Obstruction is the objective (04-24-2025--Hour1)

[00:00:04] What's going on? Thank you so much for listening to this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon to 3 on WBT Radio in Charlotte. And if you want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream, my daily show prep with all the links, become a patron, go to thepetekalendershow.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.

[00:00:29] All right, so we have some more lawfare coming down the pike. Pipe? Pike? The pike. Yeah, I think it's the pike. This is from, this is regarding the tariffs. Okay. National Review's David Zimmerman reports a dozen states are suing the Trump administration over the president's back and forth tariff policy, arguing the trade taxes on foreign imports are not only hurt,

[00:00:58] hurting the American economy, but are illegal. The federal lawsuit filed yesterday in the U.S. Court of International Trade. What's the matter? Was, I don't understand. Was, uh, was Judge Boasberg not available to hear this one too? Maybe they have to file it there. Um, the lawsuit challenges President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to

[00:01:29] impose sweeping tariffs. The White House. The White House invoked that law earlier this month to address the nation's large trade deficit created by unfair foreign trading practices, which the president's, uh, the president considers a national emergency. The 12 states argue that the president can only invoke the I-E-E-P-A or the I-E-P-A when a national emergency presents, quote, unusual and extraordinary threats from abroad.

[00:02:01] I said this from the very beginning that I thought this was a pretty weak excuse. Like, I don't think you get to say, just like I was critical of Roy Cooper, my good friend Ray, when he was governor, and he would, you know, he did the fake emergency declaration for school funding.

[00:02:20] Like, you can't just say something is an emergency because you want to fund it more or you want to change a policy or you want to do something. You can't just say it's an emergency and then I get to do whatever I want. And I thought that was going to be a pretty shaky foundation upon which these actions were taken. And so now you have the lawsuit, which says,

[00:02:46] by claiming the authority to impose immense and ever changing tariffs on whatever goods entering the United States, he chooses for whatever reason he finds convenient to declare an emergency. The president has upended the constitutional order and brought chaos to the American economy. They say that only Congress can grant the president the authority to implement tariffs.

[00:03:13] The state or states, rather, that joined the lawsuit. Spoiler alert, we're not on the list. We are not on the list. North Carolina, not on the list. So Jeff Jackson, our attorney general, even though he's a Democrat, has not signed on to this. Maybe due to the North Carolina legislature. Did we did they pass the bill?

[00:03:38] That prevents the attorney general from and from entering into lawsuits against like the federal government. There was a there was an effort to try to rein in this kind of behavior that was running rampant under Josh Stein and Roy Cooper.

[00:03:54] Here are the states, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and that powerhouse, Vermont. All 12 states have Democrat attorneys general.

[00:04:18] The Republican president implemented a 90 day partial pause to give more than 75 countries time to negotiate with the U.S. on lowering tariffs. China is currently excluded from the negotiating table, although the Wall Street Journal has reported now that administration officials are considering cutting some of the 145 percent tariffs on China. But no decision on that has been made.

[00:04:47] So what is at the heart here of the case is whether or not Congress gave the president this kind of sweeping power. OK. Because according to the lawsuit. Congress had grown troubled with the proliferation of E.D.s. Emergency declarations. Why would you think I'm in emergency declarations? Yeah. Yeah.

[00:05:15] So this was by the 1970s. They were like, no, no more of these E.D.s. You know, under laws like the Trading with the Enemies Act or the TWEA or the TWIA. Such laws were originally intended. This is from the filing. So this is the Democrat attorneys general.

[00:05:33] Such laws were originally intended to lend the president special or heightened powers during times of crisis, but were ultimately used as shortcuts around peacetime constraints on the president's powers. Which, by the way, of course it would be. Of course it would be used like that. Like, this is the core understanding for limited government adherents such as myself. Right?

[00:06:03] We recognize government, like fire, is a useful servant and a fearful master. And the natural tendency of government, much like fire, is to spread. It's to take more and more liberty from the people and get involved in all these things.

[00:06:24] And that's why the founders set up a federalist model was to pit these power-hungry people that get into the positions against one another. To protect their turf, their powers. And the thought was then that the people's liberties would be better protected by having different levels and branches of governments balancing each other out. Right?

[00:06:52] So, presidents started using these laws in peacetime in ways that they were not intended to be used. So, Congress recognized that the exception threatened to swallow the rule. As one House report on efforts to reform the Trading with the Enemies Act, the TWEA bestowed upon the president essentially an unlimited grant of authority for the president to exercise,

[00:07:19] at his discretion, broad powers in both the domestic and international economic arena without congressional review. One reform Congress made to curb the president's emergency powers was to then restrict the TWEA to its original purpose, limiting its application to, quote, times of war.

[00:07:41] At the same time, Congress enacted the IEEPA, which allowed the president to regulate imports and exports in response to certain non-wartime emergencies, while stressing that the triggering event had to be an unusual and extraordinary threat. So, the attorneys general say, Thus, it is not enough that the president declare a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act.

[00:08:10] Only those arising from unusual and extraordinary threats originating in whole or substantial part outside the United States. Only those kinds of threats unlock this grant of powers. Congress also subjected the president's authority to reporting requirements and reserved for itself the ability to terminate declared emergencies by joint resolution. So, Congress can do something about this if it chooses.

[00:08:40] Not once, according to the filing, the lawsuit, not once has any other president used the IEEPA to impose tariffs. In the nearly five decades since it was enacted, no other president has imposed tariffs based on the existence of any national emergency, despite global anti-narcotics campaigns spearheaded by the U.S. and longstanding trade deficits. So, this is the premise, the foundation of their case,

[00:09:10] as to why the president's tariff maneuvers are not allowed under law. 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, 8mm films, photos, slides? Are they preserved?

[00:09:40] 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.

[00:10:09] Creative Video, preserving family memories since 1997. Located in Mint Hill, just off 485. Mail orders are accepted too. Get all the details at createavideo.com. All right, so one other note here on the lawsuit by the Attorney's General against the Trump administration over the tariff situation. This is from John Sexton, writing at hotair.com. He says,

[00:10:36] The bottom line is that the Attorney's General want a court to rule the tariffs illegal and declare this a matter for Congress. Okay? If that happens, the current tariffs, at least the ones on our end, would presumably vanish along with any existing interest on the part of other countries that are negotiating new trade deals with the U.S. No doubt that sounds pretty, pretty good to China right about now. Right?

[00:11:06] Other countries might also be tempted to wait it out and see if the Democrats can solve the problem for them. Right? When it comes to lawfare, the obstruction is the objective. That's what we are witnessing. Now, you can say, and not incorrectly, that the lawsuits are in response to the flurry of executive orders

[00:11:32] and the things that the administration has been doing on this breakneck pace over the first hundred days. And sure, sure, the administration's moving very quickly. They're doing lots of things. Move fast, break stuff. Right? But that also gives the left lots and lots and lots of opportunities to sue. And to be fair, it didn't matter really what Trump did that the left would sue

[00:12:03] because the delaying of Trump's wins or policies or rollbacks of prior executive orders, right? The point is to delay. That's all. Now, I'm not sure Democrats have really thought all of this through with the lawsuits because if we take as a premise, which let's just assume this to be the case, even if you don't agree, but this is one of the arguments that the tariff regime

[00:12:32] that Trump has rolled out and the response from the markets and other countries, right? Like, it's caused this market turmoil. And it's going to lead us into a recession or a depression or whatever. Like, there are all these predictions of apocalypse. Let's assume that that's true for the sake of this argument. Let's assume that that's all true. If you're the Democrats, wouldn't you want that to start happening?

[00:13:04] And then Trump and the Republicans would be more easily defeated in the midterm elections. And a Republican, if it's J.D. Vance, for example, who runs in another three years for president, that he would be tagged with the apocalyptic economy as well. Or maybe they think that by filing the lawsuit, slowing everything down,

[00:13:30] get a couple of injunctions going, so stuff has to pause, create more uncertainty. And then even if you lose, by the time it all gets sorted out, you're, you know, half a year down the road or something, and you do see the economic damage done. Again, the premise of this scenario I'm laying out is that all of this results in economic catastrophe, which we don't know. Like, I said this the day Trump rolled these things out, well, the day after when I got on the air, and I said,

[00:14:00] I have learned most, just as an aside here, most of my talk show hosting career has been the Donald Trump era. Right? So I started as a host in like 08, 09. And so I got to ride out the whole Obama years. That was fun. But then Trump comes on the scene. And now for the last, and by the time he's out of office, right,

[00:14:30] will have been, he will have been part of the political scene for, you know, over 12 years. And so that's the bulk of my career as a host. And what I have learned, albeit a little late, which is to just wait and see, don't rush in to whatever the, you know, the media narrative is of a particular day.

[00:14:56] You hear the initial story and, oh my gosh, did you hear what Trump did? Did you, did you hear what he said? And you hear this soundbite. And it's like, oh my gosh, he said good people on both sides. That sounds awful. And then you go back and listen to the full clip and it's like, oh, he didn't, he wasn't talking about the neo-Nazis there. Like, what are you guys talking about? But had you gone out and taken the media story, their preferred narrative, using their selectively edited soundbite,

[00:15:26] right, you would have been playing into their game. And so I have learned, just wait, be a little patient. Let's see what happens. And if stuff starts going sideways, then we can, we can assess it at that point. But like, I'm not, I'm not lighting my hair on fire based on lefty predictions of doom and gloom.

[00:15:54] So this is the latest in, in the lawsuit front, in the lawfare front from the left. There was also the ruling. We went over this the other day came out. We're not a ruling, but a, the Supreme court said that they were going to take up a case. And they issued it in the middle of the night. The ACLU had petitioned them and they said they would take it. It was, you know, after midnight, they sent down this ruling.

[00:16:24] We covered the details on this. And this has caused a lot of concern among the court watching crowd. One of whom is Harvard law professor and constitutional scholar, Adrian Vermeule, who wrote a number of judges have seemingly adopted a constitutional meta principle, which is what a past president did. President Trump may not undo.

[00:16:53] What a past president did. President Trump may not undo. And that has been the case in Trump's first term and is the case now. Now, the immigration issue is a perfect example of it in that. I mean, you can go back. To the DACA stuff, you know, Obama does DACA. Trump tries to undo it. No, can't undo it. Right.

[00:17:22] Trump wants to do bans on countries that are hostile to us. No, it's a Muslim ban. Can't do it. And remember the one out of Texas where when Texas erected the razor wire fencing in order to protect its state from illegal immigration coming across, the Biden administration sued and said, you can't know you got to do what we tell you to do.

[00:17:50] And then when Trump gets back in, then states are like, well, you can't tell us what to do anymore. See, so when the Democrats are in office, they get to rule with impunity. Right. Joe Biden can forgive student loan debt and whatever. Try to do it. He can basically adopt a constitutional amendment via tweet or try. Right. He gets to do these things. Trump comes in and says, no, we can't do that. Then, no, sorry, you don't get to undo what another president did, even though he did it with an executive order.

[00:18:19] And Trump is trying to undo it with a similar executive order. Right. The border invasion is another just the overall issue. Joe Biden opens up the gates, lets everybody in without any due process. Right. Just come on in. And now when the next president comes in and says, whoa, whoa, whoa, this was all illegal what you did. So now I'm going to tell people to get out. I'm going to remove them. Oh, no, no, no. You can't do that.

[00:18:46] We have to afford them the due process that they did not go through to come in. We now have to provide them due process to get rid of them, which I think one estimate I saw was 200 years. That's how long it would take to run everybody through essentially a trial, which is what now the left is demanding, which is just absurd. Right. Right. Immigration proceedings are not criminal court trials. They are not. They're different processes.

[00:19:15] And you know who knows that best of all? Our own sheriff. Gary, not my fault. McFadden. He's always talking about how there's no, you know, criminal warrant from a judicial officer and all of this stuff. He's he's aware of that. Yet yet. Yet now we're supposed to believe that there needs to be like a full on, you know, jury trial to deport any single person, which is absurd. And that has never been the case. Here's a great idea.

[00:19:43] 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. Cabins of Asheville has the ideal spot for you where you can reconnect with your loved ones and the things that truly matter.

[00:20:07] Nestled within the breathtaking 14,000 acres of the Pisgah National Forest, their cabins offer a serene escape in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Centrally located between Asheville 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.

[00:20:32] Choose from 13 cabins, six cottages, two villas and a great lodge with 11 king sized bedrooms. Cabins of Asheville has the ideal spot for you for any occasion. And they have pet friendly accommodations. Call or text 828-367-7068. Or check out all there is to offer at cabinsofashville.com and make memories that'll last a lifetime. Let's talk with Travis now. Hello, Travis. Welcome to the program. Wow, Pete.

[00:21:02] That was a content heavy news break there that I just said. Well, you're welcome. In the Supreme Court. Yes. And then that Chinese space rocket, that sounded like the come down to Thunderbirds of the opening of 1960s. Anyway, with the invocation of AIPA. Yes. I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly. I think you got it. AIPA. AIPA. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[00:21:26] Is what you've been talking about that the solution kind of provides an outline for what the emergency was, right? So if I tell you my house is on fire and you go, oh, no, that's a terrible emergency. You've got to call somebody. I go, don't worry. I already called my cable provider. Nice. And you go, oh, okay. Well, I guess the emergency is that your house being on fire is a threat to your cable service, right?

[00:21:50] So if we say that these tariffs are a response to an emergency, then I say, well, the solution to that emergency could be repatriation of American jobs. It could be rewriting trade agreements. It could be isolating China.

[00:22:08] I think the best way forward is for Donald Trump to pick one and then go to Congress and say, take action to solidify these tariffs because I want to accomplish fill in the blank. And then we could do away with this lawfare. Right. Well, so I think there's a fundamental fatal flaw in this idea of yours, which is it would require that Congress actually do something.

[00:22:39] That's the problem. All right. Thanks, David. All right, Travis. Yeah, appreciate it. No, and that, like that, I mean, I gave the rim shot there, but it is true. Like, this is the, this is the problem is that whatever any president has been doing, Trump or Biden or Obama, they increasingly rely on these executive orders.

[00:23:05] And in doing so, they're cutting out Congress and the founders, when they set up the federalist model, as I went over earlier, you've, they had this idea that you would have these different branches that would be protective of their power, but they could not have foreseen the importance of the 32nd tick tock viral clip. But how could they?

[00:23:30] And they, and so now you've got members of Congress that are not actually interested in governing and writing legislation and going to committee meetings and actually having to, you know, read through bills and, you know, stuff like that's just so boring. I would rather go down to the well of the chamber and make a speech that nobody is there to see or hear,

[00:23:56] except the poor, you know, clerk or whoever it is that's running the, you know, running the meeting. And they got to sit there and listen to a, you know, a Senate speech to an empty chamber. And then you isolate some portion of that speech and you blast it out and you say, give me $10 so I can keep doing more of this, fighting the people that you don't like, you know?

[00:24:22] And if you know anything about like the life of a member of Congress, most of their time is spent fundraising. They have to kick up a ton of money to the national parties. So they're constantly raising money that, yes, they get to keep some, but they also have to, you know, pay the tribute to the party. So the party can then use that to help other candidates win election and like that's the whole idea.

[00:24:49] But so much of their time is eaten up by fundraising and they don't want it. So they don't want to do their jobs. They don't want to sit through the committee meetings. That's why you end up with these members of Congress sitting up there at the hearings, reading prepared questions from some staffer that probably outsourced the, you know, the information gathering process to Twitter.

[00:25:15] You know, that's how you end up with Maisie Hirono. Okay, I was thinking of her specifically, but it's true. So that's the, that was sort of the blind spot I think that the founders had was that they never anticipated that these members of Congress, their incentives would be aligned towards not doing stuff, right?

[00:25:41] They, they expected the house to move quickly on things. They expected the Senate with the longer terms, but also representing states interests to be protective of the states. So they expected the Senate to, you know, slow things down, to cool the hot issues coming out of the house.

[00:26:03] But when neither chamber cares very much to do the work of legislating because their real power is derived someplace else, then they won't do it. And you end up with a president that just does executive orders, which can then be undone. And then the left is now saying, oh, you can't undo these. We're going to sue you if you try to undo them for whatever reason you've come up with. That's the constitutional crisis, in my opinion.

[00:26:36] The judiciary's got to do something. I've been saying this for a couple of weeks now. The Supreme Court needs to rein in their judges. Sam Alito made a reference to it in the recent dissenting opinion that he put out with the Supreme Court agreeing to take up the temporary injunction, a nationwide injunction. And it's not going to stop until the Supreme Court puts a stop to it or Congress does.

[00:27:05] And see my previous comments moments ago about Congress. I don't think that's happening. So the Supreme Court's got to do something. And this Harvard Law professor, Adrian Vermeule, writing on Friday after the district court judge issued, yet another lawless nationwide injunction meant to handcuff Trump and halt his agenda. It's a criticism the Supreme Court and particularly Chief Justice John Roberts must take to heart, writes Glenn Reynolds.

[00:27:35] Glenn Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee, and he is the founder of Instapundit.com, sort of the granddaddy of blogs. One of the hallmarks of John Roberts' term, he says, has been an overweening desire to guard the judicial branch's, quote, legitimacy.

[00:27:59] But Roberts seems oblivious to the fact that the biggest threat to the court's legitimacy comes from the courts themselves and also his desire to preserve the judiciary's standing with a small circle of Washington and academic insiders.

[00:28:19] We saw it as far back as 2012 when Roberts switched sides in the case against Obamacare at the very last minute. He was afraid that striking down the unprecedented bill would upset the D.C. apple cart and harm the court's legitimacy. And that's how you ended up with that bizarre ruling.

[00:28:44] That, you know, that it's the tax isn't a tax if we can call it a fee and fees aren't taxes except when they are. It was just absurd. 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 media bias, which is why I've been so impressed with Ground News.

[00:29:10] 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.ground.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.

[00:29:40] See for yourself. Check.ground.news slash Pete. Subscribe through that link and you'll get 15% 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. Glenn Reynolds. A.K.A. Instapundit. Founder of the Instapundit dot com blog. He's also a professor of law at the University of Tennessee.

[00:30:10] He has a piece at the New York Post titled Alito's Right to Warn. Alito is correct to warn. The court's knee jerk habit of slapping Trump will cost it dearly. And he's taking aim particularly at the chief justice, John Roberts, who seems, he says, less concerned with preserving the court's legitimacy in the eyes of America's citizens.

[00:30:37] And more with the views of the editorial pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post. Plus some Ivy League law professors whose schools decaying reputations should give him pause.

[00:30:50] In other words, he's putting his peers opinion above the citizens opinion and above legitimacy because the legitimacy of the court is not solely vested in the opinions of his peers. The legitimacy of the court is also due to our opinions.

[00:31:21] There's a reason why I call them lawyers with a wardrobe change, right? Because oftentimes that's how they behave. They're not doing the thing that I was led to believe for most or maybe half of my life that that they were supposed to be doing it. They set these things aside. They act in a certain way. They look at the law, how it applies to this case, whatever.

[00:31:45] But when I when I look around and I see, you know, forum shopping, venue shopping, which is judge shopping. Right. There's a reason why that happens. There is a reason why when you look at the Supreme Court makeup, you know which way judges are going to rule on certain cases based on their political affiliation, based on who nominated and appointed them. Right. Right.

[00:32:14] And so the legitimacy of the court is rooted in public opinion. And when the public sees you doing these things, it then questions whether or not you are actually calling balls and strikes to quote John Roberts. Right. Whether you are engaging in impartial jurisprudence. Reynolds goes on to say, now the flurry of lower court interference is reaching crisis proportions. And it's not just Reynolds who is saying that.

[00:32:44] The Harvard law professor and constitutional scholar Adrian Vermeule says it, too. The prime issue, among others, is the illegal. And yes, it was illegal. It was contrary to the statutes on the books. The illegal Biden administration policy to admit millions of unvetted migrants into the country and to allow them to stay here. Right. When.

[00:33:13] I've covered this extensively over the last what year. Alejandro Mayorkas, Department of Homeland Security secretary under Joe Biden. He threw open the gates. And he did it with the app. And he allowed people to come in and get, quote unquote, parole. Parole. Despite the fact that the law says he is not allowed to do a blanket paroling program.

[00:33:41] The law says you have to do individual decisions for these parole applicants. And he did not do that. They did not weigh somebody's history. They did not weigh their claims that they had to be allowed into the country due to, you know, threats of murder and harassment or what torture, imprisonment, whatever. They didn't weigh these cases individually. They just let everybody come. Click a couple buttons on an app.

[00:34:11] And then they got to stay. And then when the next guy comes in and says, hey, heads up, if you came in under this program, we're sending you back. Oh, no, no. Now we have to do the individual assessments. Well, but you didn't do it on the way in. How do you how do you respond to this? Right. How does an administration, even if it had. The congressional authority. Right. Just set all of the legal issues aside.

[00:34:39] Even if Congress said that, OK, yeah, now you've got to go through this, quote, due process. You have to have everybody go through their own trial or something. But they didn't come in the correct way. It wasn't done correctly on the front end. So now everybody gets to take advantage of that part of the law. We get to follow that part of the law only because it stymies Trump's efforts. This all came to a head early Saturday.

[00:35:07] John Roberts and six of his colleagues stepped in to temporarily uphold a lower court opinion interfering with Trump's deportations. The Supremes acted one sidedly and with untoward swiftness to block the president. Listen, it's not clear the justices had any actual jurisdiction to rule in this case at all, which is what Sam Alito pointed out. Right. So you have the jurisdiction question.

[00:35:36] And then you also have the speed at which they issued it. They they leapfrogged the lower court, which was apparently drafting its own response to the appeal. But then the ACLU went around them and the Supremes said, yeah, we'll take it from here. Issuing it on like the Saturday night before Easter Sunday. From excessively easy forum shopping, like how D.C.

[00:36:04] District Judge James Bosberg and others seem to get, quote, randomly assigned to an awful lot of high profile cases lately. Right. So from forum shopping to intemperate language, rushed rulings and a palpable hostility to Trump, the judiciary does not seem to be calling balls and strikes. Instead, it's giving the impression of going to bat for one team.

[00:36:33] Now, this has played very well with the legacy media. Right. And that's apparently whose opinion John Roberts views as legitimate. But it doesn't look so good to a lot of other people. And their opinions matter, too. He says by design and for good reason, the courts are insulated from the daily ebb and flow of politics.

[00:36:58] But they aren't and can't be and shouldn't be entirely insulated from the tides of public opinion. Right. That's what gives the court legitimacy that people say, I may not agree with that, but they got there the correct way. Right. They followed a process. They're citing these laws. Right. But people don't believe that now. That's why opinion in the Supreme Court has been on the decline.

[00:37:27] And Roberts keeps clutching harder and harder to try to hold on to it. And it's just it's just sifting through his fingers. 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 the Pete Calendar show dot com.

[00:37:53] Again, thank you so much for listening and don't break anything while I'm gone.