Speaker 1: What's going on? Thank you so much for listening to
this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon
to three on WBT Radio in Charlotte.
Speaker 2: And if you want exclusive.
Speaker 1: Content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream, my
daily show prep with all the links, become a patron,
go to thepeteclendershow dot com. Make sure you hit the
subscribe button. Get every episode for free right to your
smartphone or tablet. And again, thank you so much for
your support. Yes, in the last segment, I talked to Marvin,
call her Marvin, who wanted to know why we weren't
deporting houties and I said, but that we had bombed
the but Jesus out of them. And Scott says, technically
the Houties never had any but Jesus in them, so
they could not have had it bombed out of them.
That's fair, That is a fair point. Perhaps better to
say they had the bi Allah bomb out of them.
Just all right, that's true. Last hour we were talking about
trendy Arragua and their connections to the Venezuelan government, as
explained in the Miami Herald, which did a massive investigation
based on interviews with a team that has been working
in the intelligence community and down in South America with
the partnership of a lot of these countries, identifying the
TDA gang members and their connections and their plans which
were to send like open up the prisons, released like
twenty thousand people and then tell about thirteen hundred of
them that they have they have to leave the state,
have to leave the country of Venezuela. And then they
also trained about three hundred operatives to go into Trende
Aragua members to go into America and engage in sabotage,
drug running, human trafficking, all of that to bring in
the money. Venezuela is a communist narco state.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: I don't understand why people in America, particularly on the left,
people have this idea that everybody is.
Speaker 2: Just like them.
Speaker 1: If you did not, if you were not disabused of
this idea during the Iraq War and the Afghanistan war. Right,
it is this Western hubris, this idea that our values
are shared by other people, because of course they are. No,
that's conceit all, right, they have different values. And that's
not to make a value judgment to say we're better,
you're worse. It's to say they are different, and when
you are dealing with foreign policy stuff, you have to
deal with things as they are. This is not me
spinning yarns. This is the Miami Herald, for crying out loud,
that did this story, making all of these connections, spelling
it all out. And the Intel, a couple of Intel
anonymous sources went to the New York Times and tried
to tried to get ahead of the story, that's my guess,
tried to get ahead of the story.
Speaker 2: They knew it was coming.
Speaker 1: They go to the New York Times anonymously and they're like,
we have no connections between We see nothing between Venezuela
and TDA. And then two days later, Miami Herald's story publishes. Actually, yes,
it's all like they're so interconnected. Again, I'm just giving
you the story that the Miami Herald reported. Let me
go to the phones here. Let's talk first with Barry.
Speaker 3: Hello, Barry, what's happening to Pete?
Speaker 4: How are you hey?
Speaker 1: I'm all right, how are you good?
Speaker 3: Good to be talking to you. Yeah, a couple of
things about you know, Marvin was talking about the flights
out and I'm more curious about I think this is
all ended now, but during the Biden administration, there were
reports of chartered flights coming into the country at weird hours,
Gordon strategic locations with foreign nationals that were not documented,
and they were just kind of like, well, here you are.
Do you want to stay here or do you want
to go? Yeah, another city, Welcome to Welcome to America.
Speaker 1: We also remember saw photos that people were taking in
airports of you know, groups of people with boarding passes
and certain paperwork, and they would take pictures and post
them and like, here's another planeload of people being flown
into America.
Speaker 3: Oh my goodness, I didn't know about that.
Speaker 5: Yeah, oh yeah, we saw We saw the because it
was it Bill Malugin, one of the local TV reporters
out in Los Angeles, I believe, and he started getting
tips and reporting on the bus loads of people that
were getting transported around, getting picked up or dropped off
at airports and such.
Speaker 1: Or and the the the NGOs, right, the non government
organizations that contributed to or organize these trips, right, they
they orchestrated them, they lined up the resources and all
of that, and those were funded through government programs which
the Trump administration came in and started, uh, you know,
started cutting all of the NGO funding. And this is
part of that same operation, I would imagine.
Speaker 3: So it was our tax money on top of that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, insult to injury. Yeah yeah.
Speaker 3: And the other thing. The other question I had was regarding
the leader in Venezuela. I remember how we handled and
well Noriega is that right in Panama?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Yeah, turned out he had he had criminal connections and
operatives working working against the you know, it was a
threat to our national security. And it sounds it sounds
pretty much like the same deal. So why don't we
just go getting Well, I mean.
Speaker 1: See that's the thing, like, you know, Trump doesn't want
to go to war. He ran on a you know,
no New Wars platform and promise and all of that.
But yeah, I mean, at some point, when you have
a foreign nation that is actively you know, sending saboteurs
and terrorists into your country, at some point you get
the Taliban treatment, you know, which is yeah, like we'll
come and we'll drop a bunch of bombs on you,
and then we'll leave you all of our military.
Speaker 2: Equipment when we flee like that. Barry, Yeah, yeah, go ahead.
It doesn't that way, right, Yeah, I do too. I'm
just kidding.
Speaker 1: I kid, I kid Biden administration, Barry. I appreciate the call, Boddy,
thank you. Let me see if I get stand on
real quick.
Speaker 4: Uh, how are you? I have I have a question
for you, And basically it's basically the basic question is
it seems like to me that the argument isn't how
we the beast people to judge is saying, is that
we can't do something about it because of who sent them.
And so I want to ask a question to Hooty's
Trump just attacked the Hoothies and basically there wasn't a
lot said about the fact that he did this, But
yet the Hootis were basically making it so that we
will have to go around Africa and we couldn't use
certain navigable waterways. And so basically Trump has the total
a Comma's authority to keep our shipping going through international water.
So we can't use the same logic to stop people
from stabilizing our old country.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean yeah I would if you're what are
you talking about bombing Venezuela?
Speaker 4: Uh? Well no, I no, no, I'm not talking Obamas Venezuela.
I'm talking about just getting rid of them. In other words,
we don't have to go down there and destroy Venezuela
as long as they're not threatening our shore or send them.
Speaker 2: By, right.
Speaker 1: And so this is the issue that John you writes
about over at the National Review. John You you may
recall he worked for the Bush administration. He was a
lawyer in the Bush administration. And uh, he takes a
look at essentially the powers of the president versus the judiciary.
And so I was going to get to this anyway,
So I'll after the break, I'm going to come back
and go down this path.
Speaker 2: And I think you're I think he's going to address
your question.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 4: And the thing about it is, we always sit here
and say, that is a question as to whether Iran
controls Hasbala and Hamas. No, yeah, right, no, another word,
could we know if a Moss wanted to do something
to us? Can we do? We have to stop and
let them do whatever they do because they're just not
a nice country state.
Speaker 2: I guess by the logic of this, uh, this judge
up in d C.
Speaker 1: Maybe so, yeah, if we found a bunch of AMAS
terrorists in America, we couldn't ship them back to uh
to the Gaza strip.
Speaker 2: We wouldn't be able to send them.
Speaker 4: Back, right, Yeah, so it doesn't know. This makes sense
to me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I mean it is a DC you know,
Democrat judge, so that does make sense. Yeah, Stan, I
appreciate the call, sir. All right, if you're listening to
this show, you know I try to keep up with
all sorts of current events, and I know you do too,
And you've probably heard me say get your news from
multiple sources. Why well, because it's how you detect me bias,
which is why I've been so impressed with ground News.
It's an app and it's a website and it combines
news from around the world in one place so you
can compare coverage and verify information. You can check it
out at check dot ground, dot news slash pete. I
put the link in the podcast description too. I started
using ground News a few months ago and more recently
chose to work with them as an affiliate because it
lets me see clearly how stories get covered and by whom.
The blind spot feature shows you which stories get ignored
by the left and the right. See for yourself check
dot ground, dot news slash pete. Subscribe through that link
and you'll get fifteen percent off any subscription. I use
the Vantage plan to get unlimited access to every feature
your subscription. Then not only helps my podcast, but it
also supports ground news as they make the media landscape
more transparent. National Review piece by John You and Robert
Della Hunty. John Yu is a Distinguished Visiting Professor at
the School of Civic Leadership and a Senior Research Fellow
at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas, and
a whole bunch of other things there whatever. Robert Della
Hunty is a fellow at the Claremont Institute's Center for
the American Way of Life. Last week, the Federal Appeals
Court in Washington, d c. Agreed to halt the Trump
administration's deportation of members of the Venezuelan Trendeiragua gang. While
only a temporary order, the two to one decision intrudes
into the province of the elected branches of government over
war and national security. A federal court has never before
overruled the decision of a president or Congress that the
United States has suffered an attack or an Invasion's that's
the lynch pin here that the executive branch is saying
this is an invasion, and the courts are saying, prove it. Basically,
don't believe you. The Department of Justice has petitioned the
Supreme Court for review, which the Court should grant. The
Court should prevent trial judges from interfering with the elected
branches authority over war and national security. They write, we
are presented with the question of whether the Venezuelans government control,
the Venezuelan government's control over Trende Arragua, and whether international
criminal activities can constitute a military threat to the national security.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: The Russians do this, they call them the Little Green Men,
where they send them over into a region, they create
chaos and havoc like this is a standard blueprint. They
foment instability, they astro turf, public demonstrations. You know, we
are Russian, we want to be back in Russia and
all those types of things. And then the Russian's like, well,
I guess we got to come in and take this land,
you know. But the question of the government's control over
TDA and whether tda's activities constitute a military threat, that
is a different question from whether the federal courts are
the right institution to make that judgment. Okay, so we
are presented with this this overt question that Venezuela TDA,
is this an invasion?
Speaker 2: Is it not?
Speaker 1: Blah blah blah blah. But the actual question, according to
you is John Yu, not you you, but John you. Anyway,
the question is whether the courts are the right institution
to be deciding that judicial review does not extend to
every constitutional question. The Supreme Court self has long recognized,
going back to the Founding, that there are certain political
questions which the Constitution itself has committed to the final
decision of the President or the final decision of the Congress,
or which have no legal standards that courts could even apply.
So these are three different instances the judiciary cannot review,
For example, impeachment right the complete power of impeachment that
the Constitution grants is to the Congress. The Supreme Court
has also found that the Constitution provides no legal standards
for the judiciary to apply to partisan jerrymandering. We know
about that here in North Carolina, do we not. Everybody
was all outraged on the left and in the media,
but I repeat myself that, oh my gosh, you can't
protect the Democrats, but there's there's no jurisdiction for us
to do so. This is outside of our constitutional realm.
And you're trying to kind of daisy chain these different
arguments together to get us from, you know, one place
where the Constitution doesn't give us the power, to this
point where you want to have the power. In Marve's
Marbury Versus Madison. Oh, before I get to Marbury v. Madisine,
the Supreme Court says nothing on the gerrymandering issue. Right,
And when the Court recognized these limits to the judicial role,
they were not participating in some sort of dereliction of
their duty. In fact, they were following the law, which
is their duty.
Speaker 2: In the Marbury v.
Speaker 1: Madison case, the very case that first declared the power
of judicial review, Chief Justice John Marshall admitted, quote, the
President is invested with certain important political powers, in the
exercise of which he is to use his own discretion
for his decisions. He is accountable only to his country,
in his political character and to his own conscience. His
choices cannot be questioned in court because the subjects are political.
These issues respect the nation, not individual rights. And being
entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive.
One area that the authors write about that has long
sat at the top of this list of political questions
is war. The Constitution vests the President with the role
of commander in chief of the armed forces. While it
gives Congress the power to declare war and to raise
and fund the armed forces. The courts have no power
none to direct the Resident in the exercise of his
wartime authority.
Speaker 2: None.
Speaker 1: The Court has found that the President holds an unreviewable
authority to decide whether an invasion has happened. It goes
back to one case, the seventeen ninety five Militia Act
and the seventeen ninety eight Alien Enemies Act, But in
JGG versus Trump, the DC Circuit ignored the judiciary's traditional
deference on questions of war. Judge Karen Henderson's opinion displayed
little modesty in rejecting the claim that tda's conduct qualified
as an invasion. Based on her review of the history
of the seventeen ninety eight Act, she concluded that in
an invasion, quote required far more than an unwonted entry.
To constitute an invasion, there had to be hostilities. She
observed that in every instance in the Constitution, in laws
and debates of the time, invasion is used in a
military sense, and the same goes she said for predatory incursions.
On this ground alone, the US Supreme Court should grant
emergency review of this case because federal judges do not
have the capability, They do not have the understanding, nor
do they have the access to the information to make
sensitive decisions on whether a foreign actor represents a national
security threat or not. Here's a great idea. How about
making an escape to a really special and secluded getaway
in western North Carolina. Just a quick drive up the
mountain and cabins of Asheville is your connection. Whether you're
celebrating an anniversary, a honeymoon, maybe you want to plan
a memorable proposal, or get family and friends together for
a big old reunion. Of Ashville has the ideal spot
for you where you can reconnect with your loved ones
and the things that truly matter. Nestled within the breath
taking fourteen thousand acres of the Pisga National Forest, their
cabins offer a serene escape in the heart of the
Blue Ridge Mountains, Centrally located between Ashville and the entrance
of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park. It's the perfect
balance of seclusion and proximity to all the local attractions
with hot tubs, fireplaces, air conditioning, smart TVs, Wi Fi grills,
outdoor tables, and your own private covered porch. Choose from
thirteen cabins, six cottages, two villas, and a great lodge
with eleven king sized bedrooms. Cabins of Ashville has the
ideal spot for you for any occasion, and they have
pet friendly accommodations. Call or text eight two eight three
six seven seventy sixty eight or check out all there
is to offer at Cabins Offashville dot com and make
memories that'll last a lifetime. So back to the National
Review piece, John U and Robert Della Hunting talking about
the legal question involved with whether or not this judge
up in DC and then the three judge panel have
the authority to intervene in foreign affairs, because that's what
they are doing, right. These judges cannot judge the harms
that could arise from action that they may take, or
in action that they may take, or action or in
action that the president might take. They are ignorant, like
they are ignorant of all of the details, all of
the facts. Right, you're dealing with foreign policy, and the
president is elected to do that job.
Speaker 2: And now you got a.
Speaker 1: Judge saying, well, I have a clearerce I could look
over your stuff. No you can't, that's not your job.
American courts hear legal disputes governed by formal legal rules
that generally seek to determine whether past conduct by a
defendant has harmed the legal rights of a plaintiff. Courts
are not designed to make policy decisions involving probabilities and
risks which are characteristic of war and national security.
Speaker 2: Right, when you get.
Speaker 1: That gig as potus, you have to weigh is the
juice worth the squeeze? What is the harm? What is
the benefit? What are the costs? Like, all of these
things come into the equation. That's why you surround yourself
with all of the different advisors. The judge doesn't have
those advisors, they don't have national security teams around them,
and all of the you know, the billions of dollars
worth of agencies and intelligence and such. Analysts and investigators
assert that the Maduro regime in Venezuela has purposely sent
TDA trend Aragua to the United States to destabilize our
political system.
Speaker 2: That Venezuela, as.
Speaker 1: I went over last hour, has trained three hundred TDA
members for that work, and it has assumed operational control
over this gang. Such judgments lie in the area of
prediction and probability characteristic of national security and foreign policy affairs,
not the legal standards of courtroom trials. The courts have
no means to measure and evaluate whether foreign enemies are
conducting covert and hybrid attacks on the US right. Let's say,
for example, and I don't know this to be true,
but let's just spitball it. Okay, Let's just pretend for
a moment that trend Aarragua, as one of their core tactics,
was going out and shooting transformers at substations in order
to knock out power to suffe efficiently large enough areas
of the American populace, in order to destabilize and demoralize,
to conduct this kind of terroristic activity. What the hell
can the judges do about that? Like, honestly, like, what
benefit does that lawyer in a robe bring to the
table in this discussion? Nothing? Nothing, You're not involved in
any of the briefings. You're not looking at the intelligence,
you're not vetting the sources and methods and all of
that stuff. The administration is tasked with doing that, and
the president is the final decision maker, not the judge.
The administration is justified on another ground, by the way,
for seeking to maintain the confidentiality of its deliberations, right
when the judges are like, well, you know, if you
want to bring us into this, we could take a
look at you've got Like the judge bo Assberg, that's
what he said. He's like, I got clearage, I can
look at this stuff. No, you're unqualified to do so.
Somebody's got a bit of a delusion of grandeur, right.
The administration told the courts that if it were to
disclose these sources and such, that would jeopardize its diplomatic
efforts in Venezuela, El Salvador, other countries, and it would
risk scuttling delicate international negotiations.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: There is great harm that can come with disrupting what
the Trump administration is doing. Sending TDA members to detention
in El Salvador may have been an essential move in
a high stakes diplomatic game with Venezuela. Like if you're
doing that in order to apply pressure on Venezuela, and
you're doing it in order to get closer to El Salvador,
maybe you're doing it in order to show good faith
with El Salvador's neighbors who are also battling TDA, and
now they want you can use this to get South
American nations closer to us. There is a larger issue
at play. The judges are completely ill equipped and unqualified
to be a part of that debate and that discussion.
Nobody elected you to your currency, and nobody elected you
to be an advisor to the president.
Speaker 2: On this stuff.
Speaker 1: All right, So spring is here a time of renewal
and celebrations. You've got graduations, weddings, anniversaries, and the special
days for mom and dad. Your family's making memories that
are going to last a lifetime. But let me ask you,
are all of those treasured moments from days gone by?
Are they hidden away on old VCR tapes, eight millimeter films,
photos slides? Are they preserved? Because over time, these precious
memories can fade and deteriorate, losing the magic of yesterday.
At Creative Video, they help you protect what matters most.
Their expert team digitizes your cherished family moments and transfers
them onto a USB drive, freezing them in time so
they can be enjoyed for generations to come. I urge
you do not wait until it's too late this spring,
celebrate your past. Visit Creative Video today and let them
preserve your legacy with the love and care that it deserves.
Creative Video Preserving Family Memories since nineteen ninety seven, located
in mint Hill, just off four eighty five. Mail orders
are accepted to get all the details that create a
video dot com. Here's a message from Jay. For the
life of me, I can't understand why anybody, regardless of
political party, would argue to keep these criminals in our country.
It's as if they are purposely trying to destroy us,
just despite the other side. Where is the desire for
the common defense of our country. I don't get it.
Have we fallen so far down we haven't forgotten where
we came from. I'll be listening to hear your expert explanation. Well,
I will tell you what I always say, which is
the issue is never the issue. The issue is always
the revolution. Right, there is a reason why destabilizing America
even if you present and look. I had a call
earlier in the show. He didn't stay on the line,
but he told my call screener what he wanted to say.
I don't know if he would have actually said it,
But when I was going over the Miami Herald investigation
based on the work of intelligence agents over a decade
that have connected the Venezuelan government to the SOLS cartel
and that they have assumed operational control over Trende Ragua,
and our old friend Tony called in and said that
Pete's imagination is running wild today. There is a willful ignorance, right,
a per full obtuseness, this refusal to accept the information
being presented. I understand skepticism, but I just saw this
breaking news. Forty suspected Trendy Iragua gang members and affiliates
were arrested in a massive operation near Austin, Texas.
Speaker 2: Oh but they're not all Trendi Iragua.
Speaker 1: I'm sure that's what that's what the left would say,
right because it Donald Trump has broken so many people's brains.
And when I say that, it means the ability to
think for yourself. Just because Trump says something or is
his administration does something doesn't automatically make it not true.
And so this immediate rejection of information because it came
from Trump or on the other side of the spectrum,
people who immediately believe everything he says, even if it
was in conflict with what he just said a moment ago.
And they're going back and forth trying to follow his lead,
and they just do not let Donald Trump's speech and
actions dictate your own thinking anything anything along those lines,
whether it's super pro Trump and he you know, everything
he says, you agree with and if he says it, it
must be true, versus the other end of that spectrum,
where anything he says has to be false.
Speaker 2: That's what I call Trump derangement syndrome.
Speaker 1: It can affect both sides, okay, And for the left,
destabilization is the point for a lot of leftists, not liberals, leftists,
they want to see America. Dare I say it fundamentally transformed?
You don't do that to a country that you love.
You do not fundamentally transform.
Speaker 2: Anything that you love. Why would you?
Speaker 1: If you love it, then it is what it is.
And this is the thing not to say. You don't
make improvements. You can't improve things. But if you're talking
about fundamentally, that word means something fundamentally, the foundations of it,
the very core of what the thing is, has to
be transformed. That means you don't like the core of
what the country is, and a lot of leftists do not.
They hate every aspect of it. I make no apologies
for being anti commie.
Speaker 2: They suck. Okay, communism sucks.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to use the word, but in times like this,
I feel like I have to, and it is warranted. Right,
they got one hundred million body bags on them, like
they That is an evil and corrupt theology. It is
beyond an economic system. It's not it's evil. It is evil.
And that's why leftists always connect themselves with other evil
philosophies and ideology and religions they can. For example, why
is it that you see leftists beating the drums literally
for Islamists? Doesn't make any sense, right, Gays for Palestine, Like, guys,
that's so stupid. Do you understand what happens to you
if you go to Palestine, you go to the gods
of the strip, They're going to fling you off of
a building because you're gay, because the issue isn't the issue.
The issue is the revolution, the revolution against free market
capitalist republics.
Speaker 2: That's the purpose. And we are as you know, they call.
Speaker 1: Us over in the Middle East, we are the great Satan.
George Bush was not completely incorrect when he said they
hate us for our freedoms. I mean there was an
element of truth to that. Of course, it was said
in the George Bush style, so everybody mocked it and whatever,
but yeah, they because that like that is the opposite
of communism, free markets. The free market is you. The
free market is me making our own decisions. And there
are a lot of people that do not want you
to do that because you're going to decide wrong, wrong
being something that they don't agree with. Anyway, back to
the piece at the National Review. From the administration's perspective,
the lower courts are meddling in its efforts to extract
important concessions from Venezuela. Venezuela is in a position to
damage US interests in the Caribbean region.
Speaker 2: Did you know that with Cuba?
Speaker 1: China has long been a silent ally of Nicholas Maduro
in Venezuela. It's support for him and before him, it
was Ugu Chetez, right, it's been indispensable in keeping the
Venezuelan dictatorship in power. Are the courts going to weigh
in on all of that? Are the is a judge?
Is a DC Circuit judge qualified to be making those
types of foreign policy decisions? All of the different pieces
that are in play and moving around the board.
Speaker 2: Does he see all of that? Does he get all
that intel? Do we need him to?
Speaker 1: I guess we need to have bo Asberg sit in
on the daily briefings, right, so he can be completely
up to speed on all of the geopolitical problems and
how they all intersect or don't intersect and whatever like.
I guess he needs all of that intel like the
president gets, and then he'll decide the courts should not
get entangled in these negotiations, which are exclusively for the
executive branch. They also directly concern security in our hemisphere.
The founders expect Congress, not the courts, to check any
presidential abuse of war powers. See, but the Left has
gone so far off the rails on this. They're so
far off of the rails. They look at Trump as
this existential threat and so we can't. We can't restrain
him in Congress because those Republicans won't hold him to account. Okay, right,
so they can't restrain him. We can't do it.
Speaker 2: So we're going to use the courts.
Speaker 1: And it doesn't really matter to them if you actually
can use the courts or not by law. They're going
to try, and they've got enough people in the courts
wearing the robes that are going to go along with it,
because it's.
Speaker 2: An existential threat.
Speaker 1: See, when something threatens your very existence, almost anything goes,
you know, And that's where the left is now. They
have catastrophized Trump and MAGA and Republicans to such a
degree that almost anything goes. Why do you think we're
seeing the attacks on Tesla cars and owners and dealerships
because everything's an existential threat with these people. I mean, yes,
there's some mental illness obviously going on with a lot
of them, but they view it as an existential threat.
So anything goes, even if it means I have to,
you know, blow up a car that was purchased six
years ago by one of my fellow lefties, even if
it means, you know, we got to take some for
the team. That's why James Lindsay from New Discourses dot com.
You can read his stuff over there and watch his videos,
his lectures and all. And James Lindsay actually argued they
mistakenly put him on the wrong team. But he said,
keep me in this position because I'm gonna argue this
point at the Oxford Debates or whatever. And he said,
and his position was that the question was whether the
left can go too far? And you know, they had
some liberals on one side saying, you know, no, the
left hasn't gone too far, and then conservatives on the
other side saying the left has gone too far. They
mistakenly put James Lindsay on the liberal team. He said,
keep me here. I want to argue this point, and
then he actually did. He argued the point that no, liberals,
the left has not gone too far, because he argued,
there is no too far to go. There is no
limiting principle out there, because when you're in pursuit of utopia,
you never achieve it, but you will always be in
pursuit of it. All right, that'll do it for this episode.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for listening.
Speaker 1: I could not do the show without your support and
the support of the businesses that advertise on the podcast,
so if you'd like, please support them too and tell
them you heard it here. You can also become a
patron at my Patreon page or go to thepetecallanershow dot com. Again,
thank you so much for listening, and don't break anything
while I'm gone.