Dinesh D'Souza (39:21)

Power trump that.

Mark Levin (39:25)

Basic power for Congress seems to me to kind of at least neutralize between the two powers, the executive power and the legislative power.

Attorney or Legal Expert (Tariff Case Advocate) (39:38)

Let me say two things in response to that. First, the notion that these are the taxes are all borne by Americans that are not borne by foreign. Foreign producers.

Mark Levin (39:45)

All right, let me slow down. Let's stop here. To me, the answer to this is quite simple. We have situations where Congress has delegated the authority of the President. You know, we've had tariffs since the beginning of the Republic and they've delegated authority to the President of the United States to determine tariff levels. And that's relatively recent as well. So according to John Roberts logic, every time that happened, that was an unconstitutional delegation of the taxing authority power of the purse. Where does he draw the line on that if he's going to stick purely in the taxation lane? It's much more complicated than that. What a tariff is and what it's for and the impact of it. And then that's my question. How does Congress delegate that core power? He just said it's a core power. He's not wrong about that. How does Congress delegate that power? And it has through past tariff acts, of which there have been many scores of them, to a President of the United States to make the decision to have the discretion to determine whether powers will apply or how much they'll apply in certain circumstances, beyond emergencies. That's number one. Number two, what did I just say about regulations? Regulations are a tax, and yet every regulation doesn't go through Congress. Well, then John Roberts would say, but Congress has delegated that authority to agencies and departments. Well, Mr. Chief justice of the United States, you just said that's a core power of Congress. Therefore, Congress cannot delegate to another branch of government, whether it's a judge or a president, the power to raise taxes. And yet that's what regulations do. No, and even more so than tariffs, because the people who pay the regulation are American citizens, American businesses, no question about that. In the case of tariffs, Americans might pay them, foreigners might pay them, other countries might pay them, and so forth and so on. So it seems to me this is a. A black hole that he's trying to go through. Go ahead.

Attorney or Legal Expert (Tariff Case Advocate) (42:02)

Mr. Bedus is empirically. That's not there's no basis for that in the record. It's actually a mix.

Mark Levin (42:08)

Who pays the tariffs if a tariff is imposed on automobiles? Well, who pays for the regulation? Regulations. Who pays for the regulations? When a business is regulated in America and they have to expend money, which they almost always do with a regulation, and there are tens of thousands of regulations. In fact, the Heritage foundation many years ago did an analysis and said regulations are more expensive than taxation. A trillion dollars worth of regulations virtually every year. And those regulations are issued by the executive branch agencies while they've been delegated there. Well, if that's a core function, you can't delegate the power to tax, not just to a president. You're delegating it to bureaucrats. That would be my reply. Now we have justice sort of Sotomayor, one of the dumbest. Cut 20 go. I just don't understand this argument. It's not an article. It's a congressional power, not a presidential power to tax. And you want to say so here we have a debate over separation of powers, which is why I began this in the last hour by saying if it's a debate over which political entity has this power, they're insisting these two, that it's Congress. I'm insisting that Congress has delegated certain authorities to the executive branch and this court has never ruled them unconstitutional, not in any significant way, or we wouldn't have a bureaucracy now would we, that can. They can regulate. They're not really making intelligent substantive arguments to me. Go ahead. Taxes. But that's exactly what they are. Degenerating money from American citizens revenue. And you say it's incidental to the regulatory. Now that's particularly interesting. So I guess that means when the Interior Department leases land and makes an independent determination on what that cost is going to be to oil companies, to ranchers, to farmers and so forth and so on, that's clearly unconstitutional, right, Mr. Medusa? I mean, where are they going with this? And again, I said the overlay is these are not purely taxes as these two justices imply or assert. Of course they have national security implications. Of course they have economic implications, negotiating ability of a president with communist China or the European Union and other countries with the threat of tariffs or the actual implementation of tariffs in the short run or long run. Again, tariffs have been with us since the beginning of the Republic. Tariffs are used for a multiple, you know, multiple reasons. Robert says yes, but at bottom there are tax. Yes, at bottom a regulation is a tax. Go ahead.

Elie Shirabi (45:32)

But I don't see how a quota.

Mark Levin (45:34)

Is equivalent to revenue. Raising a quota sets a limit to what you can import in, but it doesn't change. Well, I guess you're not familiar with your great hero. That court in the Wickard decision that said the, this was a crazy ass decision, but the left loves it because it massively expanded the power of the central government. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, it saved it effectively. This Wickard decision was a decision by the Supreme Court. It's infamous for the leftists, celebrated and famous, where they said the lack of commerce means commerce. So if a farmer withholds interstate commerce, that farmer is affecting commerce. And so what Sotomayor is saying here is go ahead, play it. I don't understand this argument that it's equivalent or that foreign powers. So in other words, if you put a block on the amount of products that a country can sell into this country, she's saying that's not the same as a tax. Well, let me ask you folks a question. If we limit the importation of goods into the country, doesn't that increase prices? Mr. Producer, the whole point, the whole point of having quotas on products from, let's say Japan, motorcycles during President Reagan's term, or electronics from President Reagan's terms, or computers from President Reagan's term is to drive up the price domestically in order to build up the industry or to expand the industry. Is that not a tax? But is that not also important? There's no fine line between the two. Now Congress can try and draw it. They haven't. Most of these tariff acts are quite ambiguous. And so for the court to step in here and say yes, but taxing is that doesn't answer any questions. And now she's saying if you have a quota, that's not the same thing as a tariff. Well, a quota isn't the same thing as a tariff, technically speaking. But the depending on the use of the tariff and the nature of the quota, they cannot be absolutely the same thing in terms of the consumer. A tax, again, what's the point of a quota? Let's say it's a quota on motorcycles. It was to help Harley Davidson survive. That's why Reagan did it. They were dumping motorcycles in the country so the price of Harley Davidsons went up. That's a tax. Technically. Right, but the purpose was not to tax. Their purpose was to improve the motorcycle market for motorcycle production, not necessarily the consumer. So you would save Harley Davidson. I'm going to get into more of these points. Maybe I should argue this case. Mr. We'll be right back There's a reason I'm proud to say Pure Talk is my wireless company. Because they don't just talk the talk, they walk the walk. Especially when it comes to supporting our veterans. This month, PureTalk is choosing to support Canines for Warriors, an incredible organization that rescues and trains dogs, then pairs them with veterans struggling with ptsd. These are men and women who serve with honor, but when they come home, that brotherhood and support network they had in the military too often disappears. Canines for warriors steps up to fill the gap, giving these heroes purpose, companionship and healing. That's exactly why PureTalk, a veteran led company, supports them. Choose a wireless company that shares your values and with talk, text and plenty of 5G data for just 25 bucks a month, you could also be saving a ton of Money. Go to PureTalk.com Levin to make the switch today, again, go to PureTalk.com Levin and switch to America's wireless company, my wireless company, Pure Talk. You know, it's a pleasure to have Dinesh d'. Souza. This guy is a great patriot. He's a superb scholar, filmmaker, thinker, writer. My wife and I have gotten to know him and his wife a little bit and we really do find him to be fantastic. And he's got this great film out there. You can still see it online. The dragons prophecy. Film.comthedragonsprophecyfilm.com we will post that on all our social sites about October 7, and much of it is from a biblical perspective. And so I wanted to ask Dinesh d', Souza, who has been friends with Tucker, like most of us, the danger that he in particular, but people who are attached to him and promoted by him, are presenting to our society, to our culture, to the survivability of the conservative movement. And does this not also provide an enormous opportunity for these Marxist Islamists on the left?

Dinesh D'Souza (50:54)

Yes, the danger of Tucker is that he is driving a wedge between Jews and Christians, between America and Israel, between in a sense, the two foundational pillars of Western civilization, which are Athens and Jerusalem. And so this is bad for Trump, it's bad for maga. It gives a terrible brand to the Republican Party because it seems to open the door to all kinds of bigotries that are now pouring into the Republican side. Not just anti Semitism, but hatred toward blacks, hatred toward Indians like Harney Dhillon and Vivek Ramaswamy. It is actually giving us a terrible image. I noticed in New Jersey, for example, yesterday, there's a community that is very heavily Indian that went by about 20 points for Trump, and now it went by 20 points or more for the Democrat. So a massive shift. How do you explain that, except for the fact that Indian Americans who felt more and more welcome in the Republican Party are now being made to feel like they need to go back to India.

Mark Levin (52:08)

Isn'T part of the problem. A guy like him and him and people like him, they don't have to really deal with the consequences of what they're doing, and they're not really feeling the consequences of what they're doing or care about them because they have this niche. Even if it's a few million people, it's still a tiny percentage, a fraction of the population generally. And if they're paying $99 a month or whatever it is, they still become incredibly wealthy, and they have to continue to become increasingly outrageous to draw attention to themselves. I've been thinking about this. This is what so many of the podcasters have to do. They have to separate themselves from the rest. And this particular type of podcast, they're not about informing, educating. They're not about interesting topics, profound topics. They're about the crazier you can be, the more rogue and unhinged you can be. If you attract that niche, even a growing niche, you enrich yourself.

Dinesh D'Souza (53:14)

I do think that that is part of the story, particularly with some of the other influencers who have attached themselves to this griper movement and Tucker and Nick Fuentes. I think with Tucker, however, he is playing a darker and a bigger game, and that is to institutionalize himself within powerful institutions like the Heritage foundation, like TP usa. He's obviously got an in at the White House. He's got a son working for J.D. vance. So I think for Tucker, it is ultimately about steering the entire MAGA movement and the Republican Party. Post Trump. They can't do very much with Trump. Trump is sort of not on their side, and they recognize that, but they're looking at a post Trump future. And I think Tucker is using this kind of army of angry young men who are sitting in their basement. They hate their life. These are people who are on social media eight or nine hours a day, and he's using them as a kind of online militia to browbeat other people into submission. This is why, for a long time, no one dared to criticize Tucker. So in some ways, I think Tucker's plan is because a wall of criticism has now mounted against him. I don't think he fully expected that, but I think his goal is nothing less than to ultimately be at the steering wheel of the maga movement post Trump.

Mark Levin (54:43)

A lot of people are attacking him now. And I can tell you when I effectively started this battle. You were working on your documentary at the time. I guess it was in May, because he took the first swipe. When I met the President, I told Mr. Producer and I told my wife. I think I told you the other week, I said, I'm going into the swamp. I'm going to get into the gutter with these guys because that's where they are. I can't debate them. I'm not interested in debating them. I'm interested in exposing them. And I said, and I'll see you hopefully in six months. And yet I still have one leg in the swamp. But I have noticed that there is an enormous amount of pushback now, and I think this is crucially, crucially important, particularly from conservative institutions, people of faith. I mean, he actually attacked evangelical Christians, saying that he viewed them as he despised them more than any other people. Were they terrorists? More than anything, he despised these evangelical Christian, Christian Zionists. I think you're a Christian Zionist, aren't you?

Dinesh D'Souza (55:52)

Yeah, I've never used that label, but especially now that it's being used as an accusation, I all the more enthusiastically embrace it. I embrace it almost as an epithet that I'm gonna wear as a badge of honor. But look, with Tucker, you have now an ensemble of views that goes actually even beyond platforming. Nick Fuentes, I mean, here's a guy just recently who has offered the following ideas. Number one, in World War II, we perhaps should have allied with Hitler. Hamas is not a terrorist organization as much as it is a normal political movement, maybe somewhat like the Labour Party. He's gone on to say, Sharia law is not all that bad. The socialist narco terrorist leader of Venezuela, he said, is basically somebody who is socially conservative. So you just put all of this together, and there's a lot more where this came from. And you ask, is this really maga? Is this where MAGA wants to be? This is not about canceling Tucker. This is about defining who we are as America First Conservatives.

Mark Levin (57:01)

When we come back, Dinesh d'. Souzan. He's got this great film out. I want to encourage you to hit it online there. It's the dragons prophecy film.com. you can link right directly from my social sites. Do you think this is oriented toward the people he surrounds himself with, the people who support his enterprise? You think it's truly a cerebral mental thing? What do you think it is that's driving him? You know, my attitude toward this is it probably doesn't matter. It just needs to be exposed and countered. But apart from that, what do you think? We'll be right back. There's a reason I'm proud to say PureTalk is my wireless company. Because they don't just talk the talk, they walk the walk. Especially when it comes to supporting our veterans. This month, Pure Talk is choosing to support Canines for Warriors, an incredible organization that rescues and trains dogs, then pairs them with veterans struggling with ptsd. These are men and women who serve with honor, but when they come home, that brotherhood and support network they had in the military too often dissipates peers. Canines for Warrior steps up to fill the gap, giving these heroes purpose, companionship, and healing. That's exactly why Pure Talk, a veteran led company, supports them. Choose a wireless company that shares your values. And with talk, text, and plenty of 5G data for just 25 bucks a month, you could also be saving a ton of Money. Go to PureTalk.com Levin to make the switch today. Again, go to PureTalk.com L E V I N and switch to America's wireless company. My wireless company, pure talk. Mark within the thunder on the right. Call in now. 877-381-3811. By the way, I want to thank Jeffrey Lord and Paul Kengor, Bob Terrell, all buddies of mine, I think. Dinesh, I think you wrote for that American Spectator here at one point. Maybe you still do. Beautiful piece they wrote about me. I want to thank them very, very much. That rarely happens, trust me. So, Dinesh d', Souza, I know you're not a psychiatrist either, but let's give it a shot. Why is Tucker Carlson unhinged?

Dinesh D'Souza (59:18)

I cannot say that I know for sure. Of course, there are a lot of people who say this is for the money. There's a giant river of Islamic cash that is pouring into the American institutions to try to buy them off. I did notice that right about the time that I saw in a New York Times article that Qatar is launching a major campaign to try to dissuade Trump from using force to overthrow the Maduro regime in Venezuela. Tucker, like right on cue, comes out with a kind of defense of Maduro, a defense of socialist Venezuela, making the peculiar claim that they are somehow a, quote, conservative society. Now, that was very eerie to me. I've always thought it odd. Tucker's a wealthy guy. He comes from a wealthy family. It's hard for me to believe that he's solely motivated by money. I don't think he needs Qatar to pay the Mortgage. So I've never been content with that kind of explanation. At one point, as you probably know, Mark Tucker made the very strange claim that he had been physically attacked by a demon. I don't know if you've heard about this. I've actually watched the video. He's not joking. He claims that a demon attacked him in his bed and bloodied him and actually bruised him and left blood on the sheets. And he, Tucker seemed very bewildered by this. But this is. I would not write this off and dismiss it completely. I'll call this the demonic explanation. I was on Roseanne Barr's podcast and she said. She said, I even know the name of the demon that attacked Tucker. And I was like, roseanne, what is it? And she goes, well, in the Hebrew scriptures and in the Talmud, there is a name for the demon of antisemitism. And she told me the name, which I. Which I now forget. So, look, we're flailing here at trying to give an adequate psychological explanation. I agree with you that we should focus really on the effects and the actual content of what Tucker is saying.

Mark Levin (61:18)

Now, if politicians, I mean, let me put it to you this way, Dinesh. If you're going to run for the Republican nomination for President of the United States, this is going to come up. You're going to have to make a decision. If you stand with the bigots and the racists, the Jew haters and the Christian haters, basically American haters, you point out the founding of Judeo, Christian values and so forth, or stand with the rest of us, these politicians are going to have to make that decision. They're going to have to decide whether he and his little buddy Fuentes and that whole crowd of many of them are just bizarre podcasters, whether they're going to stand with them or stand with everybody else. Right? They're going to have to make a decision.

Dinesh D'Souza (62:07)

Absolutely. I mean, any. It seems to me that any aspiring presidential candidate or maybe even candidate for other office who kind of embraces this kind of groiper, white identitarian agenda, we don't need the Jews, we don't need the blacks, we don't need the Asian Indians. I mean, they have. Not only do they have no future, but if they do have a future, they will drag the Republican Party like right off the cliff, right off the precipice. I think the encouraging news is that I don't think that's going to happen. I think right now there is a kind of almost unanimous. Now, there was a time when I said to myself, I don't see Tucker having even a single, like, very prominent public critic. And now I would say the opposite. I don't see Tucker having a single public defender. Even the Heritage foundation has backed off completely from their earlier and unwise kind of embrace of him. And so I think that the message has gone through to the Republican Party and MAGA that this stuff is really toxic, that no one is talking about banning these people. But they have platforms already. We don't. They're going to continue to have platforms. And like you say, there's an incentive for them to put out this salacious material one on top of the other, because maybe it has, in a perverse way, a kind of entertainment value, but it's something entirely different to embrace it as a position either for MAGA or for America first or for the Republican Party.

Mark Levin (63:41)

All right, my friend, I appreciate you very much. You take care of yourself. Thank you. Very well done.

Dinesh D'Souza (63:47)

Thank you very much.

Mark Levin (63:48)

All right. You take care. I'm not sure Dinesh listens to this show. I'm just saying. You think I'm wrong, Mr. Producer Radio. I know he watches the TV show, everybody watches that. But I got to get him to listen to the radio show. Oh, I know what I meant to tell him. But I'll reiterate it because people come and go, which is Victor Davis Hanson has quite an extensive piece in the Free press, really taking this subject on in every angle. Historic, cultural, present day, the impact on the Republicans, the conservative movement, how this also is of great assistance to our opponents. And he takes on Katalsen directly. He used to, of course, platform and invite Victor on as one of his favorite scholars. But, you know, somebody who conducts themselves the way this guy does, Katarl Sin and the rest of them, you know, you got to live with yourself and you got children, you got grandchildren, you have a spouse and something like that. You would never tolerate this done to your family. Said to your family, sent in your house. And if you do, for all the gropers out there, what do they call themselves? Groipers. So we'll call them Gropers. For now on all the gropers out there and all the. I'll figure out a name for the followers of Katarlson and the rest of them. That's going to be your legacy. When you're gone, that's going to be your legacy. Those who apologize for him. Look, I don't agree with everything he says, but it's a good guy. Who's that? Megan, Megyn Kelly, people like that. Piers Morgan, I don't know Honestly, I don't listen to them. Megan, I've seen her stuff online. Pierce, I don't see much of his stuff. I don't care about these people. I really don't. I really don't. I don't wake up in the morning. What does this one thing, I don't care. But if I get information that demonstrates to me that they're doing things, that they're conniving, that they're misleading their audience, that they're trying to do things for a buck. Because you see, ladies and gentlemen, when I was in, when I've been involved in these various efforts, activism, mission oriented, door to door, street to street, election after election, movement to challenge the Republican establishment, after movement to challenge the Republican establishment up to my eyeballs. And I don't remember Tucker Carlson or Megyn Kelly or the fraudster who confessed to stealing money, perhaps from many of you to build a wall that never exists. And by the way, while we're on Bloated Bannon, AKA Third Reich Bannon, AKA the Fraud Room Bannon, he said the other day. He was very explicit. He says a lot of things. Eats a lot of things, too, if you notice that, Mr. Producer. Nonetheless, he says a lot of things like, we're gonna denaturalize Mandami. No, he's not. He's a buffoon. He's a liar. So he's elected now. He's elected now, Bannon. Are you going to denaturalize him? How are you going to denaturalize him after you finish building the wall? Is that it? After the President runs for a third term, which, of course, the court would never allow that. And he's not going to do it anyway. This is a guy who's a buffoon. Oh, and our friend Marjorie Traitor Greene. Did you see this one, Mr. Producer? She wants to run for president in 2028. So immediately, you know what came to mind? Which country? Turns out she wants to be our nominee for President of the United States. Man, oh, man, is there plenty that she has said, too. Who's going to be her running mate? Fuentes. Who's going to be your running mate? I'm just curious. Maybe our buddy Eric Bolling. Maybe he'll be the running mate. Nah, I won't get into it, but that's not gonna work. I'll be right back. Mud Love in There's a reason I'm proud to say PureTalk is my wireless company. Because they don't just talk the talk, they walk the walk. Especially when it comes to supporting our veterans. This month, PureTalk is choosing to support Canines for Warriors, an incredible organization that rescues and trains dogs, then pairs them with veterans struggling with ptsd. These are men and women who serve with honor, but when they come home, that brotherhood and support network they had in the military too often disappears. Canines for Warrior steps up to fill the gap, giving these heroes purpose, companionship and healing. That's exactly why Puritok, a veteran led company, supports them. Choose a wireless company that shares your values. And with talk, text and plenty of 5G data for just 25 bucks a month, you could also be saving a ton of money. Go to PureTalk.com Levin to make the switch today, again, go to PureTalk.com Levin and switch to America's Wireless Company. My wireless company, PureTalk. You know, ladies and gentlemen, I'm blessed. I've been around many, many great men and women, people who've been so important in advancing the cause of liberty and civilization, who've written brilliant things, who have said brilliant things, created organizations as a first line of defense for our liberty. I've been around these people. I've done many of these things myself. So I know great men and women when I see them, when I hear them, when I work with them. And I know punks and low lives and losers when I see them too. Thugs. And I also notice these punks, low lives, losers and thugs. They're always trashing the people on whose shoulders we stand. Ronald Reagan was not good enough for them. Winston Churchill was not good enough for them. More and more. Donald Trump's not good enough for them. Of course, Benjamin Netanyahu, he's the worst of the worst. As they celebrate Stalin and Hitler, as they celebrate phony historians and Holocaust deniers, as they embrace Sharia law and repudiate Christianity, as they embrace Hamas as a political organization and repudiate Judaism. I mean, folks, how hard is this? We all know right from wrong and good from evil. These are evil people. Guitarlusin is a evil person. He's nothing like you. You remember from Fox. He's an extremely wealthy person. He grew up with a platinum foot in his mouth. The Swanson family, if you've ever had any Swanson frozen foods. Not attacking his family. They're successful. I'm addressing him directly. His father was a neocon, the foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which he trashes now. I told you, I met his fathers twice. What a class act. What a really nice man and a hawk. And hawkishly pro Israel. But it is what it is, isn't is what it is. He's sort of the Tokyo Rose of the isolation of movement. I mean, how are these people any different than neo Nazis and Klansmen, really? What they say about blacks, what they say about evangelical Christians, what they say about Jews, what they say about our country, like we're the colonialists and we're the imperialists. How they embrace some of the very entities that would have embraced Hitler, and some of them did. Do any of you have people in your family who have served in the military or serving in the military now? What do you think of this? What do you think they would think of this? Any of you affected by 911 directly, a family member, what do you think your family members, what do you think they would think of this? Seriously? I mean, if you want to live under Sharia law, it is very simple. There are a zillion countries that have it, then go enjoy it. They would take the likes of a Katalson and they would publicly dismember him. Seriously, if he went to Gaza, he'd find out who his friends really are. But he's not going to do that. Even Putin mocked him after the interview. Thought he was going to ask me some tough questions. Fuentes had to be laughing. Little Adolf, prepubescent little punk had to be mocking and laughing at guitarlsson. There's other people who are in his orbit and tend to remain in his orbit. Megyn Kelly's one of them. She doesn't say the things he says, that's for sure. But it's not that clever. And she's expanding her media company now. Very big independent, you know, Another one who I don't remember in any of these battles whatsoever, but she's irrelevant to me. Irrelevant. And so if we don't get our act together, we're going to get crushed politically. We don't get our act together, we're going to lose our culture and our society. There's no question about it. Why is Katarlson being quoted by cair, the Hamas related organization? They've been. They've been quoting him. Because he's a useful idiot, that's why. Actually, a useless idiot, but nonetheless, just telling you the truth, you know, history has a way repeating itself. Next hour, we'll continue with these clips from the Supreme Court justices on tariffs. Look forward to answering even more of them. I'll be right back. Hey, folks, I've got something you need to hear. It's real raw and it fearlessly cuts through the noise. It's called Frontier by Blaze Media. A fan. Fantastic. Magazine and issue two is here right now. If you missed the first one, you missed something big. But here's the good news. This one's even sharper, even stronger, packed with stories you won't find anywhere else. Now, Frontier by Blaze Media isn't just a magazine. It's a movement. And in issue two, we're really turning it up, folks. But you can't buy Frontier in stores or online. The only way to get it is with Blaze Unlimited. Blaze Unlimited gives you even, even more than Frontier, including early access to exclusive events, VIP opportunities, members only content and premium treatment. Go to blazeunlimited.com Levin to subscribe today, claim your copy supplies are limited. Please don't miss out. That's blazeunlimited.com Levin Secure your subscription today. You're gonna love it. Don't just read Frontier, live it. He's here. He's here. Now broadcasting them from the underground command post deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker somewhere under the brick and steel of a nondescript building, we've once again made contact with our leader, Mark Levin. Hello, America. Mark Levin here. Our number, 877-3813-811381-18773, 81-3811. Again, thank you to the American Spectator, Jeff Lord, Paul Kengor, Bob Terrell and the group there for your very, very kind article. I also want to thank Newsmax and Chris Ruddy for their very complimentary coverage, too. Very, very kind of them and many others out there I want to thank. But actually not many others are there, Mr. Producer. But those that are, I just want to thank you very much. I want to get back to this Supreme Court issue on tariffs. I think I've answered the Chief justice of the United States, Roberts. I've answered Sonia Sotomayor. Let's give a shot here. Amy Comey Barrett, cut 21, go.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett (77:50)

Can I just ask you a question? Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where that phrase together regulate importation has been used to confer tariff imposing authority?

Attorney or Legal Expert (Tariff Case Advocate) (78:01)

Well, as to regulate importation, that was held in twea. So obviously. And that's okay.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett (78:06)

Okay, so an intermediate appellate court held it in twill. But you just told Justice Kavanaugh that wasn't your lead argument, that your lead argument was this long history of the phrase regulate importation being understood to include tariff authorities. So my question is, has there ever been another instance in which a statute has conferred, used that language to confer the.

Mark Levin (78:25)

Why does that matter? Why does that matter? Let's say there's not. Why is that controlling? That doesn't mean a. A affirmative decision was made not to use it because you couldn't use it. I would say to the justice, of course you're not allowed to. But what I would say to the justice is, okay, well, let me ask you this. Are you aware of any case in which it actually came up and it was rejected and the answer is no? So it's a red herring. Go ahead.

Attorney or Legal Expert (Tariff Case Advocate) (79:00)

I mean, obviously other statutory example is just imports. The cases we rely on are cases where, for example, in Gibbon, Ogden and Justice stories.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett (79:07)

But that just shows the word can be used that way. None of those cases talked about it as conferring tariffs.

Mark Levin (79:12)

You see, that's actually even weirder. That just means it can be used that way, not that it confers that authority necessarily on the President. I don't understand. So you're President of the United States, you're making decisions about tariffs, and you got to decide if language can be used a certain way, but whether it actually confers it on you. Now, why would a president do that and why is that so important? That is, does it confer it on him? I don't know. Justice. Does it? Well, it's never been used that way before, but it's never been tried that way before. You see what I mean, ladies and gentlemen, this separation of powers issue, the way this is being dealt with to me is almost comical, if not childish. Go ahead.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett (80:03)

I understood you to be citing McGoldrick and Gibbons and those cases just to show that it's possible to say that regulating commerce includes the power to tariff.

Attorney or Legal Expert (Tariff Case Advocate) (80:12)

I think. I think our argument goes a bit further than that as an interpretive matter, because if you look at that history, the history of delegates.

Mark Levin (80:17)

Could you just answer the Justice's question? Isn't that nice? Somebody woke up Sotomayor. Somebody woke her up. Would you just answer the question, please? Where are we? First of all, your question was as dumb as they come. Justice, Go ahead.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett (80:36)

Can you identify any statute that used that phrase to confer truth?

Attorney or Legal Expert (Tariff Case Advocate) (80:39)

Yeah, the only two statutes I can identify now are twea, as interpreted in Yoshida and then closely related. Not regulate importation, but adjust imports in section 232.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett (80:50)

Well, I think adjust imports is different. So the answer is the contested application in TWIA and then now in IEIPA.

Mark Levin (80:57)

And then of course, I mean, let's stop a second. But there's no counter cases in which it says a President cannot. I'm trying not to get too much in the weeds here. There's no counter cases that says a president cannot I looked at this. So can you tell him justice, where there's counter cases where it says a president can't interpret it that way. Go ahead.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett (81:32)

Yeah, I understand that.

Mark Levin (81:34)

Okay.

Attorney or Legal Expert (Tariff Case Advocate) (81:34)

And then, but then more fundamentally, we rely on historical sources to show there's this long historical pedigree of broad delegations of the foreign commerce power, not the power to tax. And the that we're not asserting here. Delegations of the foreign commerce power to the president going back to Gibbons against.

Mark Levin (81:49)

So here's what's going. Let me slow you down because it may be confusing everybody and I don't blame you if you are. He's asserting that this is a foreign policy issue, in some cases a national security issue, that it's not viewed as a tax issue per se. I would argue that maybe it has a taxing effect, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have a foreign policy and national security issue as well. Just, just like a regulation. Regulation has a tax effect. But then on the other hand, who's going to enforce regulations? Who's going to write regulations if the executive branch does not. But just because people talk fast doesn't mean they're actually making any sense. And she says, look, maybe he can do it, but can you show me any basically precedential court? And by that she means a significant court like her court or just under her court that interprets it the way you do. And my answer to that is why does it matter? If it's never been presented before, why does it matter? Go ahead.

Attorney or Legal Expert (Tariff Case Advocate) (83:03)

And board of Trustees, where this court and founding era sources say the power to, in other words, the power to tariff is kind of this natural, you know, as everyone knows, that includes.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett (83:13)

Just ask you one other question about the plain text general science first.

Mark Levin (83:16)

They never listen to the answer. They just blow right through. Go ahead.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett (83:20)

You've referred to the other verbs in IIPA as capacious. Would you really describe them as capacious? Because to me, things like nullifying, nullify and void have definite meanings. I agree with you that regulate is a broader term. But those words I think are powerful. They give, they pack a punch. But I wouldn't describe them as capacious in the sense that they have a wide range of meanings. So can you describe what you mean by capacious?

Attorney or Legal Expert (Tariff Case Advocate) (83:43)

Let me put it this way. You look at all nine verbs together and you're looking at a spectrum of powers from the most sort of negative, nullify, block, prohibit, void to the most affirmative, direct, Comparison, compel.

Mark Levin (83:54)

And then this guy's no dummy. Go ahead.

Attorney or Legal Expert (Tariff Case Advocate) (83:57)

We that are more intermediate, regulate, investigate, and so forth. So the natural common sense inference from that grammatical structure is the intention of Congress to sort of COVID the waterfront.

Mark Levin (84:07)

Yeah, very well said. So what she does, she pulls two words out of it, the, the, I'll put it my way, the most aggressive words, and says these seem to me to be very clear. And he's saying, well, okay, but what about the other eight words that are in the same sentence? You know, that's like reading the First Amendment but cutting a big chunk of it out. No, that's not what the First Amendment says and that's not what the authors intended. So my question to you, America, is this. Why is she being so hostile? Why is she asking questions? To me, they were pretty stupid, like why is there no precedent in this area? Well, because there's no precedent in this area. And these two words seem pretty aggressive, pretty hard hitting. Well, maybe they are. But what about all the other words that are in the same sentence? So why is she doing that? I'm just curious. You know, Clarence Thomas is really a genius because you figure if I have nothing to say, let me listen, see how this works. But I feel like some of these justices feel they have to speak even they sound stupid. We've seen Jackson, we've seen Sotomayor, and I have to say in this instance anyway, Barrett to me sounds very foolish. Roberts sounds foolish. Sotomayor sounds like a thug. But let's keep going. Here's Justice Gorsuch, cut 22 ago. You say that we shouldn't be so concerned in the area of foreign affairs because of the President inherent powers. That's the gist of it, as I understand it, why we should disregard both major questions and non delegation. So could Congress delegate to the President the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations as he sees fit, to lay and collect duties as he sees fit?

Attorney or Legal Expert (Tariff Case Advocate) (86:01)

We, we don't, we don't assert that here. That would be a much harder case now in 1790.

Mark Levin (86:05)

Isn't that the logic of your, of your view, though?

Attorney or Legal Expert (Tariff Case Advocate) (86:08)

I don't think so because we're dealing with a statute that was a carefully crafted compromise. It does have all the limitations that I just talked about.

Mark Levin (86:14)

You're saying you shouldn't. Look, we shouldn't be concerned with. I want to explain to me how you draw the line because you say we shouldn't be concerned because this is foreign affairs. And the President. You know, it's interesting, Gorsuch is saying this because what I had been thinking is this, how do you draw the line? If this court draws the line against the President of the United States and all these tariffs, all these negotiations, all these foreign policy and national security implications, whether it's China or some other country, collapse, they just collapse. They've neutered him. They collapse. And yet that's not compelled by the Constitution or any statute that I'm aware of, which is exactly what I said early on in this reminder. Remember, I said, Mr. Producer, they should stay out of it and let the two branches duke it out and Congress can use the power of the purse and make a much more affirmative and definitive statement about what they believe the President can and cannot do. And then the President makes a far more definitive statement about his powers under the Constitution, their Article one powers, his Article two powers, then it might be right for the court, once the two sides have been very clear about it. But they should never have taken this case except to take it overturn. The lower courts made it clear that this is a political doctrine question, meaning the two political entities, the two branches, are going to duke it out. And it's really not right for us to be sitting here making a such a thin, straight line delineating what's on one side and what's on the other, because it's not that easy. It's not that easy. The tariffs on China were used to stop China from raising tariffs on these critical raw materials that we need for our computers, for our defense and so forth and so on. And they work. So I would ask John Roberts, is that a tax? I would ask Neil Gorsuch, was that a misapplication of the President's powers? What was it? You kind of need to have that arrow as to use against other countries. I don't understand what the hostility is. They're afraid the President's going to become too powerful, that he's going to take the taxing authority. Let's try it this way. The President, United States says, I'm going to raise the income tax. Everybody knows, no, you can't, or I'm going to slash your taxes. No, you can't. And this President knows that. How do we know? Because the, the beautiful big bill had to be passed in order to cut taxes. He didn't say he had that independent authority. If they're worried about taxes, well, what about taxes through the back door? Well, nobody does more taxes through the back door than the bureaucracy. Ask yourselves. Many of you have had to deal with this and the costs throughout the economy are massive. Massive. All right, let's keep going. Go ahead. And so delegation off the books, more or less, or at least if that's true, what would. Well, delegation is off the books because to me that's the least of the arguments. Arguments. The least of the arguments because they're not asserting a taxing power. They're asserting a foreign policy, national security power under the second article of the Constitution. That's what they're asserting. If they're up there asserting a taxing power, that'd be a whole different thing. Now people want to say, well they're taxing. Isn't that the core of it? That's what Robert says. And he says no, that's not the core of what we're doing. We're negotiating to lower somebody else's tariffs. We're negotiating for a better economic situation for our people. We're negotiating in a way that we can protect and build up our industries. It's not a matter if you agree with the president's policies. I'm talking about the Constitution. And I think if I'm the justices, what I'd say to Congress, if not directly, but even through this answering questions session this hearing is has Congress ever passed xyz? No. Has Congress passed anything since Donald Trump has been president this term to try and limit what he can do? No, because they don't have a majority. Exactly. The Democrats. So we have what's called elections. Go ahead. Just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce for that matter, declare war to the president. All right, stop. That's kind of absurd. I don't mean to be rude because I like Gorsuch these kind of questions that reach to absurd levels. They don't. They're not. I'm not impressed by them. We'll be right back. Mud loving foreign Israel is at war with Iran, a nation whose leaders have vowed to wipe Israel and even the United States off the map. In a necessary act of self defense Israel struck Iranian nuclear facilities, military targets and top leadership. Right now the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews is on the ground preparing large scale distributions of life saving food, first aid and emergency kits, especially to Israel's most vulnerable people, the sick, the elderly, children and families in great need. The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews is also making sure that hospitals, emergency rooms and shelters are fully stocked with critical and life saving medical supplies. But the fellowship needs your most generous gift today to make this work possible. Now is the time, ladies and gentlemen to stand with Israel's most vulnerable to rush your gift. Call 888-585-IFCJ and donate today. That's 888-585-IFCj or online at levin for the fellowship.org that's L E V I N for the fellowship.org notice. Curtis Slieber was not a spoiler, was he, Mr. Producer? So all the attacks on him were really pretty outrageous. In fact, I thought he was the most, most articulate in the whole damn campaign. What do you think of that? We'll be right back. Folks. We're living in a time when America's most cherished values are being challenged. Values like faith, family and freedom. And that's why I support amac, the association of Mature American Citizens. AMAC is the choice for Americans who care deeply about preserving the principles that have guided this nation for generations. Whether you're concerned about your future, your children's future, or just want to stay informed and connected, AMAC is as a member of the association of Mature American Citizens, you'll receive access to fantastic benefits and discounts on travel insurance, prescription services, as well as exclusive member only tools and resources that make a difference in everyday life. And one of my personal favorites, the AMAC magazine. Packed with meaningful content, insightful interviews and updates you won't find anywhere else. Right now you can join for as little as a $20 a month. Hello. With a five year membership, that's an incredible value. So don't wa go to AMAC US Mark, and become a member today. Stand with amac, help keep the values we hold dear going strong for future generations. That's AMAC US Mark. We're back, America. I'm here with a very, very special guest, Elie Shirabi, one of the hostages taken by Hamas. And he's written a fantastic book called Hostage and Elish Rabi. Welcome to the program, America. And the whole world is sitting on the edge of its chair in order to hear a little bit of your story. It's very, very important with all the static out there and so forth. And so I wanted to start at the beginning. We'll break this into little pieces. Tell us about your life before October 7th and your family.

Elie Shirabi (94:55)

I've been, you know, in Kibbutz Berry for 35 years, 28 of them with Leanne that arrived from UK as a volunteer. She intended to be there for three months. We fell in love, we lived together. We raised two beautiful daughters, Noia and Yael, that had great childhood like we dreamt for them. Lots of friends, lots of activities, you know, me and Leanne. Each one of us was concentrated our, you know, career I used to be a CFO of the kibbutz and other companies outside of the kibbutz. And Leanne was the last year. She's been dentist assistant. And she was very happy from this work.

Mark Levin (95:46)

And your daughters were how old on October 6th? October 7th, how old were your daughters?

Elie Shirabi (95:53)

Neue and Yael. Both of them born in October 1st and October 3rd. So just the week of October 7th, we just celebrate them a birthday with lots of friends at the house and balloons and cakes and. And really it was great celebration. They were very happy about that. That's it.

Mark Levin (96:17)

So they were teenagers.

Elie Shirabi (96:19)

Neue was 16 and Yahel was 13.

Mark Levin (96:22)

Yeah, 16 and 13. Yes. Tell us a little bit about each of your daughters, Neue.

Elie Shirabi (96:30)

I used to. First of all, she liked music a lot. And it was one of the things that we did together. We went to concerts of singers and she really liked that. She liked her friends and most she liked to help, you know, disabled kids with the autism. And she did it for three years before October 7th. And Jael liked the extreme life. She liked to jump from airplanes, skydiving, scuba diving. She plays football. That was her passion.

Mark Levin (97:18)

And you know, you write about it in the book, so I know it's hard, but. October 7th, what happened October 7th to you and your. And your girls, your wife?

Elie Shirabi (97:29)

We just woke up 6:30 in the morning from alarm in the kibbutz. We pick up the girls to the safe room, stay there for four hours. In the meantime, we've seen some. First of all, we got the message to stay in the safe room because there is possibility of terrorists infiltrated Barrie. So we stayed. We've waited there for four hours. In the meantime we've seen films on the television from Sderot and Ofakim and Nova Festival. And we understood the situation is not in control at all. The few hours after that, we start to hear the fighting in the kibbutz. We start to hear some, you know, shootings. And we start to hear the fight. And we got some messages from kids that said somebody shot dad, somebody shot mom, and our house is setting on fire and things like that. Leon and I made a decision that we are not going to fight with them. We are going to say this exactly what they are asking from us. We presume I'll be kidnapped, but for them, the British passport will protect them. And that was our plan. And when they arrived, more than four hours after we got in the safe room, we did exactly the same. They understood they have British passport. Five minutes later they took me out of the house. That was the Last time I've seen them, unfortunately, these monsters didn't have any boundaries. They didn't care about their British passports and they murdered them five minutes after I was kidnapped.

Mark Levin (99:14)

My God. Now, prior to coming out of the safe room and presenting them with the passports and so forth, I assume and as you explain you had a discussion with your wife about what you were going to do and you had a discussion with your daughters too, correct?

Elie Shirabi (99:33)

Not really. We tried to be very quiet about that. We understood each other about the passport. That the first thing we've sent to them after they stop shooting in the, in the safe room we showed them they have British passport and that's it. That's the last time I've seen them because they took me out of the house and I just shouted to my girls that have been in the kitchen area. I shout them I'll come back. And that was the last thing, the last time I've seen them.

Mark Levin (100:02)

And then what happens to you?

Elie Shirabi (100:05)

They kidnapped me, you know, push me in the car. On the way of the car I've seen something like 150 terrorists in our neighborhood coming in and out from every house, celebrating, smiling, filming themselves. So I understood that the army is not around because they nobody fought with them in our neighborhood. They pushed me in the back of the car that they stole from Barry and we driven to towards Gaza, something like half an hour and we stopped in a mosque.

Mark Levin (100:42)

But before we get to that, let me ask you this, which is what did they say to you in the car? Anything. What did they do to you in the car? Anything.

Elie Shirabi (100:50)

Was it silent just from time to time? No, they haven't been silent. From time to time they beat me. They talk with themselves about how millionaires we are in the kibbutz because they've seen the neighborhood. It was the newest neighborhood in kibbutz Bay area. We only been there five years in our house, that's it. And they were very stressed if the army is going to bomb the car or not. But again after half an hour we stop in the mosque. They tried to take me out of the car. A mob of civilians were outside and they succeed to take me away from them, from the terrorists start to lynch me. It was kids on top of me with shoes start to hit me. Fortunately again the terrorists that have been with me in the car succeed to take me into the mosque. They undressed me, start to interrogate me.

Mark Levin (101:51)

All right, let me ask you a question before we get in the mosque. The book is hostage by the way. You really ought to Grab this book on Amazon.com it's available now, Amazon.com, hostage. You really ought to read this book and get the facts. It's just unbelievable. But the population there, including the kids, they wanted to string you up. They wanted to lynch you right there, correct?

Elie Shirabi (102:12)

Yes, yes. Most of the time when I've been in the house of the Palestinian house, of the family, that I was there 52 days, the first 52 days, the terrorist of Hamas was scared from the civilians outside that will hear me or see me and will come to the inside the house and will lynch all of us, include them. It was when we walk the streets in Gaza, it was the most scary thing I've ever done.

Mark Levin (102:49)

So the population wanted you dead. They wanted to hang you. So this idea that there's a big separation between the terrorists and the population.

Elie Shirabi (102:58)

Yes. These civilians, that was so called uninvolved, we afraid them the most. Yes.

Mark Levin (103:05)

So you're dragged into this mosque and you were saying what happened?

Elie Shirabi (103:10)

They start to interrogate me.

Dinesh D'Souza (103:12)

And.

Elie Shirabi (103:14)

I said to them, I answered that I'm in Arabic. And they were very surprised I know Arabic. So I said, they were sure, I'm from the secret service, from Israel, from the IDF. And I said to them, I'm 51 years old, old, I'm a civilian. And they didn't really believe me. And they took me from there to a family Palestinian house. And we've been there for 52 days, chained on our legs and hands. And of course you need the permission to speak and to eat and to go to the toilet. This is what we've, we've done 52.

Mark Levin (103:49)

Days, and then what happens after 52 days?

Elie Shirabi (103:53)

It was the first ceasefire that they changed the women and the children, Israeli hostages, with their prisoners. And we were sure it will come our turn as well. Instead of that, they took us, me and another guy that arrived the day before, another Israeli hostage. They took us to a tunnels, and in the tunnels that was in the mosque, we've been 50 meters underground. And I met another, another six hostages, Israeli hostages there. One of them included was Hirsch Goldberg and was American citizen. And I knew an amazing man. Unfortunately, they separate us after three days. They took Hirsch Goldberg, Oridanino and Dalmorghe Sarusi to other places. They said to them, they are going home. But unfortunately they didn't arrive home and they were murdered 10 months later in other tunnel.

Mark Levin (104:59)

Yeah, it's unbelievable. Again, this is all important, this book is very, very important. Remind everybody how many days you were held as a hostage.

Elie Shirabi (105:09)

I was 491 days, 440 days from them. It was under, you know, in the tunnels, 50 meters underground, humiliated. The humiliation was on daily basis. Violence from time to time. Chained, of course, 24, 7. For all these 440 days, you know, the hygienic condition was very, very poor. We got to shower every six weeks with half of cold. Half a bucket of cold water, soap or toothpaste were a luxury for us that we've seen every three or four months. This is our life. But the worst, the worst thing, we didn't care about all these things. We could, you know, it was bearable for us. It was a part of our survival. But the worst thing was the starvation. We used to eat one meal a day. It was a bowl of pasta or a bowl of rice or one and a half pita bread, usually dry. That was the worst thing. I was weighted on October 7th, I was more than 70 kilos. And when I was released 16 months later, I was 44 kilos.

Mark Levin (106:30)

Well, without going to Google, that's how many pounds when you were released?

Elie Shirabi (106:33)

You know, I don't know in pounds, and I know just in kilos.

Mark Levin (106:38)

I'm looking it up right now. Stick with me. Okay, that's 2.2 pounds. So you lost over 60 pounds. That's a lot.

Elie Shirabi (106:46)

Yes, of course.

Mark Levin (106:47)

Yes, that's a lot. Did you get close to or friendly with any of the others who were kidnapped? Were you with them long enough to really get to know who they were? And were you able to speak to each other?

Elie Shirabi (107:02)

I've been for 14 months, 247 with Elia Coin or Levy and the Lon Oil. We've been together in the tunnels. We needed to survive together. So of course we talked every day. We knew about each other, everything about our childhood, family, friends, hobbies, whatever, you name it. I know everything about everyone. And that was good because it helped us to survive together. And we've been really united. We made lots of process between us and we had lots of strategies about the relationship that we had with our captors. And we analyzed them 24 7, and it helped us to survive.

Mark Levin (107:53)

Did you talk to each other about whether or not you would get out? Did you have hope or no?

Elie Shirabi (107:59)

We didn't lose our hope, our faith for one minute. I used to repeat that it's only a matter of time until we are going to be released. I don't know if it will be another month, another eight months. We are going to be released, that's for sure. Because I knew how Israel acting about their civilians. And I knew that the idf, all the secret services and our leadership as well, doing everything they can to take us out from there.

Mark Levin (108:31)

You know, I'd like to have you back one day. I know it's not easy given the time and so forth. I feel like we've touched barely the surface here, folks. If you want to get all the information, and I encourage you to do it because this is a real story of humanity versus this monstrous terrorism. The book is called Hostage, and we're talking to a very, very brave man, Eli Shahrabi. Eli, I cannot thank you enough for your time. I want to encourage everybody listening, grab this book. You can get it on Amazon.com hostage or any major bookstore, but you can get it tomorrow right there on Amazon.com I definitely want to try and get you back in three or four weeks. I won't put you on the spot, but there's so much more to talk about. I just want you to know. Thank God you're back. We are extremely and sincerely sorry about the loss of your beautiful girls, your wife, and we wish you all the best in the future, my friend.

Elie Shirabi (109:30)

Thank you very much, Mark. Thank you for having me. It was a big honor. Thank you.

Mark Levin (109:35)

Honor is mine. God bless. We'll be right back. Mark levin, With Donald Trump back in office, one of his biggest adversaries, top Democrat Dick Durbin of Chicago, is leading the charge to derail President Trump's agenda at every turn. And now Senator Durbin has a new scheme, a government takeover of your credit card. Right now, Americans have thousands of credit card options, all with equal strong security. But Durbin's plan could result in less security. That means more risk for your credit, your identity, and your financial future. Now, Durbin's bill isn't about helping consumers. It's a giveaway to corporate megastores, which could shift costs onto you while putting your rewards and fraud protections in jeopardy. We've seen Durbin's failed policies before his last big banking regulation backfired, leading to higher costs and fewer benefits for American families. Tell Republican senators, stop Durbin's government takeover of your credit card before it's too late. Learn more@guardyourcard.com that's guardyourcard.com paid for by the Electronic Payments Coalition. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, cut 24. Go. Mr. Katyal referred to common sense of several times. And I want to pick up on Justice Barrett's question because your interpretation of the statute, she pointed out, would allow the president to shut down all trade with every other country in the world or to impose some significant quota on imports from every other country in the world, but would not allow a 1% tariff. And that leaves, in the government's words in sprif, an odd doughnut hole in the statute. Why would a rational Congress say, yeah, we're going to give the President the power to shut down trade? I mean, think about the effects. But you're admitting that power's in there. Yeah. I've got to say one thing, folks, that seems. This seems very esoteric to me and not even on point. I'm just saying this gives the power, the ability of the President to just shut down all trade. Don't you think they'd IMPEACH the President, Mr. Producer, if they did that and remove him from office? Any president shut down all trade? The answer is yes, that's what they would do. But that said, there's no president who's going to shut down all trades. There has to be some level of common sense here, the application of the real world here. And of course, if that's the position of Barrett and that's the position of even Kavanaugh, they really fear something like that potentially could happen. Or as through their logic stream, they look at this, I still don't see why Congress couldn't act either through impeachment or even the power of the purse, a statute, something of that sort. I just don't get it. So if a president were to shut down all commerce, you think Congress would sit there and thumb their nose? No, they wouldn't. I want to salute all you heroes out there. I want to thank you and I look forward to seeing you tomorrow, same place, same time. God bless you.