Best of the Program | Guest: Vivek Ramaswamy | 9/1/23

So we talked a lot a lot today.

A lot.

I mean, we had a lot on the program.

We had Vivek Ramaswamy.

Yeah.

And

I think we asked him the tough questions that a lot of people want to know about Vake.

He's coming back to answer.

You just call him Vake?

Vivek.

Yeah.

You're just like, he's called.

Except Vake?

He's Vake.

You're on that description.

He's Vake.

So you're not even on a first name basis.

No.

You're just calling Vake now.

Yeah.

That's interesting.

Right.

I'm sure he'll appreciate it.

Like, I don't call you Stuart.

That's right.

Because

you shorten it to Vake.

Yeah, because I was thinking about, because it's Vivek like cake.

And I think I just started calling him Vake because I'm always thinking about cake.

That's true.

You know, anyway.

So we had Vivek on.

He was forthcoming, but you'll have to decide.

Asked him some real tough questions.

We also

kind of exposed a couple of other things that I think is very valuable to you.

One

is the multi-million dollar

fiasco

of the acrobatic horse show.

I know, right?

How did you not hear about it?

Well, you're about to on today's podcast.

You're listening to

the best of the Blenbeck program.

Okay, so now here is the thing.

There is this gun show loophole.

You know that, Stu, right?

Huge loophole.

Almost all guns are bought through the gun show loophole.

Loophole.

Yeah.

Unless

they're ghost guns.

Yeah.

Those are the only two types of guns.

Yeah.

But the kids in the mystery van have already unmasked.

the ghost gun.

That's true.

Okay, so and they would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those pesky kids.

So the gun show loophole.

Do you know what it is?

Yes, yes.

The gun show loophole.

Yes, go, go.

Is when you go to a gun show.

Go speed racer.

And there is someone there selling a private seller who

is selling their guns.

And because they're a private seller, not a business,

they don't have to go through all of the background checks.

Go speed racer, go.

You got it.

Okay.

Very small percentage of guns sold there.

That's right.

Like very small.

Yes.

Very small.

And basically what he said is absolutely right.

It's a private seller.

So if I have a gun to sell, and I'm not a gun, you know, a gun store, I don't have my license, my FFL,

I can sell my gun, but it's a private transaction between two people.

Okay.

Well,

you now have to prove

that you're not in business looking for profit on your gun.

Now, now hang on.

Hang on just a second.

I'm a capitalist, okay?

And I'm looking for profit.

I don't know about anybody else, but I think pretty much everybody, when you go to work, how dare you look for profit when you're at work?

I mean, that's why we go.

Yes.

Okay.

If I have a gun and it's worth more than I paid for, and I can find somebody that wants to pay for that gun, Bro, okay.

I mean, honestly, somebody just called us and said, you want to sell your house?

And I'm like, no.

We live in our house.

We live in our house.

And they were like, but you were selling it.

And I'm like, yeah, we were.

And then it didn't sell.

So we remodeled.

And now we love our house.

So, no, we don't want to sell.

Well, what would it take?

I came up with an enormous, crazy, outrageous number.

Okay.

Right.

Because you would, in theory, move out if they hit you.

You want to give me a crazy amount of money, I'm like, I'm out of there tonight, man.

Right.

So, I mean, that's what you're looking for.

You're looking for profit.

Right.

Are you looking to profit off your home?

Yes.

Oh, God.

Yes, I am.

So here's, and I'm not actually looking for it.

If somebody, if you have a gun and somebody said,

man, I just love that.

Would you ever sell it?

Well, I mean, for the right price.

How dare you?

What do you mean, the right price?

You're a businessman now.

Yes.

You're a drug seller now.

Yeah.

Okay.

So all of this is happening because

the

2022 new law that was passed.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It was passed and it is, what is it called?

It's like the really super good and safe law.

I don't have it in front of me here.

But it was a new law passed by Congress to keep us all safe.

Keep it all.

I mean, the common sense safety laws, you know.

And basically what it said is the exact same thing, it says in every piece of legislation now,

the secretary of the ATF, the head of the ATF, can decide on the rules.

We just want you to keep us safe.

And so the ATF has said, oh, okay, well, we're going to keep you safe by closing that gun show loophole, by making sure anyone who ever sells a gun has to prove to us that they're not profiting off of it.

Which is an insane standard.

I mean, how would anyone even prove that?

Insane.

I mean, yeah, you could say, I bought it for this.

And I'm seeing,

like, they're doing, they do this with tickets sometimes, right?

Where you buy tickets and they say you can't sell them for above face value.

Is that the standard they're going to use for this?

I mean,

well, because obviously, like, a

gun might depreciate after you buy it, right?

So, do you have to figure out what the like?

Well, that sounds like you'd be a business.

I mean, honestly, that's much more business.

I don't know.

I mean, I looked on the internet.

Probably you can get one for about this price.

You know, I'll sell it to you for a little bit less or a little bit more.

That's what the average person would do.

But if I have to go, well, now, wait a minute, let's really look into it.

Doesn't that make me more of a business?

Seems like it.

Seems like it.

Seems like it.

Okay.

So this is,

I love this.

This is from the ATF director.

An increasing number of individuals engaged in the business of selling firearms for profit have chosen not to register as a federal firearms license, licensee as required by law.

Instead, they've sought to make money through the off-book illicit sales of firearms.

They're illicit?

Yeah, well, of course they are.

Yeah.

So why wouldn't you just go after the people doing the illicit things?

If it's already illustrated.

That's not what illicit means.

Illicit means something else.

Okay.

It doesn't mean that it's illegal.

I guess it doesn't have to be illegal.

I guess it does.

Forbidden by law.

Look it up.

Forbidden by law, rules, or custom.

So maybe they could go with a custom.

See, and that's what businesses do.

They do custom things, right?

That's a different usage of that word.

Well, okay, Webster.

Thank you for stopping by.

So they make money.

So notice it is,

it is clearly, they are clearly going after and saying these people

are trying to make money on the off-book illegal sale, illicit sale of firearms.

These activities undermine the law, endanger public safety, create significant burdens on law enforcement, and are unfair to the many licensed dealer.

I didn't read that before.

And make it unfair to the many licensed dealer who make a considerable effort to follow the law.

So now they're doing this.

Yeah, because the FFL is so,

they're really working hard to keep us safe.

They've been vilifying these people who are selling guns for decades.

And now they're the good guys for this particular moment.

A crap heap.

ATF has issued rules that would apply more security checks on gun owners and sellers who use unregulated stabilizing braces to effectively transform pistols into more deadly rifles.

So here's what they have to do now.

To be able to enforce this, they have to have a gun registry.

And the ATF has started a federal gun registry.

Can't do that.

Congress has been against that since 1791.

It's constantly, constantly in a new.

They don't care.

This is why you have Congress,

you have the presidency, and the Supreme Court.

All of our problems stem around two things.

One, Congress has...

has stopped doing their job.

And I'll tell you why they did it.

Because they just want to be re-elected.

That's it.

They don't want to do anything unpopular.

They just want to be the ones that you call up and say, hey, good job.

Or you got to stop these guys so they can be the police.

Except, they're not really the police.

Have you seen Congress actually go after the bad guys in the government?

I haven't.

Have you actually seen them stop really bad things?

Because I haven't.

What they did was say, you know what?

We're going to pass that good and plenty law that everybody should be good and have plenty of everything.

And

we're going to transfer that good and plenty law for interpretation by the secretary of that division of the United States government.

So the cabinet secretary, who the good and plenty law now enables,

he's like, good, okay, I'll tell you how we're going to make everybody good.

We're going to shoot you in the head if you're bad.

I mean, this is obviously an exaggeration, but that's what the secretary can do.

The secretary makes the law and the enforcement and everything else.

That is the job of Congress.

Congress, the reason why we're having these problems is because they didn't want to be held responsible for anything.

They gave up their power and they gave it to the administrative state, which now means the presidency, the administrative state, is actually the state.

Congress is just like something you would put in your curio cabinet.

It was something, honestly, I should have all of the members of Congress and the Senate, and I should lock them in the American Journey Experience Vault.

It's a cute little curio from a time gone by that is no longer of any use.

Let's just put it on the shelf.

That's really what it is.

And the reason why you feel so powerless is because of that.

When I say the ATF director, you know his name.

When I say,

you know, the Secretary of Defense,

do you know his name?

Maybe.

Maybe, most don't.

He's doing something wrong.

We got to get him out of there.

What power do you have?

What power do you have?

You have the power of Congress going to Congress and say, you got to remove this guy.

Oh, that's happening all the time.

Look at how corrupt and how out of control our government is.

They won't cut anyone's salary.

They won't fire anybody.

They won't hold anybody responsible for anything.

That's why you feel so powerless.

That's why your entire life feels like you're standing in line,

ready to get your driver's license.

And when you get, and you've been there for three hours and you get to the front of the line, and they're like, this window's closed.

And you're like, wait, but I, well, hold it.

You have nobody to go to because

their word is the law.

This is what's happening.

This is unconstitutional in a myriad of ways.

This is why we need the Reigns Act.

And I know this is like...

Oh, he's talking about the Reigns Act.

Wake me up when he stops.

The Reigns Act gives the power back to Congress.

Why do you want Congress to have that power if they're so bad?

Because

they are so bad, they never get anything done, which allows the states and you to regulate your life.

It allows you in your city to regulate instead of the government saying, yeah, we're going to put everybody's name on our registry.

By the way, this is so

inflammatory.

They know what this causes.

This causes all kinds of agitation.

This causes all kinds of distrust.

And they're never going to come for guns.

Do you believe they'll come for guns?

They'll actually go door to door?

God, I hope not.

Because that's

what's what?

What happens?

The worst things possible happen.

Okay, good.

Good.

Thank you.

He's being very, very careful, which I never am.

That's why he'll be testifying against me at some point.

Oh, I can't wait.

I know.

But you're right.

Americans,

there's 350, almost 400 million guns now aren't there.

I think it is 400 million.

400 million guns.

We're not Sweden.

We're not Australia.

That ain't going to work.

Americans do know their First Amendment rights.

And you're just never going, unless you want a civil war.

So if they want to come and get the guns, they are declaring war on the American people.

That's scary.

But I mean, they like this is something they say.

They always say, oh, we love the Second Amendment.

What are you talking about?

And then they do this stuff all the time.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program, and we really want to thank you for listening.

Vivek, welcome.

I know we only have a few minutes, so I want to get right into some of these things.

And it might take more than one episode here.

First of all, hello.

And my first question.

Yeah.

My first question is, please will you verify that it is the vake

like cake?

That is correct.

Thank you.

Vivek like cake, Ramaswamy.

Okay, that one is an easy one.

Go ahead.

Yeah, well, I know.

I know.

Well, they're going to get harder from here.

Wikipedia editor alleges that you paid to have your Wikipedia page edited to remove you receiving the Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowship for New Americans and your role in Ohio's COVID-19 response team.

Is that true?

Hang on.

Is that true?

And if it is, why?

So before I ran for president, there were a lot of falsehoods on my Wikipedia page.

And it was clearly missed, it was clearly being, and it is actively over the course of this campaign been manipulated by opposition research.

It said things like, at times, me being born in India, my wife, and facts about her that were incorrect, up to and including her name.

And so before I ran, yes, I wanted to make sure that the public was aware of exactly what the right facts were.

The fact of the matter is the Ohio COVID-19 response team wasn't actually ever a formally titled body.

There was a lieutenant governor in Ohio who remains a friend of mine to this day who asked me if he could call me from time to time to get basic advice through the process.

I said, sure, I would.

I helped him with the reopening plan.

That was a short version of the help that I provided him.

So I'm actually proud of that.

You know, when a lot of these states were going through lockdown, there was a path to reopening.

I'm a business guy.

He called me for advice on that.

I was pro-reopening.

And, you know, to this day, people can call him.

I'm sure he would say the same thing.

Did you ever make phone calls about it?

Did you ever

go for lockdowns, mandates?

Nope.

None of that.

Absolutely not.

I've been dead set against it.

And I was a force for good in the state of Ohio here.

John Houstead, I'm sure, would confirm that, who was the person on the receiving end of those phone calls that I made.

Why wouldn't you just have them, I mean, because you were on the response team as much as there existed a response team.

You did get the Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowship for New Americans.

It's easily findable on the internet.

It's like literally.

But why would you remove those things instead of clarifying it?

And

i think the truth is that that headline was itself generated to create this appearance that we're somehow manipulating this there was about five other just outright false things and you know what i wasn't micromanaging what exactly this page is edited or not what you want is actually a statement of what's important coming up first in your heading so if somebody else has gone out of their way in the early paragraphs of your description to the world at the age of 37 having achieved a lot of things and then the first thing is some random scholarship you got at the age of 24.

That's manipulation.

And one of the things I've learned in this process, Glenn, is there's a lot of left-wing media manipulation, but there's media manipulation 360 degrees, driven by not just fake news media, but a lot of fake establishment candidates, too, who are threatened by my rise.

And literally, Wikipedia, even to this day, it's like a war on my Wikipedia.

No, I know.

Please.

And so my view is we got to just speak the truth.

I've actually been been completely transparent about this silly Soros scholarship that's a brother of George Soros, not related to him, at the age of 24 that I want, easily Google-able, a generic scholarship that I would have had to have been a fool to turn down at the age of 24 from a guy who's long dead, who's a totally different person from George Soros when I'm in my early 20s.

And I don't cast dispersion on others, but there are other candidates who have gotten $160 million loan from Soros, others who have been endorsed.

And so, you know, I think that we can play this silly game, but I think it's important that we stick to the facts.

Okay, so it is George Soros' brother, and they are not, I mean, they are related, related, but they do not

share the same

outlook on taking over the world,

is my understanding.

Now,

but there is something here that you, when in answering this, you said, I took the money at a time when I was young.

I didn't have a lot of money, but at that time, at 24, I think you were making $2 million a year.

Well, there's a small little fact there.

One is that was the following year that I made it.

So at the time that I applied for the scholarship, I got my first big the first big payday ever I got is actually the year-end bonus that I got the year that I applied for that scholarship.

It wasn't a need-based scholarship.

So one thing I'll say, Glenn, is even if I did have a million dollars post-tax in the bank account, I still would have been a fool to turn down $50,000 of a merit-based scholarship that other kids who are going to Yale Law School are winning.

Whether or not you have that money, I still say, advise the 24-year-old version of myself to take it.

But I did see that false headline.

How do people know this, Glenn?

It's worth double-clicking on that.

People know this because I released 20 years of tax returns in the early weeks of this campaign, something that no presidential candidate has ever done.

This is unprecedented transparency.

And, you know, of course, no good deed goes unpunished.

But we're actually running this campaign with unprecedented transparency because that's the way we're going to run the government.

So I've published something that, you know, from Trump on down, nobody's ever done it.

Put up 20 years of tax record.

Someone as wealthy and successful as I've been, that's against the better advice of advisors.

I said, no, we're going to do that.

Someone then picks on that and says, oh, well, didn't that year you earn it?

You get paid the year-end bonus.

That was the first year I ever made real money.

That was after I had applied for that scholarship.

But I'll always contend with the facts.

And those are the facts there, Glenn.

So

the next question that's being brought up is the WEF tried to name you as a young global leader.

You were on their website.

You eventually had to sue.

I'm not going to ask this question because it's already been asked and answered on this program and you can find that on this program.

We went into great detail about it.

And we sued them in one since then is the answer and held them accountable to make sure they would never do it, not just to me, but even people like you, Glenn, or people like Elon Musk or others who have also been opponents that they've tried to name in different capacities.

Well, here's the thing that I...

Here's the thing that I take issue with.

I believe it came from your camp that I was also nominated for some award or something from

Soros or the WEF.

And

I can tell you that's not true because, I mean, I would have taken it.

Do I get to go over to the ski lodge?

Elon, Peter, Keele, a bunch of these other folks have been named on there.

And I thought last time when you and I spoke on the air, you referenced them referencing you in some way.

Oh, yeah, no, their hatred.

Their hatred of me.

Yeah.

Their hatred.

No, it's not a big deal.

I know.

Anyway,

there's a clip going around recently of you asking Al Sharpton on MSNBC, people are using this clip to claim that you at least used to be a Democrat.

Were you?

Did you switch?

What made you switch?

Yeah, so I will tell you, I did not come out of the birth canal spouting Republican talking points.

That much is for sure.

So that clip from 2003, when I was 18 years old in my freshman year of college, I wasn't a Republican.

That's for sure.

Now, MSNBC hosted all the Democratic primary candidates.

I said, you know what, I'm going to go check it out.

I asked him a question, and I said, hey, why should I vote for you in the primary if you're the least experienced, which is inexperienced, least experienced politician, which is a funny question and ironic on many levels, given that I'm an outsider running now.

But the truth is, I didn't vote Democrat.

I voted libertarian that year.

You want to know why?

I didn't love George Bush.

I was dead set against many of the George Bush policies.

I was against the war in Iraq at that time, as I am today.

I went on to be against the 2008 bailouts, so I didn't vote for John McCain or Barack Obama.

I was disillusioned, Glenn, from both parties.

And so in that election in 2004, I voted for the Libertarian candidate because I couldn't stand John Kerry or George Bush.

I came to my views, and I was disillusioned from politics for most of my 20s.

Obama, McCain, Obama, Romney, even.

I didn't find these figures inspiring, but I came to my views through my experiences, Glenn.

When I was a biotech CEO, when I had to make or was supposedly forced and I refused to do it, to make a statement on behalf of Black Lives Matter while I'm developing medicines that are saving people's lives, and I refuse to do it, and that puts me in a difficult position in my industry as a leader.

Those are the kinds of experiences that shaped my vehemence in crusading first, not even in politics, but against this trend of woke capitalism and stakeholder capitalism and ESGs.

They separate business from politics.

That's where I began, not in partisan politics.

And even now, I'm not a party man, Glenn.

I'm using the Republican Party as a vehicle to advance a positive, nationalistic, pro-American vision for this country.

And so, you know, if people want somebody who was born in Republican jerseys and talks in Republican talking points, I'm not their guy, and I wasn't at at the age of 18 either.

I'm somebody who thinks independently.

I'm a patriot who cares about this country and speaks the truth.

And you know what?

If I'm 18 years old and I'm exploring in college, yes, if there's a forum where somebody who disagrees with me, Al Sharpton shows up, I'm going to go up, show up, ask questions.

And yes, I did vote libertarian, that you're guilty as charged.

That's just part of who I am, and people should know it.

I need to know, because I respect your time, and I did this with Donald Trump, and I had to leave questions on the table, but we'll have you back.

Do I have two two more minutes with you or

four more minutes?

I actually reserved 20 minutes for this.

Okay, okay.

All right.

So let me go back to this.

In 2016, you not only were against Donald Trump, but you actually made donations to somebody who is variantly anti-Trump, a friend.

Let me just correct you there on 2016.

I was not anti-Trump.

I just didn't vote in 2016 because I was deeply jaded and skeptical of all politicians.

as I told you, heading into then.

I judged based on results, and he delivered for this country, and I voted with him with pride in 2020.

So what happened?

You gave $2,700 to act.

Yeah, I'll tell you what that was.

Yeah, so I had no idea who this individual was.

She's in the biotech industry, and you know, I'm a biotech CEO, right?

I'm invited by the biotech industry association's head.

of a friend of a friend saying, there's this doctor who's running for Congress.

Would you come?

They dragged me out to a fundraiser.

I showed up, stayed as long as as minimal time as I could, but that was the entry ticket to go in.

I frankly regret doing it just because it's raised so many questions afterwards.

I wasn't plotting to be a politician back then.

But the fact of the matter is, if you're a CEO, you get dragged around to a lot of fundraisers in New York City.

That was the one I got dragged into, and the ticket price is one that I wrote to get in.

So that's the long and the short of it.

I think

I couldn't even tell you the name of the person who it was.

Okay.

In the debate, you said that Trump was, quote, the greatest president of your lifetime.

I said the 21st century is what I said.

Okay, all right.

21st century.

That's fine.

I just got it for a lifetime because Reagan was also during my lifetime.

Okay, greatest president in the 21st century.

If he's so great,

why bother running against him?

Well, look, this is a good question, Glenn.

And I believe I can take the America First agenda further because I've got fresh legs, because I hope to God that my best days are still yet ahead of me.

I can see a country whose best days are still yet ahead of itself.

And look at the way we're running this campaign, Glenn.

This can't be a 50-point one election.

I am the only candidate in this race who can win in a landslide.

We've gone to the south side of Chicago.

We've gone to Kensington in the middle of the inner city of Philadelphia.

We're bringing young people, Glenn, along in droves.

I have over 100,000 small-dollar donors in this campaign.

40% of them, more than that, are first-time ever donors to the GOP.

Many of them are young.

And so for so many reasons, this cannot be a razor-thin margin.

Unlike many people, I actually do believe Donald Trump can defeat Joe Biden, but I think it'll be razor-thin and tight.

And I think it is dangerous for this country if we get to a place where CNN and MSNBC are trotting out the winner the Monday after the election.

This can't be one of those.

This has to be a Reagan 1980 style moral mandate.

I think I'm the only person who can deliver that by bringing young people along, leaving no state, no city left behind, no American left behind.

A multi-ethnic working-class coalition is what we're building.

And I will take Trump as my most important advisor and mentor in that first year in the White House.

I'm convinced of that.

And I think that's the relationship I'd like to have with him as we leave this country.

So, Dave, I'm going to ask that we have you back at some point because I have more questions, and I want to make sure that you have a fair hearing and that the tough questions are asked of you.

Here's one I want to be very delicate on, and this is my question.

Sure.

You know, I was in Iowa, and I saw people,

you know, react to you, and they reacted really well.

What you may not have seen was afterwards, I asked some of the leaders, and I asked people that watched, and they said this, I love him, but he doesn't have a chance because he's not Christian.

And I don't think people are ready for a Hindu

president.

You are going to have pushback, if you don't already, from Christian groups that may not, or they'll sit out.

You can't lose the Christian vote.

You say you believe in the same one God,

but that's not Hindu.

So, Glenn, what I've said is we share the same value set in common.

My faith is there is one true God.

And yes, that is Hindu.

There's many branches of Hinduism, Catholicism,

Evangelical Christians in the Christian tradition.

There are many branches of Hinduism.

The one I've been raised in, and it's a widespread mainstream view, is one true God.

That's my worldview.

But more importantly, this is a Judeo-Christian nation founded in Judeo-Christian principles.

This is the fact of history.

I think we need a commander-in-chief who shares those values in common.

And as somebody who has been educated in Christian high school, has, if I may say it, Glenn, myself, read the Bible most more closely than most of my Christian friends, I can say with certitude that we share the same value set in common of sacrifice, of duty, of a belief that God put each of us here for a reason, that we're here for a purpose, that there's more to life than just the aimless passage of time.

Think about the common thread from the Old Testament to the new.

God told Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac.

He didn't make him follow through with it.

In the New Testament, God sacrificed his own son.

That value of sacrifice, that is woven into the fabric of this country.

It is woven into my own upbringing and value set, the same values we raise our two sons in.

And I think, Glenn, especially because I'm a little bit different, I'm a little younger.

I'm the youngest candidate to run.

I'm of a different generation.

Yes, I'm of a different faith nominally.

I think I'm in a better position to defend religious liberty, to actually make concepts like faith.

and patriotism and hard work and family cool again, actually, for the next generation of Americans.

I take that responsibility seriously.

So, no, I'm not qualified to run for pastor.

I can't.

That wouldn't make any sense.

But when I'm running for commander-in-chief, the question is, do we share the same value set that this nation was founded on?

In my case, the answer is yes.

We live our life accordingly.

And the standard I want everyone, including every Christian in this country, to hold me to is, do I want my two sons to grow up and be like him?

Whoever that is in the White House, I think that's a standard we should apply.

If we're being really honest, it's been a long time, at least I'll speak for myself, where we've had a president where I could, without holding my nose, tell my kids the same two things.

And I think a lot of Christians across this country would say the same thing.

Vivek.

That's the standard that I'll ask to be held to.

Vivek Ramaswamy, I'd love to have you back.

I've got some questions on China and everything else, but thank you so much for answering these questions.

You bet.

Vivek Ramaswamy, Vivek like cake.

Can people please get it right?

The best of the Glenbeck program.

Welcome to the Glenbeck program.

Well,

CNN has a new CEO.

He used to be with the BBC.

And the good news is he was the guy that was in charge of the BBC

that

nicks the investigation segment about the pedophile Jimmy Seville,

who was a big,

big, big, big, big star in England.

He was like a, for a long time, he was like the number one disc jockey on BBC

and became huge charity guy and was

helping them build children's hospitals.

And

the BBC finds out

he's molesting the children in the children's hospitals.

And they nixed the profile.

The investigative report, they said, no, we're not reporting on that.

The guy who made that decision is now running CNN.

Oh, I did not realize that.

Wow.

I mean, because he goes back to the Times.

He was at the New York Times for while I was at the BBC.

Yeah.

You know, he's, I was talking to Steve Krakow yesterday, who covers the media, you know, wrote a book about it.

And he was saying the guy's known as sort of like more of a businessman.

Like he's not known as a guy who's making major editorial decisions.

We'll see how if that holds or not.

But if he's making decisions like that, yeah, it feels like that's the type of thing you do once and you never get another job, let alone the leadership job.

Like, they're like, I'm sorry, you can't work at Nathan's hot dogs.

That's not your camp.

Sorry,

your judgment is way too poor.

We would be using our product and we'd always be thinking about you and Jimmy Saville, and we just don't want anything to do with it.

Um, the uh, the Federalist has been uh punished again.

Uh, they will not address

anything, anything.

Apparently, Instagram has slapped a false label on a report that

was exposing the 14 American cities that are part of C40.

And that is the, you know, the group of mayors that have said, you know, one of our, I want to get this exactly right.

One of our

big plans or our aggressive goals.

Yes.

Aggressive goals that we've signed on to is that you have zero meat eaten in your city.

Zero meat.

This has

this is in their words, a desired goal.

And they keep getting fact-checked on this as

that's not meaning that they want to get rid of meat.

What do you desired goal?

Desired goal.

Desired goal.

I mean, it's like, my desired goal is to be number one in the ratings.

Well, no, that's not what he wants.

He doesn't want to do.

What are you talking about?

He doesn't want to be number one.

No, of course not.

No.

And he wants to be last.

Well,

what?

Because I think their line was it wasn't a formal policy proposal.

Yes.

Right.

Like it was just a goal that they wanted.

Yes.

And they didn't necessarily identify exactly how they would get there, et cetera, which is a really stupid distinction.

It is a distinction without a difference.

It's an ambitious target.

Yeah.

An ambitious target means your goal.

It means a desired goal.

And if you miss the target, you're at least in the area.

You're going in that direction, right?

I hate it.

It's just crazy.

I think we use this analogy at the time, but it's like, if you tell your wife, like, look, I have an ambitious target to hook up with our babysitter.

I don't have a formal policy.

I didn't ask her out on a date.

Right.

You know, she just, look, when she comes over, you know, it's my target.

Yes, it's an ambitious target.

She might not even go along with it, so it might not happen.

Right.

But, you know, that's generally speaking what I want to do.

And I want you to know I'm working towards that.

I mean, I'm putting in place different restrictions and everything else for you, for her to be here when you're not.

Right.

Like when, for example, when she's not even watching the kids, I just have her come over.

But how dare you?

But that's not a fool policy.

Oh, my God.

It's just like so ridiculous.

If you're the woman in this situation, you might have questions about such behavior.

Yeah.

So, Marcy.

As we should.

Marcy Parker Darwin has announced that Peanut,

her chicken, has just turned 21, which makes Peanut the Chicken in Michigan the oldest chicken in the world that we know of.

We know of.

21.

Because a lot of them don't get carted.

I know.

I know.

Yeah,

but Peanut can drink and can drink.

So that's good.

You got to give Peanut a beer, don't you?

I will.

On his 21st birthday,

you got to do it.

Oh, man, Peeta is going to be all over you for just even suggesting that as what you claim to be a joke.

They don't give me a vegan beer.

It's okay.

Yeah.

So there you go.

So 21-year-old chicken in Michigan.

The happy birthday to Peanut.

Happy birthday.

Here's another story.

California woman.

Now, I want you to listen to this and tell me what sticks out to you.

Okay.

California woman, known for her involvement in a failed multi-million dollar horse show that made headlines a decade ago, has been charged with trying to hire somebody to kill her husband.

Okay.

I have questions already.

Okay, what are the questions?

What

failed multi-million dollar horse show are you seeing?

Let me give you the headline.

The headline is woman behind the infamous.

Okay, which implies that we we should know about right, right?

Right, okay.

Woman behind the infamous acrobatic horse show.

No, no.

Woman behind the infamous acrobatic horse show fiasco.

Oh my gosh, arrested.

This sounds like I want to see like a fire festival documentary on this now.

What is this?

Right?

Right?

This sounds incredible.

Right.

It does, doesn't it?

Acrobatic horse show fiasco?

You have to to go.

That's a good band name.

You have to.

Rolls right off your tongue.

The acrobatic

horse show fiasco.

I totally see that.

I'd see that movie.

Yeah.

Okay, so this is how it's brought up.

Like three quarters of the way through, after that headline.

Right.

Three quarters of the way through.

Married in 2011 after talking about her trying to kill her husband.

Married in 2011.

The Remleys made headlines a year later after they organized an elaborate multi-million dollar 45-show

equestrian acrobatics show.

What happened?

Like the horses were doing flips?

The extravaganza was canceled after just a few performances, however, and its crew and performers were left empty-handed.

And then it goes back into their attempted divorce, and she couldn't divorce them, so she was going to kill him.

I want to know

what acrobatics were they trying to get the horses to do?

Was it a tightrope act?

Was it like cirque de Soleil, but it was with horses?

What?

Horse.

Did a horse, a Clydesdale, wrap himself in a giant ribbon and spit?

I don't know.

What's the name?

What's the lady's name?

Wait, the performance was called

Valatar, V-A-L-I-T-A-R.

Right?

I could care less about the husband.

Right.

She goes to jail.

I want to know about the acrobatic horse show.

Fiasco.

So there is an article from the San Diego Union Tribune.

Okay.

Valatar's Epic Collapse.

Okay.

All right.

So tell us.

What were they doing?

How did we miss this?

America.

We don't have our priorities right.

We've been going on and on and on.

Ah, Biden did this.

Biden did this.

An acrobatic horse show?

That's an ambitious target.

Yes.

They're not planning on doing it, but it's an ambitious target.

It's a very ambitious target.

Valatar, set in a fantasy kingdom of sleek stallions and acrobatic equestrians, was touted as a matchless spectacle.

Even before the November 16th World Premiere, this is 2013, by the way.

Under a massive crimson tent at the Del Mar Fairgrounds, the Rancho Santa Fe producers were planning a 10-month five-city U.S.

tour.

Mark and Tatiana Remley predicted a hit.

It's like Cirque du Soleil with horses.

Okay, I got it.

All right.

Wait, I got to see this.

This is our nation's top priority needs to be bringing this back.

I don't know what it is, but I got to see it.

I mean, that's like, you know, by the end of the decade, we'll put a man on the moon and return.

I want an acrobatic.

That's a goal for America.

I can't believe that.

Cirque du Soleil with horses.

How do they hang on to things?

They don't have hands.

i mean it's got to be under the underarm right like you gotta kind of oh you imagine they're on the blocks and then they jump down on the trampoline and then they kind of gallop back up to the block this would be incredible

and they gallop back up on the block free this woman so she could start the show off

i mean it may be your husband don't let the husband get killed until we get the plans oh this is the this is not this the framing of this article i have questions with it says what type of show was it a disaster

Valatar only had a five-day run.

The Remly's putting it down after its November 20th performance.

Oh, God.

Journalism used to be fun.

Oh, my gosh, because it didn't matter.

Look it up on.

Wait, is there more?

Insiders now say the real spectacle unfolded offstage and will soon move center stage as lawsuits filed against the couple raised questions about the ill-fated show.

The Remlies did not respond, but legal documents and people associated with Valatar describe a couple with lofty ambitions but limited abilities.

You know what?

I have no sympathy.

You're invested.

You lost your money in a cirque de Soleil with horses.

I don't have sympathy.

You're like, the horses are doing acrobatic tricks.

I can't believe it actually went off.

Like it had five performances.

You got to look it up.

See if you you can find it on YouTube.

Now, listen to this.

The wife is experiencing extreme financial strain.

She's unable to maintain her realistic monthly expenses of just $12,000 a month, much less than what she's accustomed to at $50,000 a month.

She has no income, but she has this great idea.

In addition to the monthly stipend of $12,000 a month, Ms.

Remley demands access to one of their homes, two of their trucks, an ATV,

and their pet parrot.

She denies she tried to have her husband killed.