These truths to be self-evident, that all men are created over the years, a member of Congress, I get to have a lot of really interesting people and experts on what they're talking about. This is the podcast for insights into the issues. China, bioterrorism, Medicare for all in depth discussions, breaking it down into simple terms. We we hope we hold these truths. We hold these truths with Dan Crenshaw.

REPORTER What's up, America? So we have a new president now and we have a lot of flurry of new executive orders coming from President Biden's administration. Going to go over those in some detail, give you some overview of what we should expect from this administration and why I really don't like it. You know, and this is coming off the heels of the Trump administration for all the flak that Trump has been getting recently, some of it deserved. There are four years of pretty hefty accomplishments before the coronavirus pandemic hit the entire world, not just the United States, as the left would have you believe.

We actually had a pretty good time in America. There was. It was it was one of the more prosperous times America has seen in quite a while, some of the lowest unemployment rates. Oh, lowering of taxes, business growth, just skyrocketing stock market, skyrocketing lower taxes, lower regulations for every regulation put into place.

Eight or removed businesses were growing. As a result, some of the highest growth in income came from the lowest quintile of earners. That was a new phenomenon that occurred under the Trump administration. Overall, the economy was just doing great. Some of Trump's key promises were met, including securing the border that was done by by cooperation with Mexico and some of the Northern Triangle countries. That was done by simply building infrastructure, simply supporting the border border patrol down on the border.

It was done by ending the dangerous catch and release program and actually putting the work into creating a process for that. That makes sense. And this incentivizes illegal immigration. I think there were some successes on trade as well. You can look at a number of countries that are now buying American goods after what some would call the harsh negotiation tactics of President Trump. But I think a lot of us would have to admit in hindsight that that worked in many ways.

You've got the peace in the Middle East. Abraham Accord's people thought this was impossible. I'll never forget John Kerry exclaiming with such vigor, with such certitude that you would never that any that anybody who really knew what they were talking about would know that you could never achieve peace in the Middle East without Palestinian Buy-In. But as it turns out, that just wasn't true. And President Trump has helped negotiate peace between many Arab countries and Israel.

The much sought after peace in the Middle East has been achieved. No new wars were started. We have no new major foreign terrorist attacks either. For all of the heartache given to some of Trump's vetting, extra additional vetting processes that he placed on other countries, the Democrats like to call this the Muslim ban. Of course, they're playing off of Trump's one of Trump's initial speeches as a candidate, probably, but definitely an ill thought out way of putting it.

But in the end, the actual policy does not resemble a Muslim ban at all. It is simply simply asks certain countries, especially especially those that are either failed states or where we tend to see a lot of terrorist activity to engage in in a certain standard of vetting before visas are given, that that's what that policy is. Biden plans on rescinding all of that for the sake of the progressive agenda. So we could go on.

You can look up a very long list of accomplishments over the last four years. I would have other things like in health care to additional telehealth regulations opened up, which has been a massive boon for the health care economy, especially in the age of covered. Also right to try a lot of generic drugs have come to market much, much faster under this administration. Again, just opening up processes and regulations that mean when more generic drugs come to market, by the way, that means lowering drug prices.

These are all really good things for your health, for the economy when it comes to helping the downtrodden and helping underserved communities. Opportunity zones were a big part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed under Republican House and Senate and signed by President Trump. That means more investment in underserved communities. When there's more investment, there's more jobs. That's how you actually achieve what the Democrats like to call equity in this country. The best the best kind of welfare is a job, and I will continue to stand by that.

Now, the Biden administration believes that these are not accomplishments, but a scourge on our history for the most part. I mean, they say it all the time, but is it true? No, it's not. I think a. Everything I just listed, most Americans would agree, are indeed accomplishments and are indeed good things, and I didn't even get to most of it. I realized that that was not a comprehensive list. Frankly, I was just going off the top of my head.

I want to read to you guys what the Bush administration has published. I'm going to go through it as quickly as possible so as not to bore you. All right. So let's get through this. Of course, the biggest priority for the Bush administration is the one I can't even say this with a straight face.

The one hundred days masking challenge. Yeah, right. It's come on the 100 day map masking challenge because nobody in America is wearing a mask right now. Yeah, but this this because Biden, at least he acknowledges he does not have the power to make you wear a mask and he does not. And they'll let him think he does. Although let's be honest, Obama acknowledged like 22 times that he didn't have the power to enforce DACA, but he did anyway.

So let's hope that doesn't carry on anyway. The 100 day masking challenge is really just for federal property, right? Because. Yeah, because there's all these federal workers at these federal buildings just refusing to wear masks.

No, they're not, by the way. They're all wearing masks. So this is a bit of virtue signalling. You know, it's it's leading by example and all that. We know the deal. We've been seeing it for a while now. He's going to re-engage with the World Health Organization. Yeah, OK. That again, kind of fine. Like, well, we'll have Americans over there after the the WHO the World Health Organization completely screwed the world and was clearly in bed with the Chinese as this as this pandemic started, which was why this is the Trump administration pulled out of it.

Just to be clear, it wasn't it wasn't just some knee jerk reaction. There was actually some reasoning behind it.

Oh, they're going to structure our federal government to coordinate a unified national response. Like this is what you were hearing throughout the campaign. There's just no national response to coronavirus. They said it over and over again. They they took away the from the National Security Council. They took away the one position that could have dealt with this. This was always a bunch of B.S., OK, those positions at the National Security Council.

First of all, let me define what the National Security Council even is. It's a it's a group of staffers that when every president comes in, they can expand how many there are. They can decrease how many there are some presidents have had very few staffers in the National Security Council in recent years. It's grown and grown and grown.

It really is a set of advisors. These people do not have authority over any kind of agency. They they advise the president. That's the whole point. So what happened under the Trump administration is they had an NSC Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense. Again, this is just a few people in an office. They do not run anything.

OK, so what the Trump administration did was simply put, those positions in other parts of the government, maybe DHS, maybe HHS, OK, places where they felt that they could be better they could better serve the overall cause of biodefense and global health security. There is no reason to think that this diminished our ability to respond to the pandemic. This is this is a Democrat talking point. That is that is that is using people's ignorance of of the intricacies of the bureaucracy in Washington to make you believe that Trump just just screwed this whole thing up.

It's a it's not true. OK, Biden's going to reinstate that, though. Just just divert you signal to you all. That's that's basically why it doesn't change anything at all. So let's just address this. There, of course, was a national response to covid-19. Of course there was. If there wasn't, then I would ask people, what exactly is operation warp speed? What exactly is Operation Air Bridge, where they were? They were they took hundreds of flights of PPE into the country and then and then used existing mechanisms within DHS and FEMA to distribute that through every state.

What exactly is is where where exactly are all these vaccines coming from? Who bought them all? How are they being distributed?

And if there's no national plan, how did our testing sites get get put out all over the country and run by FEMA and DHS? How did all that happen? If there's no national plan? Of course, there's been a national plan. And again, the Bush administration wants to act like there was nobody in charge of it. Well, for Trump, Vice President Pence was in charge of it. OK, and and Biden's going to have somebody else in charge of it.

Is an executive order creating the position of covid-19 response coordinator. Oh, there's finally going to be a response coordinator for the Trump administration. That was Vice President Pence. And frankly, I think he did a pretty good job. OK, I guess Vice President Biden doesn't trust his current vice president to do that. That's fine. Don't blame them. All right. Let's move on. Providing economic relief and support to working families. They're going to extend eviction and foreclosure moratoriums.

Again, this is just a this is just expanding on what the Trump administration has already done. I'm not a huge fan of a lot of this.

I think I think the best way to to address this particular problem is money for rental assistance. OK, you can you can say, hey, you can't evict people and then you can say, hey, don't foreclose on people, but you're really just kicking the problem, kicking the can, you know, the euphemism of the can as a as a. Problem down the road a little bit, and eventually you end up with a banking crisis, OK, if nobody's paying the rent and therefore nobody's paying their mortgage because, you know, landlords need rent in order to pay their mortgage, then eventually these loans get foreclosed and eventually end up with a banking crisis.

And I seem to recall I just can't remember exactly why 2008 we had one of those, and that's exactly why. So if you're really going to you're going to nip this problem in the bud, you got to do use it through rental assistance in the last covid relief bill did have rental assistance in it. I'm in favor of that. But you actually have to hit the source of the problem. The other thing they want to do, they want to extend the student loan pause.

Yeah, of course they do. The Democrats I mean, this is this is and then you've got other Democrats saying, don't just extend it. You've got to cancel it. You just cancel it by executive order. At least Biden administration currently recognizes they do not have the power to do that.

And it would be a bad idea. I mean, we've been over this before, like a student loan is an investment in yourself. And you take out money and you see that money as an investment to get a degree that you hope will pay off in the future. And that's exactly what it does. If you were to cancel all student debt, you would be overwhelmingly helping high income earners because the most student debt, as it turns out, exist with doctors and lawyers, people with master's degrees that are very, very expensive by the numbers.

If you just cancel all student debt about six times more benefit to the highest quintile of earners and there would be to the lowest quintile of earners.

All right. Next on the Biden agenda, tackling climate change, creating good union jobs. It's always union jobs. It's never just jobs, OK, but union jobs and advancing environmental justice. Nobody has ever defined to me what environmental justices. But, you know, these Democrats, they like to put the word justice at the end of every other issue. And that, I don't know, just makes it sound better. So they're going to rejoin the Paris Agreement on climate change.

That's the biggest virtue signalling in history. The nonpartisan National Economic Research Associates concluded that pursuing the Obama Biden plan to achieve the Paris climate accords would cause rising economic damage, reaching two trillion dollars a year, about fifteen thousand dollars per household by 2040. So that's the plan. And I want to be very clear here.

By reentering the Paris climate agreement, President Biden isn't nothing really happens again right now. It's just virtue signalling that that tells the Chinese that they should be pretty happy, tells a lot of European diplomats that, you know, they can respect us again because Democrats are always like searching tirelessly for the respect of those high minded European diplomats. It's like one of their favorite things. Trust me. I mean, I went to school, look with with the people who ended up in State Department, the same people who are trying to revoke my degree, that's another story.

Not even upset about it. Maybe I'll even sign the petition. If you don't know what I'm talking about. Look it up. The the Paris Climate Agreement. The other reason we've always been against it is because it really just gives the world's worst polluters a pass, like China, for instance, who is still on track. They haven't even reached their peak emissions yet. They we think they might by 2025, 2030. Not sure. Not like they're going to tell us really.

They're really just going to do what they want.

While we have to commit to major CO2 reductions, 26 percent to 28 percent lower than 2005 levels by 2025, even though we're the ones even under the Trump administration that have been drastically cutting carbon emissions more than any other country. That's just a fact. We have five times lower air particulates than the global average as well. We're the ones constantly making our environment better. And yet we want to hurt our country while we let the Chinese continue to invest in coal power plants and continue to emit CO2 throughout the country.

They want to roll back President Trump's environmental actions in order to protect public health and the environment and restore science. They're going to restore science. Oh, my God. Thank thank you, Democrats, for restoring science. How many genders are there? Yeah, so they're going to a lot of these executive orders. I won't go into all of them. They mostly just direct agencies to just be cleaner when this stuff really becomes harmful. And I should say this from the I should've said this from the outset.

When you're looking at this kind of agenda and these kind of executive orders, a lot of them don't have much teeth. I mean, they need law passed by Congress to have any teeth.

But what this is, is a sort of a sort of outline of where they want to go. And you'll see legislation. We already have seen legislation over the last two years. It just never went anywhere. Well, you'll see Democrats repeal that legislation in order to fulfill some of these public policy goals. It's more of a doctrine than it is real policy that's being talked about here, but it is important to understand what's in it. All right.

The next section here, advancing racial equity and supporting underserved underserved communities.

Again, this this basically just this is basically just a lot of language that says America is racist and evil and in that it's in that and that we need to do something about it. Again, there's no real a real policy to to attach to this.

But they will launch a whole of government initiative to advance racial equity so they'll do things. This is where it gets a little tricky and this is where you can see where it's going. One of these bullet points, says TASC, the Office of Management and Budget, with working to more equitably allocate federal resources to empower and invest in communities of color and other underserved communities. So we are getting to a point and we all know this because the Democrats talk about it all the time.

But we are getting to a point where they they fundamentally believe that resources should be targeted to you just because of your skin color and that I mean, just let that sink in. So that means because of your other skin color, you should not get certain resources. Right. That's racism.

I mean, it's it doesn't this is not a good this is not a good or liberal stance to take because it's not a liberal principle. Listen, what would what would classical liberals believe? They would believe that resources should be if resources are to be distributed based on, say, incomes or means tested or something along those lines, then it should be done in a neutral and universal way. This is exactly the opposite of that in many, I think smart people would call this racist policy.

Moving on now, they want to reverse President Trump's executive orders, excluding undocumented immigrants from the reapportionment count, actually. Hold on. Let's go back to this, because on the equity stuff and this executive order, the president elect will also rescind the Trump administration's 1776 commission, which has sought to erase America's history of racial injustice.

Wow.

So the 1776 commission is it's it's a it's in response to the 16 19 project, and I think rightfully so. The 16 19 project wrongfully suggests that America's founding was in 16 19 because that's when the first slaves arrived. And even that year, by the way, they just did it so they could say it was exactly four hundred years ago, OK, because that year those those particular slaves arrived not in the current United States.

But besides the point, they want to they want to attach America's founding to nothing else but slavery. OK, now let me ask you something. Is there any student in America in the last 50 years or since America's founding that has ever learned about our history and not known about the evils of slavery, not learned about Harriet Tubman in your in your elementary school classes?

Of course you have it. There's this myth in this false premise perpetuated by the left that we've just never learned about any of it and that you have to learn more and that you have to hate your history and that you have to then you have to repent for it on a constant basis. It is such a lie that the 1776 commission has sought to erase America's history of racial injustice. That is a fundamental lie. A history must be contextualized. History must have all the facts, not just some of them.

The 1776 commission is rightfully a counterweight to the 16 19 project that only has some of the facts and actually gets a lot of those wrong. I mean, dozens of historians, liberal, conservative, but really there's not that many conservative historians. So mostly liberal historians have actually said no, the 60 90 project is just making things up. It is. It is it is false in some of its assumptions and it is perpetuating a false narrative on modern day America.

The 1776 commission looks to looks to have a rebirth of our founding ideals. Right. And our founding ideals are inherently good. These ideals and the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence are what led to the abolishment of slavery.

They are what led to the civil rights movement. It was civil rights leaders and abolitionists that used the principles set out by our founding in 1776 to make the argument against the evils of slavery and racial injustice. Because America is founded on good things and we should actually recognize it. That's what 1776 is about.

But America was burst into a world where evil existed and we're not going to punish America because of that fact.

All right. I feel pretty strongly about that one.

Moving on, they want to remove President Trump's executive order excluding undocumented immigrants from the reapportionment count. So this gets into the census. Remember, President Trump said, OK, we shouldn't have illegal immigrants documented in the apportionment count. When you're when you're when you're setting lines and apportionment for congressional districts. I think that makes a lot of sense because you generally want your you know, if you think you have 800000 people in your congressional district, you generally want them to be voting citizens just just to get the numbers right.

This helps them if you don't do it, that if and if you do count illegal immigrants, it does tend to help Democrats because it packs a lot more people and therefore more congressional districts and therefore more representation into areas that tend to vote Democrat, especially in urban areas, urban sprawls where you tend to have more illegal immigration. That's why they want to do it for purely political reasons. President Biden wants to preserve and fortify protection for dreamers. OK, again, there's nothing really in here except, say, preserve and fortify.

We know where they're going with this. Look, the the original DACA parameters are what they are, OK, from 2012. It tends to include maybe just under a million young people who've been applied, who have applied for relief and met the requirements and background checks to be part of the doc, a program. That's all fine. Look, Republicans have a problem with that, mostly because it was it was basically passed into policy without any law accompanying it and therefore unconstitutional.

But listen, we can understand that some of these young people don't even speak Spanish, never even been to the you know, don't even remember where they came from. But that has to be accompanied by strong border security and an understanding that you have to incentivize this behavior at some point to have a country, to have a sovereign country, to have any kind of sustainable immigration program. Well, the Democrats ought to do in the last two years was pass legislation that would actually expand the definition of DACA and basically say there's no age requirements, no requirements on on the date.

And when you actually arrived in the U.S. and therefore expand the. Violation of DACA in and of itself, really to everybody. That's why I would call that bill the DREAM Act blanket amnesty, because I don't think it had anything to do with Dreamers. It just was blanket amnesty. But also, I have heard that kind of language out of the new Biden administration as well. And so moving on, reverse the Muslim ban. We already went over this.

It's not a Muslim ban. Notice. And I notice in the in the in this print out from the Biden administration, they never list the countries that this Muslim ban applies to, because if they did, they would have to list countries like Venezuela, North Korea that are not Muslim countries at all. So this is it's just frustrating that this lie is still going on. I mean, four years later, it's just I mean, come on.

I would also note that, look, what exactly is wrong with requiring a lot of these countries to meet a certain standard of vetting for visas into the United States.

What is wrong with that? Why does the Bush administration have such a problem with this? Has it not worked? Have we seen have we seen major foreign terrorist attacks here in the United States in the last four years? If not if not what?

About a decade before that we had. OK, what about in Europe?

In Europe, they just had some major ones. I mean, it's so does these do these things work? Yeah, they might be actually working. I think the administration needs to come up with a much better explanation as to why they're doing this, as to why they're loosening vetting requirements on war torn countries and countries where terrorism is prolific and and why they would put their needs before the needs of regular American citizens. But administration also wants to stop border wall construction.

Again, why why they have no reason except Trump liked it, OK? It really is that childish. Luckily, in this particular set of in this particular set of. iOS, I don't see anything about the migrant protection protocols, even though I have heard that they do want to and that that would be very bad. So let's go over real quick.

I want to go in more detail about border security, because the Trump administration really did a fantastic job actually achieving border security. You couldn't you cannot tell me. I mean, I think most Americans would agree that our border was in shambles when Trump took office, starting really after a change to the Flores settlement, which is a, you know, a court decision that basically basically incentivized people to cross with children and turn themselves in to border patrol because they knew they would just be released after that.

OK, so that that was the effect of this particular court settlement and incentivized hundreds of thousands of people to illegally cross. During the Trump administration, they built over 400 miles of border wall. Legal crossings plummeted over eighty seven percent where the laws were. The wall has been constructed. It turns out it's just harder to cross when there's a big wall in front of you. Not impossible, right? Like Democrats would love to like like good like quickie saws and torches and cut holes in the wall and say, oh, I see.

Oh, it's like, OK, I get that.

But you also can't deny that it's a mitigating factor with a lot and lots of lots of people. And these statistics prove that exactly the more importantly, the Trump administration ended the dangerous practice of catch and release, which means that instead of aliens getting released into the United States pending future hearings never to be seen again, they are detained pending removal and then ultimately returned to their home countries. Also really, really worked well. They entered into three historic asylum cooperation agreements with Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala to stop asylum fraud and resettle illegal immigrants and third party nations pending their asylum applications.

Like there was this there was this strange notion on the left where, look, if somebody is making the trek across the border and they claim asylum, then it's obviously means they're being hunted and persecuted. And no, I'm sorry. It just doesn't obviously mean that. I mean, we do have to vet these things and we do have to acknowledge that when there is a catch and release, I wouldn't call it a policy, but it's a practice that is happening so prolifically that there's going to be an incentive for people to just say that they're that they're claiming asylum because they know that it means that all they have to do is show up for that asylum hearing at some later date.

And in the meantime, they get to do whatever they want inside the United States. You can see how this will be taken advantage of. You can see how this will be abused. Right. You have to be you have to close your eyes and cover your ears and just and just shake your head and scream. No, no, no. To believe otherwise. I mean, that's basically what the Democrats do. And again, the migrant protection protocols, this was huge.

This basically means this is this is an agreement with Mexico and it safely returns asylum seekers to Mexico while they await hearings, the United States. So, as it turns out, a lot less people claim falsely that they need asylum when they start to realize that they're just going to get returned and wait in Mexico City, OK, and so now you're only now you're getting much more the people who really, truly have an asylum case are now making it and they get in and they're not waiting, you know, at number 100000, 43 in the back of the line behind everybody who's making false claims.

All right. So these are all really good policy measures. I mean, that's if you believe that we as a sovereign country, we deserve to have some kind of process on our borders. That's if you believe that. It's not actually clear to me that many modern Democrats believe that anymore. Let's move on here.

I'm just going through this deferred departure for Liberian's presidential memoranda. We don't have to go over that preventing and combating discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation. OK, so this EO doesn't really say anything necessarily. I think I think what we will see under the Bush administration is a reversal of what the Trump administration did with Title nine, which is unfortunate. I mean, because you're going to go back to the days of kangaroo courts on college campuses, and that's probably not a good thing.

The real debate here is going to be whether whether Title seven of the Civil Rights Act as prohibiting workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. So right now, it discriminates based. You cannot discriminate based on sex. Democrats would argue and many people would argue that that also means that you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Now, that's fair, but it does get into some difficult questions like like the court case that happened recently where.

OK, so you want a funeral home? OK, now, this is a really sensitive place for people to come to a funeral home.

And you want your staff there to be very respectful to the people who have just lost loved ones. And in this particular case, a man who identified as a man dressed like a man for years and years and years. All of a sudden, as a staffer at this particular funeral home, all of a sudden decides he's now a woman and dresses like a woman. So the question is, does he have a right to do that?

Does the employer have a right to fire that man who is now identifying as a woman? And so I would argue, yes, because your behavior has changed radically and that behavior affects the people who are mourning at that funeral home.

Now, even if they're not a funeral home, what if they're just coming there for, you know, what if it's a restaurant? What if it's breakfast? Do you have a right to say, like, look, you have to at least dress and act a certain way at the workplace? I would argue that you do. I would argue that as an employer, you have that right.

OK, so this is going to be the debate moving forward. It's a tricky one, because you really you, again, don't want people just unfairly discriminated against just because of who they are.

And and immutable characteristics totally understand that. But when those immutable character characteristics result in behavioral changes in the workplace, do you have a right to say something?

And I would argue that, yes, you do.

OK, moving on. Oh, ethics orders.

Who cares? Look into that later. You're not interested in it. Last one, OK. The president elect's executive actions advance racial equity. This one was a little bit strange. Again, they're basically saying like we're going to solve covid, therefore we're solving racial equity. You know, there's some language in here that is just so utterly false. And here's a line.

Because of structural racism, people of color are contracting covid-19 at higher rates and dying from covid-19 at higher rates because of structural racism.

They casually throw that out there like it must be true. So because of racism, people of color are contracting covid-19 at higher rates. I mean, like, what's your evidence for that? What's your evidence that racism is the cause here? I mean, the fact is, is that it is true on a statistical basis that people of color have higher people of color, have higher comorbidities at a rate higher than, say, white people. That is true.

Is that because of of white racism? Why is that I mean, shouldn't we actually care about the truth here because I mean, it is something that I'd like to solve. I do not like that this is that this that this outcome is true. OK, I would like people of color to have healthier or less comorbidities and be healthier. The question is, if we're going to solve that problem, we have to agree on some form of truth about why that problem exists in the first place.

And there is no truth to the idea that it's because racism. That's an absurd thing to say and it leads us down pass down solution oriented paths that don't make any sense because we can't even agree on the basis of the problem in the first place. On the premise that we're even discussing. That's a that's the real problem. That's why these conversations up here in Washington get so convoluted and so just utterly stupid because they want to blame everything on racism and environmental injustice.

And that leads us down some very silly paths. All right. I think that's pretty much it. I think that's pretty much it. I didn't get to the Keystone pipeline.

I didn't see that in that particular set of orders. But let's talk about that real quick, because as you may or may not know, I just got onto the Energy and Commerce Committee, so I'm very excited about that. And we're going to be talking a lot about energy. Well, you already hear me talking a lot about energy, energy and health care in particular. So the Keystone pipeline, you know, for some reason, it seems to me like the Keystone pipeline in particular is just sort of the sort of the whipping post for all environmentalism.

Everybody knows it. So it's just a really convenient target for Democrats to hit.

But in general, Democrats just hate pipelines.

They really want your oil and gas to be transported on trucks and trains and cargo ships. I don't know why, because all of those things leak more, crash more, and also emit more carbon emissions when you transport them. But, hey, that's what Democrats want because, you know, environmental justice, but they really hate the Keystone pipeline. Here's what would actually happen if you just destroy the Keystone Pipeline project. Ten thousand American Union jobs with wages exceeding two point two billion dollars would be erased.

And those are union jobs, I swear. I remember reading what I just read to you from the Biden readout that they want to create union jobs, not just any jobs, but union jobs. OK, not these union jobs, though, because Environmental Justice 2000 current workers will lose their jobs. Over three billion dollars in contracts awarded to U.S. contractors and suppliers in 2020 alone would be erased. And all this new steel that we were going to use to make it was going to be made in America.

So you got billions, one billion dollar agreement for Native American communities to become equity partners in the pipeline in future projects.

That's gone 100 million dollars in annual property taxes for rural American communities.

That's gone to because environmental justice, what's it going to do for an environment? There's got to be some payoff here, right, for all those costs of just canceling the pipeline. There's got to be some payoff. There's none one bit that oil will still get produced. It will still get transported. It will just get transported.

And more carbon intensive transportation like trucks and trains and cargo ships or or Canada and the US just continue to decline as far as producers of oil and gas as the Bush administration would like it to, even though under the Trump administration we were at a peak. And if that happened, well, does that just mean the world just uses less oil and gas? Is that what it means? Is that what it means for our environment? They're just going to be less of these evil fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide?

No, it's not what it means, because over the next 20, 30 years, you're going to see at least 25 percent, 30 percent increase in demand for energy. And energy is going to come from fossil fuels. And if America is not producing it, if Canadians are not producing it, then it's going to come from Venezuela, from Iran, from Russia, all of these wonderful, wonderful countries that are just beacons of light and democracy and prosperity and good liberal democracy.

Yeah, that's where it's coming from. Great job. They don't it's like they don't even think through this stuff. All right. And when it comes to the Keystone pipeline, by the way, too, it was they had already agreed to operate at net zero greenhouse gas emissions.

Again, it's not that hard for a pipeline to operate that way because it's a pipeline. It doesn't emit bunch of gas when it works like a truck does.

This is really disappointing. It's pure virtue signalling. None of this helps Americans. This is all America's second policy. And I don't like sloganeering. It's not one of my favorite things. I never like chanted America first. But but I understand the meaning of it. And I think it's a pretty good meaning. Put Americans first, but American jobs first. You can you look, you can do a lot of the things that Democrats want to do, whether it's whether it's help underserved communities, whether it's help the environment.

Whether it's get more people access to good health care, these are laudable goals, I do not I do not want to diminish some of the goals of the left, but the way they want to do it is so detrimental and so bad. And I've just explained in many ways why that it just begs the question what the real priorities actually are. And maybe one day we'll figure that out. I think that does, does it? Great job, everybody, appreciate you listening.

Hopefully you learn something and stay tuned because there's going to be a lot more of this stuff. And I appreciate you guys listening.