Speaker 1: And here we are. Yes, Hi, how are you? Thank
you for coming by. Happy Christmas eve eis on this Tuesday,
the twenty third day of December, Year of Our Lord,
twenty twenty five. My name is Tom Sullivan. So we
have a lot to go over today. I mean, it
really is. It's a very busy newsday. And you would
think with this being Christmas week and a lot of
people busy with Christmas, the newsboro would be empty, but
it's full. We just got word just as we get
ready to record this that the Supreme Court has ruled
in against President Trump, ruled to block him from deploying
the National Guard to Chicago. And I think this is
if I remember, this is the Texas National Guard that
he was sending to Chicago, and everything got put on pause.
The President wanted to send the National Guard to Chicago
to protect ICE agents, but the Court ruled six to
three that he is limited on his ability to do that.
The three justices that dissented the opinion were Sam Alito,
Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsich. Cavanaugh wrote the opinion, so
he was one of the six that basically said that
the National Guard. The wording of all this is about
whether or not the president has the right to use
regular forces, and that's what they said. You can't do that.
So we'll dig into it deeper maybe tomorrow. We just
got the headline as we got started here today, but
very interesting. The court's legal interpretation, Kavanaugh wrote, could lead
to potentially significant implications for future crises that we cannot
now foresee. Alito, who disagreed, wrote the dissent, said the
Court fails to explain why the president's inherent constitutional authority
to protect federal offices and officers and property is not
sufficient to justify the use of national guards. So three dissented,
six said, President Trump, you can't send the National Guard
to Chicago. So that's going to obviously apply to many, many,
many more places where the President has been wanting to
or as sent national Guard troops. So we're off to
a start on that. I've got. By the way, happy
Festivus today. What Happy Festivus? Unless you're a Seinfeld fan,
you probably don't know what I'm I'm talking about, but
I'll get to it. Let's let's finish the podcast today
on looking back at Festivus and Ran Paul has has
his annual report out about government waste. It's it's under
his Festivus report that he has out today.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: The other the big story that is still capturing a
lot of news attention, UH are the are the documents
coming out of the Department of Justice regarding Jeffrey Epstein
Epstein and and one of the things about that, which
is I don't know. I was, I was going over
this yesterday looking at the documents coming out from the
Justice Department, and I just finally just thought, I can't
sit here to this. I've got more important things to do.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: I understand we're talking about there's a bunch of pedophiles
who took advantage of young ladies. Over twelve hundred underage
girls were attacked via Jeffrey Epstein. And so would I
like to go prosecute them? Yes, a lot of people
would like to even double triple prosecute them because of
the fact that they were all most likely very influential,
very wealthy people, and so people want to get them.
But so they're running into problems in putting out all
these documents. They've got hundreds of thousands of documents to
go through and figure out how to block the names
of victims and yet they're going to be releasing a
lot of names and a lot of photographs of people
that are in a photo with Epstein. But that doesn't
mean that they were. You can't say they were guilty
because of that. Couple responses to this so far so oh.
By the way, today thirty thousand more pages were released
by the Justice Department, and they say they're continuing to
work on it. Pete Seat, who worked in the George
W administration at this comment.
Speaker 4: I'll play the hypothetical. I don't think it works at all.
We have something called the Internet, as you recall, Al
Gore invented it, and these things live forever. So after Christmas,
after New Year's people go right back to the well
and churn up their conspiracy game all over again.
Speaker 5: The charade continues for yet another news cycle. So if
that is the aim, I don't think it is. I
think it's just the fact that the DOJ was not
adequately prepared for this, and they're hastily trying to get
these documents out the door, that mistakes are being made.
Speaker 4: I don't think it has anything to do with the
timing of the holidays.
Speaker 1: Let me make it clear, I am all for the
Epstein documents to be released. Just flush them out, the
whole darn thing and will sort out the stories later.
But you've got to get them out of the locked
cabinets at the Department of Justice and get them out
to the public. So there are research groups that will
spend the time to go through and figure out who
was who in the whole Epstein story. A former SD
and Y Southern District of New York prosecutor. Her name
is Sarah Kissoff. So there's a lot of work here.
Speaker 2: It is a hard job to redact these documents appropriately.
The law set forth sort of categories of material that
could be redacted. The DOJ has to go through these
very carefully, make calls about, you know, really Paige by
page about what needs to be redacted or not. But
you know, they have all of the resources in the
world to do that. I mean, they have thousands of lawyers,
top lawyers who could be working on these documents, following
a protocol and making decisions. So I mean, they certainly
should be moving quicker than they are, and we shouldn't
really be seeing mistakes, particularly mistakes regarding victims' names. But
you know, it is a this is a human process,
in a very laborious, time intensive process. Yeah, some of
the juiciest stuff really is going to be in internal
doj emails, Right, That's where the prosecutors are talking about
the case. That's where they're sort of hashing out the
evidence that they're seeing, so that we're going to see
some good stuff in there, as we already talked about
this morning. The other place I think you're going to
see really interesting material is in FBI reports, three or
two reports, to the extent those are released in unredacted
form or partially redacted form, because that's really going to
set out the nature of the investigation and the things
that were the steps that were taken in connection with
the investigation. Yeah, I mean the course of events here
in terms of sort of the Florida prosecution or lack
of prosecution and on the subsequent prosecution and the SD.
Speaker 1: And why was.
Speaker 2: Very complicated. And we're going to see more details uncovering that,
more details about why decisions were made, why the charges
were brought or not brought, and that I think is
going to be very illuminating about whether there was sort
of political pressure or external forces on decisions that were
made internally in these prosecutorial bodies.
Speaker 1: Well, I think she's right. I mean, this is probably
a job for AI. But as you go through the
hundreds of thousands of documents and have to look at
every single word and find out who these people are.
Are they victims or are they not? Are they witnesses?
What's the story? And was there political influence on Epstein,
especially the South Florida prosecution. Yes, it's obvious there was.
But at the same time, I'm I I have to
move on. I can't. I'm all for them send sending
it out and if some researcher finds some interesting things,
I hope those reports come out for all of us
to read. All right, let's talk about the battleships. They're
the Trump Ships. Yes, he's actually naming a new class
of battleships after himself. And he's I know, he's renamed
the memorial to John F. Kennedy, the Kennedy Memorial in Washington,
d C. He's put his name on that too. I
don't know, that's just him. There's a bunch of buildings
that go along the Hudson River. They have beautiful views
looking over the Hudson. I don't know. I'm going to
guess seven or eight high rise apartment buildings. They're probably, oh,
they're forty to fifty stories high, and they're all different,
and they all are along the Hudson River, along the
West Side Highway. And during Trump one point, oh, he
ticked off enough people to where the owners of those
condos voted overwhelmingly to take his name. They all had
the Trump name on him, to take the Trump name off,
every single one of them. So I suspect that the
Trump name will last until twenty twenty eight. On a
lot of these things. I think it's weird. It's part
of his narcissism. He truly suffers from that. But the battleships,
the bigger question is is this another one of those
stories where the military doesn't want something but the politicians
want them to have it. The question is does the
Navy really need more battleships? Major Mike Lyons and General
Steve Anderson way in on this, O Kate.
Speaker 6: The question is whether or not the battleship has a
role in the modern Navy, and whether or not it
will project power into China. Really what this is all about.
Battleships were decommissioned back in the early nineties for a reason,
as the carrier became the center of gravity for naval
operations and protecting that carry and the aviation assets on it.
This introduces a new command center of command control that
likely can go closer to shore and perhaps project power there.
But it's one big target that the Chinese have an
advantage with all more ships right now within within their
naval fleet, and again trying to build something like this
in an environment right where we've not been successful in
getting out destroyers and other things that are more important
right now to our navy. So the question is again
whether it is has a role in the modern navy
and whether or not it will project the kind of
power that the President thinks it's going to do.
Speaker 1: So, Navy men and women, what do you think I
would love to hear from you? Eight five five, two
nine five sixty six hundred bone numbers Also on my website,
Tom Sullivan dot com. I don't know, he said battleships
were decommissioned back in the nineties. Are they a thing
that we don't need anymore? I know China has more
ships than we do, but what kind of ship do
they have? Here's General Steve Anderson.
Speaker 7: Well, I totally agree with Major Lions. I mean, I
think that the battleship is not the right approach. I mean,
a small agile fleet is something that the Navy needs
and could use. But warfare has changed, as Major Lions,
it's inuated. I mean now Jerome technology is paramount. So
I mean, you know, having a battleship a big, large
floating target. I mean I look back three years ago
when the Ukrainians blew up the Russian battleship Masfa using
low technology anti ship missiles and essentially surfboards on remote
control loaded with munitions. I mean that, as Major Lions
points out, battleship is a large floating target. So we
need to focus the American industrial base on building drones.
Secretary of Defense has stood up this drone dominance program,
which I think is a great step forward. And then
we need to focus the American industrial shipbuilding on small
agile ships, not battleships.
Speaker 1: So small agile. The President somebody obviously got to him
and said China has more ships than we do. I
can see him going, well, and we need to have
more than them. But the question is what's the right mix.
So speaking of ships, they're out there chasing the third
Venezuelan oil not a Venezuela, an oil tanker that was
heading toward Venezuela to pick up oil, apparently tied in
with the ron somehow. Out this whole process of going
after the drug boats now blockading Venezuela back to major lines.
Speaker 6: Well it's gonna it's extending beyond just the drug traffic
and in trying to put economic sanctions and enforce them
against Venezuela. But that strike that you reported about into
the Pacific, that's interesting because that boat did not come
from Venezuela. That came from Colombia. And the fact that
we're reaching, you know, across the peninsula in order to
get targets there shows you that even if we solve
the problem with drugs inside of Venezuela, we're gonna have
to deal with what's going on in Colombia as well.
And again, this whole entire maritime campaign still won't go anywhere.
We won't I don't think we'll use any kind of
kinetic power until the army shows up. The army is
still not involved in this operation. It's purely projecting power
from the sea. But if the president, which I again,
I just don't see him doing this. If the President
wants to actually do something, he's going to have to
put boots on the ground, and that means the army
has to show up.
Speaker 1: And I'm not sure there is a political will by
the American people to go out and start another war.
And again I've repeated it before, I'm not kind of
surprised by all this because it is flirting with war
and President Trump has made it very clear he wants
to end wars. I thought he was an anti war guy,
but man, it's Venezuela stuff. Well here's General Steve Anderson
his thoughts.
Speaker 7: Well, kay, you're spot on. I mean, every sailor down
there wants to know what's going on. I mean, they'll
do anything that their nation asks them to do, but
they need to know why I'm doing. And then, unfortunately,
we're seeing another example of the Drump administration schizophrenic diplomacy.
I mean, one week we're there to knock out the
drug guys. The next week there we're talking about regime change.
Now we're talking about recovering stolen goods and seizing oil tankers.
I mean, you know, it's really sad that we've gotten
to this point. I mean the strikes essentially, I believe
are illegal, immoral, and un American, and they're ineffective. I mean,
if we really wanted to have an effect on the
drug trafficking, for instance, we capture those people, we wouldn't
kill them, We'd interrogate them and gather information. But now
we've got twenty five percent of the Navy fleet down,
got thirty eight casey Ten's essentrally positioned in Florida. I mean,
what is going on down there? The American people and
the sailors that are stationed down there need to know why.
Speaker 1: Well, Tenberal doesn't sound like he's all enthused about this
Venezuela action. God by the name of Charles Shapiro used
to be the ambassador from the US to Venezuela. He
was asked about all of this activity of what it
means the why, Well, if.
Speaker 3: The goal is to get Maduro out of office, welling
up boats legedly carrying drugs has no impact on Maduro.
They're not his boats, he doesn't own them. He hadn't
own the cocaine that's on those boats, so it really
literally has no impact on him. Seizing oil tankers impacts
the state of Venezuela, the nation of Venezuela. The oil
company is owned by the nation, by the government of Venezuela.
All the money goes into the national treasury, so it
reduces funds that go to the government of Venezuela for
everything from paying soldiers and teachers to pay paving roads.
The question, of course is how does that get Maduro
out of office? Because, as you know as a reporter,
dictators despite sanctions are able to hang on. They live
real well no matter what sort of economic sanctions are
placed on the country. And I don't think Maduro is
putting the well being of the people of Venezuela above
his own well being.
Speaker 1: So is the object to stop drugs that was the
first reason they told us. Or is it to have
a regime change for the sheer fact that another person
was elected president and dureau refuses to recognize that. Or
is it to get the oil and cut deals with
oil companies us oil companies to go in and own
the oil in Venezuela to try to put their economy
back standing up straight.
Speaker 3: Well, that's that's what the administration's wrestling with right now.
I assume the president has been presented with a menu
of options to turn up the heat on the DUA.
That's what seizing these oil tankers is doing. You know,
you and I can speculate about what comes next, but
you got to get to the point where Mduro realizes
that leaving the country is a better option for him
than staying as president of the country.
Speaker 1: So if we're talking about regime change, that doesn't work
out very well. A lot of the times that we've
been involved in something like that. What happens if we
do get Maduro out of there, are we going to
have to go in there and rebuild the country.
Speaker 3: Well, that's exactly the point is Madul and his predecessor,
Hugo Chavas have been in control of Venezuela for over
twenty five years. That means essentially everybody who works for
the government, every soldier, every police officer, every school teacher
has been brought up in that system, the people who
count them, everything from top to bottom. The opposition assures that, guys,
this will be complicated, but we can do it. What
I suspect is going to need a lot of help,
and a lot of help from the United States, because
the international community, international democratic community is staying hands off,
and it will involve exactly what the president and supporters
are saying they're trying to avoid. That's nation building. I
mean making that transition from twenty five years of dictatorship
and reinstalling democracy and reinstituting a free market economic system
in Venezuela. That's not going to be easy. They're going
to need support. And unfortunately, what you see around the
world is is that after something like this happens, people
want to see more money in their pockets immediately, They
want to see the economy functioning well. Immediately. Venezuelan's outside
Venezuela going to return to the country. They get real
frustrated expatriates when they return home because they've been living
fine in Columbia and the United States in Spain, and
they're going to go home and see what a mess
the country is. And that's going to be a real challenge.
It's going to need support, and it's going to need
support from the United States.
Speaker 1: Remember when the Soviet Union collapsed, who moved in to
take control of Russia. The Russian mob, the mafia, the
Russian mob, and they took control and the criminal enterprises
were the ones that were running the country for the
first twenty years, and I would still to the state
there's a lot of it still in power, a lot
of Putin's friends. So I would imagine that that's what's
going to happen if we throw Maduro out. There's going
to be a lot of criminal elements that will try
to take over that country. Even though the people did
elect a new leader, but she is she had to
sneak out of the country. She For her to try
to take over power again and actually get it so
that the people feel better instantly will be a big challenge,
and I agree with the former ambassador, it's going to
require you and me, the US taxpayer, to help them out.
A big economic report came out today speaking of the
economy for US. It was the GDP Report Gross Domestic Product,
broad US measure of the economy. The way it works
is after the end of a quarter, thirty days later
they come out with their first advanced look and they
give us a report, and then thirty days after that
they give us a second, more refined number, and then
thirty days after that, which is at the end of
the next quarter, they give us the final final numbers,
and that gets printed in the economic textbooks. Guess what,
Because the government was shut down, there wasn't a thirty
day report. There wasn't one at sixty days. We got
one today for the whole Enchilada and a lot of people.
I'll give you the numbers first, blush. This is absolutely terrific.
The gross domestic product four point three percent for the
third quarter. That was up from three point eight percent
the second quarter. And economists were looking for something even
slower three point three. Instead it came in at four
point three. This was way hotter, which means that the
Fed is not going to want to lower interest rates
anytime soon with an economy that is growing this fast.
Part of the growth is AI spending, but most of
the of the report shows that it was consumer spending.
And again this is the third quarter. This is July, August,
and September. I don't know, were you spending a lot?
Maybe it doesn't tie in with anything else. We got
the Philadelphia manufacturing report out today. It was the weakest
since twenty twenty two. We got the durable good order
out Goods order out today. It was the two point
two percent minus sign minus two point two percent on
durable goods orders as the weakest since July. So that
doesn't tie in with anything else. I A lot of
people are already asking you think this is legit or
is somebody playing with the numbers? We had that with
the unemployment report that came out last week. Kevin o'larry,
mister wonderful, was asked about it.
Speaker 8: Stunning, very rarely do you get a miscalculation like this.
I mean, if you're the administration, you're loving this number.
This is a huge upside miss if you want to
look at that, look at it that way. So we're
actually waiting for the recession that never comes. This is
an extraordinary situation. It's been a remarkably long number of
years since we've had a recession, and yet these numbers
tell you it's a long way off.
Speaker 1: Did you hear his first words? He said, this is
a big miscalculation. That was his first reaction to this
GDP number.
Speaker 8: I'm an optimist for twenty twenty six. So there's a
few reasons. Number one, the productivity and margin enhancement of
AI in all eleven sectors of the economy is just
starting to be felt. One of the reasons the market
hits new highs it's evident that everybody's using it, and
we're in the first inning number two. I am hopeful
that we will get the entire tariff situation sorted out.
We still don't have that nailed down yet, so I'll
give you an example. Housing softwood lumber is still at
twenty five percent tariff. That's unnecessary. We don't have enough
of our own softwood lumber. Tariffs on things like pineapples
and banana why bother? We don't make.
Speaker 9: Those, so why tariff ourselves.
Speaker 8: There are several countries that still have extraordinarily high terraffs.
I would assume they'd get worked out. Tariffs are inflationary.
That's the other problem in the economy. We're still at
three percent inflation on app and you're hearing that quote portability.
That's the problem. We've got to get affordability nailed down
and get the protein costs for everyday goods and services
people buy down towards two percent. A lot of that
has to do with tariffs, and I understand the administration
claims they don't matter. If they matter, it's an input,
but it's something they control so can be fixed. But overall,
these numbers really, really paint an optimistic picture for the
economy of the United States.
Speaker 1: So if a lot of it was driven by consumer
spending in July, August, and September, and we're finding out
that it's more of higher incomes that are really keeping
the economy going, maybe that's what it was. Maybe there
was higher consumer spending by higher income people in the
third quarter. But these numbers, a lot of people are going,
that's great. Wait a minute, that doesn't make sense. So
we're going to have to wait. We're still churning through
these reports that should have come out when the government
shut down was underway, so we'll have to wait for
more evidence of which way the economy is really swinging.
Wind farms the President had a big supporter of this.
The President put a knotty day moratory on is it
ninety dayers or six months? Is it a short term
moratorium on wind farms? And I like to point out
that even Ted Kennedy, who had a home on the
coast in Hyenasport, Massachusetts, he big Democrat, but he was
absolutely adamant before he died about getting these wind farms
not to tear him down and not to build anymore. Well,
the president has put a temporary kebash on him. Doug Bergham,
the Secretary of the Interior, kind of explains.
Speaker 10: This is a new recently released classified report completed by
the Department of War that highlights, really builds on the
story you had just before this, which is modern warfare,
is drone warfare, and the radar interference caused by these massive,
gargantuan projects. I mean understanding that a single one of
these towers can be one and a half to times
taller than the Washington Monument. The blades themselves, the diameter
the blades is bigger than the Statue of Liberty two
and a half football fields. These things are moving in
one hundred and fifty miles an hour. Our ground based
radar is designed to pick up movement. If you wanted
to attack a population center on the east coast of
our country, you would send a swarm of drones right
through one of these wind farms. That's the basis of
this understanding. But as we said, we've got a ninety
day pause. We've announced we're happy to sit down and
see if we can try to find mitigation. But this
is a real national security concern, and as you also
mentioned here, I don't know that I've called these successful
because we've got the marine fisheries, and the fishermen are
opposed to these. The people that love the whales are
opposed to them because of the whale grounding, and of
course consumers if they understood the fact this is the
most expensive form of energy we're producing is offshore wind,
and so it's not reliable. It only works when the
wind is blowing, and of course it depends on foreign
suppliers almost completely for this industry. And we have a
solution in New England right there, which is natural gas
from Pennsylvania, which would generate power five to ten times
more than all these five wind projects together. So we
have a way to keep affordability into pricing for home
heating and electricity in New England, just like we have
in the rest of the country because President Trump's policies
are working in states that haven't blocked the development of
traditional baseload electricity and baseload fuels.
Speaker 1: Yeah, count me in on supporting getting rid of wind farms.
It's ridiculous, especially out in the ocean, especially out in
the ocean.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 1: I mentioned at the beginning today is Festivus and a
lot of people will snicker. And when I say that,
there's a lot of people go, what is Festivus? Well,
it's from the Seinfeld Show. It's an actual thing. One
of the writers of the Seinfeld Show, his father came
up with this idea because he was so sick and
tired of the commercialization of Christmas. So we invented this
thing called Festivus, and they had a metal pole. And
so the writer was telling the other writers of the
Seinfeld Show at the writing table as just kind of
an aside, and they said, let's do it. Let's do
a remake of what this Festivus is all about. So
this is a little bit from the Seinfeld Show of
Frank Costanza, who is the guy behind the movement of Festivus.
Speaker 9: Many Christmases ago, I went to buy a doll for
my son. I reached for the last one they had,
but so did another man. As I rain blows upon him,
I realized there had to be another way that happened
to the It was destroyed, but out of I know
holiday was born. You get your family around and tell
them all the ways they have disappointed you over the
mess of year, and is there drink No? Instead, there's
a pole requires no decoration. I find tinsel distracting.
Speaker 1: I thought, I'm sorry, everybody's humor is different. I thought
that was hilarious. So they, Yeah, they have a family
dinner where the head of the family tells everybody how
disappointed this family was to him and the metal pole
not a Christmas tree, a metal pole. And then they
have feats of strength where you're supposed to arm, wrestle
or fight or box or do something at the dinner table.
So it was all because of the commercialization of Christmas.
The one guy who has taken this to another different
level is Rand Paul, and Ran Paul likes to come
out every year. There was a set from Oklahoma who
passed away, but he used to do this every year
about wasteful government spending. So Ran Paul picks it up
and talks about how disappointing he is and what Congress
is doing unspending. So here's the report. I mean, it's
very long, but I will read just a little bit
of it to you. He says, Happy Festivus. How is
twenty twenty five? It's nearly over. What a year it's been.
So much has happened since last year's Festivus report, Katie
Perry went to space. We all found out nothing beats
Jet two. Holiday, the wicked press tour flooded our feeds,
the Pope is now an American, and SNL turned fifty.
And of course, because highlighting waste is a year around endeavor,
my committee conducted effective oversight using aid. USAID is reckless
spending and even hell to hearing on it. So he
talks about the national debt has reached over thirty six trillion,
from a twenty billion dollar bailout to Argentina to continued
funding for global health programs through waivers, Washington finds a
way to keep the cash flowing for the first time
in fifty years. President Trump deployed a pocket recession, canceling
five billion in foreign aid. It's a good start, It's
just a drop in the bucket. Congressional Budget Office prediction,
we will add an average of twenty four trillion in
debt annually for the next decade. The government will add
over six billion of debt every single day for the
next ten years, seventy five thousand dollars per second. And
he goes on to talk about all of this. So
he says, I have plenty of bones to pick with
reckless federal spending, and now you're going to hear every
one of them Happy Festivus. It goes down a list
of TikTok therapy. Department of Health and Human Services spending
one and a half million on innovative multi level strategy
to reduce drug use in LATINX communities using celebrity influencers.
State Department gave two hundred and forty four thousand to
Stand for Peace in Islamabad to produce a television cartoon
that teaches kids in Pakistan how to fight climate change.
Department of State spent one and a half million to
promote American films, television shows, and video games abroad Weight
Loss HHS is spending one point nine million on hybrid
mobile phone intervention This domes I'm sorry, Doom Scrolling Studies
AHSS is giving two point nine milli million to the
University of Michigan to study the effective screen time on
parent child relationships. USDA spent one hundred and forty one
thousand to create a resilient and equitable local food network
that prioritizes culturally relevant food for low income LGBT people
of color from the Bronx in Brooklyn. It goes on
and on and on. You can google it for the
Festivus report from Rand Paul. The other report we have
for today is, of course the folks on Wall Street.
Full day of trading today Tomorrow not so much. Market's
going to close at one o'clock Eastern time. But today
the market did go up seventy nine points. The now
at forty eight thousand and four forty two, the S
and P up thirty one points. This is a new
record high at six thousand and nineh nine. Nazdak up
one hundred and thirty three. Gold was up fifty dollars,
new record four thousand, five hundred and nineteen dollars fo
an ounce of gold and oil up fifty cents now
at fifty eight dollars and some change for a barrel
of oil. Thank you for coming by today. We will
be here again tomorrow. We'll have a special edition. Salty
is going to stop by, and no we don't have
Santa Claus. We got Salty. Give us a Christmas Eve
show tomorrow. Thanks for coming by today. Hope to see
you again tomorrow