Ep. 149 skewers Hillary Clinton’s contradictory policies—minimum wage hikes, anti-fossil fuel rhetoric, and Saudi oil imports funding terrorism—while mocking Trump’s protectionist bluster despite valid tax/deregulation critiques. Brexit’s populist backlash is framed as a rejection of elite governance, tracing roots to Reagan’s 1981 vision over Obama’s technocratic rule. The 2008 crisis is pinned on Dodd-Frank and Barney Frank’s risky lending, with Uber/Airbnb cited as regulatory casualties. Obama’s Canada summit contrasts Trump’s populism, dismissed as cynical, while Tavis Smiley’s racial claims clash with a defense of MLK’s colorblind meritocracy over welfare divisions. The episode ends with a warning: federal overreach threatens liberty, urging allegiance to faith and nation as bulwarks against centralized control. [Automatically generated summary]
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are presenting Americans with their competing views on trade and the economy.
Hillary Clinton explained how Democrat policies would create jobs.
Let's say you're a house builder.
You may think that illogical minimum wage laws and overly stringent environmental regulations that drive the cost of your labor and materials into the stratosphere might put you out of business.
But luckily, Democrats are allowing millions of illegal immigrants into the country who work off the books and don't have to obey those rules.
So they can work on your house much more cheaply.
If you still had a house, which of course you don't because you went out of business.
But at least now you qualify for welfare.
And in order to pay for that, we have to borrow billions from future generations.
So the children of illegal immigrants who will be legal will ultimately have to pay for your welfare.
So you have revenge.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump offered his plan to restore the economy.
Harking back to the 18th century necessity of funding the government through tariffs, Trump said that he would renegotiate our foreign trade deals, and if the British continued to interfere with our frigates, he would make common cause with the Cherokee and Iroquois Indian tribes to drive the red coats from our shores.
Trump said that other nations were stealing such traditional American jobs as pot making, spear sharpening, and bison hunting, but under a Trump economy, they would all come back.
Most economists agree.
Hillary Clinton addressed the issue of trade by saying she would make deals with foreign countries that would bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in order to ensure a very, very comfortable retirement, not only for herself and Huma, but also for Chelsea Clinton and probably the grandkids as well.
These deals with such loyal American allies as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar would enable Mrs. Clinton to help clean up the environment by shutting down American coal, oil, and fracking industries while still getting us enough gas to fuel our cars by buying billions of dollars worth of oil from Arab nations who could then continue to fund the Islamist terrorist groups who kill us, thereby causing there to be fewer Americans who need work and bringing down the unemployment rate.
Donald Trump countered that he would bring down the unemployment rate by ending free trade so that we no longer had to buy goods from foreigners but could simply trade with one another.
This would cause less competition, driving up prices, which means we would all get more money for what we sell and therefore have enough money to pay for the exorbitant prices of the things we buy, causing the prices to go even higher so we would have even more money to pay for the even higher prices until finally a pack of gum costs $7,000 and you can make a fortune just by selling gum so you can afford gum.
Commenting on the candidates' competing ideas, President Obama said, gosh, they all sounded good to him, but then he didn't know much about the economy and was sure glad it wasn't up to him to do anything about it.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin and this is the Andrew Clagin Joe.
You know, I have a new theory about what's going on.
I always try to expand my theories to take in more of the facts.
Experts Must Run the Country00:15:37
My new theory is that Shapiro and Jeremy Boring, the editor-in-chief of the Daily Wire, have taken over all my devices and are feeding false news to try and get me to believe that America is going to nominate Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to run for president.
I think they're in the next room giggling like children going, I think Clavin bought it.
I think he thinks Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
All right.
You know, if the two of them, I go from one to the other.
It's like a ping pong, watching a ping pong match.
If a lie could lie about being a lie, it would still be more honest than Hillary Clinton.
Still be like ahead of the game.
And Trump, what Trump is like, he's like one of those old flying machines that they used to build before they discovered Bernoulli's principle, you know, where they would build his wings and all this stuff, and it would look great, and the guy would jump off the cliff, and they would try and put a good face on it.
They would say, hey, he flew 100 yards.
It was just straight down.
It's like, all right, we're live on Facebook.
Are we live on Facebook?
Hey, okay, we're live for 15 minutes.
That's all you get.
And then when the real stuff comes out, the nudity and the, oh yeah, the trash talk, then we'll be gone.
You know, then you have to subscribe.
Come on the Daily Wire.
You can hear the whole show, or you can subscribe for 30 days for free and then eight bucks a month, which we remove directly from your mother's bank account.
And the stuff that you were going to pay her for living in her basement.
Okay, we started this week with Brexit, and we end going into the July 4th weekend.
So the theme obviously is liberty, is freedom.
And the breaking news is that Boris Johnson, who was the big leader, the former London mayor, who was the big leader of the exit the EU movement in Britain, and everybody thought was going to be the prime minister, has suddenly, for reasons that are not quite clear, decided he's not going to run.
Here's his announcement.
This is our chance to think globally again, to lift our eyes to the horizon, to bring our unique British voice and values, powerful, humane, progressive, to the great global forums without being elbowed aside by a supranational body.
And instead of being afflicted by nerves, they'll seize this chance and make this our moment to stand tall in the world.
That is the agenda for the next prime minister of this country.
But I must tell you, my friends, you who have waited faithfully for the punchline of this speech, that having consulted colleagues and in view of the circumstances in Parliament, I have concluded that person cannot be me.
My role will be to give every possible support to the next Conservative administration, to make sure that we properly fulfill the mandate of the people that was delivered at the referendum, and to champion the agenda I believe in.
So something's going on here because his pal, the Justice Secretary, Michael Gove, who was supposed to support him in his bid to become Prime Minister, is now going to announce that he was going to run for Prime Minister.
And that's why Boris stepped down.
So it's now going to be this guy, Michael Gove, and the Home Secretary, Theresa May, who has a very good reputation.
She was not in favor.
She was not in favor of the exit, but she was kind of soft about it.
She kept out of the fray.
She has a very good Thatcherite kind of reputation.
Two things to notice before we move on to American politics, though.
One is the stock market has come bouncing back.
Not only our stock market, but the FTSE, the FTSE, you know, has come, that's the Financial Times Stock Exchange.
I couldn't remember what it was before.
But they've both come back.
So it's not that there's not going to be hard days and ups and downs and all this stuff.
It's just that this apocalyptic disaster that was predicted and that they were, they can't deny that they were pointing at the stock market going, see, see, you know, well, now suddenly it's all very quiet.
It's hilarious if you read the New York Times, a former newspaper, you will see these kind of machinations in their politics being reported as if it was a shooting war.
They're saying, and the chaos and the panic.
This is parliamentary politics.
This is what parliamentary politics is like.
It's a lot more dramatic than our politics, even though our politics has gotten pretty darn close.
So the other important thing to notice was when Boris Johnson was talking, Johnson is not, they keep doing this thing about xenophobia.
It was all about xenophobia and, you know, hating immigrants and bigotry and all this.
Boris Johnson is a Euro, he likes, he's not a Europhobe.
He is a Europhile.
He loves Europe.
He considers Britain to be part of Europe.
He doesn't want to separate from Europe.
He just wants to get out of this super state where Brussels is running Britain without being answerable to the British voter.
So he wants to be a full and complete free Briton in Europe, trading with Europe.
And that's the thing that the EU, in their small-mindedness and their desperation to hang on to power, is going to stop them, try and stop them from doing.
So that's the drama that's coming down the pike.
But meanwhile, this we have to just pause for a minute to make sure you understand that the left is selling this whole thing, selling this freedom movement as bigotry.
Because that's where we're going to come back to in a while.
This whole idea that freedom is racism.
Freedom is racism.
You just have to take a look at Christiane, I'm a poor journalist, as she attacks.
She has got to be the worst journalist in the world.
I mean, she is so biased.
And then whenever anybody says she's biased, she gets very huffy.
It's like, take that.
She says, this is an interview she did with Dan Hennan.
Just take that back.
Take that.
You know, she's so biased.
Here she is, like, basically jumping down Hannon's.
This is the conservative European MP who basically has always been in favor of Britain getting out of the EU.
She's jumping down his throat and accusing him that the whole thing is about immigration, which Hannan isn't a supporter of, by the way.
He's a big immigration supporter.
He just says that now London, England, is going to decide who comes in.
You're saying that parliamentary sovereignty could quite easily allow the same number of people to keep coming in?
That would be a decision for Parliament.
That's how democracy is.
Are you kidding me?
This whole thing was run on immigrants.
Can I play for you?
You guys have been shouting racist so long and listening to what we're saying.
Did I say that?
When you retracted it.
Did I say that?
When have I ever made immigration?
Did I say that?
Did I say that?
You've accused me of backtracking.
Bettracker.
And I want you to give me one bit of evidence.
Anything to sound by Daniel.
Well, that was fair.
And she only does it to the people she opposes, by the way.
She let the other guy, on another interview, she did, she let that guy run on until I was dozing off, you know, the pro-Europe guy.
She just let him on, go on and on in this drone.
Dan Henninger, the guy from the Wall Street Journal, who's kind of a very good kind of center conservative guy, he writes a column that puts it very succinctly what this is about.
The vote by the people of the United Kingdom to separate from the European Union was actually Brexit the sequel.
The first Brexit vote took place 35 years ago in the United States with the election of Ronald Reagan, who carried 44 states.
Reagan, in his first inaugural address in 1981, could not have been more explicit about what his election stood for.
In this present crisis, Reagan said, government is not the solution to our problem.
Government is the problem.
Brexit is shorthand for government is the problem, says Henninger.
Liberal intellectuals have mocked Reagan for reducing his theory of government to a bumper sticker, but he elaborated on the idea with words that would have fit in the founders' debates.
Here is Reagan again.
We have been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule.
That government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people.
But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?
Perfect logic.
This thing about everything has gotten too complicated.
It basically started with Woodrow Wilson.
He was the expert.
He was the intellectual.
He was a very Obama-like figure.
I don't think he was, I think he was a terrible president, but he was the first guy.
I guess Teddy Roosevelt was the first guy to say he was a progressive, but Woodrow Wilson was right up there.
He was, you know, he said that the experts, it's gotten too complex.
Experts have to run the country.
FDR, the same thing.
Experts have to run the country.
Obama, the same thing.
He said, I wish I could just sit down with the experts and solve all our problems, but I've got this crappy democracy thing.
And he keeps getting on our way.
So Donald Trump has tried to pick up.
He's not an idiot.
He's tried to pick up.
I take that back.
But he's not this kind of idiot.
He has tried to pick up on that populist feeling with this speech he made earlier in the week about the economy that was just, listen, you know, there's a poll out today from Rasmussen, kind of an outlier poll that has him ahead, that has Trump ahead.
And I know that Ben thinks Trump has no chance.
I don't believe that for a second.
This has really been a good two weeks for Donald Trump.
There was the abortion decision, which even had me thinking: if there is some chance that Donald Trump might smoke a doobie and stumble into a room and appoint a good justice just by accident, I'll vote for him.
If there is some chance to keep Hillary Clinton from filling the one, two, three, or four spots that could come up in the next four years, it would be worth it to stop him.
That abortion decision made me crazy.
It made a lot of people crazy.
This new attack in Istanbul with Obama clueless about what to do and clueless about why we're being attacked and clueless about how to stop it.
It just makes Trump look good and it wouldn't surprise me.
But he made a speech about the economy that was as bad as it could be.
Here's just a piece of it.
He's talking in this fashion.
It's like he's talking from inside a dumpster or something.
Go ahead.
But if we're going to deliver real change, we're going to have to reject the campaign of fear and intimidation being pursued by powerful corporations, media elites, and political dynasties.
The people who rigged the system for their benefit will do anything and say anything to keep things exactly the way they are.
The people who rigged the system are supporting Hillary Clinton because they know as long as she is in charge, nothing's going to change.
The inner cities will remain poor.
The factories will remain closed.
The borders will remain open.
The special interests will remain firmly in control.
Hillary Clinton and her friends in global finance want to scare America into thinking small.
And they want to scare American people out of voting for the better future.
And you have a great future, folks.
You have a great future.
These people have given her tens of millions of dollars.
My campaign has the absolute opposite message.
I want you to imagine a much better life and a life where you can believe in the American dream again.
Right now, you can't do that.
Now, that's what Trump is really good at.
What Trump is good at is getting to the problem, touching that tone of, you know, working class anger of we've been cheated, we've been robbed, you know, we was robbed, the whole thing.
But when he starts talking about, you know, he's going to destroy NAFTA, he's going to get rid of free trade, he's going to put tariffs.
I mean, tariffs, you know, I don't want to get into the high weeds about this.
It's just the ideas are bad.
The ideas are bad.
The more people you can trade with, I mean, it's simple logic.
If I have a, I sell books.
If I have a book to sell, there are three people in this room.
I can get a better price if I have 15 people.
I can get a better price if I have 30 people.
And yes, jobs and goods are going to, cheaper goods are going to come in from outside, and some jobs are going to leave.
And at the end of his speech, at the end of Trump's speech, after talking absolute pure protectionist nonsense, Trump got to the real problem for like one sentence.
I will quote the end of this.
We will make America the best place in the world to start a business, hire workers, and open a factory.
This includes massive tax reform to lift the crushing burdens on American workers and businesses.
And the tax is crushing.
I mean, we have let this get completely out of hand.
We will also get rid of wasteful rules and regulations which are destroying our job creation capacity.
Many people think that these regulations are an even greater impediment than the fact that we are one of the highest tax nations in the world.
I'm one of those people.
You know, one of the things that happened, we had a crash in 2008 that was like the crash that started the Great Depression.
The only thing that stopped it from being that bad is we had gotten so rich because of free trade and because of capitalism and because of Reagan cutting, you know, reforming the tax code and Clinton sort of sticking to that.
We had gotten so rich in the meantime that we didn't need breadlines.
We didn't have Hooverville's.
You know, it was a crash that was just as bad.
That crash was caused by what Frederick Hayek calls the fatal conceit.
The fatal conceit is that the world can be run better from the top than it can by the people, that the people can control.
Oh, yeah, we have to say goodbye to Facebook.
Pardon me.
Thank you, John.
We have to say goodbye to Facebook.
We're going to finish this conversation elsewhere.
Be there at the Daily Wire.
The fatal conceit is that people at the top can run the economy better than people at the bottom, than the ordinary guy making his own decisions, okay?
And this is, you know, in 2008, we had a crash because the government said to people, you have to loan, said to the banks, you have to loan money to people who can't afford to pay it back because they're black and you're being unfair to them by not being racist.
They weren't being racist.
It was shown later in studies that they weren't being racist.
They just weren't loaning money to people who couldn't pay it back.
So with government fiat, with government backing, they started loaning money to people who couldn't afford it.
Those loans went into the economic system with a Wall Street out of control.
Wall Street started packaging them and selling them again and again and again so that like it was like a poison set out by the government.
The poison was released by the government, spread through Wall Street, when suddenly, guess what?
The people couldn't pay, these things, the entire economy collapsed.
Now, who wrote the bill to answer that?
Who wrote the law?
The guy who pushed and pushed and pushed that system.
Barney Frank and his ally, Chris Dodd, his crony Chris Dodd, they wrote the Dodd-Frank law that is now stepping, has its foot on the neck of our economy.
It basically is a government takeover of the banks.
And so before the bank can loan to you, this has to go through incredible hoops and credit to comply with this thousands and thousands of pages of this law.
Well, what does that mean?
That means if you come in there and say, oh, you know, I was in my garage yesterday and I invented this pill that makes you invisible, and I think I could sell this, you know, to like Frodo.
I think Frodo would like this pill, you know.
And you say, could you loan me money?
No, they can't because they've got these guys down their throat.
Fixing Dodd-Frank's Grip00:05:06
They have taken over.
And that's on top of the takeover of the healthcare industry.
These people have stuffed our economy into the pocket of government and it is stuck there.
Meanwhile, you can smell, you can feel the people trying to reinvent the economy.
They've got Uber, they've got Airbnb, and wherever these things pop up, suddenly the government is going, wait a minute, wait a minute, I didn't get a bribe for your taxi license.
I didn't get a bribe, you know, for your, you didn't pay the regulations and have the fire for your Airbnb.
You know, I've got to be able to send inspectors around or I don't get mine because that's the big flaw in capitalism, by the way, is that the top guys don't get their bribes.
That's why it works perfectly, capitalism.
Just a little bit of regulation to keep everything fair, to make sure nobody lies, nobody cheats.
Those regulations are great.
Nobody wants an unregulated society.
You can't have it.
It doesn't exist.
So now, Obama, who is the president, you may recall, he is in Canada, right, with the three amigos, Canada, Mexico, and America, for a trade deal.
And he gets asked about this, and Trump is right up his snoot.
I mean, Trump has really gotten up his, you know, in his face.
And Obama, he won't even mention him, he won't even name him.
But he says to people, you know, he says, you call Trump a populist.
I'm the populist because I'm trying to fix this and I'm trying to fix that and I'm trying to help this one and I'm trying to help that one.
But it's not Trump.
So here's where he gets off on Trump.
Somebody else who has never shown any regard for workers, has never fought on behalf of social justice issues or making sure that poor kids are getting a decent shot at life or have health care.
In fact, have worked against economic opportunity for workers and ordinary people.
They don't suddenly become a populist because they say something controversial in order to win votes.
That's not the measure of populism.
That's nativism or xenophobia.
Or worse.
Or it's just cynicism.
So I would just advise everybody to be careful about suddenly attributing to whoever pops up at a time of economic anxiety the label that they're populists.
Where have they been?
Have they been on the front lines working on behalf of working people?
Have they been carrying the laboring order to open up opportunity for more people?
Now, there are people like Bernie Sanders who I think genuinely deserve the title because he has been in the vineyards fighting on behalf of these issues.
And there, the question is just going to be: all right, we share values, we share goals.
How do we achieve it?
He's a socialist.
He just said it.
He's a socialist.
He guy is completely deaf to what the people are saying.
What they're saying is, we want to fix it.
We do it.
You can't do it.
You cannot do it.
But this is what Obama sold.
Remember the poor little zombie kid who was forced to sing that Obama song?
We have her player.
We blanked out her face for her future.
We're going to spread happiness.
We're going to spread freedom.
Obama's going to change it.
Obama's going to lead them.
We're going to change it and rearrange it.
We're going to change the world.
I hate to think that kid is sitting in a bar somewhere now with a double bourbon going, ah, that didn't work out.
Give me another.
My mom may be doing it.
Don't blame me.
Just pass me another drink, would you please?
It's like, I mean, this is the thing he sold us.
He's going to change it.
He's going to fix it.
He doesn't hear what Trump, I'm not even sure Trump hears it, but he somehow has an instinct for it.
That we just want to be left alone.
We want these guys out of our banks.
We want them out of our businesses.
We want them out of our workplaces.
Yeah, safety regs, a few safety regs, a few health regs.
You know, we get it.
We get it.
We need a government.
We're not angels.
But, you know, this has become absurd.
And they use the environment and they use this economic panic on Brexit.
It's all about making you afraid to take control of your own life.
Okay.
And the other thing that they use is this racism thing.
Here's Tavis Smiley.
You heard Obama say it.
This is xenophobia.
Freedom's Paradox00:06:09
It's nativism or worse, meaning racism.
Tavis Smiley, the talk show host from PBS, guy I really cannot tolerate, and he's on PBS.
He alone is a reason to stop funding PBS through the government.
Here's Tavis Smiley telling you what he thinks of Trump.
We've been talking a lot on this program, some great conversation today, John, about economic nationalism and about globalization, but what some view as retrenchment, others view as race baiting.
David Cameron made a huge turn to the right last year.
He threw immigrants under the bus, tried to distance himself from the refugee crisis, tried to connect then-candidate Khan, now the mayor of London, to ISIS.
So clearly there was some race baiting in this campaign, and the rise of racial movements in the country, around the world rather, in this country are disturbing.
So when you bring it back home to Donald Trump and his mantra continues to be make America great again, there are three questions one has to ask very quickly.
One, for whom?
Number two, what Halcyon days are you talking about going back to?
When was America so great we want to return to it?
Number three, what about those fellow citizens for whom they've been waiting perennially to experience the true greatness of America?
And I think when people start asking those questions, it's not going to be a victory for Donald Trump.
See, now, I don't want to knock him because he is speaking for a lot of black people.
They took a poll recently.
It showed America is starkly divided by race.
In responses to dozens of questions, black and white Americans told pollsters that as the administration of the nation's first black president comes to an end, they remain split on the role and reality of race in everyday life.
According to the new PewDot data, black and white Americans disagree not just about whether there is still work to be done for blacks to achieve equal rights.
88% of black respondents said there is, compared with 53% of whites, but also about whether the country will ever achieve racial equality.
So he's sitting there, Tavis Smiley, and he's telling you that America was never great.
It was never great for black people.
You know, a lot of times we talk conservatives go, why are blacks not Republicans?
Democrats held slaves.
Democrats were in favor of segregation.
Democrats were the Ku Klux Klan.
Democrats, in their stupid welfare policies, destroyed or helped destroy or funded the destruction of the black family.
Every bad black neighborhood is in a Democrat city.
It's because it's because they trust the federal government more than they trust the states.
And historically, there's a lot of sense to that.
And they think Obama is going to change it.
It's not Black Lives Matter.
It's Obama's life matter.
He is going to do everything for us.
Compare this to Martin Luther King.
Compare to his famous speech.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed.
We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day, even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
So it's not that America was never great.
It needs to, it is great.
Its creed is great, and it needs to live into the meaning of its creed.
And you cannot judge people by the color of their skin.
This is so basic, so basic to everything we think, everything we feel.
And the Supreme Court is extenuating affirmative action, which goes totally against this, that we judge a person on the content of his character.
Now, when you do that, everything looks a lot different.
Black Lives Matter, Trayvon Martin case looks a lot different when you judge it not on the color of people's skin, but on the content of their character.
All those Black Lives Matter cases look a lot different.
You know, the great paradox of freedom as we go into July 4th, the great paradox of freedom is this, that freedom is a quality of individuals.
You are not free if you can't do what you want, if you can't buy what you want, if you can't sleep with who you want, if you can't go and do and say what you want.
That's what you're free.
Individuals are free.
But only associations can create individuals who know how to be free, who deserve to be free.
Only families and churches and neighborhoods and schools can create individuals who know, even though they can buy whatever they want, maybe they shouldn't buy this and they should buy that.
Even though they can sleep with whoever they want, maybe they shouldn't sleep around.
Maybe they should commit to somebody.
Even though they can go and do and say what they want, maybe there are some things they shouldn't say.
Only our associations can build those kinds of individuals.
And the future, you know, you wonder how we're going to be free again.
We're going to be free again because of you.
You are going to make us free again.
You're going to make us free again in your family.
You're going to make us free again in your business, in your town, in your school, in the things you teach your children.
And you say to me, well, Washington is going to stop us.
They're going to come after us.
And I say to you, yes, they are.
The old enemy was Britain.
The new enemy is Washington.
Who told you there would not be enemies to freedom?
Who told you they wouldn't look like you?
Who told you they wouldn't be part of your country?
Who told you this was going to be easy?
This is freedom, folks.
People die for it.
All you have to do is stand up for it and teach it to your children and make sure your schools teach it and face down the feds when they come after you.
Which brings me to stuff I like.
Service of Unyielding Love00:02:28
I want to end, you know, I've talked before about the beautiful, beautiful British hymns that we don't get in this country.
And one of them is a very famous patriotic hymn.
And so we'll close with this, with a salute to Britain for reminding us, for reminding us what we taught them in 1776, that men are meant to be free.
People are meant to be free and meant to make their own decisions and not meant to be told by government how they should live.
And there's this beautiful hymn called, I vow to thee, my country.
It's based on a poem.
And the idea of it, I'm going to read the lyrics because it's very short.
The idea of it is that we have two allegiances.
And this is what I'm talking about.
We have an allegiance to our country and we have allegiance to God's country.
And only by paying attention, loyalty to both those allegiances can we have the kind of freedom that we want and deserve.
And the lyrics are this.
I vow to thee, my country, all earthly things above.
Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love.
The love that asks no question, the love that stands the test, that lays upon the altar the dearest and the best, talking about sacrifice.
The love that never falters, the love that pays the price, the love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.
And there's another country I've heard of long ago, most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know.
We may not count her armies.
We may not see her king.
Her fortress is a faithful heart.
Her pride is suffering.
And soul by soul and silently, her shining bounds increase.
And her ways are ways of gentleness.
And all her paths are peace.
Have a glorious 4th of July.
I'm Andrew Clavin.
This is the Andrew Clavin Show, and we'll see you again on Tuesday.
I fought with my country all earthly things above and hard and perfect,
the service of my love, the love that does not crystall, the love that stands the test,
that lives upon the water, the dearest and the best, the love that liberties,