All Episodes
Previous Next
March 28, 2024 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
32:25
'Hell No, We Won't Go!' - Most Americans Would Not Serve If War Broke Out

According to a new YouGov poll, the majority of Americans of military age would refuse to fight if a major global conflagration broke out including the United States. What does this say about our foreign policy and US future? Also today: Rep. Massie exposes cattle-tagging tyranny. Finally: Texas Governor declares war...on the First Amendment!

|

Time Text
Americans Refuse War 00:10:20
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today, we have Daniel McAdams as our co-host, Daniel.
Good to see you this morning.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Doing well, doing well.
Good.
Just trying to stop the wars.
Yeah, that would be people back in sanity.
Yeah.
Big chance.
Okay, but we are going to talk a little bit about war right off the bat.
But it's, I think, looking good.
There's more Americans now that said, another world war, I'm not joining.
And I'm not ready for this.
But you know what?
It made me think, and all this is very good, but I remember the numbers were with us before the Middle Eastern wars.
And they just said, well, we're not ready.
The people aren't ready.
We haven't brainwashed them yet.
So they went into propagandizing.
And finally, the numbers, the polling numbers show, well, we support him because Saddam Hussein's going to drop a bomb on us.
And he's been killing little babies and all this.
So they really worked.
And the people were converted.
So it's the people that have to be protected.
They only can be protected by truth.
And truth then becomes the enemy of these monsters who do nothing but want war.
And that's why they hide behind internationalism, NATO, United Nations, and humanitarianism.
And they have it going.
They scare the people to death about somebody who's going to come and declare war and do great harm to us.
But then they say, but we're humanitarians and we'll send them food at the same time and take care of them, which is a bit of a force.
But this is an article I want to bring up for discussion is by Robert Bridge in Strategic Culture.
It caught my attention.
I think it caught your attention.
Majority of Americans would not serve in event of another world war.
You have to dissect this out, and they did.
It's a lot of different numbers in there.
But the thing of it is, they did notice a change in attitude.
Just think of what it must have been like on the beginning of World War I and two especially.
I mean, I think everybody thought, well, we are under attack, and they responded a certain way.
That atmosphere doesn't exist, and that's good because right now we don't see a necessity of starting or participating in a big war that they consider, you know, very necessary to protect our freedoms.
But we'd have to be fearful of the propagandizing.
But right now, the numbers are showing that more and more Americans say they don't want to join up and go fight a war.
So I think that's good, but we need to continue our efforts to educate people on why non-interventionists stay in out of these deals and getting out of these international organizations and have sort of an American system that's different than what the American system has developed over these last couple hundred years.
Yes.
Let's put on this first, and it's, again, as you say, by Robert Bridge.
I know Robert, he's a good guy.
This is for Strict Culture, but it appeared on Lou Rockwell.
Our friend Lou Rockwell put it up on his site today, so we noticed that there, majority of Americans would not serve in event of another world war, as you point out.
The majority of Americans say that another world war is at least somewhat likely to break out in the next 10 years, but most say they would not enlist to serve in combat or non-combat roles if the U.S. were to be involved.
Now go to the next clip.
This is when you get into it.
It's a u.gov poll.
We mention those a lot, and I think they're worth thinking about just simply as a reflection, as you mentioned yesterday, polls are a reflection of not democracy, but where people's heads are.
So shockingly, Robert writes, if a global conflagration involving the United States were to break out, just 6% of Americans say they would enlist for military service.
While 9% say they would not volunteer but would serve if called up, a whopping 9%.
And 13% say they would not volunteer and would refuse to serve if called up.
Meanwhile, a whopping 60% say the armed forces would not attempt to draft them due to age or disability, i.e., well, however, in the event the U.S. finds itself under imminent threat of invasion, the percentage of people who would volunteer for military service increased to 16%.
However, 47% say even in such extreme circumstances, they don't think the military would want them.
Right.
But, you know, this is interesting because, you know, the war was stopped in the 60s.
The Vietnam War was stopped by people demonstrating and violent.
And actually, Kent State was, I think, the message.
We're nearing the end.
It didn't end immediately, but that was the message when our own soldiers were shooting at people who were demonstrating.
He said, enough is enough.
We don't want any more of this war and killing.
And they weren't talking about 10 here and 10 there.
There were large numbers of people.
And a draft was going on.
So there was great reason.
But what we're trying to do here is point out how things get like that, how they get out of hand, and what you should believe in.
And in this case, I reject the whole notion of a military draft because, you know, they try to stop compulsory work and slavery.
This is a slavery when they tell you what to do.
See, I think there's two ways you can enslave a people.
One is be able to draft them and send them off to war or whatever they want them to do.
And the second one is take all their money.
And so everybody's income belongs to the government unless we allow you to keep a little bit.
So that's the way that works.
So this is part of our project is trying to get people to understand this.
And when we see this, this means that I understand it, but it doesn't mean, oh, good, the trend will continue.
And, you know, the next crowd that gets in there and say, well, we have to do it.
We have to do it.
Unfortunately, we always say, they're not going to invade us.
But now we have a form of invasion.
We have to sort that out awfully fast.
The thing about polling is that on one hand, it's satisfying because it gives you a snapshot of where people's heads are.
But snapshots can be frustrating because you want to know more of the story behind this.
Even a good photo, you want to know the story behind the photo.
So it would be interesting to get in the heads of these people who answered this and figure out why they said, heck no, I won't go when it comes to war.
Because one of my early thoughts when I was trying to ponder what this might mean is that we have a disconnect in the U.S. between an aggressive foreign policy and really being up close to the direct results of that foreign policy.
You can cheer on an invasion of Iraq knowing that you'll never have to serve.
You'll never have to have bombs dropped in your house in Kentucky or wherever you live.
So I think in a way this kind of, it's almost like a moral hazard.
It causes a lot of Americans to be more aggressive on their foreign policy because they know the chances of a bomb landing, at least until this latest dust up with Russia, the chances of Saddam actually being able to bomb you were pretty low.
So I wonder if that makes people more willing to engage in a risky foreign policy or whether people are genuinely getting sick of this aggressive foreign policy and saying, I have such a disconnect with the elites in Washington and the neocons who push this foreign policy.
I don't want any part of it.
And if they get us into another war, let them go fight it.
Stick Newland on the front line.
I wonder.
So far, they've been able to continue a lot of warmongering and war exposed.
But we hire them out.
We still have special wealth, artificial wealth, because they still believe in the dollar.
So we can still bribe people to do what we tell them.
And if they don't, we put on sanctions.
And then if that doesn't work at all, then we bomb them and people then capitulate.
So there's a lot of wars going on.
And if you look at it, which war, which fighting has gone on, even the type of wars that go on in Africa where there are tribes fighting each other, we're probably involved in a lot of those things.
I don't know where there's a real fight going on where we're not involved.
And how often, not only getting involved after the fighting began, but what about how we instigate it?
Like in Ukraine.
I mean, without us involved there, I don't believe there'd be a war going on there.
Because there wouldn't have been a coup.
Ukraine would probably be trading with Russia and trading with the EU, and they'd be a lot richer, for about a half a million more of them would be alive.
Right.
But the other thing that I was thinking about this is that say it's the case that they just don't want to go to war and they don't care about what's happening.
But the thing is, I think my argument, our argument would be, listen, when the war breaks out, when the missiles come, when they start putting the draft up, it's going to happen like that.
And you're going to go.
I remember you talk about when you were drafted during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
My father was also drafted at the same time.
There's no joking around.
When that came, you had to go, and that's what happened.
So I would say that, especially if these are young people that feel this way now, the time to fight against this is now, because once the war breaks out, you're not going to fight to stop the war.
It's a lot harder.
Yeah, they didn't check on our social conditions.
I was trying desperately to finish up a residency.
And at the same time, our family was working on our third child.
You get ready and go.
That didn't turn out to be the worst experience I've ever had, but I sort of had to psychologically adapt to it because I wasn't willing to do some things to be.
I wasn't willing to be a domestic hero.
Regulating Cattle: A Market Threat 00:08:38
But I decided very definitely over those years, my thoughts and my beliefs were conditioned to believe that this is a big deal.
And there's ways to do that.
And the more informed I got is, yes, it's not complex.
Why don't we just follow the Constitution?
Why were we in that Vietnam War?
It wasn't even a declared war.
What a tragedy.
Yeah.
So we'll keep an eye on this, but let's move on if you're ready to something that we don't talk about probably often enough, to be honest with you.
But Thomas Massey, our favorite member of the House, who's also on the board of the Ron Paul Institute, is just an all-around terrific champion of freedom and liberty.
And he's been on top of this for a long time, the issue of cattle tracking.
They want to put chips in the cows.
They want to put things in their ears.
They want to keep track of every cow and probably every cow movement out there.
I'll put this next one up.
Now, this is written in the Epoch Times.
And this does not surprise us at all, Dr. Paul.
Cattle tracking provision that may limit beef supply was passed in the omnibus bill.
Can you believe they did that?
Oh, the sneaky stuff like that.
Did they get arrested?
No.
Did they have to face the music and say they were lying and deceiving the people?
No, that's the way they do it.
You know, this reminded me of a bill that came up in the Congress toward the end of that career I had.
And it had to do with tagging the beef cattle.
And they were tracking them by putting on chip ships and they were doing that.
And there was, you know, debate on it.
But it was minor.
There were a few complaints because it was floating around that it would hurt the little farmer and help the big farmer.
But there wasn't a big resistance to it.
Even the people, a lot of little farmers around, but they didn't say that much because it just seemed like, oh, well, this is for health reasons.
They had all these other kinds of reasons.
But I can remember the vote was going on, and I felt very lonely.
I was voting, and I was one vote.
And a progressive Democrat that I knew as just on friendly, but we didn't support each other's legislation.
But she was very nice.
She came over.
She says, Ron, why are you doing this?
I said, I just don't like tracking people.
She said, you know, I'm going to vote with you because I think they'll be tracking us someday, too.
So that was Cynthia McKinney, and we became good friends.
Yeah, she was great.
She was very clever.
So put it back up.
Now, here's what it's all about.
They snuck it in the bill, just like we said.
This is why we don't like omnibus.
This is like regular orders.
So you can go down to the floor and make an amendment and cut this money out.
But a controversial measure to include $15 million for the electronic tracking of livestock has made it through Congress via the recently passed omnibus bill, raising fears among critics that the new system could be weaponized by the government to limit beef consumption.
Weaponized.
That's what they do.
Put on the next one.
Now, this is from the article.
American cattle rancher Shad Sullivan told the Epoch Times, if we can put that second one up, he fears the tags will be the end of the small rancher.
And you mentioned this earlier.
And here's what Sullivan, the farmer said, the rancher said, they're going to use it as a taxing mechanism that could eventually control the livestock.
In the European Union, they use these measures under the guise of climate change lies to limit the cattle supply.
If they do that here, it will destroy our industry.
If the tag mandate is implemented, it will be the key to open the door to the gas chamber for independent ranching.
You know, I think it's a certain month that they have to have this done.
If I'm not mistaken, it might be 18 months or something like that.
But I can just see if they have a calf and they're using it for the meat market, and it's right before they're able to sell it and they haven't been tagged.
Can you imagine if they say, well, you're not tagged and you can't sell it, all of a sudden those prices are going to crash.
Anyway, whatever they're doing is interference, not only interference with the beef market, but it's interfering with our freedoms.
And it's the idea that they can come in and regulate.
And, you know, this one's, oh, it's not going to be a big deal.
But I think that this is the kind of stuff that is creeping.
You know, it just creeps up, creeping welfare, socialism, fascism, the whole work.
A little bit here and a little bit there.
Pretty soon we don't have much of our liberties left, much left decision-making on our own part.
And this goes back to a fundamental right that we have that we talked about a lot during the COVID era, the right to put in your body what you want to put in your body.
You know, they wanted you to put a shot in your body.
They wanted you to put this and that in your body.
Well, this is the same thing because there are a lot of people that want to eat a cow that has not been grain-fed, for example, fed GMO grain, pumped full of antibiotics, what have you.
What this is going to do is it's going to create a market where you only have one kind of cow that the government tells you what has to have this many shots, and this has to be put in it.
And you can't go to an independent farmer.
We have a lot of them around here still.
You can't go to them and say, Look, I want a clean cow.
I don't believe in all this stuff.
They may say, Well, you know, that's ridiculous.
You're just paranoid.
It doesn't matter.
You're allowed to be paranoid in this country.
You think this would be a benefit to the pharmaceutical companies?
Yeah.
They're going to have to sell vaccines.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
That's one way they do it.
They seem to work together, the combination of big business and big government.
Amazing.
Well, the one thing is, I started off by talking about Thomas Massey.
Let's listen to Massey.
He's on a TV show, and as usual, he breaks it down perfectly.
I think we want the first 48 seconds of this clip.
Here's Massey.
Hold on one second.
Yeah, here he is discussing it.
Well, you know, the left wants to ban cattle, and before you can ban anything, you need a registry.
You need to know where it's at and who owns it.
And that's why they want to tag cattle.
We've seen it happen in Europe.
Now, on the right, you've got some cronies who stand to make some money from these ear tags.
They're the ones who get the $15 million earmark.
It doesn't go to USDA.
It's going to, quote, stakeholders.
That is a code word for private entities are getting a handout.
And what they'll do, they'll verticalize the industry with this.
The big corporations, you know, you just talked about China.
There are four corporations that control meat processing in the United States.
One's owned by China, one's own by Brazil.
American ranchers will be working for those organizations if this tracking goes through because they'll verticalize the industry.
Isn't that great?
He points it out: there's something for the left and something for the right, and the rest of us get squeezed in the middle.
Bipartisanship, you know, sacred bipartisanship.
So, and the distribution.
And unfortunately, they think bipartisanship gets a blend.
But when you talk about authoritarianism versus liberty, they're two different things entirely.
You can't take half of each one.
That's what they play games with.
And that's purely political stuff.
But I'm afraid that we don't have enough Thomas Massey's in there to stop this.
But we have to keep alerting people to what's happening.
And Thomas does a great job.
Yeah, he does.
He's so great.
I just want to do one more clip because this is something else that Massey said earlier on it.
If you can put that next clip up, go to the next one.
In a previous post on Twitter, Massey wrote that if passed, the electronic tracking will be used by the green agenda to limit beef production and by the corporate meat oligopoly to dominate small ranchers.
And that's the end of his quote.
The omnibus bill, which was passed on March 22nd, combines six essential spending bills.
It allocates $15 million for this program.
And I would say anyone who thinks this is not going to be used to get independent farmers, clean farmers out of the market, just do a little bit of research on what they did to Amos Miller.
We haven't talked about it on the show yet, but he's an Amish farmer up in Pennsylvania.
And the thugs in the state raided his farm, stole all of his stuff, ruined all his products.
I mean, we used to shop when we were in Northern Virginia.
We shopped from the Amish farmers in Pennsylvania because it was the cleanest food you could get.
And it's just incredible to see what these thugs in government do to these people.
Anti-Wokeism Backlash 00:09:36
And that's what's going to come for the rest of us.
But this is a small amount of money, you know, $15,000.
But that's the way it is.
They plant a seed, they get in the door this way, and they put it in a bill, of course, in the audit of the field.
This is something that the way Congress works, if Thomas would have had a chance to get his five minutes to offer an amendment to strike this nonsense, it would have worked.
So they first have to corrupt the system to this kind of kick this stuff through.
And so it is, the whole system is corrupt, and it's pretty tough.
By numbers, they outnumber us.
Yeah, and it's so important that you mention this, you know, because a lot of people don't know, at least when we were there, which has been a while ago now, it doesn't seem that long ago.
But the work behind the scenes, if we had known maybe a week beforehand that this was going to be coming down the pipe, you know, your staff would put together a dear colleague letter and send it out trying to gin up support.
I would call my counterparts in other offices saying, hey, have you seen this?
What are your boss thinking about it?
You think we could put something together to try to, I mean, these are all the wheels.
When things work right, they work in unison.
We try to get a little bit of a coalition together to stop that.
But when you jam it all through, you can't.
They just close us down.
Yeah, close it down.
Close down the debate.
Not even a whimper, not even a whisper.
What's going on?
Well, speaking of closing things down, unfortunately, we've been critical of our governor.
We've praised him at times when he deserves it, but it looks like he's going to try to close down the First Amendment.
And this is something that we noticed.
He put out yesterday on Twitter X.
He put out a new executive order.
He's going to lay down the law.
And he said, anti-Semitism will not be tolerated in Texas.
Today I issued an executive order to fight the increase in acts of anti-Semitism at Texas colleges and universities.
Texas stands with our Jewish students.
We will ensure college campuses are safe spaces for the Jewish community.
And if you look at the actual order, you can read it, but this is the press release.
If you go up just a little bit, I just wanted to highlight the part that I found a little bit disturbing.
The governor's executive order requires that all higher education institutions in Texas review their free speech policies to establish appropriate punishments for anti-Semitic rhetoric on college campuses.
Rhetoric, not bopping someone in the nose because they don't like their background or religion, not tripping them, not faking their grades or something.
Rhetoric.
That means speech.
So if someone says something that someone defines as anti-Semitic in Texas, Abbott wants you to be punished.
So he's going to review it to regulate it.
So what they're doing is they want to regulate the speech, but the big question is who's going to do the definition of it?
And they think that this is a solution.
And there's no way for this to be fair.
I was suggesting to you, if we were there, maybe we could introduce an amendment to say, oh, okay, I didn't know it was so easy.
Let's do an amendment and say that that's what we have to do to get libertarians to restrict that.
But of course, they are already doing some of that, too.
They know, I mean, Thomas doesn't get high priority in exactly what he would like to do there.
No, this is just an example that it starts this way.
They do this.
Oh, it's just this one thing.
At the same time, they're getting all this credit for fighting wokeism and all this modern crap.
That's what I think is so discouraging.
Well, this is right-wing wokeism, because the woke would say, well, you can't say that.
That offends me.
And this is the same thing.
The idea that this will do something to stop anti-Semitism is completely insane.
Because the way to stop people who express anti-Semitic ideas is to engage them.
Have a discussion.
Look, this is wrong.
This isn't true.
The elders of Zion, this isn't true.
Look, I mean, look at the history.
That's how you do it, not by saying, don't you dare say a word, you know.
Yeah, it doesn't work, causes more problems, unconstitutional, and it attacks the big picture, too, that they have some type of magic knowledge of knowing how you're supposed to say something.
And, you know, it falls into the category, you know, of a thought crime, hate crimes, and it's as if they can really interpret everything people do.
And, you know, that whole idea of a thought crime, somebody who has not done anything, but they might say something, you know, that offends the people.
And that's not, that's not permitted.
Now, that's the first thing they'll come back and say, you guys are too tolerant of anti-Semitism.
Well, you know, I mean, you're intolerant of free speech.
That's what you're intolerant about.
That's where the intolerance is.
Well, I know two things that you always say that are the best educators on this.
The first of all is we don't have the First Amendment, so we could talk about the weather.
And the second one you always say is when they take away the first, that's the key to the rest.
If they get rid of the First Amendment, then they can go all in and get the other ones away.
Yeah, you know, somebody says, oh, no, you say the first is the best and most important.
I think the second is the most important.
I say, yeah, but if you don't have the first, you can't even talk about what they're doing with the second one.
So, no, the speech, they put it up front for a good reason.
It says the government, the Congress shall write no laws.
Yeah.
Regulating that.
Not even executive orders.
Well, let's look.
Here's something from the Texas Tribune, which I think is a left-ish, but I think they had some good points on this.
Put this up because this, I think, is what it's really about at this next clip.
As Texas students clash over the Israel-Hamas war, Governor Greg Abbott orders colleges to revise free speech policies.
And that is what he did.
And if you go to the next one, this is their take on it.
And they quote a free speech organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, an advocacy group for free speech on college campuses, said Texas colleges can and should go after anti-Semitic harassment, threats, and violence.
But Abbott's executive order goes too far and leans on a definition of anti-Semitism, and I highlighted this, that would involve punishing students for core political speech, including any criticism of Israel, the group said.
So that's what it's about on these campuses, and we talked about it elsewhere.
There is more of a debate going on because more people are being frustrated with what's happening in Israel and Gaza.
And so in this, instead of accepting and understanding that there's a robust debate, they're just trying to silence one side of it.
You know, when I've written and talked about, you know, the destruction of Western civilization and downfall of our republic, you know, I mentioned the fact that the universities are the real culprits 110 years ago when the universities changed the education, social ideas, history, the whole works.
And when you think of a state, and they will say Texas was wonderful because they were very wealthy.
Our universities were wealthy because they had oil that provided tuitions and all.
But the colleges, but it's like a monopoly.
It's not like they just have a couple students.
There's a lot of students there.
And they more or less, how can they go in and say, we are the arbiter of all those universities?
We're going to tell you what continues.
It is exactly the opposite of what the concepts were that the people who fought the revolution were all about.
I mean, they want to be left alone.
And here we have brought people together.
And ideologically, it certainly is the case.
And that's why there was an open door to wokeism.
And wokeism is incestuous.
It's every place, even though there's a growing resentment to it, which we encourage because it's just an authoritarian approach when you talk about what's happened with this whole idea of wokeism.
And ironically, the right is endorsing wokeism.
They just have their own favorite protected views.
They do it their way.
Yeah, the thing is, they want to make criticism of the state of Israel equal with anti-Semitism.
But it's interesting because doing that itself is anti-Semitism.
Because saying that the State of Israel equals the Jewish people, well, that categorizes them this way.
What about all the Jewish people who are not in the State of Israel who also criticize the State of Israel?
You know, it's insane to conflate the two, and it shouldn't be done.
Let the free people work it out, sort it all out.
The only rule that we emphasize is that, yes, oh, they say, well, that'll be total anarchy.
No, but we're very strict and very strong on don't mess around with other people's lives and what they're doing and don't regulate them.
But that's the part that they don't like.
They don't want to be able to leave people alone that are inclined to be very strict libertarians who want to be left alone and can make the case for it's a better society.
It's a richer, freer society that you have, and yet they still fall over and you know, keep doing it.
More People Are Choosing Independence 00:03:35
That's why the monetary crisis coming and the financial crisis and the dollar crisis will have to have some reassessment.
More people will, and I think that's already happening.
I hope I'm seen as participating in it when I talk about homeschooling.
Yeah, for sure.
I mean, that's an alternative.
And more and more people are using independent.
Thank you.
We're thankful that there is homeschooling is still legal.
There's some who want to regulate it and they try to.
And then also just the private schools, the religious schools, or whatever you want to teach.
That's why that First Amendment is so valuable.
And when they monarchy around with it and dilute it and confuse people and turn it into a political stunt, that doesn't work.
Yeah, we've got to believe in the power of good ideas, the power of liberty.
It'll defeat the ugly thoughts that some people do have.
I'm going to close out.
It's a Thursday for me.
And I will ask people and remind people, you put that next clip up, that the Ron Paul Liberty Report is brought to you by the Ron Paul Institute.
Bitcoin is still doing pretty well, and I'm happy to see that.
So those of you that have some extra Bitcoin laying around, we would be very, very happy.
You can hit that QR code and donate some to the Ron Paul Institute.
Your donations are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of the law.
A lot more bang for your buck when it's up where it is near 70 than it was when it was at 17.
So we definitely, definitely appreciate all of your support.
Over to you, Dr. Paul.
Very good.
You know, I'm going to mention a colleague, another colleague I mentioned Cynthia earlier on, but I'm going to talk about John, and we called him Jimmy Duncan from Tennessee.
And he, his, he would, he came, and we would talk, he and I would talk about this because I came from a libertarian viewpoint, but he sort of liked talking about the old conservative right, and that was when they were very libertarian.
So we got along very well.
And one outstanding thing, there were six people who voted against going to war against Iraq.
And he was one of them.
There were three Republicans and three Democrats that voted against that authority.
And he has written since then.
He's been out of Congress, you know, 10 years maybe, but he's still staying active.
He does an article, and I'm sure he could be found rather easily, you know, on the internet because he writes routinely, and we catch his articles.
But this is the article that I'm going to reference to.
It says, Gaza War is pushing support for Israel to historic lows.
And it's a good article, and I just want to suggest and put in a pitch for former Congressman Duncan.
And you can find that and read that and really give him some encouragement because it was very nice to have him and have company with him when it was a lonely fight in the Congress.
We do have actually, if we could put up that last clip, please, we do have a picture of that column.
There we go.
It's from the Knoxville Focus.
Sorry to break into this.
I just want our viewers to be able to find it.
The Knoxville Focus, it's featured on the Ron Paul Institute as well.
But John Duncan is also on the board of the Ron Paul Institute.
So I just wanted our viewers to have a picture of the original article there in the Knoxville.
Yeah, he was excited.
And it wasn't, we didn't have to lobby him to join.
So he's really solid with all the views.
Well, very good.
And I want to thank all our viewers today for tuning in.
Export Selection