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. And if you
want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live
stream I Daily Show prep with all the links, become
a patron, go to dpeakclendarshow dot com. Make sure you
hit the subscribe button. Get every episode for free right
your smartphone or tablet, And again, thank you so much
for your support.
Speaker 2: Going back to one of the one of my pet
peeves in life is that the government subsidizes a lot
of things that the free markets should deal with. I mean,
when I first saw incentives, I thought they were a
pretty good idea. The more I studied or the more
I realized, it's an insider, good old boy game, and
companies would get incentives to come to a given community
and compete against family companies that have been there for dozens,
if not longer times, And I just realized that what
a waste. You don't need it. If you're doing something
great and you make it better, you don't need those subsidies.
I was kind of surprised at OilPrice dot Com. I
was looking at the companies that get the most US subsidies.
This is not I don't want to belabor this one.
By the way, if you want to get into the
conversation here at Newstalk eleven ten ninety nine three WBT,
it's seven oh four five seven oh eleven ten, you're
welcome to be a part of it if it's a
topic that you find interesting here. As we get to
the end of the year, the last Friday of the year,
I guess, was what one host said earlier today. I
didn't even think of it in terms of that. I
was like, it's not the last anything, but I guess
it is the last Friday of the year. Ninety nine
percent of the year is done, and you know we've
got till next Wednesday. I guess next Wednesday being the
first day of the year, Tuesday, New Year's Eve, and
you know, to me, I'm at the point in life
where I never was a big New Year's fan. To me,
it's another day. It's like, you know, Y two K.
I remember that that New Year's not because of anything substantial,
but two reasons. It was because one all the fear
of the end of the world stuff. Because of the
way computer chips counted and added and couldn't roll over
or whatever. That was much ado about nothing turned out
to be. And I really wasn't over the word. If
you had an apple, you weren't. But the second thing
was that it wasn't technically the first year of the
New millennia. Remember the nineteen hundreds was the twentieth century,
and the last year of the twentieth century was the
year two thousand. The first year of the new century,
new millennia was January first, two thousand and one. But
nobody really cared. I was like, again, the convincing that
nobody really cared about actual truth. That was an epiphany
for me. I mean, I knew it back in the nineties,
and you saw that the way the Bill Clinton it
depends on which your definition the word is is and
the way in which the media just kind of didn't care.
They cared much later on when it was someone that
wasn't a Democrat. But when I looked at the house, like,
people don't really care about the truth, but they believe.
They're much more inclined to believe in Bigfoot or you know,
UFO alien abductions, or that the moon landing was faked,
or the Earth is flat. Then they were to believe. Hey,
the first day of the New Century was January first,
two thousand and one. But alas I digress. So companies
receiving subsidies is one of those things that it's good
to be aware of. I don't know that much will change.
But if you think of the company that had some
of the worst news this past year, one of the
company that you could probably think of a number of them,
but let's think of one of the worst, the most
damaging news. I don't know that had doors fly off
their aircraft, that had engines that didn't worry, that had
all sorts of issues. That would be Boeing. Boeing is
the number one recipient of state incentives and fifteen point
five billion. They got three billion in state incentives, but
state in federal fifteen point five billion dollars in subsidy
value government giving them. So again, did those substance make
them a better better company? I would, I don't know.
I don't think so. I mean, Boeing competes with Grumman
and Lockheed Martin and these others, but those are government contracts.
That's different than being a subsidy. It's different when they're
building aircraft for the military, but the private sector side
of things, I didn't help them. The next closest was
about half of that, and that's Intel. And I would think,
is Intel really the leading company with chips these days?
Not nearly what they were? Ford is Ford leading? I
mean think about Ford. Ford got seven point seven billion
dollars love Ford, love Ford. And by the way, if
you have Walt if you call back, please, I'll move
you to the front line. We'll get you as soon
as you call in. Would love to have you you
give us a callback. Apologies as that one just came through.
So Ford GM almost got the same amount of money
as Ford, Micron Amazon. Do you really think Amazon needs subsidies?
Probably built the most robust way of sending stuff to
you instantly of anyone Texas Instruments, Volkswagens Volkswagon, not even
an American Tesla got you know, and I've always been
critical of Tesla taking money. Walt Di got two point
six billion dollars in subsidies. New Core got two point
six billion dollars in subsidies. Do we really need those things?
Excuse me, the subsidies, not the companies. The companies are
pretty remarkable. It's going to be interesting to see if
Disney can pivot to actually not being so political. So
they get subsidies. Two points that tech and media company
gets two point six billion. They continue to promote a
DEI agenda in almost all of their forms of entertainment.
We'll see if that comes out. But again, is that
really the role of government or any of those people
would say oil companies received much I wish, I mean
deep sea exploration to find oil. That's but a lot
of what they get. Also is they get a lot
of subsidies for renewables, which also I said the other
day and I stand by it. If government would have
gotten out of the renewable industries, renewable energy industries, we
would be much further along because anything that government gets into,
there is never an incentive with government incentives to be better.
The goal of incentives from a company copany standpoint is
to get more incentives, isn't it. It's not to not
need the incentives. If you have a company and all
of a sudden government says I'll give you a billion
dollars and you're thinking to yourself, Hey, how can I
get a billion next year? How can I get a
billion the year? After that, the goal would become, how
can I stretch this endeavor out in such a way
that I can continue to reap the rewards of those
government subsidies. From a government standpoint, you know, these do
gooders in government say, hey, look we're helping out. We're
helping change the world. Where maybe we're going to subsidize
windmills and we're going to subsidize solar battery. We're going
to subsidize and it's going to be great and it's
going to a brave new world. It doesn't work out
that way. It never works out that way. The subsidies
become an addiction for companies they want, They become focused
on that. So if I can take a one year
project and draw it out to three years and get
subsidies each year, that's the goal. So I still believe
solar panels, solar panels and win mills and anything else
that the government subsidized, even evs. I think evs would
be getting four hundred miles to a charge and the
batteries would be a half the size if government wasn't
involved in it. And I can give you a vivid
example of that, and people who've listened to me for
a long time. And I don't mean to belaevor this,
but eye surgeries. If you look at how far we've
come in eye surgery, it is star trek. It is
a star trek world because what you can do now
with eyes and lenses and correctives, with lasers and all
this other tech, it isn't subsidized, and so it's become better, faster, better, better,
better better. I mean, you've got people with you know,
twenty twenty vision that are eighty years old. Now you're
curing blindness in a record way. You're you're getting technology
that's building a way to bypass even the eye to
create digital vision. This is because of innovation and tech.
It's not because of subsidies. If we were doing subsidies
for eye care, we would be wearing monocles right now
because the subsidy doesn't advance the cause, it slows it down.
Does it all the time. It's an amazing thing. The
lesson to me hasn't been learned, but alas that's just me.
That is the way I look at things. What the
hell do I know? Well, I feel pretty confident about
this one.
Speaker 1: For over a month now, I have been reminding you
to preserve your precious photos and slides, films, and tapes
with Creative Video based in mint Hill. These family heirlooms
hold priceless stories, moments from years past that are irreplaceable.
If you've thought about saving these memories before they fade away,
you are not alone. This is Creative Video's busiest season,
and with the holidays fast approaching, there is no better
time than right now, so you need to hurry imagine
the perfect holiday gift. Memories from past family events captured forever.
Creative Video skilled team will professionally transfer your family stories
onto easy to use USB drives or DVDs that won't
deteriorate over time like the old photos and tapes are
doing right now. Picture it sitting together after a holiday meal,
watching these family favorites, sharing laughs, shedding a few tears,
and telling the stories that make your family uniquely yours.
Get your memories in now and beat the holiday rush.
Visit create a video dot com to learn more. That's
create a video dot Com.
Speaker 2: Since we intrigued our traffic guy who likes his dog,
by the way I think most of you do, we are,
you know, it's always the interesting thing the dog versus
cat thing. I'm not convinced. You know, the ultimate ethical
debate is if something happened to you, which one of
those two animals would be one would care less? I
still would say the cats would. I think the cat.
You know, as long as someone changed the litter and
fed it, you die, the cat would probably just chill, Yo,
what's up? Long as I get some attention, I'm good.
The dog. You know, you have dogs that will mourn.
They literally will mourn for their owners. I don't know.
That's probably not a survival of the speed thing, but
it's true. And which animal would be more likely to
eat you if you died? I still think it's cats.
I think cats are just like you know what eyes
looks like. Food looks like food to me, it's not
moving as long as it's not you know. Of course,
cats are picky enough. If you're dead long enough, they
won't obviously, But I think it's the cat. But this story,
since we intrigued our traffic GUYE on our high tech
biotech robodogs, we'll run with that one right now. And
it's not going to become strange to you. But if
you were to think of all the animals that share
space with us and live lifestyles in many ways similar
to us. There isn't another animal out there like the dog.
I mean, you know, your cockroaches and mice, they kind
of live. They don't habitate with you then like you
want them around. So when you're studying, well, if you
were to try to increase the lifespan of a given animal,
what animal would it be. It's not gonna be mice.
It's not gonna be rabbit. It's not gonna be squirrel.
It's gonna be the dog. Those caneines, man, those those
crafty cane eines that have found away over the past
thirty five sixty five thousand years to say, you know,
these humans are going places, we're gonna tag along. Good
for us, you know, other than the animal shelters. By
the way, go adopt a dog, great cats from a shelter.
It's it's a beautiful thing. But generally speaking, survival of
the species hanging out with humans has worked out pretty
well for dogs and cats. Dogs more so.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 2: That being said, you know, this is a story from
over the Guardian and it is not for nothing. Are
dogs called man's best friend. They are good for their
owner's mental and physical health. A little advice for you
young uns out there. For you single folks, many studies
have shown that if you are looking for a date
and you're not swiping left and swiping right, you might
want to get a dog because studies show that people
with a dog look more attractive to perspective mates. So
it may bee ad time to grab one of those
canine companions could make you more attractive. So what would
it be like, and I'm gonna say something, if dogs
could live forever? Or what if that secret could help
their owners live longer and healthier lives. Honey, you'd be
looking at your dog a little different, wouldn't you. A
number of companies are now finding common ground between the
two goals. Early next year, a company called Loyal great
name for a dog related company and a Loyal, a
US biotech startup, is confident that it will bring LOYDH
two Loy two, a daily beef flavored pill to market
that could give dogs a minimum of one year of
healthy life extra, an extra year of health to make
a dog at least extended. Now think about that, sus
for twenty years, BEYU thirty five percent and a lot
of dogs may make it around ten to fifteen, so
you're talking about ten percent seven ten percent. The San
Francisco based firm has raised one hundred and twenty five
million dollars in funding from companies who have held back
from investing in human longevity project because of the decades
those trials take a dog trail much shorter. You don't
have as much FD, not as much government regulation. Fascinating
that your canine friends can cut through the red tape.
They don't have to gnaw through it either. So the
San Francisco based firm, Salina Holoya, founder and chief executive
of Loyal, which is part of Cellular Longevity, a biotech
firm researching the science of longevity, believes their work will
benefit humans. Finding out how to prevent canine age related
decline is a really strong proxy for doing the same
with humans, because well, dogs similar They age, get age
related diseases like we do. They share our environments, they
have habits like we do. Lab mice ston't. The pill
aims to blunt and reverse metabolic changes associated with aging.
It reduces frailty by curbing age related increases in insulin.
We're not making immortal dogs. Hallua says. The way the
drug extends lifespan. We hypothesizes by extending health and thus
shortening the rate of aging, the same goal. Another company,
not just this company, the next company, in another bi laboratory,
nine hundred miles across America, there's a team of academic
researchers feverishly testing the impact of ramp of mysin. Now,
ramp of Myson's not in this story, but it's an
interesting thing because I love reading useless scientific papers and stuff.
It was discovered on Easter Island, if I'm not mistake.
It was discovered some time ago, I think back in
the fifties. But they're now finding that this ramp of
mycin is very useful in age related human stuff, and
so they're going to apply it to dogs. And I
just remember the story from a while back about when
it was discovered, and now we're finding this one place
on the planet. It was discovered and now we're using it.
It's a cheap, it's easily produced drug that also commonly
used as an immunosuppressant for humans after organ transplants. It
has repeatedly been shown to increase lifespan and delay or
even reverse many age related disorders in mice. While the
drug has not been approved for longevity and humans. Many
petologists nevertheless se it is the best hope we have
for pharmacologically slowing down the aging process. The Dog Aging
a head logs love this. The Dog Aging Project Process project,
first large scale longitudinal study of large animals in a
natural environment, suggests that low doses of rampaisin could increase
dog's lifespan, improving heart cognitive functions by regulating south growth
of metabolism. Imagine if now I happen to be you
know of the sci fi things, be wary of things
that look too good to be true. You start breeding dogs,
and all of a sudden they get smarter than you are.
Our study is light years ahead of anything that's been
done on humans and can be done on humans. Daniel
Promise Glow says, as biogerontologists at the University of Washington
and co director, what we're doing is the equivalent of
a forty year long study on humans testing the ability
of a jug drugged increase human life spans. When the
find the project finally reports in four to five years time,
they hope to be able to prove that rampam issin
has the power to give dogs an extra three years
of healthyerth life three and then you can cross that
over to humans and do the same thing. It would
be rather remarkable. The goal of science now needs to
be to agree on the parameters, and then the work
could yield very exciting results for everybody involved. Imagine that.
Speaker 1: All right, Hey, real quick, if you would like to
get your product or service in front of about ten
thousand people multiple times a day, send me an email
at Pete at the Petecalndarshow dot com and ask me
about advertising. It's super affordable, it's baked into this podcast forever,
and podcasts have a higher conversion rate than other social
media platforms, making it the best bang for your buck.
Send me a message Pete at Thepetecalndarshow dot com and
I can show you how it works. Run the numbers
with you again. That's Pete at the Petecalndarsshow dot com.
Speaker 2: It was agreeing with my comment about cats and dogs,
and I had heard this is anecdotal. I've had similar
anecdotes from friends talking about someone who worked in a
corner's office and they said absolutely every time someone passed
away and they had to go discover the the cats
has started eating the owner and the holmes with dogs.
All the dogs were either lying with their owners, the
several had starved death and exception of some that tore
through windows and doors to go alert people to what
was going on. Ye. Hey, cats are primitive critters, elite. Hey,
they just kill for fun. How many of you have
cats and you've seen them like kill the neighborhood birds
and just leave them at your doorset Like, yo, look
what I did. Here's a bird. See, I'm a supreme hunter.
Feed me. Now. They won't eat the bird. They just
kill for fun. They're just massively evolved killing machines. And
it sounds like I'm not a fan of cats. I
admire them. I love seeing them in the wild, not
the not feral cats, but actually wildcats, panthers, cougars, pumas
kuwaitis not kuwaitis, but all sorts of critters out there
and it ocelots, leopards. Yeah, So it amazes me that
people think these things are are not what they are.
They're just looking at you figuring crap out all the time.
So and as far as the dog's extending life and stuff,
I think that's remarkable. I remember I had a dog Unfortunately,
years ago, wonderful, amazing border Collie mix that ended up
getting cancer and going to NC State, you know, a
university that was on the cutting edge of veterinary science
and treating the dogs, ended up seeing amount of money.
Shouldn't have done that, but it was remarkable that the
cancer my dog had. This is kind of a twist
of fate thing. The cancer my dog had was a
non Hodgkinson foma type years ago, was about eighty five
percent fatal. At that time. They were using all sorts
of techniques and everything to extend his life. They did
a good job of that, but it ultimately they couldn't
cure it at that point in time. But the researchers,
the research they were involved in not only led to
breakthroughs and now that particular cancer in dogs is almost
ninety plus percent curable in dogs, but furthermore, it that
technological advancement led to humans and my mother was able
to who ended up with the same kind of cancer
my dog had and was cured of that cancer. That's
not what killed her, but it was remarkable that she
became cancer free. And some of that traced back to
the kind of scientific inquiry in dogs on that type
of cancer. So I love the evolution of of of
medical study. If the government could help get out of
the way in some regards. I think in many opportunities
to cure and make things better, we get it gets
things get in the way, and that is an unfortunate
reality there. Now, if you want to get in on
the conversation, feel free to do so. Seven oh four
five seven eleven ten five sevenh eleven ten, And I
need to well get people. There's people that text in.
Then there's then there's the cause. We're going to say, hey, Chad,
you got a call, so you're welcome to be a
part of the show today. I do want to get
to one. So one of the other subjects as we
get to the top of the hour is that we
kind of we live in a greening world. The kind
of measurement of what the human impact is versus just
the way the planet is aging and the way the
way it works, that's a difficult needle to thread for scientists.
There are there are legitly, legitimately brilliant scientists out there
that are going through this field of inquiry and are
not distracted by the narrative of Greta Thunberg, who's telling
them that all of it is due to humans. We
actually have more Arctic sea ice cover now at this
point than we did in twenty twelve. You'd have to say, well,
if it's linear, why would that be the case. We've
had times when Antarctic sea ice extent grows and extends,
and you'd have to say, well, if it's linear, how
can that be. If it's linear, then it should always
be less less less. There shouldn't be these anomalous a
couple of years where it goes back to amazing. That
being said, if the goal is to understand there are
some realities we are in a greening world, what is that?
What part of that is due to the oscillation of
the planet, the sun and all the other things that
have kept us a living, breathing, biological miracle for millions
of years, And what of it is? Oh, I'm sorry,
I fired up the suv and drove down the road.
And one group has said there's only one way this
could be, and it negates anything that would disagree with that.
Now they want to tell you that all of this
climate change stuff is killing people. It's killing oh, it's
making islands disappear. They haven't it's making storms more powerful.
It's not, it's making them more frequent. Well, we actually
had fewer storms this year, just happened to be two
horrific news related ones. They're not more powerful, by the way,
the ones that hit were not more powerful. So what
is every and whenever there's a wildfire, it's always caused
by that. It's never that someone didn't have proper forestry
management or someone threw a match out, but it's always
humans made it worse. But if you look at some
facts out there, what kills a lot of people that
we don't talk about is that the coal cold weather
kills people. And Gizmoto has a great article over there
on their site. Even as the climate warms, the cold
is becoming a deadlier threat to Americans. New research this
month shows that cold related deaths have significantly increased in
the US over the past two decades. You would go, why,
why would more people be dying in a greening world.
Researchers at Harvard Medical School conducted the study, which aim
to better count the death's called by cold temperatures. They
found that the country's cold related mortality rate has more
than doubled since the late nineteen nineties, with deaths especially
increasing in recent years. Important risk factors for the rise
and deaths likely include extreme weather events ah tied to
climate change. So now you hear that in that narrative
right there, that climate change made people dive cold. You
thought otherwise extreme weather events, homelessness and social isolation, researchers say, Now,
I would say, let's take climate change out of it
for a minute, but absolutely homelessness. And yet there's tons
of infrastructure to help folks with that, and it's not working,
these government programs. So if these government programs are so successful,
why is homelessness? Why are people that are homeless dying
of cold? Social isolation we've seen that with the advent
with technology increasing. The more technology, you would think it
makes the social fabric better, but actually people are more
isolated than ever before, So social isolation lonness. We know
that social isolation increases the likelihood of dementia. We also
know that hearing loss contributes to dementia. So the way
in which you hurt humans more as you isolate the
more extreme temperatures on either end of the thermometer can
be life threatening. While recent research has shown that heat
related deaths have risen in recent decades. Cold weather tends
to be deadlier in general. A twenty twenty one study
found that the cold was responsible for about three fourths
of extreme temperature deaths worldwide. That's an estimated one point
seven million deaths over all that year due to cold
three quarters. Now, you're in a warming world, but three
quarters of the people who died and weather related issues
frozen well died with respect to the cold, some being
frozen to death. The Harvard researchers note that related deaths
in the US have been studied only minimally. Why we've
spent billions studying warm weather, haven't we We've spent billions
and billions producing windmills and solars and doing everything in
the world related to climate, but you're not looking at
the humans that are dying due to cold weather. To
address the knowledge gap, researchers at Harvard analyzed death certificate
data collected by the CDC, focusing specifically on deaths where
cold was recorded. Between ninety nine and twenty twenty two,
there were over forty thousand cold related deaths in the
US forty thousand, and adjusting for age, they found that
the mortality rate had risen from less than half of
a cold related death per one hundred thousand to almost
a full person per thousand in twenty twenty two. That
but we don't spend a lot of time looking at that,
do we, because it doesn't fit a narrative that Wait
a minute, more people are dying of cold. But then
you say, well, it's climate change. Climate change is causing it.
That's causing the people that die of cold. Remember, we
weren't supposed to have snow now, and all the southern
ski resorts we're supposed to have been bankrupt by now.
But alas that narrative didn't work out as well. Greta
told us in twenty eighteen that we had five years
for it was over, and here we are seven years later. Steve,
you've been holding. Welcome to the program, whatever you're ready
to talk about. What's on your brain today?
Speaker 3: Hey, how are you today?
Speaker 2: Fantastic?
Speaker 3: Good? I got a couple of questions. Three of them
deal with the same topic. I'll hit those with you
real quick. If that's okay with you, got it.
Speaker 2: I'll try it. I'll try to help three. It's like
an interview.
Speaker 3: Go ahead, Well, they all deal with the same topic,
which is taxes. But you mentioned earlier, if I got
this right, that illegals that have gotten a four year
degree that I think you said Trump was considering giving
them a green card.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, not illegals, well, not illegals, people that were
here legally earning a degree. He wanted to give those
people the opportunity to work here as well. They weren't
illegally here. They were here legally, is what he's referred to.
Speaker 3: Oh, okay, that strikes that question. The second one is
you flip the page here. We've heard all this back
and forth about deporting the illegals, and the Democrats are
it's going to cost us so many billions we can't
afford to do it. I just simply reject that claim, because.
Speaker 2: If we get them out of here, then.
Speaker 3: We saved tens of billions of dollars providing for them.
So I don't I'll see where that could be an
absolute positive benefit to the country and US taxpayers to
get them out. And so wanted your thoughts on that.
And the other one is you talked about subsidies for
like for Word and other companies like that, and what
really aggravates me about that is I owned my company
for thirty nine years, and I never got one dime
from the government to help me keep my business growing
or profiting or afloat if it was in a downtime.
I never got a dime from them. Why in the
world should we give our tax dollars away to companies
that are in business for themselves like I was. They
need to figure it out on their own, not with
our money bailing them out. So that's my second one,
and the third one wherever I put it. No, you
took care of the first one.
Speaker 2: So I'm impressed, and you took all those notes. Man,
I appreciate the call. Well, Steve, So, Steve, I'll get
to your questions. I don't know what happened there, but nonetheless,
so the first question we dealt with Trump was referring
to people who were here legally achieving a degree, and
that maybe achieving that degree in America they could give
back in some way by being a part of the workforce.
The deporting versus staying. I mean, George will wrote a
column about this back in the nineties about the logistics
of moving just at the time, I think it was
just three or four or five million folks and the
logistics of that are ginormous, whether you fly him or
take them by bus or where do you take them to.
But the countries that from whence they came, have to
assume some responsibility for them as well. Trump talks about
this when he talks about Venezuela and other South of
Central South American countries that he's dealing with. I do
think it's important to move that. I mean, we've got to.
There's got to be a distance because it has to
stop it if people know they're going to be removed
if they come here, it will slow down and it
will help protect the border. So it has to be done.
And he is correct. There is an upside to you know,
you're not having to subsidize hotel rooms, you're not having
a sub thatize insurance and snap programs and you know,
nutritional aid all these, So yes, there's a net savings.
He's correct on that one. And the third one about incentives,
he's right, and it is not applied equally to all.
It is kind of a rig system. And at the
local level when you see these incentives doled out, the
grants used to a local government would say hey, we'll
give you x amount of money if you bring in
X amount of jobs, and they realize that it's illegal,
and so what they did, they can't call it a rebate,
so they started calling them grants, and they aren't applied equally.
And it is a significant problem, whether it's the local
or at the national level. Why government ever got involved
in picking winners and losers. It just isn't the role
of government. But I appreciate the call, Steve. Thank you,
So with us now a Bill, welcome to the broadcast.
How the heck are you this afternoon?
Speaker 3: It's time is why.
Speaker 2: I'm Bill and Mark from Wilmington.
Speaker 3: Good to hear your voice on the radio again.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you Bill. Bill. Oh, Bill had something about
climate change. I think Bill, if you got disconnected, please God.
I think it was on the road and someone maybe
starlink got him. I'm kidding. Elon's on our side. So Bill,
if you happen to still be listening, and thank you
from listening from Wilmington, one of my former wonderful time
on radio, you know places, So I appreciate that. So Bill,
if you if you get back in, just kick him
back in there. And to the other point that the
color that did stay around. So Steve, you know, it
is daunting to think of how would you think about
the population of North Carolina if you wanted to take
the entire population just over ten between ten and eleven
million and deport them to other countries around the world.
The logistics behind it. Just imagine taking every man, woman
and child from Charlotte and trying to move them. And
that's just a smattering of the number of people that
we're talking about. So then take the geography of North
Carolina and expand it to the full size of the
continental US, and you realize how daunting that is.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: I think Tom Holman's the right guy for the job.
I mean, he's clearly, you know, absolutely under He is
focused in a way that we see rarely with government appointees.
He knows his mission, he wants to do it. The
Border Control wants to be valued. They want they got
into the border Border Control made that decision for their
career path, and imagine now they finally have people that
are going to support what they're doing in the mission
and what they originally got in it for. Uh, it's
not gonna be easy. It's gonna take way longer than
four years. But the number one thing that Tom Holman
is saying, and it is a disincentive for people to
try to get across that border. If we if you
know that there are going to be consequences for coming across,
people will stop or at least slow down, or it
will diminish a great deal. So that's number one. Number
two its sec securing the border and having more processing centers.
Number three is finding out who is here illegally, and
that's going to be a daunting, ginormous task. And then uh,
they're going to start with the criminals. It's going to
be easier to start with the criminal element, the ones
that are in our system that we can find, trck down,
get those out immediately, and work backwards from there. But
there's it's just hard to fathom it ten to eleven
million plus immigrants across the country and how to get
them back to their country of origin. And that's that's huge.
There's just no easy way to do that, and it
would take it's going to take a decade or more.
Speaker 1: All Right, that'll do it for this episode. Thank you
so much for listening. 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 dpetcleanershow dot com. Again, thank you so much
for listening, and don't break anything while I'm gone.