And we are back with another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt
Kittle's senior elections correspondent at the Federalist and your experience Shirpa on today's quest for
Knowledge. As always, you can email the show at radio at the Federalist
dot com, follow us on x at fbr LST, make sure to subscribe
wherever you download your podcast, and of course to the premium version of our
website as well. I'm joined today by Bonner Cohen, senior policy analyst with
the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Bonner also serves as Senior policy Advisor with
the Heartland Institute, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research,
and as an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Bonner, Welcome to
this edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. Well, thank you very much for
having me. I'm delighted to be here. I'm delighted to have you.
We've talked for many years on the climate cult, which we're going to delve
into in just a moment. But let's begin here with your resume. When
do you have time to rest, or eat or do anything. You're a
busy, busy man. I managed to work in three meals a day,
nice, despite inflation's best efforts. And otherwise I live almost exclusively. Why
are you in front of my computer where either write articles or do interviews like
this? And oh I occasionally sneak out in this behave as is to be
expected, but not nearly as often as I would like. Yes, yeah,
I've known you to be dreamely busy, and with as we mentioned,
the climate change cult climate change extremist, particularly with a full administration that is
drinking the kool aid on the climate change extremist agenda, you do log in
a lot of hours. Of course, let's start here with some headlines I'd
like you too. There are a bunch of them, and it just gives
you a sense of what you're dealing with today with an accomplice media that is
all in on the climate change alarmist narrative. Headline from NBC News will start
with the debate, of course, that's on everybody's mind. The headline from
NBC News is Biden fears Trump will undo his climate legislation. And to that,
I say, first of all, Biden, I believe is still in
the second branch and is not entitled to create legislation. So there's some constitutional
learning problems there, I think. But as far as Biden's policies on climate
change, there are a lot of us who would say hooray if that is
indeed the case if Donald Trump is elected, because these are some of the
most overreaching, and let's face it, consumer straddling policies that we've ever seen
in this country. You're quite right to say they are consumers straddling, and
they're straddling not just our ability to choose the products and technologies that we won't
whether that applies to a kitchen appliance, an automobile, we're going to buy,
how we heat and cool our homes. But in circumscribing those choices,
the Biden administration and the entire climate cult or climate COBO is essentially feathering its
own nest. It's doing that politically by giving itself power over the rest of
us, which I might add is ultimately what the climate agenda is all about,
and in so doing, taking decisions that we would ordinarily make for ourselves
and putting those decisions into the hands of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. The purpose
of the exercise, of course, at least with respect to climate is to
get control of energy, because once you control energy, you control the people
who need and use energy. And the environmental movement finally hit on this about
twenty five or thirty years ago, and they realize of all the various scare
tactics that they were using trying to scare us about this, that, and
the other, the keys to the kingdom are the climate agenda. That will
open the door to power, and power is what this is ultimately all about.
And if you can scare enough people by convincing them that there is a
climate crisis which is urgent and needs to be addressed immediately, you can then
impose all sorts of rules and regulations. You can move pieces around the chess
board and tilt that chess board to favor certain industries, and you can regulate
those industries that you don't like. You can regulate them out of business.
If you can't get it done legislatively, and that's difficult, you do it
through the administrative regulatory state. That's exactly what has been going on for some
time. And as I said, this is a real threat. It's not
just a threat to our economic wellbeing, which would be bad enough. But
it also limits our personal freedoms, our individual liberty, as people who believe
that they live in a free society but find themselves in many respects serving the
very, very narrow interest of an even narrower ruling class, and all in
the name of what Bonner I mean, that's the trillion trillion dollar question.
I mean, what are we doing this for? Because if you look at
the headlines, and we'll go through a couple more of these that I have,
you know, everything is existential crisis. This is this is an existential
crisis, you know, and you recall we're both old enough to remember the
many existential crises we've seen in this arena over the last half century or so
in this country. Many of them, all of them to date, have
not come to pass to fulfill the existential doomsday crisis. But you know,
more recent vintage, we have Alexandria Casio Cortes, of course, the climate
change cult high priestess who told us it's Jesus, it's got to be coming.
Going on six eight years now than in twelve years this earth it's over,
it's done, We're still here. After that point. I don't think
we're necessarily going to check out in the next four or five years. So
what is you mentioned the power? But is any of are any of the
policies that they're pushing on us making any difference whatsoever, none or whatsoever,
because essentially the problem that they have identified, the problem quote unquote that they
have identified, namely a dangerous heating of the planet as a result of certain
human activities, including primarily the burning of fossil fuels that that's oil, gas,
and coal, as well as certain agricultural practices. That warming of the
earth is so dangerous that we need to take urgent action to combat What is
wrong with that old narrative? And it's a very fashionable narrative that has made
its way into k through twelve education colleges and universities, corporate boardrooms, establishment
media, into both parties, more Democrats than Republicans, but you will find
them there too. That's the narrative. Is the narrative itself rooted in reality?
And the answer is no. It is true that the Earth is marginally
warmer now than it was around three hundred years ago, but that is a
result of the Earth rebounding from what is called the Little Ice Age, which
it existed from about twelve fifty two, roughly the beginning of the eighteenth century.
Some take to the beginning of the nineteenth century. Their temperatures were about
oh degree and a half fahrenheit lower than they are now, and every bit
is important. Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide CO two were considerably lower than they
are now. Then there was lowest two hundred and fifty parts per million today
around four hundred and twenty parts per million. And the climate narrative, that
climate crisis narrative, goes that it's the rise in those greenhouse gas levels through
greenhouse gas emissions that are part of the problem, that are causing the warming.
There is a big problem with that. Greenhouse gas emissions began to rise
globally and the middle of the twenty first it excuse me, in the middle
of the twentieth century, shortly after the end of World War Two. The
warming that we are experiencing, which again is very modest and by the way,
quite beneficial, dates from around seventeen to eighteen hundred. In cause and
effect relationships, the cause precedes the effect. So how can something that got
underway in the mid twentieth century have caused something that started in the early eighteenth
century. It doesn't add up Bonner that Bonner. Now you're using logic,
and yes, I know you're using facts and logic that can't enter into the
climate alarmist agenda conversation. But we'll take a look at actically deny this.
They've lost over it. Yeah, they put nothing into perspective, such as
temperatures warmer in the Middle Ages than they are now, but that came on
the heels of a cooling that took place shortly after the fall of the Roman
Empire, though there was no causal relationship there. But during the time of
Romans, temperatures were so warm that vineyards were widespread in where written of all
places, because it was so warm there. But this is context, and
they don't want context at all. They want to scare us into doing things
that are manifestly contrary to our own interest. Well, on that topic,
take a look at this headline, because that's pretty much sums it up.
This was in the Washington Post this week. Here it is I want you
to react to this headline, The scariest thing about climate change question mark global
cooling. The burning of fossil fuels has been cooling the planet while warming it
presenting problems for the future. I don't know how to unpack that, so
I'm going to turn to an XX two US to unpack that. If you
don't mind, yes, we'll give you. We'll give you a special commendation
if you can, because I'm having a hard time, you know, trying
to figure out what. You know. They've been pushing about the heating of
the Earth's surface and now it's global cooling. But this is what we've seen
play out with the climate change alarmist over the last fifty years in this country.
That's exactly right. What I think they're doing here is they are giving
themselves some running room just in case we have an extremely severe winner, whether
in the United States or Europe or globally or wherever, so they can say,
ah, huh, the plummeting temperatures that we're having now with record levels
of snow, this too is climate change. This is why rhetorically they have
moved away from global warming over the past twenty or thirty years, moved an
erection of climate change. That way, they've got themselves covered, or at
least they think they have, so that there's something totally contrary to the prevailing
narrative comes along, they can say, ah, we told you so,
this is calimate change and we need to take urgent action to combat it.
Congrats, you owe one hundred thousand dollars. The washed Out on Wall Street
podcast with Chris Markowski. Every day Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and
the economy and how it affects your wile. As the national debt topples thirty
five trillion, every American now owes over one hundred thousand dollars to our national
debt, and nobody running for president has planned cut spending. Whether it's happening
in DC or down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially. Be informed.
Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris mccowski on Apple,
Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast. What do you mean you told
us so? You told us many different things and none of them have come
true. I remember when I was a kid that we were facing an ice
age, because that's right, we had a significant amount of snow. I
remember, I don't remember this, I remember the stories. I was rather
young, you know, a kid when we moved from Rockford, Illinois to
Potosi, Wisconsin, and I think the April that we moved there, we
had a massive snowstorm in seventy four I believe it was, and then we
were all expecting the mastodons to come roaring back, you know. But that's
the thing, and I want to tie this in bonner to what we've just
experienced over the last four years in this country, particularly the first two years
in the pandemic era. We were told by the experts this and this and
this and so much of this and this and this panned out to be not
only not true, but intentional. Here's a term that the left loves to
use, intentional disinformation. And I think we've gotten the same thing over the
years with climate change, as we've just talked about. But do you think
that the problems we've experienced with the COVID experts translate into the American mind with
the climate change alarmist stuff. It's always, you know, the boy who
cried wolf kind of thing, and can we trust the experts anymore? On
on a lot of this stuff. Those of us who have been involved in
the climate wars over the past several decades were probably the ones who were the
least bit surprised the governments in this case the federal governments, but it also
went to certain state governments and local governments, shall we say, the ruling
classes reaction to COVID nineteen, they saw an opportunity to increase their power over
the rest of us, and in the case of the pandemic, we were
treated to lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine mandates. Never mind that the vaccines
in question never inhibited transmission from one party to the next. They provided absolutely
no immunity whatsoever. A lower respiratory disease like COVID mutates, and it mutates
so fast that no vaccine you come up with is ever going to catch up
with the ever mutating the vaccine. Well, the experts never told us this.
Instead, they encouraged the pharmaceutical manufacturers to come up with ever new boosters.
The only thing that the boosters boosted were the profits of the pharmaceutical manufacturers.
They provided no public health benefits whatsoever. But at least in the case
of the pandemic, there was a real problem there. There really was a
lower respiratory disease called COVID nineteen. And it's just a great tragedy that our
public health establishment in the United States, and this was predominantly true in Europe,
with the notable exception of Sweden, took measures that actually did far more
harm than the disease itself was doing. But at least there was a problem
there to address. In the case of man made climate change, the whole
thing is a contrivance. It is a hoax. Temperatures have gone up modestly,
atmospheric levels of CO two have gone up more than modestly. But that
rise in CO two has been highly beneficial. Why because it has helped plant
life. It has contributed to increased agricultural productivity, without which we have absolutely
no way in the world to feed the planet's eight billion people. We should
have learned, and our so called experts should have learned in the tenth in
their tenth grade science classes, that CO two is plant food. Plants react
positively to higher levels of CO two. And I said, we have an
awful lot of people to feed in the world, and the very worst thing
we can do is adopt policies in the name of combating climate change that freeze
are much less lower atmospheric levels of CO two, because what we will then
be doing is putting the most vulnerable people of the world in sub Saharan Africa
and an Indian subcontinent at risk of what, in this case would be a
man made Femine Bonnard Cohen, senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive
Tomorrow, joining us on this edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. The Supreme
Court, probably to most who followed this case not surprising that it ruled six
' three in the Chevron case, which is extremely critical for those who have
seen the expansion of government, particularly the expansion of the bureaucracy, the deep
state. In many ways, the administrative state take control over our republic,
you know, at the detriment of the Constitution. Yet it's interesting to me
that we have the New York Times their first take, their first headline on
this is super core Supreme Court, excuse me, overrules. Maybe they think
of it as the super court. Supreme Court overrules Chevron doctrine imperiling inn array
of federal rules. Again, this is according to the New York Times.
As I said before with the NBC headline, Biden is concerned that Trump will
undo his policies if elected. I say to the New York Times, hallelujah,
it is about time that the Supreme Court reigned in, what will this
mean for climate alarmist policies? Well, New York Times, Well once got
something absolutely right. It does imperil federal rules. And those federal rules are
not based on legislation enacted by Congress and signed into law by the President,
but rather are rooted in what we can refer to as the regulatory administrative state.
Every law passed will keep it here's simple in the environmental area. But
every law passed it has the requirement that various agencies, whether it's Environmental Protection
Agency, Department of Energy, you name, it didn't write rules that say,
shall we say fill in the blanks of what members of Congress have mandated
that those agencies do. Each rule and regulation written by a federal bureaucrat has
the force of law behind it, with the result that we now have unelected
and unaccountable bureaucrats throughout the federal government structure, effectively making laws that they are
executive branch employees. And under the Constitution's division of powers, you have legislation
enacted by Congress, it is implemented by the executive branch, and the judiciary
steps in to decide whether those steps being taken are compatible with the Constitution.
Well, that whole world has been turned upside down for decades, actually going
all the way back to the nineteen thirties to which we can date the gradual
expansion of the administrative regulatory state. Now at long last steps are being taken
by the current Supreme Court to roll back those powers and in effect saying to
an agency, if you want to do X, Y or Z, you
must have authorization from Congress to do X, Y or Z, otherwise you
can't do it. And in the case handed down today, which is the
so called Chevron deference case, Supreme Court overturned a forty year old precedent.
That precedent was that in the case of ambivalent language in a statute, it
is then incumbent upon the regulators at a regulatory agency to, shall we say,
clear up those imperfections and come up with a language that, in their
view, is what Congress wanted. Well, that put a tremendous amount of
power into the hands of those bureaucrats, whether they are career bureaucrats or for
that matter, in the case of the Biden administration of the Obama administration,
you have people who use these federal agencies to expand the power of the state.
Well, they could combine forces and effectively legislate not here from the bench,
but rather from the cubicle in some the gigantic bureaucratic office somewhere, And
this is what they have been getting away with. Today the US Supreme Court
struck that down and said, no, you cannot do that. It is
incumbent upon law courts to make that decision. The bureaucrats themselves cannot do it.
One year ago, in a case called West Virginia v. Epa,
a Supreme Court also told the well, we'll call it, go ahead and
call it the deep state, that you cannot assume powers that Congress has not
awarded to you. If you put those two together. There's a decision that
was handed down today which strips bureaucrats of their ability unilaterally to determine is what
a statute means, with the power that was also stripped from those bureaucrats a
year ago, telling them that if you want to regulate something absent explicit congressional
authority to regulate that, you can't do it. You put those two together,
and this is a severe blow to the regulatory state, one that I
think freedom loving people throughout the United States should welcome because really, the last
thing you want to have in your life is to be ruled by people who
are accountable to absolutely know one, who are doing all this in the name
of protecting us from X, Y or Z, be it the climate crisis
or COVID, whatever they conjure up. But that is a sure way to
move us one step road, one step closer down the road to tyranny.
And that's something we don't want. The tyranny of the bureaucracy is a highly
undesirable state of affairs, and we should certainly welcome the Supreme Court to saying
no, you can't do that. As you've said, I mean, we've
lived under this Chevron decision for the past forty years in this country. You
see the effects of that. And isn't it interesting as you talk about the
tyranny of the administrative state, the tyranny of the bureaucracy, the unelected bureaucrats,
that this comes out few days shy of Independence Day, which I think
is very fitting. Just happened to work out that way in the court scheduled,
but very fitting, you know, Bonner, I think that there are
you know, powerful bureaucrats in Washington, d C. Who are shuddering at
this decision. Of course, they're going to lose their good thing. As
they like to say, I think the Biden administration is shuttering. I think
you're going to see all kinds of Oh my goodness, this is this is
horrible, this is terrible. You know again, like the New York Times,
their headline is true, but you know the feeling beyond it. Oh
no, it's going to destroy our perfect, massive government and the system that
we've concocted here to control the lives of everyday Americans from cradle to grave.
But I'll tell you, I believe there is one party that will be even
more worried about this, and that's Congress because Congress, for the first time
in a long time, will have to do something that they haven't done because
they've abdicated that job to these eurogress They're going to have to write better laws,
they're going to have to get more involved, and they're going to have
to do their job. Yeah. Every time a Congressman or senator was confronted
with his outrage constituents who said, aha, EPA is shutting down our community,
shutting down our business, making it impossible to farm or whatever it is.
How did that member of Congress react, Oh, well, that's the
bureaucracy. I agree with this, and we're going to do this, that
and the other. But collectively, it has been Congress going back for decades
that advocated that responsibility, and it delegated its law making responsibility to the bureaucracy.
Now that delegation, which was done quite conscious, Yeah, you vote
for the Clean Air Act. Well, that's great. We all like clean
air, we like clean water. That's not the problem. The problem lives
in what those statutes actually say and what potential the loosey goosey language in those
statutes gives to people who want to misuse that loosey goosy language to their own
ends. Now, Congress, in coming up with laws, is going to
have to actually write them clearly so that people will then so that they themselves
will be accountable at long last for what they are imposing on the rest of
us. And this is a long overdue step. Look, the Left had
a good run for decades because of this. They could see the power of
the administrative state grow and grow and grow. We even had things where uh
regulatory agencies e PA was by far the worst offender in this would cut deals
with by environmental groups who were suing them to shut down a natural gas pipeline
or oil and gas exploration of whatever it is that they do. And so
we were forced sue and settle, and we were forced to doing this,
and we just cut the best deal possible. But the sue and settle was
part of the whole game that too, now is gradually being put back into
its box because the latitude and the freedom that unelected bureaucrats have had to do
as they please, that has now been greatly circumscribed by the two court decisions,
the one handed down last year and the one handed down today. Will
this, I mean, we think about one of the obvious impacts to the
federal government, federal regulators. Does this send a clear message to state regulators,
because the problems are deeply entrenched in the administrative state of state governments as
well. Yes they will. And what this will do if, say,
Heaven forbids, the state of California does something stupid, which it does with
remarkable You can set your watch by another remarkable regularity, but you can throw
in Oregon, Washington, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, you name it.
But if they come up with a regulation, a state regulation that goes
far beyond what we allow at the federal regulation and is in fact contrary to
what the Constitution says government can do, I think you will see a growing
number of lawsuits targeting state governments, but ultimately winding up in federal court,
because whether your rights are being infringed upon in Washington or in Sacramento is ultimately
six of one and half a dozen of the other. But this should provide
a path for people, not just at the state level, even at the
municipal level or county level. Say wait a minute, on the basis of
what constitutional amendment or provision is the state of California doing X, Y or
Z. So yes, absolutely right, this will have an effect that will
go far beyond simple federal regulations. What's going on with the Joshua trees?
Speaking of California? Speaking of California, you know, I saw this pop
up in my feed and I thought, is you two recording another album?
They got back to one of the most successful albums of all time. We
wish, yeah, I do. I wish they would have stayed in that
era. But you know, we don't always get what we want, like
we don't ever get what we want out of California, at least those who
are reasonable human beings. But there is an issue with the historic Joshua trees
involving the climate change alarm us. Let us in on what's happening for those
who are The State of California and county officials in Kern County, California,
which is located in the central part of the state where the Mojave Desert is,
have decided that the best way to combat climate change is to allow a
giant solar farm to go up in the middle of the Mojave Desert. Well,
the Mohave Desert is home to the very rare Joshua tree, and it's
also home to the very rare, also endangered Mohabi Desert tortoise. Having to
choose between the survival of those trees and for that matter, of the tortoise
and putting in a taxpayer subsidized solar farm that will never produce anything more than
intermittent, in other words, weather dependent energy. The powers that be in
California have sided with the solar farm developers and that is leading to and this
is already underway. This is not planned. This is taking place tearing down
three thousand, five hundred Joshua t freeze, some of which are over two
hundred years old. They will be removed, and the solar panels, almost
all of which will have been manufactured in the People's Republic of China, will
be going in to take their place. Now, you ask yourself, how
in the world can something like this happen, because, after all, it's
being done in the name of protecting the environment, in this case, protecting
the environment from the dangers of what they tell us where the straight pace is
the climate crisis. Who benefits here or obviously the solar panel developers, because
they will pocket the enormous subsidies that the federal government and also the state of
California give them to put these things up. Where will the electricity go that
will be produced, Well, the hobby desert is not exactly a place for
high rollers. There are some fairly impoverished cities nearby that could in fact use
some of the electricity that the solar farm will produce, but as it stands
now, it doesn't look as if they're going to get any of it.
Instead, that electricity is going to be sent via high voltage transmission lines west
to coastal California to affluent communities, and distributed to those affluent communities by two
non profit renewable energy organizations. This enables both the recipients and the utilities themselves
to thump their chest and say they are combining climate change by providing renewable energies
to homes throughout their area. But this, of course is happening at a
tremendous cost to the environment. Joshua are supposed to be protected, but of
course protected turns out to be a relative term, because there are ways around
that protection if you are a politically connected organization or are trying to put forward
a politically connected cause. And sure enough, renewable energy in this case solar
Panels checks that particular box, which means that it was green lighted and rubber
stamped by state and local authorities. And as for the Joshua trees, well,
that's collateral damage. Nobody really cares. By the way, there's nothing
unusual in that we are supposed to be protecting golden eagles and bald eagles from,
among other things, wind turbines which can go hundreds of feet into the
air. What we allowed to happen. When I say we, it's primarily
the Department of Interior allows to happen is for wind turbine developers to get a
kind of papal commentation for putting up wind turbines in areas known to be the
habitat of golden and bald eagles. They know full well that those spinning rotors
of those turbines will kill god knows how many eagles, so called protected eagles.
But you can get an exemption from that which is in writing, and
you can do this, and you can kill bald and golden eagles if they
if their depths are linked to renewable energy. Think of it as James Bond
and Double O seven, What did you do? He had a life to
kill? Well. Wind developers can also get a license to kill granted by
the federal government, which allows them to put up wind turbines that the officials
who give them that permission no full well will lead to the killing of bald
and golden eagles. Well, I suppose Bonner in the parlance of U two's
nineteen eighties seminal record the Joshua Tree. The environmentalist extremists who used to be
all about preserving the spotted owl and the Greek snail or whatever it is,
can live with or without the golden eagle, the desert tortoise, and then
the desert tortoise and the Joshua tree. Absolute violence is deafening. Yes,
some of these organizations are in the pay of the renewable energy industry, and
others are simply ideologically committed to an agenda that allows them complete look the other
way and go into complete denial about the very predictable and observable consequences of the
policies they're advocated. I think that basically sums up what we've been talking about
with the climate change cult. It is steeped in, it is based on
founded on a war on reality, and it produces exactly the sort of conflicts,
the cognitive dissonance that we've been talking about. Just a moment left and
wanted to give you an opportunity to talk a little bit about one of the
key organizations you work for, obviously, the Committee for Constructive Tomorrow. I
know you've been doing work in the field of combating the climate alarmist agenda and
message, but give us a little more insight. Oh to be happy to
the Committee for Constructor Tomorrow, which goes by its acronym c FACT. C
fact check us out at our website, which is c fact dot org,
and you will see there articles by me and other contributors outlining what we've talked
about this morning and related areas. We visit un sponsored climate conferences around the
world just to keep an eye on these people. We know they're up to
mischief and if somebody doesn't monitor their behavior and report back on it, then
people are going to be set for some very nasty surprises. And when I
see people, it's important to recognize in all of this, and ce Fact
I think has been one of the leaders in all of this, is that
this agenda is being imposed on the the rest of us is highly regressive.
The people who will suffer from this are people of middle and lower income who
will find their access to affordable and reliable energy effectively blocked and having their disposable
incomes reduced as a result. Now, that is all being done in the
name of combating a crisis, which is a complete hoax, but one which
benefits financially if you're a renewable energy developer and politically, if you're a powerful
bureaucrat if it benefits a tiny percentage of the population to the detriment of millions
of ordinary people. And to combat this, we need an informed citizenry.
And what are the places you can get informed and stay on top of things,
and stay abreast of all the bad things that are coming our way as
well as the occasional good things like today's Supreme Court decision. Is to check
out our website, So please do so, and I do, I do
so quite often. And I've always enjoyed our conversations. And let me let
our listeners know here and now that there were no desert tortoises, golden eagles,
or bold eagles injured or killed in the production of this podcast. Fair
enough, fair enough, thank you. We really sure about the environment.
We care about nature exactly, not hustling at all, exactly. And I
still enjoy the Joshua Tree. Thanks to my guest today, Bonner Cohen,
senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. I've been listening to
another edition of The Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, senior correspondent at
The Federalist. We'll be back soon with more. Until then, stay lovers
of freedom and anxious for the frank You got me right, well you wrong. Ro