Learn English with Mayor Bill de Blasio. Bill was the first black man elected mayor of New York City in nearly 80 years. His name is Bill De Blasio, and he is the first Muslim mayor in the city s history. Bill has been a loud and proud supporter of progressive causes, including universal health care and universal education.
00:01:34.440And we will build a city hall that stands steadfast alongside Jewish New Yorkers
00:01:43.160and does not waver in the fight against the scourge of anti-Semitism.
00:01:49.680Where the more than one million Muslims know that they belong.
00:01:57.340Not just in the five boroughs of this city, but in the halls of power.
00:02:02.020No more will New York be a city where you can traffic in Islamophobia and win an election.
00:02:12.240He's saying the Democratic Party didn't deliver for working class people forever.
00:02:20.960And this is not populist, please. That's not populist.
00:02:23.500What you heard right there was not even socialist.
00:02:26.220That is neo-Marxism right there. Neo-Marxist jihadist.
00:02:29.620That's what this guy is. And he's up in your grill.
00:02:32.500And for all the happy skipping around, you know, tick tocks and he's going down the aisle and he's all happy and smiley.
00:02:38.860I didn't see the happy smiley tonight. You saw him when he won what he's really like, right?
00:02:44.260And people got to understand, this is brought to you by progressive Democrats, this is brought to you the Bill Ackmans of the world.
00:02:50.800The elites that have managed the decline of this country and what they managed it by was opening up essentially open borders, particularly for these big cities.
00:02:59.980Well, now you got it. And he's up in your grill.
00:03:02.940If anyone can show a nation betrayed by Donald Trump how to defeat him, it is the city that gave rise to him.
00:03:15.140And if there is any way to terrify a despot, it is by dismantling the very conditions that allowed him to accumulate power.
00:03:23.620This is not only how we stop Trump, it's how we stop the next one.
00:03:36.120So, Donald Trump, since I know you're watching, I have four words for you.
00:12:37.420A sweeping victory that we found out about, I don't know, 10 or 11 o'clock at night.
00:12:41.460We keep this photo right here in the War Room about the very moment, a photo taken at the Willard Hotel on that balcony we used to cover all the big events in Washington, D.C.
00:12:53.480the very moment of victory, one year ago.
00:12:59.240So today we have a different set of issues.
00:13:01.700Mondami, and that's why I wanted to play that, and Van Jones got it right.
00:13:06.140He got, understood, the mask came off last night.
00:13:11.160He's not skipping down the aisle with his little basket, talking about how they're going to have government run stores or, you know, free buses or patting everybody on the head and doing his little dance moves.
00:13:46.160You have the gubernatorial candidate, a disaster, never-Trumper, somebody that he weaponized to attack Trump years ago, and part of that whole DeSantis move away from Trump.
00:13:59.580It's now time to double and triple down.
00:17:10.640The lesson last night is where the Republican donor class, you know, Jack Citarelli and his consultants didn't want Trump's engagement up there.
00:17:20.720Trump drew 100,000 people, 100,000 people on a windy day in 2024 to the Jersey Shore for a rally.
00:17:32.700You fully engage Donald Trump up there, you're going to hold those counties.
00:17:37.380You're not going to get wiped like you got.
00:17:39.740If you stiff arm Trump and have a teletown hall the night before, that's not good enough.
00:17:45.780This is about low propensity voters, people that will come out for Trump in the MAGA message of economic populism.
00:17:52.740If you give them, if you give them old half-baked Republican ideas, which is what New Jersey was, is kind of a variation of Christie, right?
00:18:08.120Chris Christie with the same type of consultants don't want Trump.
00:18:11.200And then in the Commonwealth of Virginia, Glenn Youngkin, bro, what are you spending time in Iowa?
00:18:17.620You just ended your political career last night.
00:18:20.060As a native Virginian, you destroyed, you destroyed the Republican Party for a generation.
00:18:28.820There are seats in the House of Delegates that are unfathomable that could have been lost, that were lost last night to a supermajority, a supermajority in the House.
00:18:38.040And, hey, guess what? This kind of implications, because they're rolling.
00:18:42.860Virginia's going to go 10-1 in the House.
00:18:45.240They're going to be like New England, or they're going to be like Illinois, or they're going to be like California, the Commonwealth of Virginia.
00:18:53.440It is a disgrace that you push that lieutenant government, that you weaponized against Trump in 21 and 22 when you won at DeSantis.
00:19:01.960And then you rigged it, there wasn't even a primary, she's going to be the candidate, and she was an unmitigated Trump-hating disaster.
00:19:10.900And her concession speech last night, which we did not play, because she waited until, I don't know, an hour after Spanberger stood up and took credit for the blowout.
00:19:21.880Her thing was all about her, all about her journey.
00:19:25.140I don't give a damn about your journey.
00:19:35.940You're boring me, like you bored the voters.
00:19:40.860Chip Roy, the good news last night, Lee Wamsgan, monumental win.
00:19:46.120Listen, she had $3.5 million, $4 million put on her by Chinese casino money on her head and kept the guy that came in to 15 percentage points.
00:20:03.000She would have won outright if the geniuses in Vegas had not come down on top of her.
00:20:10.260But she's in a runoff, and she'll win the runoff.
00:20:12.160But we're going to have to do some work there, but she'll win the runoff.
00:20:14.200But in Texas, I've got to tell you, Chip, there's a video out this morning of some imam saying Texas is the Mecca of the West.
00:20:24.100The way to confront New York City is we've got to hold Texas.
00:20:32.400Look, I don't know if you saw it, but on Friday, I introduced legislation to take away the C3 status, the tax-free status of CARE,
00:20:40.040and any other organization affiliated or tied to terrorism.
00:20:42.820We should stop admitting people who are adherent to Sharia law.
00:20:49.000We should deport people who are adherent to Sharia law.
00:20:51.340We've got to start getting serious about this.
00:20:53.060In this election, let's be very clear.
00:20:55.320This is a wake-up call that if you don't lead and lead with a clear vision and a clear direction, you're going to get absolutely slaughtered.
00:21:04.260You're dead right instead of, like, going around and whining about, well, you know, the AG candidate said this or said that, and, you know, oh, this was my story.
00:21:14.180Like, lead with something people can sink their teeth into.
00:21:17.060People are tired of not being able to afford housing.
00:21:19.540They're tired of not being able to afford groceries.
00:21:21.880The president is working on all of that.
00:21:23.620Secretary Besson is working on all of that, and it takes a couple of years to get his system fully firing.
00:21:28.840But we've got to have leadership that's going to say we're going to take on the health care giants.
00:21:32.580We're going to go after the insurance companies.
00:21:34.520We're going to go after the big monopoly health care, you know, hospital organizations.
00:21:39.220We're going to stand up and stop Sharia law.
00:21:41.180We're going to stop the radical Marxists who are trying to kill us.
00:21:44.860The vast network of people that are organized with Arabella, with Soros, with Gates, with the United Nations, with all of the international conglomerates that are funding these NGOs that are all being used to attack us, whether it's the Southern Poverty Law Center in Antifa, whether it's the 250 organizations that were shoving people into our country during Biden and Mayorkas, whether it's the district attorneys that are funded by the Soros regime and the Ren Collective,
00:22:10.600and all of these things are organized and coordinated.
00:22:13.160And, Steve, you know it, and I know it, but Republicans are sitting around making nice and giving speeches on the steps of the Capitol instead of rip-roaring coming through behind the president to save this country.
00:22:25.100We've got to start being aggressive, and we've got to do something about it.
00:22:28.360I'm going to do it as a Texas attorney general, but I've got a year left in Congress, and I'm going to keep introducing legislation to force Republicans to actually do the hard work of changing the direction of the country.
00:22:39.560And, look, I think we've got to be thinking through all of our options right now to make sure we do not waste the remaining three years and change of President Trump's administration.
00:22:50.040We've got to get – we're burning daylight on all these investigations.
00:22:54.180John Solomon's going to be with us at 11 to go through that.
00:22:56.940But the first order of battle, the midterms started last night, and this is why these redistricting fights, the one in Texas, we should have gotten eight seats.
00:23:05.580We only got five because of Abbott and the establishment down there.
00:23:09.580They're terrified of the media, you know, calling them out so they get weak.
00:23:43.380Would you tell Abbott right now as the attorney general of Texas, you've got three more seats there, bro, let's roll hard?
00:23:48.960Or are you prepared to just sit there with Abbott and Abbott saying, it's so hard, we could lose the court case, sir?
00:23:55.460Yeah, we need to lean into more seats, not just in Texas, but yes, in Texas, the attorney general, but also, you know, Indiana, like you point out, other states that aren't being as aggressive.
00:24:48.720We should be putting and codifying what President Trump is doing to protect us going forward.
00:24:53.300We should be doing the things we should – on health care, not crying in a corner saying, oh, well, we'll do Obamacare light.
00:25:00.300We should be aggressive on that stuff.
00:25:01.680And again, it's the insurance companies and the big, you know, monopolistic hospital corporations that are killing our health care system with crony capitalism.
00:25:23.620And Republicans on Capitol Hill are just kind of messing around going, well, we got this big, beautiful bill done, and now we're kind of done, and let's limp through into the midterms.
00:25:33.940And look, in Texas, we've got to double down.
00:25:37.680If there is no Texas, the country completely falls apart.
00:25:41.880And you said it, and people need to know it.
00:25:43.800The Muslim Brotherhood in London and in Paris, they recognize that Dallas in particular, Texas, is the epicenter of what they're trying to do for the Islamification of not just Texas, not just America, but the Western Hemisphere.
00:26:09.100Real quickly, there's going to be tons of pressure from RINO senators for President Trump putting in his ear, oh, it's all about the shutdown, that Democrats still want to put a trillion dollars in to financing illegal alien health care.
00:26:23.240The reason he lost New York City last night is 40 or 50 years of bad immigration policy, of visa scams, all of it.
00:26:30.700Where do you stand on the shutdown right now, Chip?
00:26:56.680Let's demand that they take action on those righteous bills.
00:26:59.420Let's pass HR2 from the last Congress securing the border.
00:27:02.380Let's pass bills that limit Sharia law coming into our country.
00:27:05.700Let's pass the same act again and tell them that we shouldn't have just citizens voting in American elections.
00:27:10.980Let's pass legislation banning stock trading for members of Congress who are enriching themselves while they're, you know, on committees and self-trading.
00:27:18.920Let's do those things and demonstrate we've got an agenda.
00:27:21.640And let's get aggressive on health care.
00:29:09.100A former CIA, Pentagon, and White House advisor with an unmatched grasp of geopolitics and capital markets.
00:29:15.240Jim predicted Trump's Electoral College victory exactly 312 to 226, down to the actual number itself.
00:29:25.120Now he's issuing a dire warning about April 11th, a moment that could define Trump's presidency in your financial future.
00:29:32.620His latest book, Money GPT, exposes how AI is setting the stage for financial chaos, bank runs at lightning speeds, algorithm-driven crashes, and even threats to national security.
00:29:44.200Right now, war room members get a free copy of Money GPT when they sign up for Strategic Intelligence.
00:29:50.980This is Jim's flagship financial newsletter, Strategic Intelligence.
00:30:09.580The vehicle is imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress.
00:30:18.000So to have the president's foreign affairs power trump that basic power for Congress seems to me to kind of at least neutralize between the two powers, the executive power and the legislative power.
00:30:35.620Let me say two things in response to that.
00:30:38.120First, the notion that the taxes are all borne by Americans and are not borne by foreign producers whose goods are imported is empirically – there's no basis for that in the record.
00:30:51.560If a tariff is imposed on automobiles, who pays them?
00:30:56.880There's a – typically there would be a – regardless of who the importer of record is, there would be a contract that would go along the sort of line of transfer that would allocate the tariff.
00:31:04.840And there would be different – sometimes the foreign producer would pay them.
00:31:09.000Sometimes the importer would bear the cost.
00:31:10.980The importer could be an American, could be a foreign company.
00:31:13.120A lot of times it's a wholly owned American subsidiary of a foreign corporation.
00:31:18.520The empirical estimates range from like 30 percent to 80 percent of like how much is borne by American citizens.
00:31:22.380I mean, it's been suggested that the tariffs are responsible for a significant reduction in our deficit.
00:31:27.580I would say that's raising revenue domestically.
00:31:30.160There certainly is an incidental and collateral effect of the tariffs that they do raise revenue.
00:31:34.040But it's very important that they are regulatory tariffs, not revenue-raising tariffs.
00:31:37.820And the way you can see this, I think, if you look at this policy, this policy is by far the most effective if nobody ever pays the tariffs.
00:32:27.060Regulated by quotas, causing it, subjecting some countries and not others to importation bans.
00:32:35.340There's a lot of verbs, but none of them include generating revenue as a side effect or directly.
00:32:47.440Let me address that verb point, if I may, because think about the canonical example,
00:32:51.800a statute that refers to a list of swords, knives, daggers, dirks, and pikes.
00:32:56.320There you look at that list of things and you say,
00:32:58.620aha, those are all weapons, therefore a pike is a spear, not a fish in that particular context.
00:33:04.240Now look at this list of verbs, block, prohibit, capel, direct, and so forth.
00:33:08.680You don't look at that naturally as an ordinary reader and say, oh, look, they're all not revenue raising.
00:33:12.320What you say is they're all very broad, powerful, you know, actions that you can take.
00:33:17.440General, the verbs that are in the statute are actually doing something.
00:33:21.540I mean, they're in the statute for a reason.
00:33:23.520And as I understand it, Congress actually explained to us in its Senate report and House report when it enacted the 1941 amendments to TWIA, what it was doing.
00:33:36.420It said that what we are doing is authorizing the president in the Senate report, quote,
00:33:41.280to control or freeze property transactions where a foreign interest is involved.
00:33:47.100There's similar language about controlling, freezing control in the House report.
00:33:52.500So I appreciate that generally you can look at these words and you can imagine that they mean certain things.
00:33:58.460But here we have evidence that Congress was actually trying to do a particular thing with respect to the authority that it was presenting to the president.
00:34:07.080And that thing was not raising revenue.
00:34:11.280I think that what Congress, the powers that Congress was conferring on the president are best understood through the plain text of the statutes, which includes regulating.
00:34:19.000I know, but some of us care about the legislative history.
00:34:21.500And so the plain text of the statute has certain verbs in it.
00:34:25.100It also has regulate commerce, as you say.
00:34:28.040And when I look at the legislative history, it appears as though Congress was trying to give the president the authority to, quote,
00:34:36.920control or freeze property transactions where a foreign interest is involved.
00:34:40.900And in the TWIA context, that makes perfect sense because we're talking about a wartime dynamic.
00:34:46.640And what is happening is the president needs the authority to prevent trading with the enemy in the midst of a war.
00:34:53.680And that seems to be the focus of this statute.
00:34:56.020So I guess I'm concerned about just sort of taking a particular word here and there and saying that the general view of it might include raising revenue,
00:35:06.420when, in fact, it looks as though the aim of this was really to give the president a certain kind of authority to freeze the assets of the enemy.
00:35:15.820And let me say two things in response to that.
00:35:17.440First, as the notion that this is a revenue-raising tactic or power, it is not.
00:35:24.200It's a delegation of power to regulate foreign commerce.
00:35:26.800The way to control imports traditionally has been to tariff them.
00:35:30.520They say, well, you can impose quotas.
00:35:31.960Well, quotas are essentially economically equivalent to tariffs.
00:35:35.600So the question is, why would you be able to quota under-regulate but not tariff under-regulate when the tariffs are themselves regulatory?
00:35:41.000And let me turn back to the question I was – the response I was giving to the Chief Justice to illustrate that.
00:35:44.680Could the answer be that in other places where Congress wants that particular form of regulation to be used, they say impose duties?
00:36:00.740I'd say two things in response to that.
00:36:02.820That's the very argument that this court rejected in Algonquin, that the fact that these other specific statutes do you say in a certain way you have to do it this way.
00:36:10.680If we disagree with you that Algonquin is a similar context, do you have another statute or another circumstance?
00:36:15.340And again, not to say Algonquin again, but obviously we discussed the phrase adjust imports.
00:36:21.100And they said, yeah, the natural way to do that is to tariff them.
00:36:23.080And they specifically said it makes no sense at all to authorize quotas, which was conceded that that statute did authorize, but not tariffs because those are equivalent.
00:36:32.380But it said adjust by any means necessary, which kind of beefs up the adjust.
00:36:38.280And also – and this is actually – I just don't know the answer to this question, so maybe you can help and maybe the other side can help as well.
00:36:43.940Algonquin was very careful to always call it a license and a licensing fee.
00:36:49.260And in the oral argument that came up, too, the distinction between a tariff and a licensing fee.
00:36:53.260And I can understand how in some contexts it would be very difficult.
00:36:56.460You would press on it and you would say, well, if this license fee is raising revenue, then it actually functions as a tariff.
00:38:59.160I'd say a couple things in response to that.
00:39:00.740First of all, this court has stated that the non-delegation doctrine does not apply with anything like the same force as it does in the domestic context in the foreign context.
00:39:11.800And that, again, to cite Dames and More again, Dames and More cites Youngstown.
00:39:16.220And Youngstown in footnote 2 of Justice Jackson's opinion, he goes into detail about this.
00:39:22.160He says there's a lot of broad dicta in Curtis Wright.
00:39:24.100But the holding of Curtis Wright, the ratio dissidenti, is that the domestic non-delegation doctrine does not apply with the same force in the foreign context.
00:39:32.340And he uses that phrase, does not apply.
00:39:34.120He says the strict limitations on delegation that apply in the internal context do not apply in the external context.
00:39:42.520And for the reasons I talked about earlier, we were talking about a situation where the president has his own inherent authority to address foreign arising emergencies,
00:39:48.860and Congress is conferring tools on him that expand his ability, his capacity to do so, we are in the area of Youngstown Zone 1.
00:39:55.700A few times you have alluded to the history as being important in interpreting the statute,
00:40:04.380and also that this language comes from the Trading with the Enemies Act, and that has its own pedigree.
00:40:13.820Could you just sketch out this direct line that you were alluding to as a basis for interpreting the current emergency statute as you would like it interpreted?
00:40:24.600Yes, Justice Thomas, and turning back to the response I was giving to Justice Barrett earlier,
00:40:28.720there is, I think it's very well set out in Professor Baum's Isamika's brief,
00:40:32.200there is this history of presidents using a tariffing power or a tariff equivalent power,
00:40:37.460very, very close to tariffing power, in wartime to tariff trading with enemies.
00:40:42.740And that is when the Trading with the Enemy Act was enacted in 1917, it was deliberately evoking that.
00:40:48.080And when it brings in the power to regulate importation, it's essentially codifying for the,
00:40:53.920an inherent power the president's already recognized to have.
00:40:56.780And then in 1933, when that power is expanded to an area where he wouldn't inherently have it,
00:41:01.400the peacetime context, that codification, the meaning of that remains the same.
00:41:04.940The regulate importation language that's brought in from TWIA and then ultimately to IEPA in 1977
00:41:10.600is carrying with it that connotation, and that's reinforced by all the cases we've cited in our brief
00:41:15.500where there's been extremely broad delegations of the power to tariff specifically
00:41:18.860and the power to regulate foreign commerce more generally going back to the time of the founding,
00:41:23.280which ties to your question about non-delegation.
00:45:30.080I want to take you back to Justice Thomas's question about non-delegation.
00:45:33.940And if I understood your answer correctly, it was really similar to the answer that you started off with when you talked with Justice Thomas about the major questions doctrine,
00:45:42.440which is sort of everything's different because the president has independent constitutional powers in this area.
00:45:49.080And so that if one does not think that with respect to tariffs, if one thinks that a tariff is a taxing power, is a regulation of foreign commerce that is really delegated by the Constitution to Congress,
00:46:09.100And, in fact, when you look at J.W. Hampton, which gives rise to the non-delegation tests that we usually use, J.W. Hampton is a tariffs case.
00:46:19.920And the court did not say, oh, we need some special new principle here, some stricter rule because we're dealing with tariffs in which presidents are directly concerned as a matter of foreign relations.
00:46:31.720It enunciated the test we use for all non-delegations.
00:46:36.340So how does that fit with your theory?
00:46:38.700Eight years later, in Curtis Wright, the court held the non-delegation doctrine for domestic affairs does not apply with the same force as it does in foreign affairs.
00:46:46.260But not with respect to tariffs, not with respect to quintessential taxing powers, which are given by the Constitution to Congress.
00:46:53.660I think justices of this court have recognized in their opinions that one of the reasons that the non-delegation doctrine, you know, that intelligible principle test hasn't packed as much punch as Justice Kavanaugh said in one of his opinions as it might otherwise have done,
00:47:05.760is it did arise in the foreign affairs context because there the court has historically been very, very comfortable with very broad delegations.
00:47:12.420Chicago and Southern Airlines, another case from the 1930s, shortly after J.W. Hampton talked about the very large delegations of the foreign commerce power being very effective.
00:47:20.700And, of course, this goes back to the very dawn of the republic in 1790, for example.
00:47:24.880Congress conferred on President Washington basically the entire Indian commerce power.
00:47:28.940He said, go, you know, get licenses, right, to do commerce with the Indians, and they'll be subject to whatever rules and regulations President Washington can make.
00:47:35.940So I do think there is a profound consistency between the announcement of the intelligible principle test in J.W. Hampton
00:47:43.260and then the subsequent recognition by this court in Curtis Wright that the non-delegation doctrine doesn't apply to the same force in this context.
00:47:50.440In consumers' research just last year, we had a tax before us, and the question was, was this a delegation issue?
00:47:58.320It was, of course, a much smaller tax, which dealt with many fewer taxpayers.
00:48:05.880Notwithstanding that, we said, if there's no ceiling on this tax, we sort of assumed that if there were no ceiling on this tax, it would raise a delegation problem.
00:48:17.120And most of the opinion was given over to showing that there, in fact, was a ceiling on the tax, not a quantitative one, but a qualitative one.
00:48:26.200But how does your argument fit with the idea that a tax with no ceiling, a tax that can be anything, that here the president wants, there an agency wants, would raise a pretty deep delegation problem?
00:48:41.820First of all, I can't say enough, it is a regulatory tariff, not a tax.
00:48:46.540And that, I think, ties to my response to that, which is that this is a totally different context.
00:48:51.400This is IEPA, a statute that Congress carefully crafted to grant the president admittedly broad powers to address foreign arising emergencies.
00:48:59.520It's outward facing to foreign affairs where there's the broadest level of deference to the political branches of this court has recognized in many cases.
00:49:06.260And it imposed not a floor or a limit on the amount of a tariff that could be imposed very naturally because, for example, as this court said in Loving, quoting Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist No. 23,
00:49:16.220it's impossible to foresee either what exigencies may arise or what tools may be needed to address those exigencies, the means that may be required to address those exigencies.
00:49:24.820Instead, Congress grant very broad powers, but they're confined to a particular domain.
00:49:29.600This domain is any property in which any foreign government or any national thereof has any interest.
00:49:35.120So the sort of discipline, if one were to apply, we say you shouldn't, but if you were to apply the non-delegation doctrine, the domestic-facing non-delegation doctrine in this context, there's a significant limitation there.
00:49:47.540Yeah, so my last question really does have to do with that point, which is how or whether this is confined.
00:49:54.580Because if you look at Title 19, which is loaded with tariffs and duties of various kinds, all of them have real constraints on them.
00:50:03.620They are, you know, you can't go over X percent.
00:50:07.480One of the, we'll make sure this all gets played, one of the most important arguments in the Supreme Court.
00:50:36.520That's the amazing thing about these arguments right there.
00:50:40.840And the Supreme Court so far has gone, has, I won't say gone along, but they've been very adamant that they're not the Warren Court, that they're not an activist court.
00:50:53.800They have come back on these, remember, the Article II powers of the president and the, quite frankly, the maximalist strategy of those Article II powers.
00:51:07.140As chief executive officer, as commander-in-chief, and as chief magistrate and chief law enforcement officer here, it's about essentially President Trump's trade and tariff policies and the underlying laws that he used to stitch that together.
00:51:22.960And right there, getting completely, getting hammered, as he should.
00:51:26.900These are, this is a very, very important argument.
00:51:29.520It's the basis for redoing the commercial relationships in the world and restoring America as a manufacturing superpower, a manufacturing superpower.
00:51:41.160Okay, Senator Hawley is running a few minutes late.
00:51:43.560He's going to come to the top of the hour.
00:51:44.740We've got John Solomon, got big breaking news in the investigations, plus more of the politics.
00:51:49.240Let me just go over, there's an article in Politico now, an interview, Grace and Mo, if you can make sure that's put out so people can read it, get it past the paywall.
00:52:00.780At Politico, it's time to double and triple down.
00:52:06.440President Trump is still the vehicle for get-to-low-propensity voters.
00:52:10.800They understand he's trying to do something with the country.
00:52:13.060Now, look, he's been, you know, had a huge emphasis on the international side because we are in the beginning stages of the Third World War.
00:53:12.660The rest of the guys in the cabinet, Besant, Lutnik, all these guys, you've got to execute on the big, beautiful bill.
00:53:19.360And I believe they're over there right now talking about the filibuster and he had Brexit at the Senate and a bunch of those guys want to crater right now.
00:53:26.480And you cannot crater on giving illegal aliens health care.
00:53:29.720That's why we have the problem you have last night in New York City, let's face it.
00:53:38.320How about this for the reconciliation?
00:53:40.180Let's now raise the taxes on the wealthy, what we should have done the first time.
00:53:43.820To start to close this budget deficit and to make sure we have to borrow less money because the borrowing costs themselves, as we've said over and over again, add to the inflation.
00:53:55.440It's hard to get the inflation under 3% when you're borrowing so much money.
00:54:06.540Find out all about the inextricably linked nature of the capital markets in the U.S. dollar and what that means for gold and the price of gold and gold as a hedge in times of financial turbulence.
00:54:16.760Plus, you get to fill up Patrick and the team.
00:54:18.760Most importantly, to fill up Patrick and the team.
00:54:23.420They can talk to you about all the tax-deferred methodologies, how they can roll over 401ks, IRAs, all of it.