. Again, this is not my case, so I'm going off of, you know, information that I've read and people I've spoken to about it. But if the DOJ is not on the same page as the plaintiff and is saying, oh, you know, this, there's nothing here, or we're not going to pursue it further or we're dismissing or whatever, then, you know, the case is effectively dead. But, you know, Warner was not accepting that. You know, Warner wanted to keep fighting and keep arguing and appeal and say, no, no, you know, in this case, my plaintiff, Brooke Jackson. But in general, the American public has the right to be heard in court. And, and this is serious. You know, one of the allegations that Brooke Jackson was revealing in this whistleblower lawsuit was that the, the. Some of the trials that Pfizer was doing were not double blind. And what that means is when you're testing a medicine or a vaccine or something, you're supposed to have double blind. So some people take placebo and nobody's supposed to know who those that placebo group is.

A

And the people, people who get it and the people who administer it are both supposed to be without knowledge of whether they are getting or receiving the placebo or the actual shot.

B

Exactly.

A

And that is designed to prevent experimenters from wittingly or unwittingly putting their thumbs on the scale one direction or the other.

B

Correct. It's supposed to prevent any sort of bias from coming into the trial, the study, and then the other groups. So you've got the placebo group and then you've got the group that's actually getting the drug or the vaccine or, you know, the medication, whatever the case may be. And that group, the people in that group are also supposed to be blind. Blind to themselves. Meaning you don't know if you're in the, if you're in the trial, you don't know if what's going into your arm or, you know, the pill that you're swallowing is a placebo or if it's the actual medication. But then also the scientists don't know, you know, the doctors that are running this trial don't know. But what Brooke Jackson was saying in part of her case was that, well, they unblinded it, right? It was no longer blind. So now all of a sudden they knew who was in the placebo group and who was in the actual medication group. So as soon as you do that, you kind of ruin your study. Right.

A

I think you're soft pedaling it a little bit if you have a perverse incentive to want one. It's one thing if you're testing a scientific question where you have no financial interest in the outcome. It's another thing entirely if you're trying to get a product to market. And so you know very well whether or not you want there to be a profound effect and on what parameters and in which group. You know, you don't want the, the placebo group suddenly getting better. You know, if it's a medication, you don't want the placebo group suddenly getting better, you know, or the treatment group suddenly getting sick. And so the point is an investigator who has a perverse incentive, if they don't know who's in which group has a much harder time affecting the study. Once they know who's in what group, they have a very easy time affecting the study. And we in the public can't know. We don't know what happened. But for the work of people like Brooke Jackson, who have revealed that, hey, this study had the prerequisite for it being slanted in Pfizer's direction right there in view. And, you know, so that's, that's why a case like this is so important. It's really about behind the scenes, what takes place that causes, you know, when they tell us to follow the science. Well, is it really science or did something else happen back there that just uses the terminology of science but was really a fraud?

B

Right? Yeah. And that's, that's a huge problem and it's very disappointing. I mean, Warner, I talked to him shortly after that, the case, they had ruled, the case was dismissed. And he was very disappointed, very upset about it. But again, you know, by the end of the conversation, he's like, it's okay. We're appealing and we're going to win on appeal. You know, so it was this constant positive, which, quite frankly, you have to have when you're doing this kind of work. It's one of the most common questions I get from people when I'm giving a speech. How do you keep going with all this negativity and all the setbacks and all the blows? But, yeah, you need that attitude. And Warner absolutely had that let's do this attitude.

C

Our first sponsor on this episode of the Dark Horse podcast, Inside Rail is Clear. Clear is a nasal spray that supports respiratory health. It's widely available online and in stores, and both it and the company that make it are fantastic. It's Cleer. That's X L E A R pronounced Clear. Improvements in sanitation and hygiene have had huge impacts on human longevity and quality of life throughout history, more so than traditional medical advances. For instance, when doctors started to wash their hands between handling cadavers and helping women give birth, the rate of maternal deaths went way down. Breathing polluted air and drinking tainted water have hugely negative effects on human health. Clean up the air and water and people get healthier. Nasal hygiene often gets overlooked, but consider this. The majority of bacteria and viruses that make us sick enter through our mouths and noses. So wouldn't it be valuable to use something that blocks bacterial and viral adhesion in the nose? Enter Clear. Clear is a nasal spray that contains xylitol, a 5 carbon sugar alcohol. Our bodies naturally contain 5 carbon sugars, mostly in the form of ribose and deoxyribose, which are the backbone sugars in RNA and DNA. Xylitol is known to reduce how sticky bacteria and viruses are to our tissues. In the presence of xylitol, bacteria and viruses, including Strep, SARS, COV2, and RSV, don't adhere to our airways as well, which helps Our body's natural defense mechanisms easily flush them away. Clear is a simple nasal spray. Use it morning and evening. It takes just three seconds. It's fast and easy and decidedly healthy. It's good to use Clear every day, but especially when you're going to be traveling or otherwise. In a small space with lots of people and poor ventilation, it really seems to reduce the number of infections. The founder of clear, Nathan Jones, spoke with me on the Inside Rail in 2024. And in 2025, Lon Jones, osteopath and inventor of Kleer, spoke with me about how xylitol interacts with respiratory viruses. We recommend those conversations and we highly recommend Clear as a daily habit and prophylactic against respiratory illnesses.

A

That's CLEAR with an X, L, E,

C

A R. Get Clear online or at your pharmacy, grocery store or natural products retailer and start taking six seconds a day to improve your nasal hygiene and support your respiratory health. Our second sponsor is vanman here at Dark Horse. We love Van Man's products and are certain that you will too. Absolutely everything we've had from them has been exceptional, from their pearl eye cream to tallow and zinc sunscreen, from coconut and magnesium deodorant to their remarkable remineralizing chewing gum. All of it is superior. Today, however, I want to focus on their tallow and honey balm in particular. Tallow is the best moisturizer on earth because the fatty acids in tallow are nearly identical to the oils in your own skin. One use and you'll feel the difference. Your skin will be soft and smooth and a little goes a long way. This stuff lasts and it's fantastic for you. And Talobalm isn't just a moisturizer. It can replace everything from lotions and wrinkle creams to Neosporin and diaper balm. It works on rashes and scrapes, acne and sunburn. Our boys, young men at college, now swear by it too. The ingredient list of Van Man's Honey and Tallow Balm is short and entirely edible. It's got 100% grass fed and finished suet, beef tallow, organic raw honey and beeswax, and organic cold press extra virgin olive oil. You can get it with or without essential oils. Van Man's Tallow and Honey Balm is powerful enough to heal the skin, yet safe enough to spread on your toast. That's real ingredients. And unlike many other seemingly small, wholesome companies making healthy organic products, Van man is the real deal. Remember when Burt's Bees made great stuff? Native Dr. Squatch all of these companies have been bought by megacorporations and private equity firms which hijack beloved brands and replace it with the usual corporate slop. Van Mans will never sell out. Ready to ditch the corporate chemicals, Go to Vanman Shop Darkhorse 26 and use code DARKHORSE 26 for 15% off your first order. That's Vanman Shop Darkhorse 26, and use the code DARKHORSE for 15% off your first Order. Van Man Real ingredients, no exceptions Our final sponsor is Saunaspace, which makes amazing saunas and therapeutic lights. After over 10 years of R&D, SaunaSpace has developed a proprietary Sunspectrum Firelight. It's flicker free, glare free and comfortable to use with long life incandescent bulbs that stay consistent for more than five years. If you've looked into saunas or red light therapy, you know the market is a mess full of claims that seem designed to obscure rather than heal. It's hard to know if any given product is effective or what frequencies it produces or whether it emits harmful electromagnetic radiation. The only product we've found that clearly lives up to its scientific and health claims is sonospace. SaunaSpace has two flagship products, the Glow and the Firelight Sauna. The Glo is a single large light that can be used by the desk or bedside. It can alleviate screen fatigue and the ill effects of blue light and helps with skin, mood and energy concerns. It's great to use at night as your only light source and it also works as a spot relief for sore backs, tight shoulders or cramps. SaunaSpace's Firelight Sauna is a full body sauna that promotes sweat and also provides red light and near infrared therapy. It's beautiful and powerful and contributes to deep detox, pain relief and better sleep. From stress relief to healing and recovery, this sauna is amazing. The Firelight Sauna offers short fast sessions with no preheat necessary. You flip the switch and start sweating in minutes. It's a beautiful canvas sauna that is lightweight and fits into a spare room or corner. You can start small with the Glo. There's single full spectrum red and infrared light or you can go all in with the firelight sauna. All SaunaSpace products are built with integrity and handmade in Missouri with organic cotton, bamboo, sustainable unfinished basswood and medical grade stainless steel. No toxic glues or plastics and no off gassing. The grounding mat and optional silver lining Upgrade blocks Environmental EMEFs like Wi Fi to enhance healing and you get a hundred day home trial and outstanding customer care. Take your wellness to the next level with SaunaSpace. Dark Horse listeners get an exclusive 10% off site wide when you shop at Sana Space Darkhorse. And now through June 21st, every sauna purchase also includes a free pure layer bundle, a 400 value featuring an organic bamboo mat cover and three stool covers designed to keep your sauna space setup fresh, comfortable and protected. That's S A U N A dot space slash Dark Horse.

A

So let me, let me ask you this before we move on from this topic. The DOJ that stepped in in the Brooke Jackson case, that was Trump's doj. Correct.

B

So I'm thinking that they first intervened when it was still under Biden, but it's certainly now the Trump DOJ that's continuing in the case of. So the arguments that took place in 2025, that would have been the DOJ under Trump. Correct.

A

And so we're in this very strange Alice in Wonderland world now, where the medical freedom movement has gotten our most powerful warrior at the head of hhs, and yet the power to get what should be done within the executive branch to actually happen is not there because there are even more powerful forces at work. And so there's this tension between Bobby Kennedy, who knows this stuff as well as anybody, he's really encyclopedic in his understanding of the science, the fraud that masquerades as science, the hidden hazards in the vaccines. He knows the COVID vaccine story backwards and forwards. And yet in his position, he is presumably forced to work delicately. I assume, knowing him, that he's doing everything he can to move the ball in the right direction. But in a case like this where you have the DOJ potentially sandbagging it for pharma reasons, there's just a question of, well, what world are we in? You know, the executive branch is intention with itself over whether it not it wants justice done in this case because there's so much at stake in the business of pharma, which has a stranglehold over policy. And so anyway, it's like, it's almost like the federal government has an autoimmune disorder, like it's at war with itself. And it's just maddening to watch this play out because you have a court, you have a question, you've got a fraud, you need a judgment. And, you know, it's like one hand is trying to, you know, fight the sword fight, and the other hand is trying to pull the sword away. And it's like, what, what game is this even?

B

Yeah, I have to say so I write a weekly substack and a couple of times I have written articles about this very topic. And one of the things I hear often when I'm giving speeches is, well, what's taking so long? Why isn't Kennedy doing xyz? Where's the accountability? Why isn't this happening? Why isn't that happening? And I have explained in a couple of these substack articles and in my speeches, you know, you, it's very hard for people, the general public, to understand how bureau bureaucracy works and how working within the government happens. Right? When you go in there, you might have one agenda that you want to do and you want to help the American people. You want to reveal wrongdoings of the past. You want to have accountability for people that, you know, hid things or didn't do something they were supposed to do or whatever, you know, fraud, corruption, you want to reveal all that. But when you have so many people in that government system that are of the old guard we'll call them, they're going to make it almost impossible for you to do what you need to do at the pace you want to do it. And I mean, I'll just give examples. Like this is. Again, in a couple of my articles, I give specific examples because I think people really grasp examples and like to understand how this plays out in real life. Look at one simple thing like Trump trying to have the federal government enforce our federal immigration laws and deport the criminals that have come into our country and are committing sometimes heinous crimes. He's getting sued left and right all over this country. This is not just happening in New York. This is not just happening in California. All over this country. He's getting sued left and right. His administration, administration is getting sued left and right for in literally enforcing the federal law that's on the books and has been on the books for decades, saying that if you're an illegal immigrant, you're not supposed to be here. And anybody that's harboring you or assisting you or housing you or transporting you within our country are in violation of the law and the courts. Because we have so many activist judges sitting on our courts, federal and state, but particularly in this case I'm talking about federal, are ruling against the Trump administration. They're ruling against enforcing our on the books immigration laws that we've had for decades. So how do you expect the administration, whether it's Trump himself or Bobby Kennedy as HHS secretary or anybody, anybody in the Trump administration, how do you expect them to do what they're supposed to be doing what they were elected to do. If you're getting slammed down every time, you know, you open the. Every time you open the door, it's getting slammed in your face by the courts. It's very difficult. And people are not realizing how many lawsuits are flying right now against the Trump administration and their lawsuits that are being funded by many different sources. I get that question a lot too, you know, and all in the. All, oh, not this non profit organization, oh, this ngo, but really, you know, it's the people with the money in the background that don't want to see any of this happen.

A

Yeah. You can see how much investment there was in preventing Trump from taking office at just many different levels, including a tremendous amount of lawfare that was thrown at him, you know, with the possibility of him ending up in jail and things like this at the point that he was elected. You have this vast architecture which didn't want him and knows that all they have to do is be ineffective for four years and he'll be gone. And so, you know, it's like, you imagine, you know, a captain steps onto the bridge of the Enterprise and says, you know, set a course for Alpha Centuri, you know, warp 3. And the engines don't come on. And it's like, well, he's the captain. Why isn't the ship going? And it's like, well, I don't know, the engines didn't come on. You know, what is that? So at this point, this is not a defense of Trump. There's plenty to be livid about with respect to things Trump has done in office, but there is also the fact that, yeah, you can have Bobby Kennedy at the head of hhs, but you have this vast architecture that believes he's the enemy and is unwilling to do the will of the people. And this is sometimes mistaken for what we would call the deep state. The deep state is something else entirely. This is what Heather calls the shallow state. Right. But it's vast, it's a huge architecture, and it doesn't turn over with administrations. And therefore, if it has an ideological position, mistaken as it may be, it's in an excellent place to prevent the thing that you voted for from happening. So is that the whole story? It can't be. But is it part of the story? Very definitely, yeah.

B

And another example of what you're talking about in real life examples is, you know, this just happened recently with HHS and the ASA panel. And I don't know if you followed that whole debacle, but I gave A speech back in January of this year up in Albany at the Conservative Party CPAC event. And I spoke specifically on this topic because they asked me to. They called me up and said, can you come talk on this? And it was in December of last year, President Trump gave a directive to HHS and said, look at. Or last year said, look at. I believe it was December when he issued that order. See what other developed countries, our peers, peer nations around the world, are doing with their vaccine schedule. Because I don't know if we're an outlier or are we, you know, just doing what everybody else who is a similar country around the world, are they doing the same thing as us or not? Find out what they're doing. And if they're not, if they're doing something, if they're all doing something totally different, why don't we see if we should become. Get in line with them? Right. So they did the research, they looked at peer nations around the world. What are you doing with your vaccine schedule? Which ones are you mandating, at what age? And are you recommending, or are you mandating whatever? And they came up with the results and it showed that the United States is a total outlier. We require something like certain, depending what state you live in, I think it's up to 72 or 80 shots for

A

a child to get it's doses. I think some of them are combined into one shot, but it's not important. I think it's 72 doses.

B

Yeah. And. Right. Yes, because most of them are three in one by the time they're 18 years old. And most European nations that are peer nations of ours are requiring something like, you know, 20, you know, so it's just a stark difference. And so, so HHS complied and said, okay, we're going to follow this directive that the President gave us. They did the research, they recalibrated the recommended childhood vaccine schedule and they got sued, like immediately, immediately. And some activist judge, I believe in Massachusetts, sitting on a, you know, federal trial court, they all think they're God for some reason, but decides, oh, nope, you can't do that. In fact, not only can you not do that, you can't do anything that your ACIP panel has done over the past year. And so he undid everything that, that Kennedy did with that panel for the past year, like even just appointing them. I mean, the judge I wrote, I wrote a substack article on this and then I did a couple of podcast interviews on this. The judge literally went and started naming the members of the panel that were duly appointed by the head, you know, by the secretary, and started naming them and saying, well, this person is not qualified to sit on this panel, and that person's not qualified, and this is this person's, you know, cv. But they don't have the, the proper kind of expertise to be on this panel. The judge. The judge. Guys, do you know how unconstitutional that is? That's not the job of a judge. Judges are not supposed to put themselves in the place of the executive branch member that they're critiquing and then make a different decision because they don't like the decision that that executive branch member made. No, no, that's a breach of the Constitution. Separation of Powers 101. But this, this judge did it. And I think what the DOJ did was they figured it would be quicker for them to not appeal that specific decision and to just disband the ace of panel and then have it recommissioned. You know, it's this whole big mess. But that is a per. It's still going on. We're in June that that declaration was or order was handed down by the president in December of last year. Talk about tying people's hands.

A

Which court was that, that made that decision?

B

It was a federal court in a federal district court in Massachusetts. Meaning it was the. It was the trial level court.

A

It's the first trial level court. So a low level court in Massachusetts is vetoing the intent of the chief executive, and the chief executive discovers that the. It is easier to reroute by dissolving the committee that's been unconstitutionally challenged and reformulated. I mean, you know, it would be hilarious if it wasn't so terrifying.

B

It's. It's terrible. And as. As an attorney, I just, I see it all in a different way. So, you know, people get annoyed, you know, especially people in the medical freedom movement, as you had mentioned earlier. People get annoyed. What's going on and this and that and how can they do this? And I'm seeing it from a legal. I see everything through the eyes of the Constitution, right? Because I'm a constitutionalist and this is what I fight for every day, right? And I say, what? What? No, you can't do that. What are you doing? You know, I'm talking to the judge in my mind. What are you doing? You do not have that power. And so I think I did a podcast actually, on the Brownstone Institute podcast with Jeffrey Tucker about this topic. When it was going on, I think it was back in February or March, but it is so it is a perfect example of why people are frustrated and saying, what's taking so long? Where's the accountability? Where are all the changes that we voted for in November of 2024? Those changes are trying to be made, but these activist judges and activist groups are stopping them.

A

Yeah, I mean, I wish it was that simple because there's also tension with the chief executive who has a blind spot, especially on the harms of the COVID vaccines and a number of other issues. But you're pointing to something larger, which I want to kind of tease out, because it also connects to the next thing. I was hoping to talk to you about the structure that I alluded to that I found a relief to discover was even functioning, that you've got lawyers who can fight battles in a venue that has a precise set of rules that allows you to make the argument and not just shout it into Twitter or on YouTube and hope that it persuades people. But it depends on a functional court system. And our court system is still functional, but it's becoming less so, in part because what you're calling activist judges really are the end of the rule of law. At the point that the court has an opinion about which way the winds should blow politically, at the point at which it's no longer ruling in an objective, dispassionate fashion, then you don't necessarily have access to those rules, because in effect, what you have is a two tier system. If you come through the door looking like the team of the judge, then the judge will rule in your favor. And if you come through the door looking like you're from the other team, then you're likely to get ruled against. And that, that is actually the end of the republic if that goes far enough. And the place where I think people can probably see this at the moment is actually the mayoral primary in Los Angeles, which Heather and I have been paying a lot of attention to on Dark Horse. We grew up in la. But it's also just a fascinating race where you had an insurgent, Spencer Pratt, show up in the race and his message starts resonating at a level that you would not expect to be possible in deep blue California. But frankly, deep blue California is falling apart at such a level that people are beginning to wonder if maybe the platitudes that they've been handed year after year might not be right, or if the people that they're electing might not be as honest as they thought they were. Maybe they're actually crooks and this is a racket and that taxes are high and the services are cruddy because the money's going to something else. So the problem is Spencer Pratt. Just to set the stage for people who don't understand the electoral dynamics, LA has an open primary, which means you're not running as a member of a party. You may have a party, but that's not a part of the race. And if an individual running for mayor does not get above 50% of the vote, then it goes to a runoff between the top two vote getters. And so Karen Bass is the mayor. She came out of the recent primary with, I think it was 36% of the vote. Not enough to be elected mayor again without a runoff. So it was definitely going to be a runoff. And then the second person in the runoff was being decided between Spencer Pratt, an insurgent who says he's a Republican and a Democratic city councilwoman, and the dynamics of the race. Spencer Pratt was gaining toward the end of the race, 60 some percent of the vote was counted, and he was ahead by a fair margin like 8 or 9 percentage points. And then the rate of counting dropped to a crawl as the ballots that were being counted presumably changed in nature. It went to mail in ballots that were being delivered in tranches. And so anyway, things slowed to a crawl. And wouldn't you know it, the city councilwoman shockingly overtake Spencer Pratt with various comical statistical anomalies along the way, some of which may not have been real, some of which might have been misreporting, but nonetheless, it has the sense of there's a Democratic machine. It seems to own California completely, one end to the other. It really does not want an insurgent Republican mayor of Los Angeles. I would argue that what is taking place in California is a racket, a criminal racket, and that having an insurgent in a powerful position like mayor of Los Angeles is a danger to that racket. And the anomalies in the election are sufficient that we are now stuck in a very predictable place, which is that watching the city councilwoman overtake Pratt, despite the fact that she is not popular and he is increasingly popular and showed very strongly in the initial returns, has the kind of stench that something has gone wrong, that something has decided he shall not be the runner up in the primary and shall not advance to the runoff. But, and this is where this connects back to what we were just talking about, but you would think it would be a simple matter to expose the count to scrutiny that would be able to establish whether or not the count that we are seeing is in fact legitimate. Or the result of some kind of election fixing. But what you don't realize is that your ability to do that depends on layer after layer of things functioning in an objective fashion, all of which don't function anymore. Right. You would need the courts to be objective. But if every court thinks that Spencer Pratt is the end of Los Angeles and whatever else happens, the good of Los Angeles depends on him not becoming mayor, well, then do you trust them to judge in an objective fashion when it comes to arguments over ballot scrutiny? No. Well, what, what should happen then? The press. The press should pursue the issue of whether or not the courts are objective. Does the press function? No. I grew up with an LA Times that was basically a newspaper. Now the LA Times is a propaganda rag. It's not going to investigate whether or not the courts are slanted. And so anyway, I'm wondering, you living in New York, obviously it's a different flavor of a similar game. How intact do you think the systems are on which the Republic is depending?

B

Yeah, well, the problem that you're talking about specifically in California right now, but this happens all over the country, so I don't want people to think this is just California, is that our federal constitution says that elections can be run by the states. And so what states have done over the past, you know, almost 250 years is created their own election laws. Now, the federal constitution does not say they can do whatever they want, and it does say that federal oversight is allowed. But in California specifically, I will give you a couple, just a couple of examples of what the election laws say. First of all, California allows for what's called universal mail in voting, which means all the people, all the people whose names are on the voter rolls in the state of California will have a ballot automatically mailed to them. It's universally mailed out. If your name is on that at the last known address, that your name is noted on the voter roll, whether or not you still live in California, whether or not you want to vote, whether or not you're legally allowed to vote, and whether or not you're dead or alive. Okay, so what happens is that these ballots are sent out in, you know, the hundreds of thousands, millions, and let's say you moved. I mean, who calls up their election district when they move from one part of the state to the other or out of state and says, hey, by the way, I moved, Take me off your voter roll. Nobody does that. Okay, so you have bloated, they're called bloated voter rolls. So you have bloated voter rolls, you have these mail ballots being automatically sent out by California to all these people. And now you have all these ballots floating around out there that anybody can pick up, anybody can fill out and anybody can mail back in because there's not even a requirement that you, you know, show ID when you vote, let alone through the mail. So universal mail ballots are a huge problem. Then you've got that California that's too

A

remarkable to just move on to the next thing.

B

Oh, you didn't know that? I thought everybody knew about universal.

A

No, I didn't know that. I didn't know that. And let me tell you, let me tell you how that looks to me as a complex systems guy. That is a recipe for increasing the power of the majority party. And the reason is because a, if you have an intense battle over some seat, right? And what is an intense battle over some seat going to look like? It's not going to look like a fight within party. It's going to look like some place where the other party is showing surprising strength, right? Oh, no, the red guy might win in California somewhere. And you've got all of these ballots that aren't going to be spoken for because the person to whom they belonged is dead, because they've moved, whatever the reason might be. So you've got stray ballots. And it is basically an invitation for somebody who is convinced that this race is vitally important and we cannot possibly let that terrible person win. It is an invitation for them feeling good about themselves. I'm actually doing the right thing because I'm going to stop that, you know, Trump devoted, you know, Hitler wannabe from taking a seat. I'm doing the right thing for the Republic because he's bad, right? It is an invitation for them to pick up that ballot and send it in. And the point is, if you are doing that in a place that is majority blue, the majority of people who get those ballots and succumb to that temptation will be blue. So it's like g each blue voter a little extra vote, right? They're getting a piece of an extra vote because somewhere on your block somebody's going to get an extra ballot and mail it in. And the chances are they're going to mail it in for blue, not red, right? So it's. The point is, in science we have a distinction between random error, which is just noise, and systematic error, which is false signal. Random error is annoying, but it's not fatal. Because the point is, for every accidental vote that goes one way, there's going to be an accidental vote. That goes the other way and cancels. Right. Noise will cancel. Systematic error works exactly the other way. It's like a thumb on the scales in one direction and not the other. And this is an invitation for that. It's like it was designed for that purpose.

B

A thousand percent and very few states. States have universal mail in voting. It's weird because it's so unsafe. Yeah, most. Most. The large majority of states in our country do not have universal mail in voting.

A

That's interesting. Okay. I must admit, I don't know whether Washington does. I know I get a ballot and I know I fill it out, but I don't exactly know whether I got a ballot because I've asked for a ballot or because it's automatic. Maybe Washington has the same thing and I've just been unaware. You know, I didn't stop to think about it. I get the ballot and it's like, okay, yeah, I should fill that thing out.

B

But if you didn't request your ballot and it's coming to you, then you guys probably have universal mail in voting.

A

Well, what I don't remember is whether I initially requested it or something. Washington. But I have no idea. It's probably the same. But anyway, mind blowing when you think about it. Not at the level of, yeah, I really ought to fill that thing out. But. But, whoa, what would this look like mapped across a population of people with very strong opinions about who must not take office.

C

Right.

A

It's an invitation to. To fraud. It is an invitation for the little people to participate in a fraud. Right. Without even knowing that that's what they're doing necessarily, or thinking it's just a little, you know, just a little. A little breach of the law. But it's for a good cause or something.

B

Absolutely, absolutely. And so let me add to that, you know, fuel to that fire. Election law in the state of California says that ballots, as long as they're postmarked on or before election day, ballots that are received, received up to one week past election day, will be counted. So. Yeah, exactly. So I mean, as long as it's, you know, postmarked election day or before, they'll count it. So. So this particular election, primary election that you're referring to happened on June 2, which means June 9. Up until and including June 9, as long as that ballot comes in, it will be counted. And then election law in California says that once you receive the ballots, they can take up to four weeks, so 30 days to count them all. So you could plausibly, if it happened June 2, the primary election, which this one did, that means it could be July 2nd before all of the ballots are counted.

A

Yeah, that's ridiculous. But it does, you know, it invites a question from the point of view of rationalizing to the public why you might have such a crazy policy. Well, it's very important that we count everybody's vote, right? Well, not really. The point is, you know, back the way it used to be, when almost everybody voted in person, except for military stationed overseas and the very occasional person who signed up for an absentee ballot because they knew they were going to be out of the country or something. But in the old days, everybody showed up on election day, they voted, and if you realized a day later your vote didn't get counted, that's just the rule. The rule is the same for everybody. And the point is, presumably, yeah, that happens to some Democrats, it happens to some Republicans. It doesn't push in either direction. It's not important. Right, so the idea that counting every vote is so important that you would open the door to fraud taking place after the election when you've got a bunch of information about which way it's going and then things can come through this, you know, opaque system, it's obscene, right? It's an invitation to a different kind of fraud, of course.

B

And so, so the kicker in all of this is like you're saying, you know, the old, quote, unquote, old fashioned way, we used to just all walk into the polls and, you know, go in and pull the lever on the manual machine and then pull your little lever for each person you want to vote for. And then when you slid the lever back and the curtain opened, it would register your votes. You know, there. The fact that they have these, you know, electronic voting machines, everything's done on a tablet, everything's scanned and whatever is so ridiculous. But more ridiculous than that is the fact that voter ID is something that it's like 83% of Americans agree on. 83% of Americans agree on nothing. But they do agree that we should have voter ID in our elections. Meaning when you walk into the polls, you got to pull out your id, show who you are, it's got to match what's on the voter registration roll, and then you can vote. Okay, 83%, 71%. This is Pew Research, Pew Institute Research did this study and they came back with 83% of all Americans are in favor of voter ID, and 71% of Democrats are in favor of requiring voter ID for elections. So then you say to yourself, okay, why doesn't Congress pass a law that says you have to have voter ID because they are allowed, as per the federal Constitution, they are allowed to oversee elections. So they did create, last year they created a law which is called the SAVE Act S A V E And it basically says, now it does, this is getting misreported by the media, both sides of the media. And it's, it doesn't say that you have to show voter ID to vote. What it says is you have to prove you're a citizen in order to register to vote. So you got to show up with a certain kind of id, you know, your birth certificate, presumably proving you're an American citizen, and then you can be on the road voter registration roll and then you can go and vote. That doesn't mean that you have to show your ID when you get to the polls or when you mail in your ballot. But at least it's, at least it's the first step, right? We all agree you should be a citizen. I mean, first of all, it's in the Constitution. But second of all, it's logical you should be a citizen to vote in our elections. Right? So the SAVE act passed the House last year, but it has not passed the Senate because of the filibuster. So, you know, we're sitting here with 83% of the country wanting something and Congress won't do it. So I mean, talk about a broken system. What are we doing, people?

A

I mean, again, I think you're being too, too gentle. For one thing, didn't the save act fail by 2 votes a couple days ago?

B

Oh, oh, I wasn't aware I was to know where it went back up.

A

I believe I remember that. And I believe, you know, my jaw was on the floor, but of course I was in this condition that's now so common these days. I was absolutely shocked, but not the least bit surprised, you know, because effectively when you say, well, the Congress won't pass this law, the Congress people who were, who came to power in a system that is tailor made for fraud to occur were reluctant to close the loopholes that allow fraud. Right. It's not, it's not very difficult to see that these particular people might prefer a system in which fraud was possible because they are the products of it in some cases, or at least they are connected to parties that benefit from it. And you know, it's despicable. But the fact is this just happens to be a clear case where we happen to have the number that says the vast majority of Americans agree on this thing. And it's a head scratcher as to why the Congress wouldn't do something that's so wildly popular on both sides of the aisle, huh? Gee, I wonder why wouldn't they do something that's so popular? Oh, because they don't give a shit about us, right? From our, from their perspective, we are cattle on the frickin feedlot and they are about something else. It has to do with money and power and prestige and whatever it is, but it's not about us. And what they want to do is keep it running, right? So that means there are certain times when the curtain gets pulled back because instead of doing our part in the theater and pretending not to be able to get along with each other, we actually all do agree on something and they still don't do it, right? I think this is true for more issues than people know that in general, if you put aside, are you a Democrat, are you Republican, did you vote for Trump, did you not vote for Trump? If you put that stuff aside and you just sit people down and you say, you know, let's take issues that people can't agree on, right? Like abortion. If you sit two Americans down and you say, okay, can we agree that abortion is bad, that it's negative when it happens, most Americans will agree to that. There are some fringe people on the left who will say, nope, it's not the slightest bit bad ever, right? But in general, most Americans agree on this. Can we agree that there is a tragedy that happens if, if a woman is raped and impregnated and that there is something, there is at least a question as to whether or not she should be able to terminate a zygote, right? Most Americans can agree on that. And then we all agree that the puzzle gets very difficult as you get closer and closer to the date of birth. Most of us are wildly uncomfortable with the idea that anything would happen anywhere close to the date of birth except in the most dire medical emergency. On the other hand, we become more comfortable as you get to the point that you have a cell or a collection of cells, right? The point is it's a problem that gets harder the later in pregnancy you go. And the fact is most Americans can agree that we have to draw a line in there somewhere. There's a group on one side and a group on the other side that will never be able to agree, but there's a vast group in the middle that can agree that there's at least a judgment call that we have to make and that there is a moral question there, right? That's what I've found talking to people. Doesn't matter where I start from, what I tell them about me. People do agree on the basics of the puzzle, and that's a difficult issue. The fact is, on most other issues, when we talk about should we be investing in the education of young people, you know, should that education involve religious doctrine? Most people agree on these things. And so anyway, I guess, I guess the point is, once you see an issue like the, the question of voter ID and the failure of the Congress to do anything about it, you can start to see that the other issues look the same way. The Congress is doing what it does, and they've got us fighting each other over the color of our jerseys, when actually in general, we basically agree on what kind of country we want to live in. And we've lost sight of that because we're so busy demonizing the other side, doing the bidding of whoever is running Congress.

B

Well, that's exactly right, because this is what they do. They hit everybody against each other. And they do it in decisive ways. They do it. They try and have people fight over color of your skin, the country your, your family came from, you know, what your political views are, your socioeconomic status. They do it in all of these different ways because guess what, if we're so busy arguing with each other, who's, who's watching the hen. House. House, you know, nobody. So they can do. I mean, this is politics 101. I see this every day in New York State. They do this every day in Albany, right? Oh, look over there. Because then over here they can, you know, pass the most horrendous law that you're not even paying attention to because it's two o' clock in the morning and it's, you know, two days before Christmas. So, you know, this is nothing new. And the Congress has this down pat. And it's very disturbing because like I said, 83% of Americans agree on nothing. But we agree that we should have voter ID to vote in this country. And by the way, let's look outside the microcosm of our country. Let's look at some other peer nations. No, forget pure nations. Let's look at nations all over the world. Okay? Very few do not require voter ID to vote. We are one of like, I think, a handful of countries in the world that don't require voter id. What are we doing, folks? What are we doing? And some of the arguments, if you. I wrote a sub stack on this, actually, I wrote a couple substacks on this. A Couple months ago, because it was just so preposterous to me. What? Let's listen to some of their arguments. They, meaning the Democrats who will not vote for the SAVE act and are blocking, you know, because of filibuster, blocking the passage in the Senate. What are they saying? The reason they won't vote for this are, you know, like, Chuck Schumer, Jamie Raskin, you know, even Kamala Harris. You know, she's not in Congress anymore. But what are they saying? Well, their excuses are, first of all, well, this one's really great. Jimmy Raskin keeps saying, well, married women won't be able to vote if they have to prove their citizens because they got married and changed their name. So apparently us married women don't know how to prove we are who we are. I don't know. Like, I don't even understand that theory. But this is why he is so against voter id. Let's see. Kamala Harris says so.

A

He's. He's lying. Because no person intelligent enough to get to Congress could possibly be fooled by that argument.

B

Okay.

A

I mean, so it's just a lie. And I, I would. I would point out I was. I don't know what all the arguments you're going to come up with here are, but I'll predict something. Since there isn't a single valid argument in favor of not having voter id, all of the arguments are inherently rationalizations, which means they are lies. So the question is, what can you say that will get the reporter who's asking the question to go away like they've been given an answer without having to give them one since there isn't one? I mean, we have a society in which homeless people have cell phones, right? People manage to clear hurdles more difficult than getting an id and the number of people who would be harmed because they're married and can't manage to get a document that matches their current name. You know, how many people, at the most do we think that could possibly apply to, you know, in any year? This is people who've had a name change and can't manage to clear this particular hurdle. Like, we're running the risk of national voter fraud over some tiny number of people who actually, if they can't solve this, might need to, you know, have a fire lit under them to get them to solve the problem. Like, in what universe do you put a republic in danger of national voter fraud over compassion for a small number of lazy people who can't get a new document?

B

I. I'm so glad that you aren't Familiar with these arguments because I'm going to give you just a couple more and I can't wait to see your, your, your reaction to these. Okay.

A

The problem is my, I often have this response when I see you give a presentation where I hear the crazy things you tell me from the land of the law and my eyes start to bulge. But the problem is they're already bulging and they might burst. So be, be kind.

B

Okay, I'll just give you two more. I'll just give you. I'll just give you two more. Okay, so Kamala Harris leads this one and, and she's on video in an interview saying this. We can't do voter ID because there are so many people in our country that live in. I, I believe it's, you know, like rural areas is what you implicating here. Rural areas. And it's very difficult for them to get to a copy machine.

A

Excuse me.

B

Because apparently you need a copy machine

A

to register to vote and you need a copy machine. Yeah, again, there may be a couple of people. I mean, you know, there's some funny places out there, there. But really, you're going to risk the national election system because there are small number of people who, presumably for other things, have to deal with the fact that they have trouble getting to a copy machine, of all things. I mean, I'd have trouble getting to a copy machine. I don't know what I would use one for at this point.

B

But apparently you need a copy machine in order to have voter id. Like, I really honestly don't understand that logic. So. But she's a word salad queen anyway, so, you know, you have to listen to the interview to understand. Well, there is no understanding for logic. But I'll give you, I'll give you just one other one that is very common with Democrats that you will disenfranchise a, a vast majority of minority members of our society if you require voter ID because they either are too dumb to get ID or they can't afford to get id. And in my substack article, one of my substack articles that I wrote about this topic, I actually link to an interview of just like somebody went out on the streets and started asking, you know, showing black people walking down the street that would stop them and say, excuse me, can you watch this video clip? And the video was this, you know, white liberal woman saying, you know, voter ID is racist and, you know, you're gonna disenfranchise, you know, a whole group of minorities because they can't get IDs you know, and then this person is independent reporters out on the street stopping black people. Excuse me, excuse me one moment. Do you have id? You know, and you see the people look at him like, like he has eight heads. What do you mean, of course I have id? I was like, oh, so you could figure out how to get it, you know, and then he'd like, show the clip of this white liberal woman saying like, it's so racist because these people don't know how to get IDs, you know, and every single black person he stops is. They're like, what are you talking about? And like I say in my article, of course that's racist. That in and of itself is racist. That minority cities can't figure out how to get an id or, or can't afford it. Okay, then make it free. If you want a voter ID, take some of our, what is it, $29 trillion we're in debt, and put it towards free government IDs for voting for our citizens. How about that, guys? I mean, these excuses are just unbelievable.

A

Well, but they are the hallmark of a policy that you want for a reason that you cannot state, and you therefore must give a different reason when there in fact is not a single valid argument. That's what's going on, right? Yeah, there's not a single valid argument for a society that requires ID for dozens, I don't know, maybe hundreds of different activities not requiring it for this most important activity. There's no rational argument, period. So if you have to make an argument because you want that policy, because you want to leave the door open to fraud, you're going to have to say something. And that's what these things are. It's the. You're going to have to say something. Well, I don't know. Maybe if I accuse people who want voter ID of racism, they'll go away, right? I mean, that, that's literally where we are. It's that dumb.

B

It's unbelievable. And, and like you said, I, I don't know where the media is. How could you, how could you have an interview? How could you interview somebody? How could you interview the woman that wanted to be president of this country, okay, and not push her after she says, oh, well, you know, so many people don't have access to a copy machine. It's so hard for them to find. I mean, any logical reporter with any sort of, of pride in their work would say, well, what does a copy machine have to do with getting an id? Like, what, what?

A

And to the extent that it does how many people are we talking about? Just give it an estimate. Right. How many people are we talking about? You're risking the Republic over how many people being disenfranchised. When people get disenfranchised over, you know, traffic and all sorts of other things, it happens. The point is, as long as it doesn't happen systematically, it's not that big a deal. It's when it does happen systematically that it's a big deal. And effectively we're all being disenfranchised when false votes get registered. That's the, that's the thing. It's like inflation steals from your bank account with ever getting, without ever getting access to it. When people are able to win power through a vote that was not fair, they are stealing your most sacred right as a citizen. They are stealing it without their fingerprints on it. And I, I don't know what it's going to take to get people to realize this door has not been left open accidentally. This door has been left open intentionally. That's not the same thing as being able to prove that it has been used. But the point is, there is only one reason to leave that door open, and it's because you want the ability to commit fraud. Right? Maybe I can't prove that you did, but we're playing games here. You left the door open for a reason.

B

1,000%. And one of the main problems, one of the biggest negative fallouts from this whole thing about there's no, no voter ID required and you know, let's have all this baloney excuses why we don't. People are losing faith in the validity of elections. And when that happens, they stop voting. If you think your vote doesn't count. And I, I hear this all the time. I hear this all over New York State when I'm giving speeches. Why should I vote? Why should I vote? My vote doesn't count. Count. If they think their vote doesn't count, they are not going to come out and vote, which is what the other side wants. That's what the bad guys want. Because the fewer good guys that vote, the easier it is for the bad guys to win. Right? But I can't. I am trying so hard to motivate people to want to take back their, their local government, their state government, their federal government, different vote, get your friends to vote, get your family members to vote, help with voter registration drives. We need to increase our numbers of people that actually care about the Constitution and want it to stick around. You know, and I, oh, why should I vote? My vote doesn't count. There's so much cheating. There's so much fraud. There's something, you know, that's what happens.

A

People are not sophisticated. They don't realize that, yes, there's something wrong with this system. It's not fair. But its ability to cheat is not infinite at this point. So the point is, if you want to win an election, you have to win it decisively so you get past the margin that it's capable of cheating plausibly. Also, as soon as you stop voting, you become indistinguishable from somebody who doesn't care, who isn't tuned in and doesn't think it matters. If you're angry that your vote doesn't count and you're not voting, you're joining a group of people who couldn't care less. So my point would be, even a protest vote that you know is not going to change the outcome of an election is vastly different than not voting. You are putting yourself on the map. You're saying, I am paying attention and my vote is available if somebody will cater to my interests. But I'm holding it out, right? I'm going to keep it out of play until somebody puts down the corruption and starts doing my bidding. Right? That's powerful. If you don't vote, you didn't send a message of any kind. We don't know what you're thinking. We think you're not thinking anything at all. You're tuned out and you think it's clever, but stop it. You're actually undermining those of us who are working overtime to fix this system before the ship sinks.

B

A thousand percent. A thousand percent. And people, you know, I hope I'm reaching people, you know, I hope when I give them that explanation, you know, if you. My, my favorite line, when I hear this after giving a speech and it's Q and A, my favorite line is, well, okay, stay home. If you stay home and you don't vote, they win hands down, no contest. Do you want them to win? Okay, because look at your life right now. How good is it? How much harder are you having to work? How much less does your dollar go? I mean, I have people that reach out to me and say, if something doesn't stop, whether it's, you know, if the property, property taxes don't stop going up, or if the gas prices don't stop going up, or if the food prices don't stop going up, you know, whatever it is, I'm going to have to sell and move out of New York State because I Can't afford it anymore. I hear that all the time. And I mean, California is very similar to New York in many ways. And actually many of the blue states are similar to New York in a lot of ways with the policies that are being passed by the people in charge at the state level. In these blue states, it is driving people out of the state because people can't afford to live there anymore. You can't afford to live some someplace when the policies are so bad that it's costing you 10 times more in order to live than if you just went to a different state that has better policies, therefore less onerous on you to do your business and do your work and make your money and then go spend it. It's. It's not rocket science. It's. And these blue states are losing citizens that are going to red states, and the blue states are losing their number of members of Congress as a result. Result, right. Every 10 years we have a census.

A

They're losing their tax base. I mean, this is happening in real time here in Washington. We have crazy people at the city level, in Seattle, at the state level. They are creating new taxes. They are violating our constitution. We just passed an income tax here. Voters have rejected an income tax, I believe 11 times. The legislature just passed one violating our state constitution. And they did so by declaring an emergency that they didn't name and the courts ratified it.

B

Oh, my gosh.

A

So, yeah, I mean, it's madness. And so the point is, any person who has money and sees the writing on the wall is going to leave. I mean, frankly, there are already murmurs about an exit tax tax. Right? So, you know, these people aren't dumb. They made money because they're not dumb. If you're going to institute an exit tax, they're going to want to get out before you do. Right. And the point is, you see that you're going to have to put in an exit tax because you can see that they're fleeing in droves. Who do you think is generating the wealth in the state that you need to levy a tax on? You're driving them out. How dumb are you? Right? It's just like this is not difficult. You could explain this to the average 8th grader without terribly much difficulty. And yet, you know, our governor and our legislature can't seem to figure it out. What is going on? Is it sabotage? Is this an attempt to, you know, to cripple the state and pick up the real estate for pennies on the dollar before you put it back together? Because frankly, that makes More sense than anything else.

B

That's a very real possibility. I, I often think that because property values tank when these kinds of, of ridiculous, I mean, they're really moronic policies go into play. But, you know, I don't think it's an accident. I don't think these are dumb people. I think they're doing it on purpose. And, you know, the perfect example from, from my viewpoint, because I'm in New York is, you know, our new communist New York City mayor. You know, people say he's socialist and he's a part of the, you know, Democratic Socialists of America, the dsa. But you read his policies. I mean, he, he's open about them. Read his policies. He is a communist. He believes in, you know, the collective production, seizing the means of production. The government's got to control everything and you will own nothing and be happy. Like, this is what this guy ran on, and he is. He and the governor of New York State just agreed to tax, this is just one example to tax. Anybody that has a second home in New York city that's worth $5 million or more are going to start paying an annual tax, which, depending on the, that it's scaled, so it's depending on the value of your apartment or your whatever, second home in New York City. And some will end up paying, you know, like 20,000 a year. Some will end up paying, you know, like hundreds of thousands. Like, it's, it's just, it's unbelievable. And so I spoke to, you know, some people that would, would fall in that tax bracket, and they're just furious because they're like, well, well, now if, you know, once this law passes, and it's actually a law now, the property value for their property has just sunk. Now, it's not going to be worth nothing, but it's certainly not going to be worth what it was before they sign that into law. Because who wants to pay an extra, however many, you know, tens of thousands, hundred thousand dollars in taxes a year just because they own a property that's worth a certain dollar amount. It's un, it's just unsustainable. Because now, you know, it'll start with New York City, and then what they'll do is once it takes hold, they'll say, oh, well, let's make this a statewide law. So anybody that has a second home anywhere in New York state and that $5 million mark is going to drop. Well, let's drop it to 1 million. Oh, let's drop it to 500,000. Oh, let's just let's just take away the number and let's just say anybody that has more than one home in New York State has to pay this tax. You know, this, this is not rocket science. This is what they do, guys.

A

It's a plan. And we don't know exactly what they're trying to do. But the point is, the fact that it's incoherent by the logic that they announce does not mean it isn't perfectly coherent with respect to some logic they have not been kind enough to share with us.

B

Right. 100.

A

It's a lie.

C

It's a lie.

A

They're lying and they're thieves.

B

Oh, this is beyond that. I mean, this is. This is cruel. I mean, you. You have people if they cared about. And this is why it gets me really annoyed. Because what the politicians and the bureaucrats will do is no matter what the policy is that they're trying to shove down your throat, they will lie and say it's for the good of the people. It's for the good of, you know, creating fairness. It's for making everybody equal. It's for not discriminating against one group or one class. So they lie about these things, but what they're actually doing is they are hurting entire classes of people. Many times minority groups get hardest hit by their ridiculous regulations. And what happens, you end up with all of the people that, like you said, can afford to leave are going to leave. And then where's your tax base? I don't know if you saw Kathy Hochul, the governor of New York was pleading with all the people that she basically banished from New York a couple years ago and said, yeah, go down to Florida. You're not really New Yorkers. Get out of here. You know, basically, she was talking to all the Republicans and conservatives in New York state. She's now, oh, why doesn't everybody go visit their friends in Florida and ask them to come back? You know, we need. Oh, yeah, she was like, so public about it. We need that tax base to come back. Oh, you know, we need to make it fair for everybody. Can you please come back so we can have your money? I mean, she's. I'll send you the clip.

A

The woman is, okay, so you are ahead a couple chapters in the nightmare that we're living here in Washington. We literally just had a situation where Katie Wilson, the new mayor of Seattle, was caught on camera. She was asked about people with wealth fleeing the state and what she thought about it. And she said, well, I really don't think they're going to flee, but for the ones who do. Bye. And you know, all the people with a brain, which is like, you know, at least 40% of the people in the state were like, what? What did you just say? Right? You're really, like, telling the people with wealth to go, like, do you not understand anything? But it sounds like this is actually part of the script and that you guys have now seen what happens with Bai, right? Bai isn't so good. And it's like, please come back, you know. Okay, good. Katie Wilson, you want to skip to that chapter so that we can avoid driving everybody out of the state and ruining the place.

B

It's exactly right. And the blue state state governors and the, you know, the mayors of these big cities, they all look, they, they all look at each other and see what each other's doing. And then, oh, oh, New York's doing that. Oh, California's doing that. Oh, what's LA doing? What's New York City doing? And then they adapt those crazy, ridiculous, hurt the people policies in their city or their state. State. And it's like, guys, didn't, didn't you just look and see what happened in that other state when they tried to do that? No, no, they try it anyway. I feel like they're in a race to, to see who can hit rock bottom sooner. I think they really. And, and there's some sort of a prize to whoever gets down to the

A

bottom first, because I think they're actually literally is. It's not a prize, it's a prize. Let me put it to you this way. You ever look into one of these murky medical literature situations where it turns out you've got a vast body of literature on some process, and a lot of it was cryptically written by pharma companies and then given to professors to put their name on it to publish as if it was legitimate research. And you're like, like what? And then you realize, okay, so that little quadrant of science is actually a sort of welfare program, right? You got a bunch of people who don't know how to do anything or don't care to do anything, who are inhabiting roles where they get to call themselves professor and have a big publication record of papers they didn't actually write, right? But they're just sort of playing the role of scientist, right? And then you've got science journalists who aren't any better, and it's like they're, you know, it's kind of cool to be a science journalist, right? And then you've got administrators. Same thing here We've got governors and mayors of major American cities who are just kind of nobodies who've been, you know, plucked off the street because they can be dressed up, you know, well enough and sort of deliver a line into a camera. And the point is, they're actors. The policy was written by somebody else for reasons that the people delivering the lines probably don't even know. And they are going to get a prize if they do the bidding of whoever is writing this fricking legislation the fastest. And those people, they may not even be Americans. There is nothing about our system that is immune to having any party who wants to buy, pay for play. If they want to crash a major American city in order to make the real estate cheap, all they have to do is buy the politicians who have the power to do it and tell them what it is they want done, and it'll get done. And the politicians don't even have to know. They just have to kind of understand that they're sort of actors playing a role. Yeah, I'm the mayor of Los Angeles. Oh, are you now? Now, right. You want to talk to me about why the reservoirs were empty when the thing was on fire? Well, that wouldn't really be my job, would it? I'm just the mayor of la, you know. I mean, at some point, it becomes so ridiculous that you just have to call its bluff.

B

It. It's really what. That whole California Palisades fire and everything, that I actually did a deep dive. I did a. The substack article on that, too. That was horrendous. I mean, that was a statewide, you know, training. I remember they were interviewing Gavin Newsom, and they were asking him, you know, why I think he got rid of, like, four dams. And he said, they said, like, if there were dams, they, you know, they could have used the water. And what happened? Why did you really. Oh, well, we had to get rid of the dams because, you know, there was. There was a fish that was, you know, endangered and needed, you know, to be able to swim upstream or whatever. I mean, I am all for protecting the environment, but not at the expense of human life. You know, you would.

A

You would need a plan. You would need to understand. I mean, look, frankly, dams are necessary in some places. They've been an abomination in many other places. But if you're going to take them out for the right reason, which is sometimes the right thing to do, it has a. A predictable consequence on your access to water. Now, what you need is a new plan to deal with what you're going to do if you need that water all of a sudden, like in a fire, it's not that hard. Right. And let's put it this way. There comes a point at which incompetence is not quite a plausible explanation where the breakdown is too intense for even incompetence to cover it. Right. It's just implausible.

B

Definitely, definitely. And, and it's unfortunately, it's we the people that suffer. Right. You have. And I just want your listeners to hear this wonderful fact, you know, when we're talking about, you're saying, you know, politicians can be easily swayed by lobby groups. We'll call them, you know, the largest lobby industry in our country is big Pharma. And, and it's by far. They spend like it's over $300 million a year lobbying Congress. And I think the second largest is, I believe it's the insurance industry. And it's like they spend half, it's like $150 million a year or something. You know, these, these numbers are real because they're reported. They have to be. And you know, what do people think when they hear that? Do they just kind of shrug it off and say, oh, wow, interesting. They shouldn't just shrug it off. What does that tell you guys? What, $300 million a year.

A

That, that corruption is troubling. On the other hand, maybe it's just the price for how fabulously healthy Americans are and how beautifully covered their medical bills are.

B

Right.

A

Because that's surely what they're lobbying the Congress to do is to make sure that the American public has access to the medications that will make them healthy and to make, make sure that the costs of health care are borne by a system that is capable of paying for them so people don't find themselves bankrupted.

B

Right? Oh, yes, you're very. That's a good point. Yes, I will concede that point. Yeah, it's kind of like, you know, the whole, our health care system that we operate under since 2009, when the unaffordable Health Care Act. Act was, was passed. It's so fascinating to me because I was one of those people in the country that, you know, Obama stood there on national TV and said, oh, if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. You know, if you like your doctors, you can keep your doctors. You know, and I was one of those people that as soon as they passed it, I got a letter in the mail saying your plan no longer exists. And, you know, in effect, half your doctors are no longer accessible to you. You know, like, so I lived it firsthand. And so when I talk to people about it, they have really no idea what I'm talking about. Because many, most Americans work for a company and that's typically part of their, you know, it's part of your package. When, when you work for companies, hey, you get your healthcare paid for or maybe you have to, you know, kick in a little bit out of each check, check you get or whatever it is. But for those that are self employed or have a small business that they run or whatever, you know, you see the boots on the ground, absurdity and highway robbery that is the health care system in this country. The particularly the insurance industry. And I swear that law was, was. It had to have been written by the insurance companies and just handed to, you know, Congress and Obama and hey, sign this. Because that's the only, that's the only thing that's getting rich, you know, is the insurance companies. I mean, I could write a book about how awful that industry is. And as, you know, somebody who's been living through it and fighting with the, you know, calling the insurance company, then they make you call the provider, then you got to call the insurance company back, then you got to call the provider back, you know, to get one simple answer to one simple question of what's on your bill.

A

Well, you know, this principle, posiwid, the purpose of a system is what it does. What our system does is it leverages the terrifying power of government to parasitize

C

the people on behalf of corporations.

A

That's the purpose of our system at this point. And people need to wake up to it because at some level, whatever it is we have to do to staunch the bleeding and get the system to at least work on our behalf has to be done because it cannot continue much longer this way. You know, there's a point at which there's only so much blood the parasite can suck out of the host. Right. And you know, we're getting on towards dry here, so 100%. Yeah. I don't know. Something about Werner's death has me not candy coating things today for some reason.

B

No, no, I know. I'm trying to be very diplomatic and you're like, no, rip that band aid off. Off. Good.

A

Yeah.

B

Yeah. I think that this, this is a perfect way for Warner to be honored. Really is. Is talking about the things that, you know, I mean, he was definitely a say it as it is kind of a guy. Right. He was not going to sugarcoat something. He was going to say, yeah, this is what's going on. And you know, we're going to fight back. Let's do it. Let's come up with a plan how we're going to fight back and we're going to do it. But yeah, you can't, you can't sugarcoat. I think we have to. It's time to wake the voters up because this upcoming election in November, November 26, it's midterm election time and we have to wake voters up because if the, the House or the Senate or both go back into the radical left control, we're going to have a big problem. Because you think things, people are disappointed that things aren't changing faster in D.C. you know, if you have a Democrat controlled House or Senate or both, you'll see no, there'll be no progress whatsoever. They'll be tying everything up at every turn they can.

A

Well, this election is going to confuse people because. It's pretty hard to defend the Republicans these days, but The Democrats are 10 times worse. And the point is, that's a pretty big margin. That's not a margin where you can affect, you can afford to say, well, they're both really bad.

C

Yep, they're both really bad, granted.

A

But you know, there are people who will strip you of your rights faster than you can imagine. And they're hovering right outside the gate.

C

So anyway, that's a tough puzzle and

A

not one for us to try to solve tonight, but we've got our work cut out for us to make any kind of argument at all for the midterm elections, given what an appalling job the Red Team has done with effectively complete power over the federal government.

B

Government.

A

So damn them for putting us in that situation. I'm pissed about it. On the other hand, I'm not going to pretend that the other side isn't far more dangerous at this moment.

B

Yeah. I think because you live in Washington and I live in New York, we kind of see what if the federal government was under the control of the radical left. We see at the state level what that would look like at the national level. Because I'm telling you, in New York, it, nothing has changed. You know, there might be a different administration in Washington, D.C. but for all intents and purposes, New York is just as radical as it has been the last several years. And they are, they continue, the state government continues to take away our freedoms and our rights. And it's, it's going to happen at the federal level too, if the pendulum swings back. It's just, it's very frustrating because so many people When a threat is not staring people in the face, they. They don't address it. They don't want to hear about it. They. If they do hear about it, they just kind of push it out of their mind. Oh, that's, that's too bad. Whatever. But it's not until the threat is staring them in a f in their face that they say, oh, my gosh. What. What can I do? Help me. What. What can I do to help? Let me pitch in. You know, it's a shame that that's the way it is because you're never going to win if you're always on defense.

A

Well, you make a good point. And I think in part what you're saying is that for those of us living in a hot blue state, we're getting a preview of what federal rule would look like under democratic control at the moment. And I will just give you a couple of highlights from the state of Washington in case you're out there in red America thinking they're all crooks and it's no different. Well, the blue crooks in the state of Washington have given themselves the power to mandate vaccines on the public. The state has the right to do it based on the declaration of an emergency that we have no power to challenge. They have the ability to counsel your child in school that they were born in the wrong sex body. We have cases where kids have been given a burner phone and encouraged to run away from their parents, where the parents had to move the child out of state in order to protect them. And I've already told you about a state in which the services are absolutely cruddy. Homelessness is completely out of control. Crime is absolutely out of control in the cities. The police don't come when you dial 911, and at the same time, we have high taxes on just about every single front. Simultaneously, the State somehow spent $500 million to deal with homelessness. It has no evidence of having worked at all, and the money is somehow gone. Half a billion dollars. That's just theft. That's what's going on here. We have a decaying society. We have the theft of the money that people make. It doesn't go to anything useful. It's not. Not alleviating oppression of any kind. It's just a racket. And so anyway, yeah, the red team sucks. It's really bad. But you do not want to live under blue team rule at the moment. These people are absolutely out of their

C

minds and they do not respect your rights at all.

A

In fact, they hate you.

B

Yeah, it's, it's, it's not dissimilar. In New York, I have to say, there. There was a court judgment. So, to your one point, there's a trend of schools, you know, helping children, minor children, to, you know, socially transform themselves from one sex to the other. And the. There was one family in New York, a little bit upstate from me, that their child was, I believe, 11 or 12 years old and was socially transitioning in school. And the school was assisting and, you know, helping and encouraging. And when the parents caught wind, they sued the school and said, no one told us, you know, you did this behind our back. This is our child. You know, the child is a minor. And the court ruled in favor of the school district.

A

Of course, it's a blue state.

B

So let's talk about complete insanity now. And we have an attorney general here in New York State that, you know, when Trump declared last year, one of his first executive orders was, you know, boys playing boy sports and girls playing girl sports, and that's that there are only two sexes. We had an attorney general that immediately made a statement that said, no, you know, in New York State, in essence, you can play on whatever sports team you want to play on, regardless of your sex or your gender or what you think you are or whatever. And they are openly defying the federal government. And they know they're getting away with it so far. They're getting away with it so far. There's like a laundry list of cases. I could have the doj, I could suggest the DOJ bring against New York State, but they're getting away with it.

A

That's the thing, is once you have all the elements of government in the hands of one crazy party, and the stuff is phrased as if right and wrong is black and white, everybody thinks that they're doing the right thing by cheating on behalf of the side that they've been drafted onto. And they have no idea that what they're doing is undermining the republic. And they don't even know what the world would look like without this country that's made their own pleasant lives possible. Right? They have no idea what fire they're playing with. And I guess I'm just. I'm sick of it. I guess something. Something about Warner's absence is just making it hard to put any of this gently. It's despicable, and it has to stop. And we're going to have to fight on without him,

B

that's for sure. That's what I think. The feeling that we need to tap into is the. The legacy of Warner, of, you know what. It might look really negative, it might look really bleak, but we're going to put our heads together, we're going to figure out the path forward and we're going to push for it. You know, and he and I did that a lot on the legal front, but it takes. It takes a whole village. You know, it takes. You know, you can't do it just in the courts, you can't do it just in the media. It has to be a collective effort. And so I'm so glad that we're on the same team and I'm so glad that we. We had Warner on our team. And I'm so devastated he's no longer on our team. But. But we're going to push forward and. And that's what. It's exactly what he would have wanted. He would never would say stop. He would never say turn around or let it go or, no, failure is not an option.

A

No, there's got to be a way. All right, Bobby and Cox, this has been fascinating. Heart wrenching, but anyway, I feel better for it. I hope you do as well.

B

I do, I do. Thank you for having me on, Brett. And I'm so happy to honor Warner together with you and reminisce and praise him for everything that he has done and his legacy will definitely continue because I know we won't let that stop just because he's not on the team anymore.

A

Ah, he's still on the team. He's just going to be a little

B

harder to reach watching from above. He's helping guide the team now.

A

There you go. All right, well, we'll raise a glass to him next time we see each other. Thank you for joining me. Where can people find you? What's your substatial.

B

Yes, my substack is Attorney Cox. That's C O x. So it's attorneycox.substack.com and I write once a week and I also have a website, coxlawyers.com and that has.

A

That's old school.

B

I know. Yeah, I know. A website. Can you believe it?

A

Yeah. And are you. You're on X?

B

Of course I'm on X. Yep. It's at Attorneycox. C O X. And yeah, I. I know I'm. I'm not the most fluent in social media language, but I. I am on there and I do try to raise awareness and post good information about some of the insane things going on, so.

A

All right, well, thanks for joining me and everybody else, thanks for listening in.