Speaker 1: Oh lad with.
Speaker 2: From my final thought tonight, I really was unsure what
Speaker 2: I wanted to talk about.
Speaker 3: I really really was unsure.
Speaker 2: Sometimes I want to talk about politics, some things, I
Speaker 2: want to talk about cultural, social issues, whatever happens to
Speaker 2: be on my mind, and I try not to talk
Speaker 2: about the thing that everyone else is talking about unless
Speaker 2: I feel I can give you something that nobody else can,
Speaker 2: will offer you something that you've not heard elsewhere, And
Speaker 2: tonight I believe it's one of those nights. I'm actually
Speaker 2: going to make a bet with you that what I'm
Speaker 2: about to tell you tonight you haven't heard elsewhere, and
Speaker 2: if you have, I'll just deny that you actually heard
Speaker 2: it elsewhere. But I've heard it, You've heard it, We've
Speaker 2: all heard it. President Trump fancies a third term and
Speaker 2: he says he's not joking about pursuing it, and I
Speaker 2: believe him. I absolutely believe him, and you should too.
Speaker 2: Number One, Donald Trump doesn't have a sense of humor.
Speaker 2: So when he says he's not joking, that's like Tuesday.
Speaker 2: Everything he says is not a joke. And let me
Speaker 2: be clear, he doesn't have a sense of humor because
Speaker 2: he doesn't know what humor is he loves to insult people,
Speaker 2: and you should not confuse insulting people all the time,
Speaker 2: and you finding the insults funny as having a sense
Speaker 2: of humor. He doesn't joke. He doesn't know what self
Speaker 2: deprecation is. So when he says that he's going to
Speaker 2: pursue a third term, regardless of whether he says he's joking,
Speaker 2: regardless of what the Constitution says to the contrary.
Speaker 3: He means it.
Speaker 2: And so when we assess it, when we talk about it,
Speaker 2: we should take him at his word. A number of
Speaker 2: journalists have asked the president directly to him and those
Speaker 2: close to him about exactly how he's planning to go
Speaker 2: about pursuing this third term, to which no specifics are given,
Speaker 2: just vague comments about quote unquote, we're working on it,
Speaker 2: that's all they say. I was listening to Steve Bannon,
Speaker 2: heard some comments from him. We're working on it. Let
Speaker 2: me clear up all the mystery. I'm not a constitutional scholar,
Speaker 2: but I've been really digging into this and talking to
Speaker 2: my constitutional scholar friends about this. So it's based in
Speaker 2: some actual knowledge, and I'm pretty sure I know what
Speaker 2: the Trump team is planning to do at the end
Speaker 2: of this term. So hopefully we'll have this on the podcast.
Speaker 2: Sam will put it in the podcast so we can
Speaker 2: refer back to this, because I'm pretty sure I'm right
Speaker 2: about this, and I'm pretty sure you haven't heard this
Speaker 2: from anyone else, and I'm kind of surprised because there
Speaker 2: are only so many attack points to the Constitution. What
Speaker 2: most people say is you can't become a president for
Speaker 2: the third time, specifically because of the twenty second Amendment.
Speaker 2: In fact, we heard it in the news break. That's
Speaker 2: the audio that you hear it, twenty second Amendment. Here's
Speaker 2: how the twenty second Amendment reads. Quote, no person shall
Speaker 2: be elected to the office of the President more than twice.
Speaker 2: And no person who has held the office of President
Speaker 2: or as acted as president for more than two years
Speaker 2: of a term to which some other person was elected
Speaker 2: president shall be elected to the office of the President
Speaker 2: more than once. There are two words, I should say,
Speaker 2: one word which is repeated. That's the key to this.
Speaker 2: The keyword in that passage is elected. No person shall
Speaker 2: be elected to the office of the president more than twice.
Speaker 2: I would bet dollars to donuts that the line of
Speaker 2: constitutional attack will make the distinction between election and ascendants
Speaker 2: to the presidency.
Speaker 3: Here's what I mean. For example, let's say Vice President JD.
Speaker 2: Vance and Ron DeSantis hypothetically are the ticket in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty eight and they win.
Speaker 3: JD Vance becomes president.
Speaker 2: Conceivably the Santus as vice president could resign for some
Speaker 2: undisclosed reason. Could be illness, could be needs to spend
Speaker 2: more time with the family, could be he needs more
Speaker 2: time to buy shoe lifts. I don't know, but he
Speaker 2: decides to resign and get this. Per the twenty fifth Amendment, quote,
Speaker 2: whenever there is a vacancy and the office of the
Speaker 2: Vice President, the President shall nominate a vice president who
Speaker 2: shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of
Speaker 2: both Houses of Congress. And as of this moment, the
Speaker 2: Republicans control both the House and Senate. We don't know
Speaker 2: what's going to happen in twenty twenty six, but hopefully
Speaker 2: you could see where I'm going with this. The president,
Speaker 2: then JD. Vance could conceivably choose Trump as his next VP.
Speaker 2: There's nothing explicitly preventing that. Then Vance could either be
Speaker 2: a figurehead president or could even resign himself, which would
Speaker 2: then mean dunk da da duh, Trump is your next president,
Speaker 2: not elected but has ascended.
Speaker 3: Is it constitutionally sound? Maybe?
Speaker 2: Maybe not. That's what the Supreme Court is for. Oh,
Speaker 2: that's right. A six to three majority. Do you actually
Speaker 2: think you wouldn't get five votes? It clearly violates the
Speaker 2: spirit of the twenty second and twenty fifth amendments. It's
Speaker 2: a workaround schame some shit, but not the letter of
Speaker 2: those amendments.
Speaker 3: So that's it.
Speaker 2: That's the strategy. Well, one of the strategies being considered.
Speaker 2: Dollars sodonuts. I know I'm right about this. They're going
Speaker 2: to challenge the word elected and not have him elected
Speaker 2: because there's no way that an amendment could be passed
Speaker 2: to circumnavigate this. Just in case you didn't know, a
Speaker 2: proposed amendment must be passed by a two thirds vote
Speaker 2: in both the House and the Senate, then ratified by
Speaker 2: three fourths of the state legislatures or state convention. Not
Speaker 2: happy now or ever in a world of such partisanship,
Speaker 2: No way in hell.
Speaker 3: This is the only way in. There's your roadmap.
Speaker 2: He wouldn't be allowed on ballots otherwise, so it's not
Speaker 2: about electing him.
Speaker 3: He wouldn't be.
Speaker 2: Able to get on enough ballots on different states to
Speaker 2: get enough Electoral College votes, he'll be easily disqualified. In
Speaker 2: any election attempt, it would never get to the ballot.
Speaker 2: So this is not about being elected. This is about
Speaker 2: ascendency to the presidency. There is an open question as
Speaker 2: to whether the word election also includes ascension. But either way,
Speaker 2: Donald Trump is serious about a third term. Why because
Speaker 2: he never jokes about anything. There's not a funny bone
Speaker 2: in his body. He insults, but never jokes. This should
Speaker 2: be taken seriously in every way. For k if I
Speaker 2: am six forty, I'm mo Kelly. And here's my final thought.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about the Constitution. The Constitution applies to everyone,
Speaker 2: or it applies to no one. There's no in between,
Speaker 2: there's no shades of gray. Let's get the easy ones, right.
Speaker 2: I say it all the time. This is one of
Speaker 2: the easy ones. The Constitution, meaning all of its amendments
Speaker 2: apply to everyone, including Mark Stefan and even Nick me
Speaker 2: or it applies to no one from the first Amendment
Speaker 2: on down. Not just the amendments you like, not just
Speaker 2: the second Amendment because you really love that one, Not
Speaker 2: just the tenth Amendment because that's what you heard somewhere,
Speaker 2: because those are the only two amendments you know without googling.
Speaker 2: I'm talking about all of them, and I seriously doubt
Speaker 2: most people even know the total number of amendments presently
Speaker 2: that are in the Constitution, or what it takes to
Speaker 2: ratify a new one. But that's just my personal pet
Speaker 2: peeve because I'm real big on civics. But I also
Speaker 2: find it odd when someone says they love the Constitution
Speaker 2: yet can't tell me much about it, not in totality.
Speaker 2: It's strange, I tell you. But I want to be
Speaker 2: clear on this. The Constitution applies to everyone, or it
Speaker 2: applies to no one, all amendments, all protections, or it
Speaker 2: is meaningless. And yes, I'm about to talk about the
Speaker 2: Maryland man with protected legal status who was sent to
Speaker 2: that horrible prison in El Salvador following a quote unquote
Speaker 2: administrative error, not to port it to the country in general,
Speaker 2: but to port it to a prison having not committed
Speaker 2: any crime while also being of legal status. His name
Speaker 2: is Kilmer Abrego Garcia. And also according to our government,
Speaker 2: this is what our government said. They said that they
Speaker 2: don't think they have any way to get him back.
Speaker 2: Whether that's true, or not. I don't know, but I
Speaker 2: do know that Kilmore is just stuck in a prison
Speaker 2: for no good reason, no crime, no due process, no
Speaker 2: path back. The Constitution applies to everyone, or it applies
Speaker 2: to no one. And I know what you're thinking. I
Speaker 2: know what you're thinking. You're probably thinking, uh mo, the
Speaker 2: Constitution only applies to American citizens.
Speaker 3: No, that's not true.
Speaker 2: Part of loving the Constitution is actually knowing the constitution
Speaker 2: Constitutional protections extend to all persons persons. It protects everyone,
Speaker 2: not just citizens, and those protections extend to non citizens
Speaker 2: who are within the United States. Those protections include due process,
Speaker 2: I'll come back to that, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures,
Speaker 2: the right to a fair trial, and the right to
Speaker 2: counsel in criminal proceedings. If you think some of that
Speaker 2: might apply to this, you'd be right. A person's immigration
Speaker 2: status does not diminish their constitutional rights, and the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court has consistently upheld that constitutional rights extend to everyone
Speaker 2: living in the US, not just natural born citizens or
Speaker 2: legal immigrants. I hope you heard that either the Constitution
Speaker 2: applies to everyone or applies to no one. And according
Speaker 2: to the actual Constitution and Supreme Court.
Speaker 3: It applies to everyone.
Speaker 2: Some other arguments I heard were, well, what if that
Speaker 2: person entered the country illegally, or how do we know
Speaker 2: that this guy wasn't a violent gangbanger. Hello, that's what
Speaker 2: due process is for. That's the whole fricking point. Is
Speaker 2: the process which determines whether someone has broken a law,
Speaker 2: entered the country illegally, or is subject to be punished. Accordingly,
Speaker 2: you can't deport someone without determining their status. It's not
Speaker 2: done by guessing. It's not just done by I don't know, hypnosis.
Speaker 2: It's a very simple concept. Unless you think the Constitution
Speaker 2: only applies to some people. Oh, look out, now might
Speaker 2: step on some does, which would mean you neither know
Speaker 2: the constitution nor do you love the Constitution all twenty
Speaker 2: seven amendments. There's your answer, he has twenty seven amendments.
Speaker 2: Or maybe you live in a community or represent a
Speaker 2: community which doesn't and has not ever had to worry
Speaker 2: about government agents rolling up on you with mass putting
Speaker 2: you in handcuffs, stuffing you in a van, with no
Speaker 2: due process. Maybe you've never been stopped while walking or
Speaker 2: driving simply because you quote unquote fit the description. Maybe
Speaker 2: you've never been pulled out of your car and put
Speaker 2: on a curb in handcuffs while your car was searched.
Speaker 2: Maybe you've had no experience with that, no reference point.
Speaker 2: Maybe you've never had a gun place to your head
Speaker 2: because someone thought that you had just robbed a bank.
Speaker 3: I have.
Speaker 2: And none of this makes any sense to you. If
Speaker 2: it's all unfamiliar to you, maybe you just don't care.
Speaker 2: I get that, because it's not gonna be you. It's
Speaker 2: not going to be your father, it's not going to
Speaker 2: be your son, So it's not going to be your problem.
Speaker 3: Got it.
Speaker 2: Just stop telling me about the Constitution and how important
Speaker 2: it supposedly is to you, because it's not. You're just
Speaker 2: cause playing patriotism. This shouldn't be political. I mean, it
Speaker 2: shouldn't be. It was then candidate Donald Trump who said,
Speaker 2: we are a country of laws, and without laws, we
Speaker 2: do not have a country. That's a quote he said that,
Speaker 2: And I hope you know every single law, every single one,
Speaker 2: is predicated upon due process, every single law. You can't
Speaker 2: break a law unless you've had due process. Due processes
Speaker 2: one of the main differences, not the only difference, but
Speaker 2: one of the main differences between US and North Korea,
Speaker 2: and US and Russia and US in China, Because moments
Speaker 2: just like these is when you should be saying hashtag
Speaker 2: all lives matter. Right now, this is the time you're
Speaker 2: supposed to say, hashtag all lives matter. Not just the
Speaker 2: lives that you care about, not just the people who
Speaker 2: look like you, not just the people you like, not
Speaker 2: just the people who agree with you, not just the
Speaker 2: people who love like you do, not just the people
Speaker 2: who happen to vote the same way that you do.
Speaker 2: These are the moments you should be saying hashtag all
Speaker 2: lives matter, because when you don't, it sure seems like
Speaker 2: you're admitting that they don't. For KF, I am six forty,
Speaker 2: I'm Moe Kelly. By now you've heard about New Jersey
Speaker 2: Senator Corey Booker standing on the Senate floor for more
Speaker 2: than twenty five hours speaking in critique of President Trump
Speaker 2: and the Trump administration, a new record.
Speaker 3: If you happen to know the history, it meant.
Speaker 2: Different things to different people and different constituencies. If you
Speaker 2: don't know, standing on the Senate floor and talking ad
Speaker 2: infinitum is not new from the late strom Thurman, the
Speaker 2: previous record holder, to more recently Ted Cruz, who tried
Speaker 2: to filibuster in the hopes of defunding Obamacare back in
Speaker 2: twenty thirteen. He stood on the Senate floor for twenty
Speaker 2: one hours. The question that most people have is simple,
Speaker 2: or the assumptions are pretty predictable. What did Corey Booker accomplish?
Speaker 2: If anything on substance, nothing on substance, absolutely nothing. It
Speaker 2: doesn't impact what the Trump administration has done. It doesn't
Speaker 2: likely impact what the Trump administration will do, in the
Speaker 2: way that Senator Strom Thurman's filibuster did nothing to stop
Speaker 2: the Civil Rights Act of nineteen fifty seven, and Senator
Speaker 2: Ted Cruz did nothing to help repeal Obamacare. On substance
Speaker 2: made no impact. But these are times in which symbolism
Speaker 2: can matter, I said, can as impossibly the Democrats have
Speaker 2: been lost in the wilderness my phraseology since November.
Speaker 3: Booker's twenty five hours.
Speaker 2: Can galvanize a party and focus a party, I said,
Speaker 2: can not necessarily will, But symbolism does have its place.
Speaker 2: Some moments can lead to momentum, and momentum can be
Speaker 2: turned into a movement. Elections in a national sense are
Speaker 2: all about momentum. You can go from no momentum to
Speaker 2: some momentum just because of one act. It could be
Speaker 2: a speech, it could be an interview, it could be
Speaker 2: a debate performance, and if you think about it, that
Speaker 2: could go either way positive or negatively. Democrats will tell
Speaker 2: you that the Wisconsin State Supreme Court election win last
Speaker 2: night is a big step in the right momentum direction.
Speaker 2: Maybe maybe not, but it's worth noting that in a
Speaker 2: race that Elon Musk spent some I don't know ninety
Speaker 2: million dollars and gave away million dollar checks to multiple individuals,
Speaker 2: that impact of Elon Musk was negligible or nonexistent in
Speaker 2: terms of swaying that election. So say what you want,
Speaker 2: but that Republican loss, it's absolutely connected to why it's
Speaker 2: being said that Musk will be leaving Doze or stepping
Speaker 2: back in Trump administration duties in the coming weeks. Put
Speaker 2: another way, that race mattered. That's how momentum starts. And
Speaker 2: this is not about twenty twenty eight. This is about
Speaker 2: twenty twenty six. Flip a few House seats and the
Speaker 2: speakership goes to Hakim Jeffreys. No more blank check for
Speaker 2: the Trump administration. More momentum has been generated and so on,
Speaker 2: here's how I know, and we're going to use history
Speaker 2: as a guide. Ted Cruz's twenty one hour filibuster in
Speaker 2: the hopes of defunding Obamacare back in September of twenty
Speaker 2: thirteen was on substance unsuccessful, but on symbolism and momentum.
Speaker 2: In the twenty fourteen midtermal life just a year later,
Speaker 2: the Republicans won sixteen seats from the Democrats, and the
Speaker 2: GOP achieved their largest majority in the House since nineteen
Speaker 2: twenty eight due to that Republican wave. Arguably, you can
Speaker 2: trace the beginning of that red wave right back to
Speaker 2: Ted Cruz's filibuster the year prior Cruz was mocked and
Speaker 2: ridiculed by the Democrats. Sound familiar, not unlike the Republicans
Speaker 2: who've largely have mocked and ridiculed Booker, questioning what it accomplished,
Speaker 2: I hope you can see where I'm going with this.
Speaker 2: The spark, while symbolic, is the point, of course, there
Speaker 2: are other variables along the way, but every wave starts
Speaker 2: with a droplet. It also bears mentioning that in the
Speaker 2: way that Cruz used his filibuster to prime the pump
Speaker 2: for his eventual presidential campaign, you should assume the same
Speaker 2: with Booker. Lastly, the past is prologued and there are
Speaker 2: any other meaningful parallels between filibusters and future elections. Ted
Speaker 2: Cruz's twenty one hours on the Senate floor was one
Speaker 2: year before a major red wave midterm and three years
Speaker 2: before a Republican returned to the White House. Just in
Speaker 2: case you're paying attention, So before you write off Booker's
Speaker 2: record as just some meaningless stunt, look at the lessons
Speaker 2: of Ted Cruz and that roadmap. Not everything needs to
Speaker 2: have an immediate impact or a substantive reward for it
Speaker 2: to matter. On substance, neither Ted Cruz nor Corey Booker
Speaker 2: gained anything, but in the longview, don't overlook how symbolism
Speaker 2: can be the spark that a party needs. For KFI
Speaker 2: AM six forty, I'm mo Kelley, and tonight the show
Speaker 2: started a little bit differently than usual. Usually it's like
Speaker 2: ha ha, ha ha, jokes, all sorts of fun. But
Speaker 2: tonight was a little bit different because today, earlier today
Speaker 2: and throughout the day, it was a heavy moment and
Speaker 2: maybe you didn't believe me. I was saying, we were
Speaker 2: living through history. What happened with the stock market with
Speaker 2: the tariffs, what might be happening in subsequent days. If
Speaker 2: you've been following Dow futures, the stock market has continued
Speaker 2: to go down even after the closing bell. This is
Speaker 2: a very significant moment in our nation's history. And I
Speaker 2: said that there will be responses from other countries. I
Speaker 2: know that France has announced in the recent hours that
Speaker 2: it's going to stop all investments and future investments in
Speaker 2: the US pending some clarity on what the US is
Speaker 2: going to do going forward. And there'll be other responses
Speaker 2: from other nations. This is, I would say, the end
Speaker 2: of the beginning. We are just getting into what these
Speaker 2: tariffs are going to mean. But tonight I wanted to
Speaker 2: close out the show just a little bit differently as
Speaker 2: far as how I talk about these issues.
Speaker 3: And it's not going to be my voice.
Speaker 2: It's going to be the voice of maybe someone that
Speaker 2: you more respect, someone that you more appreciate, someone you
Speaker 2: more revere. And these are just a few voices who
Speaker 2: articulate in opinion both past and present, which I think
Speaker 2: are relevant, remarkable, and needed right about now. The first
Speaker 2: one I wanted to play for you, This is Iowa
Speaker 2: Senator Chuck Grassley, and this is from today, and he's
Speaker 2: responding to the mayhem and the chaos which was going
Speaker 2: on in our financial markets. He's made it clear that
Speaker 2: he hasn't been a supporter of the tariffs, but this
Speaker 2: is what he had to say given what was going on.
Speaker 4: If President Trump is successful in reducing traves in other countries,
Speaker 4: I'm going to say, Amen, praise the Lord. But if
Speaker 4: he's unsuccessful, I'll say I told you soul. That's Senator
Speaker 4: Chuck Grassley.
Speaker 2: And if anything you can extract from that is that
Speaker 2: he's making it clear that he tried to provide wise
Speaker 2: counsel to our president.
Speaker 3: That's Senator Chuck Grassley. That's not me.
Speaker 2: Here is our present Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. But
Speaker 2: he wasn't obviously always secretary of state. Back in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 2: he was running for president and then an opponent of
Speaker 2: then candidate Donald Trump. This is what he had to
Speaker 2: say about tariffs.
Speaker 5: I think we need to be very careful with tariffs.
Speaker 5: And here's why China doesn't pay the tariff. The buyer
Speaker 5: pays the tariff. If you send a tie or a
Speaker 5: shirt made in China into the United States, and American
Speaker 5: goes to buy it at the store and there's a
Speaker 5: tariff on it, it gets passed on in the price
Speaker 5: to the consumer. So I think the better approach. The
Speaker 5: best thing we can do to protect ourselves against China
Speaker 5: economically is to make our economy stronger.
Speaker 2: That's what Senator Mark or Rubio, now Secretary of State,
Speaker 2: had to say back in twenty sixteen. The next voice
Speaker 2: I want to play for you is Kentucky Senator Ran Paul.
Speaker 2: This is from just days ago.
Speaker 6: With regard to tariffs, Let's be very clear, tariffs are
Speaker 6: simply taxes. Tariffs don't punish foreign governments. They punish American families.
Speaker 6: When we tax imports, we raise the price of everything
Speaker 6: from groceries to smartphones, to washing machines to prescription drugs.
Speaker 6: Every dollar collected in tariff revenue comes straight out of
Speaker 6: the pockets of American consumers. Conservatives used to understand that
Speaker 6: tariffs are taxes on the American people. Conservatives used to
Speaker 6: be uniformly opposed to raising taxes because we wanted the
Speaker 6: private marketplace, the private individuals to keep more of their incomes.
Speaker 3: We were always for lower taxes.
Speaker 6: And yet now the mantra that's coming is we want
Speaker 6: higher taxes. What happened all the same and give up
Speaker 6: all the things we used to believe in as conservatives, I,
Speaker 6: for one, haven't. I still think more taxes is bad
Speaker 6: for the economy, more money taking out of the productive
Speaker 6: sector of the private sector and given to the government
Speaker 6: is a mistake. To those who still call themselves conservatives
Speaker 6: but now support tariffs, let me remind them that Milton
Speaker 6: Friedman said tariffs raised prices to consumers and waste our resources.
Speaker 2: That's Kentucky Junior Senator Ran Paul now Here's noted economists
Speaker 2: and historian Thomas Soule.
Speaker 7: It's painful to see what a ruinous decision from back
Speaker 7: in the nineteen twenties being repeated now in so far
Speaker 7: as he's using these tariffs to get various strategic things settled,
Speaker 7: and that he is satisfied with that.
Speaker 8: But if you's got set off.
Speaker 3: A worldwide trade war.
Speaker 8: That has a devastating history, everybody loses, everybody follows suit,
Speaker 8: and all that happens is that you get a great
Speaker 8: reduction and international trade.
Speaker 2: This is a very famous economics teacher you might have
Speaker 2: heard before.
Speaker 1: In nineteen thirty the Republican controlled House of Representatives, in
Speaker 1: an effort to alleviate the effects of anyone, anyone the
Speaker 1: Great Depression, passed anyone, anyone a tariff bill, the Holly
Speaker 1: Smoot Tariff Act, which anyone raised or lowered raised tariffs
Speaker 1: in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government.
Speaker 1: Did it work? Anyone, anyone know the effects. It did
Speaker 1: not work, and the United States sank deeper into the
Speaker 1: Great Depression.
Speaker 2: That was, of course actor ben Stein playing the economics
Speaker 2: teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, but it was relevant
Speaker 2: to today.
Speaker 3: In the last voice, I want to leave with you.
Speaker 3: You is why he doesn't really need any introduction.
Speaker 9: For those of us who live through the Great Depression,
Speaker 9: the memory of the suffering it caused is deep and searing,
Speaker 9: and today many economic analysts and historians argue that high
Speaker 9: teriff legislation passed back in that period, called the Smoot
Speaker 9: Hawley Tariff, greatly deepened the depression and prevented economic recovery.
Speaker 9: You see, at first, when someone says, let's impose tariffs
Speaker 9: on foreign imports, it looks like they're doing the patriotic
Speaker 9: thing by protecting American products and jobs, and sometimes for
Speaker 9: a short while it works, but only for a short time.
Speaker 9: What eventually occurs is first homegrown industries start relying on
Speaker 9: government protection in the form of high tariffs. They stop
Speaker 9: competing and stop making the innovative management and technological changes
Speaker 9: they need to succeed in world markets. And then while
Speaker 9: all this is going on, something even worse occurs. High
Speaker 9: terraf inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the
Speaker 9: triggering of fierce trade wars. The result is more and
Speaker 9: more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, in less and
Speaker 9: less competition. So soon, because of the prices made artificially
Speaker 9: high by tariffs that subsidize inefficiency and poor management, people
Speaker 9: stop buying. Then the worst happens. Market shrink and collapse,
Speaker 9: businesses and industry shut down, and millions of people lose
Speaker 9: their jobs. The memory of all this occurring back in
Speaker 9: the thirties made me determined when I came to Washington
Speaker 9: to spare the American people the protectionist legislation that destroys prosperity. Now,
Speaker 9: it hasn't always been easy. There are those in the Congress,
Speaker 9: just as there were back in the thirties, who want
Speaker 9: to go for the quick political advantage, who risk America's
Speaker 9: prosperity for the sake of a short term appeal to
Speaker 9: some special interest group. Who forget that more than five
Speaker 9: million American jobs are directly tied to the foreign export
Speaker 9: business and additional millions are tied to imports.
Speaker 2: For k IF, I am six forty. I'm mo Kelly