Sean Hannity Show - Sen. Rand Paul - June 4th, Hour 2

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 5, 2024 - Sean Hannity Show

31:54

Sen. Rand Paul - June 4th, Hour 2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart Podcast.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	And I'm Carol Markovich.
	And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday.
	Normally on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
	All right.
	Thanks, Scott Shannon.
	Hour two, Sean Hannity Show, toll free.
	It's 800-941-SEANN.
	If you want to be a part of the program, I want to go back to yesterday and Anthony Fauci on Capitol Hill.
	There were so many key moments in this hearing.
	Remember, Fauci's the guy that said, you know, it sort of just appeared, I don't recall in a January congressional interview of the social distancing mandate.
	Remember, this is the guy that in March of 2020 said, oh, masks don't work.
	And then of course it became, well, one mask and two masks and maybe masks in perpetuity.
	Uh, and he just flips and flops and plails and lies uh with impunity here.
	You know, the one person who's going to join us in a minute that has been proven right, and that the time took a lot of heat for all of this is Rand Paul.
	Dr. Rampall, medical Dr. Rampall, Senator Rampall, that Rampall.
	You know, but here's here's Fauci testifying to Representative Morgan Griffith about the viruses studied with NIH funding and how it could not be a precursor to SARS-CoV-2.
	Now, remember, it's how did this all go down?
	It went NIH funding, went to the Wuhan Virology lab.
	They knew all about it, and we'll get into detail with with Senator Paul.
	They knew all about it at the time in the earliest days, and then tried to downplay, you know, that this this likely came from this lab, which they knew was involved in gain of function research and coronavirus research.
	Anyway, here's the exchange yesterday.
	There's a difference between the viruses that were funded by the NIH sub award versus anything else anybody else in China might be doing.
	Excellent.
	We were talking about did the NIH You're talking about what you funded.
	What we funded.
	That's the point.
	And and that goes to my next question because I thought you might go there, and I appreciate that.
	Right.
	Because in an off-the-record member level briefing in February of 2022, I asked about the likelihood of nature of a SARS-related coronavirus to have a Furin Cleavage site, particularly since it takes the 12 uh nucleotide change in there to make it so vi to make it as viral as this was going on.
	And at the time you said to me, pretty much what you just said, and I want you to just confirm it for the record.
	Well, that wasn't us.
	If that was being done, it wasn't us.
	And you confirmed that for the record, yes?
	No, it wasn't you.
	It wasn't what you were funding.
	What I'm saying is that I cannot account, nor can anyone account for other things that might be going on in China, which is the reason why I have always said and will say now, I keep an open mind as to what the origin is.
	But the one thing I know for sure is that the viruses that were funded by the NIH phylogenetically could not be the precursor of SARS-CoV-2.
	Wow.
	Unbelievable.
	Let me play you two more cuts of Fauci from yesterday, and then we'll bring in Dr. Rampall.
	NIH did not fund gain of function.
	Really?
	Because they actually did.
	And we know that now for a fact through the Eco Health Alliance.
	Here's what he said yesterday.
	Uh, as you said, uh uh Congressman Ruiz, according to the regulatory and operative definition of P3CO, the NIH did not fund gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
	Wow.
	Well, I can't wait to hear what Dr. Paul has to say about this.
	Now, then admitted that efficacy of the vaccine waned as months pass by.
	What did they tell all of us that if you get the shot, you get the jab, and and then you get the second jab, and then you get the you know, ensuing jabs and the booster booster one, booster two, booster, whatever.
	Anyway, thank God I didn't get it.
	Uh, I didn't tell any of you what to do, because I'm not a doctor.
	I don't know anything about your medical history, but I said that just take it seriously and you gotta talk to your own doctor, make your own decision.
	Remember, it was it was always emergency authorization.
	Uh but anyway, here's what he said about what I think is one of the most important issues and one of the biggest lies ever told to the American people on the issue of health.
	Did the COVID vaccine stop transmission of the virus?
	That is a complicated issue because in the beginning, the first iteration of the vaccines did have an effect, not a hundred percent, not a high effect.
	They did uh prevent infection and and subsequently, obviously transmission.
	However, it's important to point out something that we did not know early on that became evident as the months went by, is that the durability of protection against infection and hence transmission was relatively limited, whereas the duration of protection against severe disease hospitalization and deaths was more prolonged.
	We did not know that in the beginning.
	In the beginning, it was felt that in fact it did prevent infection and thus transmission, but that was proven as time went by to not be a durable effect.
	Okay, Senator Rampall is with us now.
	Senator, great to have you.
	Uh did Anthony Fauci tell the American people the truth.
	And in your book, The Great COVID cover-up, Deception, the Great COVID cover-up, which by the way, I urge everybody to read.
	Um, what did you discover in terms of emails that proved that he's lying?
	The only thing consistent about his testimony yesterday was that he consistently lies and is dishonest about gain of function.
	We had testimony from the acting director of the NIH, and he admitted under oath that yes, this was gain of function.
	We also have emails from Tony Fauci, Anthony Fauci from February 1st of 2020, in which he says, We know the research is dangerous over there, we know it's gain of function, and he describes research and the research he describes is what he had been funding.
	We know that one of the first emails that came out two weeks after we heard of the what the genetic sequence was in China, two weeks later, one of his aides emails him and says, Here's that gain of function project that we funded.
	We're not so sure how this happened because it never went before the safety committee.
	And this is one of the biggest mistakes probably made in the history of modern medicine.
	We set up a safety committee back in 2016 to oversee dangerous gain of function research.
	The only way you can evade that committee and evade that scrutiny is with the director giving an exemption.
	So Anthony Fauci gave them an exemption.
	And then he argues, well, it doesn't meet the definition.
	You know, this committee was called the P3CO committee.
	He says it doesn't meet the definition of gain of function.
	Well, guess what?
	It never went before the committee.
	Somebody should have brought up yesterday, well, it never had a chance to meet or not meet the definition because the committee was never allowed to scrutinize this research.
	So what I've been asking for, if it didn't go to the committee, wasn't there some sort of internal deliberation over whether this was gain of function?
	Fauci says, all of my scientists, all of them up and down, say it's not gain of function.
	Well, then give us the deliberations.
	Give us the minutes of the discussion of the meeting when this occurred.
	They steadfastly refuse, and the NIH has clammed up worse than the CIA.
	And the only thing consistent is Anthony Fauci continues to lie about this.
	You know, if you go back, Senator, and we had you on the program many, many times, both radio and TV discussing this.
	And you were very, very adamant about how they were so dismissive of natural immunity, or anybody that questioned what was emergency authorization use of MRNA technology.
	Now I had interviewed Dr. Robert Malone at the time, without whom they wouldn't have had MRNA vaccination possibilities.
	And he had told me at the time that it the science is not perfected.
	And again, there wouldn't have been Moderna, there wouldn't have been Pfizer, there wouldn't have been AstraZeneca, which by the way has been pulled from the market in Great Britain.
	None of this would have happened.
	and yet he was saying that however, because older people were susceptible, especially with comorbidities and preexisting conditions, I would be appropriate for people 65 or older or people with those co comorbidities, preexisting conditions only.
	Not for young kids.
	Nobody wanted to listen to him.
	And when he went on Joe Rogan, he got the crap beat out of him in the press.
	And meanwhile, those those vaccinations don't exist but for this guy.
	And and realize that even when committees looked at this, the left kept saying, follow the science, Republicans, conservatives won't follow the science.
	Well, the scientific committees that approve vaccines, when they approved booster vaccines, additional COVID vaccines, approved them only for 65 and older.
	So how did we get down to six months?
	Rochelle Willenski, a political appointee by Biden to the CDC, overrode the scientific community, and she said, no, we're going to do it all the way down to six months.
	So they ignored the differential.
	It's a thousandfold more dangerous for a 70-year-old than it is for a seven-year-old.
	And it's close to zero for a seven-year-old.
	It really is close to zero.
	Entire countries, Germany looked at ages five to eighteen and found no deaths of any child that did not already have a serious health issue, a terminal health issue.
	So they have not been honest with this.
	On natural immunity, this is going to happen again.
	Sometime in our lifetime, there's going to be another outbreak and it may come from a lab again.
	But when it does, until there is a vaccine, whether it works or doesn't work, but when a vaccine comes out, before that, the only thing you have is immunity.
	So if a disease is going to affect the elderly in nursing homes, the one thing you could do, and Anthony Fauci could have done, was warn us, and also then take people with natural immunity and have them become the nurses and attendants in the old folks' homes in the nursing homes, because then they would actually be protecting because they have natural immunity, they would be protecting the old folks from having new young people come in every day and bring the disease to the older people who can't who can't withstand the disease.
	Let me ask you this.
	Can you say with a hundred percent certainty that Americans uh listening to this show and the American people actually paid for what happened in that Wuhan virology lab and that we were lied to about it?
	Without question, we paid for the research.
	The only debate is whether or not the research is gain of function or not.
	And the NIH acting head says, sure, according to the general usage of the term it is.
	And Anthony Fauci in his private emails also said it was gain of function.
	So he is lying because he's trying to escape responsibility.
	Yes, I believe that there's over a 90% chance, over a 95% chance that this came from a lab.
	And could we be proven wrong?
	Yes.
	If they find an animal reservoir and they can predict they can produce evidence that it was there before COVID, things could change.
	They have found that in the past.
	They haven't found it so far.
	It's unusual that they never found an animal reservoir.
	The other thing is if it comes from animals, if you look at the blood bank in 2019 in China, or you look at previous infections and you test old things, you find that it was lurking around and that there was a lot of this sort of in there.
	They didn't find that.
	They found that this suddenly arose all at once and that it was one genetic variety, all that points towards evidence that it came from a lab.
	Let me ask you this question.
	Do you believe we made a mistake pressuring the American people and shaming them and embarrassing them if they didn't want the shot uh to take this uh vaccine?
	Do you believe it's a health risk?
	Do you believe myocarditis and blood clotting is one of the aftermaths of this?
	I think it's always and will always be a mistake to mandate any kind of health care injection that you make someone take at the end of a gun.
	I think that's a mistake.
	If you ask me who should be vaccinated and what uh is good, what is bad, what's wrong, what's malpractice?
	I would probably give you a more nuanced answer.
	I would say that voluntarily, it has to be voluntary, that at the time in 2020, and I've been 75 and not infected, I probably would have chosen to go ahead and get in uh vaccinated.
	In the end, the risks of the vaccine, if you're 75 versus the risk of the disease, I think the the risk of the vaccine are less than the risk of the disease.
	But if you ask me for your 15 year old, I would say the opposite.
	I would say the risks of the disease are almost non-existent, and that the real risks of an inflammation of the heart, uh, cardiomyopathy, myocarditis, all of those things is more significant with the vaccine than the disease.
	And I absolutely think it's malpractice to force or to coerce or to pressure kids into getting vaccinated.
	In the middle, it's sort of a middle question.
	If you're 35, 45, 55, and you're thin, athletic, and in good shape and don't have a lot of diseases.
	I think you could go either way.
	I probably myself, I didn't get vaccinated, but I got COVID like in March, and I also didn't get sick at all, but I did show that I had antibodies and I knew that I I'd had the disease.
	I chose you got it.
	You got it very early and were very public about it.
	Yeah, and I chose not to get vaccinated, but I can't tell you with a hundred percent certainty that I wouldn't have gotten vaccinated.
	I'm 60, 61 years old.
	I'm in pretty good shape.
	But I, you know, I definitely wouldn't now, because the thing is, you know, there's a new strain of it coming out every couple of months.
	What we have found is that we all have immunity to this thing now, at least most of people have some, and the disease has mutated to become less dangerous over time.
	So mandating it now is absolutely against the science, really for anybody.
	And I wish the CDC would be more honest.
	Over ninety percent of people over 65 did get vaccinated, at least two vaccines.
	Most of them have had COVID at least twice now.
	They should look at the statistics and say, well, if you've been vaccinated twice and you've had COVID twice, what is the chance that you go to a hospital with a new infection or you die from COVID?
	I think the answer is zero, but instead we have these people acting like they're the marketing department for Pfizer, you know, mandating new things, advising new vaccines every three months, and you're not pro-science.
	It's actually anti-science to say stuff like that.
	Give us the statistics and let us make a decision when you tell us the truth.
	Let me ask you a question.
	Do you have a couple more minutes?
	I got a couple of more questions for you.
	Do you mind?
	Sure.
	All right, we'll continue.
	More with Senator and Dr. Rampall.
	His book, by the way, if you haven't read it, we'll put it up on Hannity.com.
	Uh it's on Amazon.com bookstores around the country, Deception, the Great COVID cover-up in light of Fauci's testimony yesterday.
	I want to continue.
	I I have questions about bird flu.
	I have questions about natural immunity.
	I I think they're very crucial that we learn our lesson here.
	Hey there.
	I'm Mary Catherine Hammond.
	And I'm Carol Markowitz.
	We've been in political media for a long time.
	Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
	That's why we started normally a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
	We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
	We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
	So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional SAS, you're our kind of people.
	Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
	Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	And I'm Carol Markowitz.
	We've been in political media for a long time.
	Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
	That's why we started normally a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
	We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
	We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
	So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional SAS, you're our kind of people.
	Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
	All right, 25 now to the top of the hour.
	We'll get to your calls here in a minute.
	Uh 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	We only have a couple more minutes.
	Dr. Rampall, Senator Rampall, Kentucky has to run.
	Um he was right.
	He was villainized and demonized and smeared and slandered uh on the issue of COVID uh all throughout the pandemic because he taught actually believed in natural immunity, had questions that nobody wanted to answer about the emergency authorization use of what was new technology,
	the mRNA uh uh vaccine that they put out uh and villainized and demonized and smeared and slandered, you know, because he dared to talk about the origins of the COVID-19 virus, and he's now been able to get a lot of evidence that Chronicles he was dead on right that there was a great cov COVID cover-up and a lot of deception.
	Uh, and that's the name of his book.
	It's called Deception, the Great COVID cover-up.
	and we heard from Dr. Fauci yesterday and I just uh as it infuriates me you know now the NIH finally admits oh uh yeah we were kind of wrong about the origins of COVID when we know damn well they knew at the time they were panicked emails that he chronicles in his book how panic were those emails by the way on and and how early into the pandemic did they recognize that they themselves likely funded it with our money.
	Within two weeks of the virus being announced in China it was sequenced January 11th two weeks later there's emails that go on till three in the morning with Fauci exchanging emails the first emails originate on that day say this is the gain of function research that the NIH funded over there.
	We're not sure how it happened because it never went through the safety committee.
	This is this they knew from day one.
	And they also knew because this was tens of millions of dollars, not only just through eco health, but the State Department funds these people to go looking for viruses.
	Hundreds of feet underground where they would never be exposed to humans.
	Take them out from these bat caves, deep in the bat caves, and then take them to major metropolitan areas.
	And you have to ask yourself just in general.
	There's more coronaviruses housed in Wuhan, China than anywhere in the world.
	that have the disease that are native to that area.
	They're eight to ten hours away how do we just happen to get a pandemic in the same city that has more coronaviruses in a lab than any place in the world the coincidence of that would have to be extraordinary.
	I just think it was a just a a cover up because they didn't want to be found out and I think you know it's taken this long to get to the bottom of it.
	Let me ask you this question.
	There was another vaccine and nobody ever talks about it and it was it was using the old style vaccination process and that was the Johnson and Johnson shot and I never really heard much uh or saw much research about whether or not that was less damaging than the new technology Moderna Pfizer mRNA technology vaccine.
	Have you seen anything on it?
	I think the main thing was ineffectiveness on all of them because they're trying to immunize you to something on the S protein.
	The S protein is on the outer part you know when they draw the virus and has all these little globules by the way is it is this the spike protein that we're talking about it's on the outside and it helps the virus to gain entry into your cells so that what they do is they take protein from that if they want to make a traditional antibody or they take the virus and kill it and then they inject it into you and that's a traditional vaccine.
	But even traditional vaccines don't work very well because what coronavirus is famous for is it adapts.
	So what you do is the vaccine wipes out all of the variety that is susceptible to it.
	But let's say one out of 100 is not.
	That one out of 100 grows to be 100 within days.
	And so you have to, because you don't eliminate 100% of it and one mutation is out there, it then infects somebody and grows to it, you know, extraordinarily quickly.
	And so coronavirus just adapts too quickly.
	That's why you don't have a vaccine for the cold.
	It's also why vaccines for...
	the flu haven't worked as well either you said something earlier that really kind of alarmed me and that is that you are pretty confident we're going to see another pandemic in our lifetime.
	Uh all right Senator we're about the same age I really don't want to live through this hell again.
	Uh why are you so confident that's likely and is this maybe related to or are we looking at the possibility that bird flew which we've been reading a lot about recently is that going to be the next one?
	The reason I'm worried that it's going to happen again and others like Robert Redfield who was a CDC director under uh who's a virologist and was a CDC director under Trump are worried about this as well is because we're doing this gain of function, dangerous research creating viruses that don't exist in nature in dozens of sites in the United States but in hundreds of sites around the world and so they are doing this research we're going to have another accident because man is fallible man is imperfect our labs are imperfect
	And despite the best of intentions, accidents will happen, have happened, and are going again.
	So I do worry about it.
	That's why we have to get it right this time.
	We should quit funding this research.
	But we need to be alarmed by people who want to take something like the avian flu and and make it more infectious to mammals.
	See, this was the first thing that set off the debate in 2010 in the Netherlands, a scientist uh mutated on purpose the avian flu and infected mammals with it.
	And all of a sudden people went, Man, we shouldn't even publish that because terrorists will read about this and they will learn how to do this.
	And so there was a debate ten years before COVID took off in this country, and there are many great scientists.
	Richard Ebright is a molecular uh pathologist or biologist at Rutgers.
	He's been fighting with Fauci for 20 years over this, saying that Fauci is the wild wild west and is going to kill us all if we're not careful.
	And he hasn't makes very good scientific arguments.
	He'd be worth interviewing, actually.
	But we're bringing him in.
	We're gonna have a committee hearing in two weeks to talk about the origins.
	He will be there, and a scientist by the name of Stephen Quay will be in there, and we'll be talking about the scientific evidence that this came from the lab and also about legislation to try to prevent this from happening again.
	Why would we stupidly be continuing to fund this?
	This is insanity.
	Uh Senator, I know you got an another uh interview you gotta run to.
	I appreciate the extra time you gave us.
	And I also appreciate you being willing to courageously speak out at a time when very few were and and get out that what ended up being the truth.
	We appreciate it.
	Uh Senator Rampall, his book Deception, The Great COVID cover up, Hannity.com, Amazon.com, bookstores around the country.
	Uh you need to read this because you need to be informed.
	God forbid this ever happens again.
	Uh thank you, Senator.
	Appreciate it.
	All right, let's get to our busy phones.
	800 nine four one Sean.
	If you want to join us, Frank in Ohio.
	Frank, hey, how are you?
	Glad you called.
	Hello.
	What's going on, man?
	How are you?
	Doing good, Sean.
	Long time listener.
	Uh hey, I was when I was watching Biden with that wicked grin, I a thought came over to me as to a potential scenario that uh they may be playing.
	And uh I just wanted to get it over, you know, say something about it because the sooner it, you know, you they're discovered, if it's what's going on, the better to be dealt with.
	But the scenario goes like this.
	That this trial for Hunter Biden, the jury does convict him, and they give him a harsh sentence.
	Uh the reason being is to prove that they are a fair justice system.
	This will You want to know what I think?
	I think the odds are pretty high that he's not gonna get convicted.
	And if he does get convicted, I think he'll get a reduced sentence based on mitigating circumstances if they're able to do that.
	Yeah, I mean it very probable.
	You know, you know, I just had a scenario, but the reason I'm thinking that they would give him a harsh sentence is because then they could set it up to give Trump a harsh sentence as well and say, look, we're just being fair about everything, and they're really not, but that's the setup.
	And the the reason why I'm thinking that too is because they know that Biden is pretty much played out for 'em.
	They know that they need to get moving on getting somebody else in there.
	And uh the sooner they do that the better.
	And uh again, with someone like Trump having to go to jail, wasting a lot more time on their part.
	Uh, you know, they could actually be a couple steps ahead in the chess game here.
	And uh that's what I was thinking was it the you know, these these people, you know, to me the these controllers of Biden, because it's not Biden, it's it's whoever's in above him telling him what to do.
	You know, they have no mercy, they have no mercy for their own people.
	But the bottom line is is what they you know when they're done when Biden is spent, th they don't need him anymore.
	They could care less about the entire family.
	And, you know, again, they need to let him all by himself get rid of himself by you can imagine the emotional reaction he would have if they did find him guilty and all of a sudden he starts seeing the cards that are stacked against him.
	And that's we're all gonna see what happens.
	It's only 153 days away, and it's a pretty scary scenario.
	And you know, let's let's just watch this unfold.
	And you know, but to have a jury that is that sympathetic towards addiction, which by the way, I am too.
	But but uh, you know, I uh I'll tell you the best thing that Hunter Biden has gone for.
	He's got a great attorney.
	His name is Abby Lowell.
	There's very few good attorneys um in this country at that level.
	And he's the one that got, you know, I'm not sure if he was involved in Edwards, but he certainly was involved in Menendez's first trial, is involved in a second trial.
	And uh I'm just telling you, it's a friend.
	You know, the Ari Fleischer said this last night, and uh, he said it perfectly.
	He goes, Justice in America, I really want to believe that we have uh, you know, a fair justice system, and he goes, but more and more what I see is justice is gonna be based on the venue in which you are tried and whether or not politically it favors you and the judge that you have and whether the judge stands politically.
	And that's the sad reality is now we have politicized and weaponized justice in this country.
	Anyway, my friend, appreciate your call, 800-941 Sean.
	All right, let's get to our busy phones.
	800 941 Sean.
	If you want to be a part of the program, Paul in the great state of Georgia says, Paul, you're a trucker.
	How are you, my friend?
	What's going on?
	How are you doing, sir?
	I I can barely hear you.
	What'd you say?
	How is that?
	Yes, sir, yes, sir.
	I am a trucker and yourself.
	Yeah, breaker one nine.
	What's going on, brother?
	How are you?
	Well, I'm losing money with this Biden omics is what how it's going, Mr. Sean.
	I'm doing fantastic.
	You know, I I I saw your call or screeners like a I think the Trump campaign is missing a really, really large opportunity.
	When he goes to these events like the MMA or uh any rally or anything like that, they should be registering voters.
	He comes out, it's an honor to be here.
	I love you guys.
	If you're not registered, we have people out here registering you right now.
	And let's get the I don't think it's a bad idea.
	I mean, I don't know, you know, I know Dana White.
	I don't I don't think Dana White would have a problem at all.
	Dana White doesn't give a flying rip about what anybody says or thinks about him.
	Kind of one of the reasons I like him a lot.
	You know, we had him on the program and he said, you know, I had all these beers that wanted to sponsor UFC, and I went with Bud Light because and then he listed all the reasons why, all the other work that they had done, and then he he agreed with me.
	I hated the fact that some dopey idiot in the DEI department at a big corporation ends up hurting and and getting fired, you know, people that rely on high-paying career jobs at Anheuser Bush uh because of you know, uh a campaign that never should have been run.
	And, you know, I just at that point I just don't want to hurt those people.
	And I said that from day one, and some people who were mad at me and disagreed with me.
	I'm sorry, I care about the workers, I care about the the route drivers.
	These guys paid a fortune for those bud routes.
	And you know, I don't want to see those people hurt.
	You know, and I'll tell you the thing worse.
	I agree the other percent the workers don't have anything to do with it.
	They they have to keep their job, their retirement, their pensions, and concern about that.
	Like me.
	I I'm I've got five trucks on the road.
	I mean, by the way, the trucking has been in a recession, what, for almost a year now, and the rates are pretty have they coming back a little bit?
	Not at all.
	My my my my first year when Biden took him out with I was I was bringing home in my truck alone after expenses 140k.
	What's it bringing home now?
	65,000.
	And that's after, you know, all your repairs, and that's after, you know, over the road, day in and day out.
	I mean, it's a hard life being a trucker.
	Well, and I've got four other trucks on the road, and my drivers aren't making as much money as they did either.
	So, you know, it it's a tough situation out here from race or I I don't know if this by the way, a lot of trucking companies have gone under because of this.
	And I know because I have friends in the trucking business, and you know, they're barely hanging on.
	They're just uh in many cases, they're just trying to make a little bit of money with each run.
	I mean, it's rough.
	Anyway, my friend, I'm you uh you hang in there.
	I hope that ends soon.
	Because let me tell you, trucking companies go down every store you go to, you those shelves are gonna be empty really fast.
	Uh, and you know, we don't appreciate the hard work that these over-the-road guys uh do every day.
	Thank you, my friend.
	God bless you.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	Now I'm Carol Markovich.
	And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday.
	Normally on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

▲