What Will the Second Trump Term Bring? (Guest: Sarah Cain)

[00:00:10] Speaker A: Now that Donald Trump has been elected, what can Catholic Catholics expect from a second term? That's what we're going to talk about today on Crisis Point Home. Eric Sims, your host, editor in chief of Crisis magazine. Before we get started, just want to encourage people to smash that like button. I'll say it again, smash that like button. Like Donald Trump smashed Kamala Harris in the election. Also, you can follow us on social media at Crisis Mag and you can also subscribe to our newsletter or email newsletter. Just go to crisismagazine.com put in your, scroll down a little bit, put in your email address, and that's the best way to find out what we're doing at Crisis. We'll send you each morning an email with our latest articles, podcasts and things like that. Okay, so we have Sarah Kane back with us. She is the crusader gal. You will, you will tell by her accent soon that she was born in England, but she does live in the United States now. The study of the history of the west eventually led her to the Catholic faith, and she's formally received in the church in 2022. She is now a commentary on politics and culture. Noetz. Welcome back, Sarah. [00:01:07] Speaker B: Thank you so much for having me. It's always a pleasure, Eric. [00:01:09] Speaker A: Yes. We're going to talk about the election, so I figure I have to ask this first. Are you allowed to vote in our election? [00:01:16] Speaker B: Actually, no, not yet. Not yet. Eventually I'll get there, but that point has not yet arisen, sadly. [00:01:23] Speaker A: So how long have you been in the States? [00:01:26] Speaker B: I've been here for 17 years. [00:01:28] Speaker A: Yeah, 17 years. And they still don't let you vote? [00:01:31] Speaker B: Well, it's kind of like this long process with immigration. Like, you know how you hear everyone say the immigration system needs to be reformed, and every once in a while you'll hear somebody who says, no, you just, just do it legally. And it's unfortunately often just not quite that simple because it's like, you know, it's the bureaucracy of the DMV and the compassion of the IRS sort of merged into one. And that's what it's like dealing with immigration. So like I said, I'll get that. I'll keep fighting the paperwork. But, you know, oh, my go. [00:01:56] Speaker A: I mean, of course that, that was a big issue in the campaign and Donald Trump's, you know, campaign, his first, his first campaign in 2016, everything was just reforming the immigration system. So that's what we bring here at Crisis. We bring in illegal immigrant. No, I'm just kidding. [00:02:10] Speaker B: Let's look at that fall. Yeah, right. [00:02:12] Speaker A: We bring an immigrant in to talk about the election who couldn't even vote. But no, I, I've read some of your takes on, on, on this, and I just in general enjoy your takes on, on just Western culture. And I do think, because I do think, like, the Trump election is part of a general trend that we're seeing in a lot of different countries. I mean, you could look at Argentina as an example, El Salvador over here, and then in Europe with, I'm blanking on the Italian Prime Minister's name, but, you know, with. Also with. In Hungary and not England, unfortunately. And so I think there's some trends here. But just in general, for going in the campaign, did you expect Donald Trump to win and kind of win that easily? [00:02:57] Speaker B: I didn't expect him to be allowed to win. Honestly speaking. I didn't. I did think that the, the political landscape there, it was very likely to go for Kamala. So I was, I was sort of expecting that she would win narrowly. So I was really pleasantly surprised when, when she didn't, I will say that much, because when you look at the certain swing states which kind of determine the elections, as it were, in this country at the moment, and it's like they just have been so very close. And one of the things that disturbed me throughout the election season was the fact that Kamala was almost a single issue presidential nominee throughout that whole entire ad campaign especially was all focused on this one issue, that being abortion, of course. And so the fact that it was so close, I mean, don't get me wrong, I realized that he won so much of the country, but, like, in so many of these states with 3, 4 percentage points between the two, and it's like, well, if you'd have gone back 50 years of the same election campaign, it wouldn't have looked like that. You know, people wouldn't have been willing to get behind this basically single issue candidate. So even though Donald Trump does rub some people the wrong way, you know, he's antagonistic and he's a little jocular and even juvenile, I think sometimes with his commentary like that. Still, when you put that up against what Kamala's entire brand was, which was, you know, let's make it as easy as possible to terminate the next generation, it's very difficult for me to, like, see that as, like a pure victory, like it was a political victory, but culturally, I think that it still stands as kind of a warning sign for where we are. [00:04:41] Speaker A: Yeah. What do you think about, like, I've talked about this A little bit myself, that if, you know, there were some conservatives who were saying that Trump should have been more pro life in his campaign because obviously he endorsed ivf, he was very weak on kind of on abortion. He was kind of saying it was states rights, but then he would like criticize the states that did go against abortion. And, you know, he was at first not even necessarily going to vote against the Florida abortion band. I mean, Flor. Abortion amendment. That would make abortion. Yeah, yeah. Legal and everything. And so yet I kind of argue that it didn't hurt him at all. I mean, it really, you know, if he had gone, in fact, if he had gone hardcore pro life, I think that would have hurt him. I mean, I'm not saying I like that. I just kind of feel like that's where we are. I mean, did you see that or did you, do you see it differently? [00:05:34] Speaker B: I think that the sort of middle ground on the issue would have been for him to stay, to keep it as a states rights issue. I think he could have done that without actually going against the states that were actually promoting real pro life policies. I think that was a bad move. And that's always going to be the wrong move, morally speaking. So if he hadn't have, I mean, for a while, like you were saying, he was really ambiguous on how he was going to deal with Florida. He was saying that six, seven weeks was, quote, too soon. Those were his words, which indicated that he might be in favor of changing the way that Florida was handling abortion so that abortion would be legal up until birth. And so that's what was actually on the table. So it really kind of, I'll just say, confused a lot of people. It seemed ambiguous. And he really hasn't said exactly. Well, if, okay, if six, seven weeks is too soon, then at what point do you determine this is a human being? At what point do you determine that this is, you know, alive? And that's the thing. And that's, and that's one of the many issues with getting into that whole this weak life matters kind of thing. But he wouldn't actually put forth what his stance was, only that he didn't like the stance of some of the pro lifers with like, birth, sorry, heartbeat bills and that kind of thing. But no, I think he could have very easily stuck to what he had before was to say, let's send it back to the states and get it out of the federal government. He could have done that. But then doing that and then attacking the states that were actually pro life, I think was was and remains a mistake. I don't blame him for his IVF stance just because I think that he falls in the path of just so many Americans who don't know what that is. Like, they're just. They've just sort of heard the pro IVF narrative that, oh, this is about bringing about, you know, new life for those who are having trouble conceiving, and they just don't realize the mass death that is involved. The fact that IVF does and will always kill more people than it creates. Right. And so it's like. So it ought to be a big issue for pro lifers, but there are just so many who don't even know, you know, what that really is. And the fact that Trump would be ignorant of it, too, wouldn't surprise me at all. I don't think he would see it as a pro life. In fact, I think he may even see being pro IVF as being pro life. Plenty of people do. They're just like, more birth, therefore good. You know, and that's certainly an oversimplification. It ignores the grand evil that's actually inherent. [00:07:58] Speaker A: Yeah, I think you're probably right. I doubt that Trump understands the details of ivf, and that's not even an insult to him. I think most Americans don't understand the details of ivf. And so, like, and another thing is, like, gay marriage was not on the radar at all in this election. And it was assumed. I mean, nobody even. Nobody even thought that Trump would go against it. Like, you know, they made him literally Hitler, but never once. I mean, maybe a few people did, but I never really heard any push to say, oh, he's going to take away gay marriage. It was assumed that the Republicans accept that as much as Democrats do. [00:08:31] Speaker B: Yeah, I know. And that's one of the sort of more disturbing parts of not so much Trump, but, like, of where we are. Okay. Because it's like we're constantly on this dissent. And so that's the thing. Like, we can, you know, applaud Trump's victory because it's great versus, you know, what we could have had. But we still need to recognize where we are culturally and the fact that downstream from that is obviously the political saga. So it's like, even if you talk to most people in your community now, they just kind of like, throw up their hands about gay marriage, even if they don't believe themselves that it's a real marriage. You've got the sort of. The Republican talking point now is, well, maybe we should just get the government out of Marriage. Right. Because that's the sort of, like, getting the save. But at some point, if you're actually going to reverse the tide of the culture, which ought to be what we're trying to do, then we're going to actually have to take on these issues and say, you know what? That's actually not marriage. And you can scream, love is love all you want, but that's not actually love either. Right. And so we have to be willing to have those conversations. And yes, it's uncomfortable. And yes, right now we've sort of lost that cultural fight. Like, I'm not going to come here and say that if Trump would have put that on the ballot, then suddenly everybody would take the right side. I don't think that's true, but I do think that, culturally speaking, we need to be willing to say why that's not marriage, how it's inherently flawed, how it's against human dignity, and how it's ordered towards. Towards what? You know, because when you look at an actual, healthy, natural human marriage with a man and a woman coming together, it's ordered towards, you know, a family, towards the creation of children. When you put two, just say two men together, you're ordering yourself towards what, you know, a bunch of diseases and features. Like, it's, literally speaking, there isn't a natural order there. It's inherently broken. And it's not a relationship of love. If you're driving the person that you say that you care for towards an eternal separation from God. And ultimately, that's. That's what we have to, at some point admit. And, yeah, like, politically speaking, that's a dead issue. Like, politically speaking, nobody wants to touch it. [00:10:44] Speaker A: Right. [00:10:45] Speaker B: But that's because we're in a state of such cultural collapse. But it is one of the pillars of society. Like, because it's connected to the family. Like, what marriage is connected to the family. Because the family is the building block of society. We can't completely ignore that issue and still, you know, hope to save where we are culturally, save where we are, in terms of building a nation, in terms of building a culture, in terms of holding onto a civilization, because that's the building block from which everything else comes. [00:11:15] Speaker A: Yeah, I. It's interesting because my own views, like, on the political, like, the political steps we should take and as Catholics has evolved over the years because definitely when I was younger, I was much more idealistic, I think, in saying, like, I'd vote for third party a lot. And the idea of, like, the Republicans, they're, you know, Mitt Romney or John McCamer were just, they're so weak. I'd vote for a constitutional party or something like that. And these days, the American Solidarity Party. And so I don't, I'm not trying to dismiss those people who do that now because I was there, but I just feel like, like I'm, I'm with you on that. Culturally, we're just with so lost. We need, that's what we need to work on, like, as Catholics most of our times, to be building the culture, developing this culture of life, culture of family, things like that. But politically, like this year, I was just like, no, I'm voting for Trump. And I'm just like, that's. I. And like, acknowledging that he doesn't care about gay marriage, he doesn't really care about abortion. He didn't get, you know, he's, he's pro ivf. You know, there's, there's things about him that are very wrong as far as that goes. But to me, it was just like, okay, it's going to give a reprieve and nothing else from a political level, so we can impact the culture because, you know, Kamala, she's going to, I mean, if she had been in charge, it would continue what Biden did and probably get worse about, like, just trying to keep us quiet and shutting us down and doing more, you know, pushing everything in our face. So I think that's part of it. And I also think, like, one thing I noticed about, which I thought was interesting, I'm convinced that the trans issue was the step too far for the left, because when I was at, I was at a political rally that Trump was at, and it was like, oh, what's their name? Turning Point. It was a Turning Point thing. They had all the speakers and everything, and it was all like three days and tons of speakers, all the conservative kind of rising stars and people like that and Trump. What I noticed was the issue that got the most cheers problem probably might have been immigration, but clearly, if number two, maybe even tied to immigration, maybe a little bit more, was when somebody would say something against the trans stuff. They would say, we're not going to have boys in girls sports. People would go crazy. And that was like the big. I mean, and most people didn't talk about abortion at this thing. A few might have. And they got, you know, okay, some polite, you know, some cheers and stuff, but really it was the trans stuff. And I, and I'm hoping that, that the Trump administration, you know, him being in charge and stuff like that will at Least slow down. Like the boys and girls sports, but which I think the boys and girls sports is awful, But I think it's more of a symbol of this idea that a man can say he's a woman or something like that. And so, like, I mean, are you kind of, like, politically, I mean, do you think it's just like, we just hold our nose on some aspects because some parts of Trump are great, but when we vote for him and just kind of then work on the culture, is there some other method politically that we can change the Republican Party or a third party or something like that? [00:14:12] Speaker B: Politically, I think we just have to aim for the highest good. And the highest good that's available right now just happens to be Donald Trump. I don't like the fact that's the highest good, Truthfully, I don't. But I recognize that it is, that it's so disparate, too, that that gap is actually so wide that it just is sort of no contest. So, I mean, you know, if I were voting, obviously, I would be voting for him, so that's not really, really up for contest. On the trans issue, I will agree with you. I do think that specifically the trans issue inside of schools, you know, or affecting children, perhaps, I think is too far. I think that Americans for a long time have been sort of holding their nose around various different cultural issues. Like, they'll just sort of look the other way. It doesn't directly affect me. I can just ignore it. You know, it's that there's that parade that's going on downtown, and it's kind of degenerate, and I'm not going to go, you know, that kind of thing. But then when it shows up in the schools with their children, I think that kind of is a line that's being crossed and that's energized people. The thing is that I think that. And yes, Trump does have the power to sort of reverse that whole school sports, school bathrooms, school locker rooms, all of that, which is fabulous because it was something that was passed through an executive order by Biden on his first day in office to try and change, get all these different federal agencies to put pressure on schools to do these things so he can do that. But I do think that that being the line is just too far. You know, it's like the line should be just so much further back, and we should have some sense of. I don't know if rage is the word, but a sense of justice in regards to, like, it's not just when they're in your schools, like they're going to affect your kids, regardless of whether they're right there in front of your kids or not. As long as, you know, transgenderism is accepted as a thing in and of itself, as opposed to as a mental illness or a state of disorder, then you're constantly going to have that as something that you went up into in society, whether, you know, on tv, being pushed in various different shows and that kind of thing. And I think that people need to be more outspoken in that, in just not being willing to accept what is being pushed upon them. Because, like, your kids also live in the real. In the world, right? They live in the same world that you do. So when you're coming up against this sort of widespread degeneracy, I'm just going to call it like your kids see that too, that they don't just live inside of the schools, even though, of course that's going to be more impactful because they're there for eight hours a day and they don't have you there to protect them. But I just don't think that drawing the line at the school system, which I think a lot of people really have, is the place to draw. Because, I mean, the trouble is, when you're a child, you sort of. The things that you get exposed to set your standard for normalcy. They set your standard for what you just expect to be the case going forward. And so, you know, if you go back to, like, gay marriage, like, you have a kid who grows up today, the idea that gay marriage wouldn't exist would be kind of strange to him, you know, because this is what he's always just sort of heard as the norm. And so similar with the trans issue and these very different sort of cultural elements. And that's why you've had so many different death spots and dictators who wanted to sort of control the educational system. Because what people get exposed to as children, they accept as the norm, and they just simply grow from there. But that's their sort of, like, base understanding. And so when you have young people who are out and about and they. They see, you know, drag displays and that kind of stuff, well, that affects them as just part of what normal society is. And it wasn't not too long ago that wasn't part of it. You know, that wasn't what young people were exposed to or frankly, any of us. And I think we should push for a world that doesn't consider such things to be culturally acceptable. I think that is our job as adults to make a society that does not consider it culturally acceptable to expose, you know, children and families to such things. [00:18:22] Speaker A: Yeah. And I saw a poll where, like, exit poll or something, they said that parents with minor children overwhelmingly voted for Trump and that was the demographic that he won, like, more than any. And I think it's exactly what you're saying. Like, they realized they're coming to our schools. Now, that's the thing is, that's why I think trans was a step too far, because abortion, they can hide. You don't even see the victim, you know, the gay marriage, like, well, I'm not getting, you know, it's not, it's not affecting me directly that those people do whatever they want. Now, of course, that's gotten more pushed more and more in our face within the trans. It was, it went straight to, we're going to trans your kids. [00:18:57] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:18:57] Speaker A: And that was just like, holy cow. And I agree with you, though, that, yeah, we want to get them out of the schools, but we really want it to be where everybody recognizes, yeah, these people are mentally ill and they need some, they need psychological help probably more than anything. Okay, so, like, we know that, like, the Trump victory is not because of some, you know, social issues that people were like, oh, yeah, we want to go back to true morality or Catholic morality. Like that. I wish. But like, well, yeah. What is the but? Like, what, what was it that. Let's, let's talk about the positive. What was it that made people, like, you know, vote for Donald Trump in the face of unrelenting, you know, attacks and criticism, literal attacks on him by the mainstream media, by the corporate press, by the, you know, the, all the institutions in power. They made it that he was literally Hitler. And yet the American people said, nope, we want to vote for this guy. I mean, is everybody racist? I mean, really, what was it about him? [00:19:56] Speaker B: Define racist. [00:19:58] Speaker A: Yeah, right, exactly. That made him. So everybody wanted to, you know, made so many people vote for him. [00:20:03] Speaker B: Right. And I do think there's, I mean, there's going to be some variance there. I think that the state of the economy, so economics, which he's honestly always been strong in, but also foreign policy, which I'm just glad to see because I've never been the sort of war hawk neocon, and I just, I do think that America is far too involved in foreign wars. And I think that the American people are thinking so, too, especially regarding, like, the Ukraine saga. I think that the number of we still at billions, I'm not sure, like, just how much money we've sent to Ukraine, 100 billion. Okay. Right. And it's just like, I think that when you look at the mismanagement out in Asheville and West North Carolina and the amount of the lack of money they've been spent there versus places like Ukraine, I think it does lead to a sort of, I don't know, a sympathy with Donald Trump's arguments that America needs. It needs to focus inwardly. And I think that's true. I think that resonated with a lot of people. I think that during times of also economic hardship, that's also going to come together with the foreign policy understanding to say, no, we need to focus at home. And, yeah, like the Commonwealth strategy, excuse me, of arguing in favor of abortion as if, like, as if women had more of those than they had, like, grocery bills was kind of odd. [00:21:28] Speaker A: But it did seem, maybe in her circles they do. [00:21:31] Speaker B: Maybe so. I don't know. But the, gosh, the expenses that have gone up, there's the inflation that affects people and especially affects families. I think that there's a sense of uncertainty that's been taking its toll over time. And so I'm glad to see these issues take effect or have an impact. I wish it was the social issues more that were grabbing people's attention, but I think it's economics and foreign policy dominantly. [00:22:01] Speaker A: Yeah. And I think I'd agree with you on that. Those are two things now. Okay. On foreign policy, I heard it said that, like, politicians run like Ron Paul, but then they govern like John McCain. And it seems like. I don't know what I think about Donald Trump when it comes to foreign policy, because when he ran in 2016, he was definitely went after the neocon kind of war hawk, that whole thing. And it resonated with the Republican base. They're like, yeah, we just got to stop this. The George w. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, you know, that whole thing, we just reject that. That. Then he appointed a bunch of neocons, though, in positions of power during his first term, yet he did not start any new wars. And he was clearly better. I mean, he is the best president when it came to foreign policy his first term than any president in my lifetime. [00:22:50] Speaker B: Yep. [00:22:50] Speaker A: But he still had neocons blustering. And they, they didn't pull out. Like, you know, they. They should have gotten out of Afghanistan much earlier and stuff like that. And so there's. It was a mixed bag. And then he runs again. Same thing again. America first, let's pull out. You know, let's forget this. You know, Ukraine, war, all that stuff. All his people are against it. Yet now, who does he pick for Secretary of State? Marco Rubio, who is a total neocom. I'm not as against him as some people are, as far as that goes, but I definitely think he's definitely a neoclime. [00:23:23] Speaker B: Yes. [00:23:23] Speaker A: And he is, you know, and I just wonder, and some of the other picks as well, who's the master in the United nations and, you know, stuff like that. I just. I don't know. [00:23:34] Speaker B: I mean, she's like the World Economic Forum woman, isn't she? Yeah. [00:23:38] Speaker A: And she was very much, you know, a war hawk type. And I just, I admit, I don't know. I guess we'll have to see. But what do you think about, like, the. What do you think about transformed policy? I just don't get it completely. [00:23:51] Speaker B: I think there's always been, at least, you know, as long as I've been watching President Trump, there's always been this disparity between him and what he wants. And then the people that he puts in positions of power, they're just not the same. And I wonder if that's just because there are slim pickings as far as he's concerned or because he doesn't know the political circles that well, because he's still primarily a businessman. And so he had so much. I mean, I'm sure you remember there's so much turnover throughout his first term, like, just constantly changing people. So it wasn't so much like that. He got in there on. On promises that he didn't mean to follow through on, and then he put people in and they did something like the opposite. Because I do think that he actually, you know, for the most part, he. He was pretty good on foreign policy, despite the people that he put in those positions. I do think that he just has trouble knowing who to trust. I don't think he's good at choosing people. I think that's one of his weaknesses. I think that. I think that his ego makes him a bit more susceptible to choosing people who are lousy, but who compliment him. You know, you'll see, like, his. The way that he deals with China changes the moment they say that he's a great, you know, president, you know, stuff like that. [00:25:06] Speaker A: I also think his ego tells him he can control these people. And so, you know, it's like, if they do have some flaws and he's like, oh, I'll just make sure they do the right thing or I'll fire them. [00:25:15] Speaker B: Yes. Which is very, like more of a businessman type. Of understanding of these roles than, Than a president, but that does seem to be the way that he's making decisions. And I just don't think that he has the network of people who aren't what he would call the deep state. Like, I don't think that he actually, he knows who to choose outside of those circles. He should advise. Has been terrible. Like, last time, he was like, well, I don't. Kushner, you know. [00:25:43] Speaker A: Yeah, right, right. Well, like. But his, his, his main team during the campaign, they were almost all great. I mean, why didn't he ask rfk? He could ask Ramaswamy. He could ask JD Vance. He could ask. You know, those guys were all good. They're all good on foreign policy in general. I'm, I. They're way too pro Israel for me. But saying beyond that, you know, they're. They're definitely against the forever wars and the typical neocon blustering. And so I was. I'm definitely. I mean, you should just ask. [00:26:11] Speaker B: But the thing is that the people who want to work in government, a few. Right. You know, like, I wouldn't want one of those jobs, you know, and, and it's just like, that's the, that's the trouble is that most of the people who are, are against the foreign wars and are, you know, maybe even isolationists. I mean that like, as a positive, not as a negative. Yeah. Like, they don't. Don't generally want to work inside of government like rfk. He's already been positioned, I think, somewhere else. And JD Bantis is vice president, so I'm not sure that even they actually know the number of people that would be available to those positions that would also want to be in that position. I think that sometimes we just think the government is huge and therefore we have to have some good people. But it's like the government is so huge and so bureaucratic and candidly just so bad that there are a lot of people who don't want to work in that and don't want the spotlight on them constantly and the media reporting everything they do with their families, and they don't want protests outside of their houses and all the things that goes with that, especially for someone who is considered conservative. So that's the trouble is, like, it's one thing to get, like, even if, Even if Trump was perfect, you know, in every way, and all the social policies, policies and everything, if you got, you know, the perfect man in there, it's like, well, then what is he going to do with all of these positions? And I think that is one of the problems that we have, and that's also part of the reason we have to have this massive cultural change, you know, that results in those people who can go there and make the changes that we want. [00:27:39] Speaker A: Yeah. I mean, Marco Rubio desperately wants to be Secretary of State. Yes, but. And that means something's wrong with you if you think that if you. If you desperately want to be the Secretary of State, kind of wrong with you. I mean, so it is difficult. I do. I also think, like, I heard him. Trump, that is. I think it was with Tucker Carlson interview before the election, where he was saying, like, you know, John Bolton, you know, who's awful. One of the worst, terrible. [00:28:03] Speaker B: Yes. [00:28:04] Speaker A: But he was like, yeah, he was good, because he's. He is crazy. And so he would, like, scare other countries because he would, like, basically threaten to bomb everybody. And then Trump could just go in there and be like, okay, now we can negotiate, because I got the crazy guy. I'll hold him back if you negotiate this deal with me. And I guess there's some wisdom that sounds like a Trump thing, by the way, to do that, but it just seems to me that it doesn't really get to the root of our foreign policy problems when you appoint people like that. I mean, I don't think Rubio is as bad as Bolton, by the way. I mean, not Bolton Secretary of State, but, you know, I don't think. Yes, it's not the same, but. So I wonder that some of his policy, he wants, like, these guys who are more hawkish in these positions, because then he can sound tough, but then that'll get them to the negotiating table, because they know that the fingers on the trigger, so to speak. [00:28:53] Speaker B: But I'm not sure how many of them actually want to play his game. Right. You know, and that's the thing. I mean, maybe they do. Maybe they'll just cooperate and it'll work out. But generally speaking, people in government are in there because they enjoy the power and the control, not because they want to cede it to someone else constantly. Like, if you had, you know, President Trump and, like, to what degree can he play all of these positions at once? Like, there's a reason there's delegation that takes place. So I would worry that it's more of an ego on Trump's part that thinks that he can sort of, you know, pull all the strings at once and at the same time, like, he's human. So I don't. That's. I don't think that's Likely right now. [00:29:31] Speaker A: He of course hasn't made all his picks yet, but there have been some what I think are fantastic picks. I love they picked Tulsi Gabbert as the Director of National Intelligence. I mean, the fact that a woman who was literally put on the terrorist list last year is now going to be those people, I mean, is just great. I mean, because I think she, you know, I, I had a podcast the other day where I was talking about some of Trump's topic, you know, kind of his coalition of people and I mentioned a. Tulsi's probably the one I'm the least confident in. Like I'm, I suspect her a little bit more than I do like RFK or Elon, people like that. But at the same time, I think in that position, that's a perfect position for her to hopefully clean things up over there. And of course if Elon and Vivek being in charge of this new Doge, you know, the Department of Government Efficiency. [00:30:18] Speaker B: Yes. [00:30:18] Speaker A: I mean I, I just saw a exposed this morning where the, the official doge like, you know, account was like we don't need part time idea cre, you know, people idea. You know, we want people, you know, the super smartest people working 80 hours a week every week and you can submit your CVS and then we will take, we'll look at the top 1% of those people to really actually gut government. I mean, this is what we've been, I mean, Republican. How long have Republicans saying we're going to make a smaller government? [00:30:50] Speaker B: Right. I know. [00:30:51] Speaker A: And it's a joke. We know it's a joke. This might not be a joke. I mean, do you, I should ask you, what do you think? Do you think this is going to end up being just a failed attempt, all just cover or do you think Elon and Vivek will actually make a difference here? [00:31:06] Speaker B: I think they'll make a difference. I don't think it will be as grand as I wish it were. You're shrinking it back to constitutional understanding. I don't think it'll be quite like that, but, but I do think it will shrink it. I do think that in the first term, in Trump's first term, they made a habit of cutting down on bureaucracy and regulation that they could before they would ever add a new one. I think it's like 21 or something like that. But I mean the fact that that was even on the radar when it's not usually was, was a pleasant thing. The fact that he's got somebody who can actually like, dedicate his time to this. I've got several people now who are willing to dedicate their time to making this happen is actually reassuring. I think that if they want to, they can do it. And the fact they' to bring up things like, you know, destroying the Department of Education, these are things that usually Republicans only talk about before they get elected. And they just abandon the entire discussion the moment that they get elected. Because now it's like, well, now I'm writing, I'm writing the regulation, so to speak, and I'm writing the executive order, so now we can have more. Because, you know, if this is going to be a dictator, I'm going to be the good dictator, so to speak. And it's, it's refreshing to have somebody in power who actually, even when he gets elected, he's still talking about it and actually move moving steps in the right direction to see that happen. So I'm actually pretty optimistic about it. [00:32:27] Speaker A: Yeah, I think, I mean, I think Vivek particularly, I think Elon gives the kind of, the attitude like we're really, I mean, he's not going to accept anything other than like, massive cuts. Vivek, though, has the actual knowledge of, okay, here's what we can do that we're going to, that the courts are going to uphold, because that's what really matters ultimately is will the courts uphold it. And I think what you mentioned was about, in his first term, Trump actually did, you know, bring down some of the bureaucracy. I actually have a personal story about this. When we, I moved in this house in 2016, the summer so before he was elected, and there was not high speed Internet here. And, but I was told when I moved here that they would, that was going to be installed within a few months, like the local Internet company said. Yeah, it's because I, I was, I, I'm not gonna buy it if I don't have, can't have high speed Internet. I mean, that's my work and everything. And then like, I think it was like a couple months into, after we were here, sure enough, they're, we have a long driveway and they're, they're putting it down in the driveway. Like we shared a driveway with a bunch of people. And then also nothing. And I hear nothing. And I'm like, for a couple months, I'm like, what's going on? So I, I find out, finally get in contact with somebody kind of higher up at the Internet company. Like, yeah, basically there was a railroad nearby and there was like some bureaucratic red tape. They couldn't run the cables or whatever around it, you know, under it or whatever because of some silly bureaucratic regulation. Well, then what happened was Trump, the Trump administration basically eliminated that. And so I got high speed Internet like within a couple weeks because, and that was because of Trump. But that's just an example of just like the guy was saying, it's a stupid regulate. There's no danger, there's no, there's no real reason for it. It wasn't like, you know, going to cause a train to crash or anything like that. It wasn't environmental. It was just like, it was just a regulation. You couldn't have the Internet thing near a railroad or something like that. So. Yeah, so, I mean, I do think he did some stiff. I, that's probably my thing I'm most hopeful about is that they will actually, you know, cut gut maybe even some of these departments. Like, I think what you do is I heard somebody else say this, and I think this is the way to go. So in the first days of the administration, the first 30 days, 90 days, wherever, you focus on one department and just go crazy on that because then you have a victory and you see. But if you kind of like say, okay, I mean, the federal government's so Leviathan, it's like, yes, and, and let's be honest, they're not going to touch the Pentagon. I mean, we all know that. So, like, not one Republican in Congress would support that or, or anywhere else. So I mean, I think they should, but, but you know, most Republicans aren't going to do that. So I'm hopeful of that. I mean, is there any other picks so far that you think that you, that you're kind of hopeful about that of people he's decided, like, how about the Attorney General, Matt Gates? Yeah. [00:35:15] Speaker B: What do you think? [00:35:15] Speaker A: I mean, what do you think about him? That guy? He's kind of odd. [00:35:19] Speaker B: He is odd. I actually struggle to figure out where he stands. A lot of the time he, he doesn't seem like he's so much part of the system as others. And so for that reason I'm, I'm not sort of fretting about him as a pick like I am people like Marco Rubio. So I'm more, I'm much more comfortable with him. I'm taking more of a wait and see approach, honestly with that. [00:35:42] Speaker A: Yeah. And we haven't gotten a lot of picks. I mean, I'm really hoping he puts RFK over like hhs. [00:35:49] Speaker B: Yeah, I'd be disappointed if he didn't. [00:35:51] Speaker A: Yeah. I mean, it kind of like everybody expects him to. So if he didn't, I, I mean, because rfk, I, I really do think RFK really helped his campaign. I mean, I think it was a big deal when he moved over and said, okay, we're all. Because there are a lot, I saw a lot of people, his followers who are like, okay, I've never voted for a Republican before, but I'm going to vote for Trump because RFK is with him. So I think he has to like. And of course his whole thing is to make America healthy again. So it just makes sense he'd be hhs. But, you know, we'll see what happens. So. Yeah, okay. [00:36:22] Speaker B: So I do wonder like if, if on the chopping block or some of these agencies at least to reduce their size of stuff like the USDA or something like that, or even the fda, it's like there's such, people think they're small and they're not. Some of the biggest agencies, you know, that are there and the, the amount of just waste that they spend. I almost came across this document, the USDA that I thought was so emblematic of the government, They've got a 75 page document on pickles. As to what a pickle is and what dimensions it can have on this, the right curvature, that's like 70 pages complete, you know, and it's just, I don't know how many people worked on that, but when you think about it, it's like this is just such a, like a microcosm of what, what they're spending their time doing. And when, if you were to put that up for like just a direct democracy style vote, is this what you want your taxpayers to, your tax money to be doing? I don't think most people would say yes. And I think that's, that's obvious. And yet these, these agencies, they just get bigger and they, they end up just creating new projects to sort of justify their own existence. And a lot of that just needs to go. But I think that you use the words like FDA use, you know, usda and people start, you know, getting kind of uncomfortable, like, well, they have real jobs to do, right? Yes. But largely that's not what they're doing. Largely that. Making excuses for why they have jobs. [00:37:45] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, RFK said that he would eliminate 600 jobs from FDA and sounds like, wow, that's a lot. I looked it up, it was like 18,000 employees. And so 600 is not even hardly anything. And like you said, they basically, because they're there, they invent Things to do, like defining the size of a pickle. I mean, that's just. I mean, they have to do something, I guess, during the day to justify their existence, but they don't get fired even if they're not doing anything. So it really is. You could, I mean, I honestly believe you could cut the whole federal government by 80% and there would not be a truly noticeable difference. After about a year or two, it would be just like it is. [00:38:24] Speaker B: Yeah, kind of like when they shut down the government because they can't agree on a budget, and then it's like, oh, everything's just continuing as normal except for the national parks are shut down. Like, that's it. [00:38:33] Speaker A: I mean, everybody. I mean, nobody notices the difference. And honestly, the funny thing is, I think if they just simply did not increase the size of government from year to year, that would be a huge victory. And that's how, how pitiful it is, because every year what they always do is when they say cuts, what they're talking about is a cut in the increase. So instead of going up by 5%, we're only going to go up by 4%. Well, that's still an increase. If they just said we're not going to increase at all, that would actually be. I don't think that's what Elon Vivek want to do. I think they want to do much, much more radical than that. But I think this is the only. This is the time to do it. I mean, they gotta, they gotta get some victories. They got to do it quick. Because I think otherwise it's, it's likely that, you know, if they don't get the momentum early on, what will happen is the rhinos and Congress will just be like, they won't support it. So. [00:39:24] Speaker B: And they'll lose some of the momentum through different court rulings and that kind of stuff. And so it's like, yeah, they do need to move as fast as possible and get as many changes, Institute as fast as possible. So they have not just the victories, but also like a sense of just how this is done. Like, it's one of those things of. I think that when you embark on a project, you don't fully know how it's going to work and what's going to fall until you start it. And I think if they start on a single agency and really work on that, they'll be able to move on to other ones and do so in an efficient manner without too much interference. [00:39:57] Speaker A: Yeah, I think if you two things. If you did within the first 90 days, I think would be huge. First, if you really shrank the size of some department, pick the most politically easy department. It doesn't matter, just. But you, you, you actually shrink it. Second would be if you got the Ukraine war basically ended, which I think that's doable. I don't think that's like, something, because I, I think, honestly, Trump can get it done. If you did that, he would have, if he did that in the first 90 days, he'd have so much momentum at that point that it's like, you know, the Republicans would just get on board, you know, the lame ones who don't really like him. [00:40:31] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:40:31] Speaker A: Okay. So now the last thing I wanted to kind of talk about what we can expect in second term is issue near and dear to your heart, which is immigration. So, like, I mean, Trump talked a Great Game in 2016. In fact, he went a little crazy a little bit, and his success was mixed. I mean, when we compare it to Biden, it was phenomenal. But, you know, just in general, from what he promised, and I thought, I felt like his rhetoric was actually more toned down this time than it was in 2016. [00:41:02] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:41:02] Speaker A: What do you think, realistically, is going to be done about immigration during a Trump administration? [00:41:09] Speaker B: I mean, realistically speaking, they'll probably bolster security, you know, on the border, on southern border, and that's important. You know, I don't want to minimize that. That is actually a huge deal. The trouble is getting things done that are more long term. So actually getting immigration reform done in terms of the bureaucracy, that's something that's like. Everyone says that immigration is a bipartisan issue, but when it comes down to it, it's really not. And the issue. And that's because when it comes to immigration, Democrats want immigrants for votes and Republicans want immigrants for labor. And so they both want different things from immigrants. And, and yes, of course, I'm generalizing here, but it matters when you've got such a small majority in the Senate and in the House, I should say. So that's the issue, is that there are a lot of people who, like Republicans, don't want to pass anything that would make it easier to become a citizen, because for them, it's often about just honestly, cheap labor. And for Democrats, it's like, well, their entire focus is let's get them voting as soon as possible. And really, I'm not sure that first generation immigrants should technically vote. I'm actually kind of mixed about that, just morally speaking. It's like if you come into somebody else's Nation. I'm not sure you should be trying to institute such changes fundamentally. But in any case, I think that where we really do struggle there is the fact that both parties have a very different understanding of what it would mean to reform the system. I would want to see a massive pruning of the immigration laws to make it just simple. It's like our tax system right now. That's what it's like, you know, where it's like you can file your taxes and you can file them correctly, but somebody else will say, wait, there's a problem here. And if they want to find a problem with your taxes, they can, they can sort of use that against you. There's a book like, called Three Felonies a Day that kind of explains how Americans just constantly are breaking laws because the bureaucracy is just so big, because our laws are so numerous that nobody could ever possibly know them. Immigration law is a lot like that. It's such a monolith that it needs to be sort of hacked at and a simpler system probably be made from scratch. If he's going to put someone in place to do that, I'm like, I'd love it. I doubt it. I doubt that it will happen, but I would actually like to see that take place in any event. Then there's something like the wall. He tried to get that through sort of via executive orders last time and ended up in court. If we could actually bolster those areas where we do have people coming across the border, it actually made a difference. So if he could actually work on those particular areas where you have like high crossing areas, like that's important. You know, you. It's not just people are coming for labor and they're going to, you know, either get our jobs or whatever. It's like it's a huge crisis in terms of like humanitarian reasons for people bringing other people's kids across the border with them, pretending like they're their kids. I think when the Trump administration in its first term started doing some DNA testing and found like an astonishing percentage, I think it's like 30% of these cases, the kids were not theirs. They were just being stolen and used and smuggled in the country to be used as their children, it's like stuff like that is horrific. And just various different smuggling and actual human trafficking for sex or for labor. These people who are basically modern day slaves, like, these are serious issues that we ought to be focusing on. And you focus on those not by opening the border, but by closing it and by, you know, disincentivizing people from doing these things not for moral reasons, but just because, for pragmatic reasons, they can no longer do it because these are people we can't reach morally. So therefore, we come in there with force and say, no, we're going to. We're basically going to make you do the right thing. [00:45:19] Speaker A: Yeah. Now, what about. There's been a lot of talk in the campaign, there was a lot of talk about mass deportation. Now I feel like. Do you think mass deportation is practically, politically, morally the thing to do? Because those are all three different issues, you know, practically can actually be done politically. Is there a will to do it? And morally, should we do it? I mean, we're not. We're talking about, you know, because there's talk about, like, just trying to round up as many of the illegal immigrants can and send them back from where they came from. [00:45:48] Speaker B: Right. I think legally, that's a much bigger issue than I think people have given it credit for. I think that'll just be caught up in the courts for longer than four years. So that kind of takes care the legally and practically just right away. But it also depends on what you mean by mass deportation, because different people mean different things. We do have a problem with illegal immigrants coming here and not just breaking immigration law by coming in, but then committing massive crimes when they're here. Like, I think that's a serious moral issue. I think it's a moral issue to have such open borders as to facilitate that, because it's like the Americans who die as a result of illegal immigrants, these are preventable deaths. And I think we have a moral duty to put Americans first and to protect them, to protect their way of life. So I'm hesitant to use terms like mask because I don't think that. I don't think it makes sense morally or practically to make a mass decision. Like, you know, it makes for good rhetoric in the worst sense, just as a quick slogan. But in terms of actually being instituted, I don't think it kind of works like that. I think that you would have to figure out, like, you have so many different illegal words even in our prison system, that we actually just release after they get released, like, back into American society. So what are we doing? Like. Like mass deportation of them? Absolutely. You know, or even the immigrants that are here that have criminal records. Like, it absolutely makes sense to say, no, you're. You basically take a toll upon American society, and we don't want that. Like, I think that these things make sense. But talking about it in such general terms, about so many different groups I'm hesitant to do. I think that when, when people say mass deportation, they're all talking about different things because some people are talking about illegal immigrants, some people talk about, you know, immigrants who have committed crimes. Some people are just talking about all immigrants because in a sort of like we're full kind of mentality. I do think that one of the things, one of the problems is that when you have too many immigrants from a foreign culture, like that results in a clash. And it results in small, small areas that become not really part of America, these little pockets. And that's not good for a country. It's unhealthy. And also like multiculturalism is not a good thing. This is different from a multi ethnic society. A multicultural society is a bad thing. We need to be willing to say no. We have a culture. If we do, yeah, we need to fight it, fight for it. But you know, our culture is better and that's why it's worth coming to. And we're willing to defend it. Like we don't want other cultures. And I think that's seen as so offensive to like modern ears. But it was also the norm throughout most of history. Is like, otherwise it wouldn't be our culture. Right? Our culture is our sense of values. In the words of John Sr. It's the cultivation of the soil from which men grow. Right. This is, this is how we, how we raise our people. It is what we, it's not just what we, what we worship though. It is like sort of foundationally, but it's also what we see as good. What we see is bad, what we see as acceptable and reprehensible. And that's why it matters. And it's also what unites us, like especially in a country like America, which, you know, at its beginning was various different parts of Europe, right? The settlers were. But they had. The Christian faith was a source of union. And that was the case throughout Europe itself. You know, even if you go outside of America and you look at Europe, the thing that clung it, that caused it to ever be united at any point in history was always the faith. And it's like the religion of a place can't be distinguished from its culture. Not really. Because even when you reject religion as a people, then you just get, you know, socialism, which is a religion of itself. But so, so when you start bringing in different foreign cultures, you, you're attacking the culture in and of itself. Whenever you have immigration, you should have it for the benefit of the country that exists. That, I mean, that's supposed to be like a large part of the point. We've sort of forgotten that and been so, I don't know, over invested in the humanitarian effort for the individual. That we've forgotten about the. About the effect that it has upon Americans more generally and also specifically when they become victims of crime coming from these different alien cultures. [00:50:30] Speaker A: Yeah, I think you're right. I mean, okay, I'm gonna be called a racist for what I'm about to say, and it's fine. I mean, whatever. But there's a difference between an immigrant like you from England and immigrant from, like a Muslim from Somalia. I mean, it just. I'm sorry, they're not equivalent. It's not the same thing for our country. And we see that, I mean, all around us. It's obvious to everybody. But we're not allowed to say it because the skin color of that Somalian is different than your skin color. And so therefore we're not allowed to say that. But the truth is, the culture is what's different because your culture is, you know, in England is basically essentially the same foundation as ours. Yeah, obviously, since we came from England. But like, where Somalia is completely different. And so. And I think that does matter. And I think when it comes to immigration, I think like the mass deportation. I feel like when Republicans talk like that in campaigns, it's kind of like the pro life rhetoric they used to give 20 years ago where they don't really mean it. They're not really going to do anything. They kind of like the fact that it's. You know, I honestly think a lot of Republicans liked Roe v. Wade being intact when it was overturned. I think that disturbed them because now they actually had to make. They actually had to do something about it, whereas before they could just talk about it. [00:51:41] Speaker B: Right. There's something they could say, just a quick talking point. [00:51:44] Speaker A: Right. And get to raise funds with the pro lifers. I do think. I think that practically you do everything you can to close the border. I mean, you just close it as much as possible. And then what you do is like any time an immigrant commits a crime and they're convicted of some, you know, you could even say a certain level of crime, and you just say, okay, you're gone. Your punishment is, we're sending you back. Like, we're just, we're getting you out of the country. That alone would do a ton. And it's practically more feasible than like just rounding people up and stuff like that. Because what's going to happen is if you round people up, you're inevitably going to, Inevitably going to get the, quote, unquote, innocent immigrants. I mean, they're probably still illegal, but like, with, with the stories that will be on the news and everywhere else, and it just, you won't get the political benefits to it, and the people won't, People won't like that because the average American doesn't want to see that. But if you get some guy who's convicted of rape or murder or something like that, and you just kick him out, nobody's gonna, Everybody's gonna be like, there's the door. You can go. And I don't think this is politically feasible, but ideally, what you do is you do a situation where immigration from certain countries and certain cultures is favored over others, and you just simply say, you know, we're not taking anybody from a Muslim dominant country, for example, or anything like that. We just, you know, you're not coming over here. I don't think you could get away with that right now. But that is the kind of the goal eventually to set. And if, you know, and people like you said, the humanitarians are always the focus, humanitarian efforts. But it's like, if that country is so bad, I have no problem with, like, you know, the Catholic Church and other charities being involved in trying to make it better. I mean, you know, going over there and helping people over there, nobody's stopping. So, like, when the Catholic, that kind of. The progressive Catholics are like, how awful we are, we don't let them in. Why don't you go over there and help them then so they don't have to come over here. But not one of them wants to do that or, and also not one of them would take them into their own home either. So the whole thing, you know, is just a mess. [00:53:43] Speaker B: They can come live next to you. [00:53:45] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, right. Yeah. I hear you have an extra bedroom. Okay, we're gonna let this guy live here, and he'll bring his machete and everything and, you know, everything will work out fine, won't it? Okay. So I, I, yeah, I appreciate that, but I mean, multiculturalism is just, it doesn't work. I was just talking to a friend of mine about this, and he was saying how he was making the argument, like, historically, it just is a fact that cultures realized you have to remain. The way you may remain intact is you strengthen the culture and you keep it from invaders. I mean, it's not even like, necessarily even saying the other cultures are coming in trying to destroy your culture on purpose. It's not even like it's A military attack, necessarily. It's more just a matter of they just have a different culture, and when they come into yours, it will impact yours. [00:54:34] Speaker B: Yeah, it's a different version of this. This fallacy that diversity is somehow our strength, and it's not. If you win a room of people and you are all vastly different, you're not going to be super close. Like, you know, you're going to have to look for that area of union, that area of familiarity, in order to be. To be friends or to be bonded with these other people. People. And it's like that on a much broader scale. It's. Well, the people who have something in common, they stick together. You know, we're not closer with the people that we're the most disparate from. I'm sorry, it just doesn't work like that. And so it's. It's natural then, that if you have cultural homogeneity and then you bring somebody in who is from an entirely different culture or a lot of people, then they're going to entirely separate themselves, and you're going to have these silos within the nation, and that's not healthy. If we don't have a common culture, we're not going to be seeking to go in the same direction. That. That's not a good. That can't possibly be. [00:55:30] Speaker A: Yeah. And I think. Okay, I'm not going to go down this rabbit hole, but I will just say, like, the one thing you. You then you have the argument, what actually is American culture? I mean, because that's. That's another question. All. [00:55:41] Speaker B: Which is what we need to work on. [00:55:42] Speaker A: Yes, exactly. You know, Catholic monarchy. That's what it will end up being, let's hope. Yeah, right, exactly. Okay, so before we conclude here, is there anything else that you think we should kind of be looking forward to or dreading about the second Trump term from, like, a Catholic perspective? [00:56:02] Speaker B: No, I think there are things that we should be doing. So I think that people need to focus on their own communities and being more vocal. I think that we have this tendency of just sort of existing even within, like, our own parish and not actually coming out of it at all. But I think that people need to be more vocal about their faith and also about their sense of values. I think that in order to change the culture, we have to engage in discourse. We have to. We have to be willing to speak and to normalize things that aren't normal anymore, like, you know, like saying that gay marriage isn't healthy and isn't a real marriage, and you know, some people may cringe or, and we have to be willing to explain why that is and why it actually matters and how it's connected to the understanding of the fundamental unit of society, which is the family. And the thing is that these changes, they don't take place with the President. They don't. Yes, there have been top down conversions throughout history, but unfortunately that isn't the nature of our current society. So what we have to do is change what's socially acceptable based upon what we can do in our local community, get people talking. People have this false belief that they're alone, that they're alone in their own opinions and they have to keep quiet because their opinions aren't socially acceptable when in many cases they are and they should be. The media works really hard to make people feel isolated and alone if they have, you know, Franklin is Catholic values. And I think it's important for us to speak up at least so that other people know that they're not quite so alone as they think they are. And it's through that that we'll start to achieve social change when people realize that actually, you know, they're not alone and it's okay to speak that. Which is true. [00:57:50] Speaker A: Right? Yeah, I think that's good advice. I think that's, that's. And I think that frankly, one of the reasons I voted for Trump is because I think he makes that more possible for us to do that, that we can actually speak up. We can, you know, we're not. Because like it or not, social media is the public square these days. And we all remember from COVID we weren't allowed to say certain things. And so the fact that we're going to have a little more freedom, hopefully to say these things on social media, but also in our communities and less likely to be canceled and things like that, I think is a primary reason why it was good for, for Donald Trump to be elected because we can actually do the hard work of changing the culture. Culture. So. Okay, Sarah, well, thank you very much. I appreciate your, your insights here. And maybe one day you can be like us and vote. But until then, you'll have voter ID. [00:58:37] Speaker B: Nationwide by then, right? [00:58:39] Speaker A: Yeah, right, exactly. Until then, you can tell us all how we should vote. [00:58:42] Speaker B: But thank you so much, Eric. [00:58:45] Speaker A: Yeah, but actually, before we go, I'll put links in, but where can people find the stuff you're working on? Because it's great stuff. [00:58:51] Speaker B: All of my work can be found at my website, crusadergal gal.com. so that's why you'll find my writings whether I'm writing at Crisis magazine or for my local substack and also my videos so crusadergal.com and I'll put a. [00:59:05] Speaker A: Link to that in the show notes so people know. And speaking of which I'm going to expect in the next month or so another submission from you because you haven't written for us in a little while. So Alex, I know you got to do your sub stack your website, I get that but come on man, I. [00:59:19] Speaker B: Have a book coming and it's been, it's been you know, really eroding my time but I'll work on it, I promise. [00:59:23] Speaker A: Oh that's right you do have a book coming up and we'll get you on for that as well so I understand that that kind of does take up a lot of time so. Okay. Well again thanks a lot sir. I really appreciate it. [00:59:32] Speaker B: Thank you. [00:59:33] Speaker A: Bye bye till next time everybody. God love.