Welcome. It is verdict.
Was Senator Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you and Senator there was a big hearing on Capitol Hill that dealt with big tech oversight. There were CEOs there from Facebook and TikTok, and I want to start with Facebook center. You had the opportunity to talk to Mark Zuckerberg specifically over an issue of child exploitation being the material being shared on Facebook. Talk a little bit about why this hearing was so important.
Well, sure, let me set the stage. So this was Wednesday morning. It was a hearing of five CEOs of big tech. So you had Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta which is Facebook and Instagram and others. You had the CEO of TikTok, You have the CEO of x formerly Twitter. You had the CEO of Snapchat, and you have the CEO of Discord and they were all testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee and the focus was the abuse of children, and in particular children being targeted by predators,
by pedophiles, children being subject to extortion. And you have to picture the hearing room, so it's a very large hearing room. It's the hearing room where we do for example, hearings on Supreme Court justices. So it's one of, if not the biggest hearing room on Capitol Hill. It's got a big audience. And in the audience, the room was filled, it was standing room only with parents who had lost their children to suicide, to abuse, who had been traumatized
and abused online, and predators had approached them online. In many instances, predators will do things like convincing young young children, convincing teenagers to send them compromising pictures, to send them naked photographs, and then these scammers will often blackmail the kids and threaten we're going to release these pictures unless you pay us money, and in a number of instances the kids pay money. And repeatedly we've seen children taking
their own lives, committing suicide. And so you had a room full of parents who had photographs of their children, most of whom presumably had lost their lives, some of whom maybe had survived but had been badly impacted, whether it was bisexual predators or other forms of hostile activity.
And so the focus of the hearing was on big tech, and big tech really not only allowing our children to be in jeopardy, but profiting off of addicting our children to social media and everything dangerous that comes from it.
You talk about the dangers, and not just Facebook, but also TikTok has been There's been lots of warning for from those in the medical community, pediatric doctors about the depression and also the addictive nature of these apps. They've created them to become life altering for young people and
it takes over their lives. And that's where you're talking about not only are these predators using it, but the depression that comes in, and yet they're readily available and almost all these kids have them.
Well, that's exactly right. You know. There's a great movie that is called The Social Dilemma, which if you haven't watched it, I recommend it to you. It's a movie about how social media companies target our kids, how they have algorithms designed to addict our kids to keep them watching more, and it's a great movie. Heidi and I sat down with our girls and we made them both
watch it. They were kind of bored. They didn't think it was very interesting, but we wanted them to at least hear and understand what it is that big tech is targeting them with so they can understand what's going on. And what is infuriating is is big tech. They're printing money and they give lip service, but yet they are not doing nearly enough to protect children online. Let's talk
about part of this exploitation and child exploitation. You know that bad actors are going to do it, but the most shocking part is how this is allowed on social media.
And let's start with Facebook.
You had a moment where you and Mark Zuckerberg had a back and forth and I want to play it for people and listen to and part of this center explain these warning signs because people are going to be able to see the posters that you held up. Explain what you were showing and how these warnings worked, and then to put it in context.
Well, so the Wall Street Journal last year did an expose about how Facebook was assisting pedophiles. Assisting pedophiles in number one, targeting children, but number two finding child pornography online. And they had a warning screen. So if you typed in a search that was designed to pull up child pornography, they would have a warning screen that would pop up that says says the search you put in is likely to produce images of child pornography, which is a crime.
You can be prosecuted for it. And then it gave you two links. Do you want resources for help or do you want to proceed to your search request to see the child porn you're searching for? And so I asked Mark Zuckerberg, why on earth they were doing that? Here? Here, give a listen. Instagram also displayed the following warning screen to individuals who were searching for child abuse material. These
results may contain images of child sexual abuse. And then you gave users two choices, get resources or see results anyway, mister Zuckerberg, what the hell were you thinking?
All right?
Senator? The basic science behind that is that when people are searching for something that is problematic, it's often helpful to rather than just blocking it, to help direct them towards something that could be helpful for getting them to get help.
In what way? I understand, get resources in what sane universe? Is there a link for sea results? Anyway?
Well, because we might be wrong, we try to trigger this this warning, or we tried to when we think that there's any chance that there.
Is Okay, you might be wrong. Let me ask you how many times was this warning screen displayed I don't know, but the you don't know, why don't you know?
I don't know the answer to that, off the top of my head.
I don't know the answer that off the top of my head.
You also had a follow up question there right after that center where you looked at him and you said, of the people that got the warning, how many of those people those child predators clicked on see it anyway? And he's like, I don't know if we have that dat really.
Well, and look what is important. And what I followed up right after that is I pointed out that a year ago I asked Facebook in writing that question and they refuse to answer. So there's a reason I asked him there. I expected him to say, I don't know. But the point is they don't know because they don't want to know, and more importantly, they don't want anyone else to know, and so they've been stonewalling Congress and further,
I asked him a very simple question. Look, if someone searches for child porn, searches for images of little children being sexually abused, I asked him what does Facebook do with that? Do you report the guy? Do you look into the children who are in the images to see if they need help? Do you do anything? He refused
to answer any of that. Here play the next exchange. Well, you know what, mister Zuckerberg, it's interesting you say you don't know it off the top of your head because I asked it in June of twenty twenty three in an overlight oversight and your company refused to answer. Will you commit right now to within five days answering this question for this committee?
We'll follow up on that.
Is that a yes not a will follow up? I know how lawyers write statements saying we're not going to answer. Will you tell us how many times this warning screen was displayed? Yes or no?
Senator, I'll personally look into it. I'm not sure if we have.
Okay, so you're refusing to answer that, let me ask you this. How many times did an Instagram user who got this warning that you're seeing images of child sexual abuse? How many times did that user click on see results anyway? I want to see that, Senator.
I'm not sure if we stored that, but I'll personally look into this and we'll follow up after.
And what follow up did Instagram do when you have a potential pedophile clicking on I'd like to see child porn? What did you do next when that happens? Senator?
I think that an important piece of context here is that any context that we think is child.
Zuckerberg, that's called a question. What did you do next? When someone clicked you may be getting child sexual abuse images and they click see results anyway? What was your next step? You said you might be wrong? Did anyone examine was it in fact child sexual abuse material? Did anyone report that user? Did anyone go and try to protect that child? What did you do next? Sator?
We take down anything that we think is sexual abuse material on the service, and.
We did anyone verify whether it was in fact child sectually abuse material.
I don't know if every single search is are or falling up on, but did you report to people who wanted it?
Soun er?
Do you want me to answer your question?
I want you to answer the question I'm asking did you report?
Time to spend.
People who click see results anyway?
That's probably one of the factors that we use in reporting in general, and we've reported more people and done more reports like this to Nickmick, the National Center of Missing explos to Children than any other company in the industry. We proactively go out of our way across our services to do this and have made I think it's more than twenty six million reports, which is more than the whole rest of the industry combined.
So mister Zuckerberg and Ester Zuckerberg that we, your company, and every social media company needs to do much more to protect children.
By the way, the question I would love to know Center is this, Yeah, you may have reported more, you're also bigger than all the other ones. So how much sex exploitation of children has happened because of your platform?
Well, and understand, the Wall Street Journal expose that I was asking about demonstrated how on Instagram they had hashtags that pedophiles could use to find children and to find child born and so their algorithms were actively assisting pedophiles and doing this. By the way, Instagram no longer has this screen of see results anyway. You know when they took it down when after the Wall Street Journal reported
on what they were doing. So it was only when they got caught that they realized, yeah, maybe we shouldn't be aiding in a bedding children being abused. That was the only time they took it down. But they're still not affirmatively acting to protect kids the way they should.
One thing I do know about these companies, they have no problem trying to use these warnings to silence conservatives. How do I know this because we put a picture up of the pictures that were put in front of Congress of Hunter Biden. They were all burned out and for six months we lost the ability to promote and or reach and or be found by people on Instagram and on Facebook. And there was hundreds of conservatives that that happened to because they were putting out information about
Hunter Biden that they didn't like. Welcome to the power of these companies. I want to tell you about Patriot Mobile real quick. For ten years, Patriot Mobile has been America's only Christian conservative wireless provider. When I say only,
I mean it. If you are sick and tired of giving your money to organizations that actually hate your values, that hate your family values, hate your Christian values, hate the First Amendment rights and Second Amendment rights, hate our Constitution, then it is time for you to switch to Patriot Mobile. They offer you dependable nationwide coverage, giving you the same exact coverage that you get right now because they use the same towers. But what you're getting rid of is
the propaganda of the left and funding the left. Big Mobile gives big donations to democratic causes candidates, including Plan Parenthood. And that is why I have switched to Patriot Mobile. When I look at my phone in the top left corner, it says Patriot, and I know that I'm sending a message that I support free speech, religious freedom, and the
sanctity of life. And every time I pay my bill, I also know I'm making a difference because they take five person of my bill at no extra cost to you, and they give it back to conservative causes.
So try Patriot Mobile. Make the switch.
It's easy to get one hundred percent US based customer service team, and you get to keep your same phone number and upgrade your phone as well. If you want to their number nine seven to two Patriot. That's nine seven to Patriot, nine seven to two Patriot. Use the promo code vertict. You'll get free activation as well, or online at patriotmobile dot com slash verdict. That's Patriot Mobile
dot com slash Vertict center. I also want to talk about the other CEOs that were there, and another big part of this was TikTok, and people may not understand TikTok the same way they do. Facebook explain a little bit of the of the concerns around TikTok, and it's actually national security concerns as well.
Yeah, so understand in the United States, they're roughly one hundred and sixty million people that use TikTok, so roughly half, roughly fifty percent of the population of the United States of America is on TikTok. They're over over a billion users nationwide, but in the United States it's a one hundred and sixty million. Where TikTok is particularly powerful is among kids, is among young people, is among preteens, is
among teenagers, is among college kids. TikTok is ubiquitous. It is universal among sixth graders and seventh graders, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh graders. That is their target audience. And understand also that TikTok is wholly owned by a company called byte Dance. Byte Dance is a Chinese company, and under the rules of China, the Chinese government has the power to monitor everything that is on TikTok. So look, all of the
social media companies are responsible for very significant damage. But TikTok is a qualitatively different damage because none of the other major companies are Chinese companies. That the Chinese Communist government has the power to engage in espionage, to engage in spying, and to engage in pushing propaganda. And so that the CEO of TikTok was there, and I took the opportunity to ask him about this as well. Give
a listen to that exchange two. In the next couple of minutes I have I want to turn to you. You're familiar with China's twenty seventeen National Intelligence Law, which states, quote, all organizations and citizens shall support, assistant, cooperate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with the law, and shall protect national intelligence work secrets they are aware of.
Yes, I'm familiar with this.
TikTok is owned by Byte Dances, bytdance subject to.
The law for the Chinese businesses that bit dancellens. Yesdy will be subject to this. But TikTok is not available in mainland China. And Senators you talked about in your office, we built Project Texas to put this out of reach.
So ByteDance is subject to the law. Now under this law, which says shall protect national intelligence work secrets they are aware of. It compels people subject to the law to lie to protect those secrets. Is that correct?
I cannot comment on that.
What I said again is that because you have to protect those secrets.
No, Senator, TikTok is not available in mainland China. We have moved the data into an American.
TikTok is controlled by byt Dance, which is subject to this law. Now you said earlier, you said, and I wrote this down, we have not been asked for any data by the Chinese government and we have never provided it. I'm going to tell you, and I told this when you and I met last week in my office. I do not believe you, and I'll tell you the American
people don't either. If you look at what is on TikTok in China, you are promoting to kids science and math videos, educational videos, and you limit the amount of times kids can be on TikTok. In the United States, you are promoting to kids self harm video and anti Israel propaganda. Why is there such a dramatic.
Difference, Senator, That is just not accurate.
There's not a difference between what kids see in China, and what kids see here.
Senator, TikTok is not available in China. It is a separate experience there. For what I'm saying, but you.
You have a company that is essentially the same, except it promotes beneficial materials instead of harmful materials.
That is not true. We have a lot of signs of math content here on TikTok. There's so much of it.
Okay, let me point. Let me point to this, mister Chew. There. There was a report recently UH that that compared hashtags on Instagram to hashtags on tiktac TikTok and what trended, and the differences were striking. So for something like hashtag Taylor Swift or hashtag Trump, researchers found roughly to Instagram posts for everyone on TikTok. That's not a dramatic difference.
That difference drumps jumps to a eight to one for the hashtag Leger, and it jumps to thirty to one for the hashtag to bet, and it jumps to fifty seven to one to the hashtag tienamen square, and it jumps to one hundred and seventy four to one for the hashtag Hong Kong protest. Why is it that on Instagram people can put up a hashtag Hong Kong protest one hundred and seventy four times compared to TikTok. What
censorship is TikTok doing at the request of the Chinese government? None, Senator, that lawn.
The analysis flood has been debound by other external sources like the Cato Institute. Fundamentally, a few things happen here. Not all videos carry hashtags. That's the first thing. The second thing is that you cannot selectively choose a few words within the second one by.
The difference between Taylor Swift and Tienaman Square. What happened at Tianman Square.
Senator, there was a massive protests doing in doing that time. But what I'm trying to say is USUS can freely come and post.
How would there be no difference on Taylor Swift or a minimal difference and a massive difference on Tienaman Square Hong Kong. Senator, Could you wrap up please, Senator.
Algorithm does not suppress any content. Simply basically question why is there a difference? Like I said, I think this analysis is flawed. You're selectively choosing some words over some periods. We haven't been around there.
Obvious difference one hundred and seventy four to one for Hong Kong compared to Taylor Swift.
I mean, Senator, you listen to that.
I just think the guys are flat out wire and nothing but a spokesman for the CCP am I wrong.
Look he effectively reports to the CCP. By the way, at the end, that was Dick Dermott, the Democrat chairman, gabbling in and trying to protect TikTok, trying to protect communist China. He didn't like that line of questioning. He wanted it to stop, by the way, when Democrats were questioning, he let him go on and on and on, but Durbin wanted to jump in and stop that line of questioning. Listen, the numbers are obvious on their face, so understand the
differential in those hashtags. So this was a study that compared different trending hashtags on Instagram, which a lot of young people use, and on TikTok, which again a ton of young people use. And it found for things like Taylor Swift, which is something people will post about a lot, particularly young people. They're big fans of Taylor Swift that it was roughly two to one, So basically there were
two Instagram posts for every one TikTok posts. So look, that's some differential, but it's not like a jarring differential. As I went through, the differential became massively different with messages that the Chinese communist government doesn't like, and the most striking was about Hong Kong, where the differential was one hundred and seventy four to one. So, in other words, people could post about it on Instagram one hundred and seventy four times for every time it appeared on TikTok.
Now you heard all of his dodge as well. That's cherry picking words. I don't care. Yeah, no it's not. It's not searching for how frequently the word asparagus trends. It's actually searching for words that the communist Chinese government does not want people to know about. And miraculously, and it's not really miraculous. The words that they most want people not to know about are the words that you
are least allowed to see on TikTok. And mind you, the CEO under oath is testifying, well, no, no, no, we don't share anything with the Chinese Communist government. But I laid out how the law in China is, even if they shared everything with the government, they are required under the law to lie about it, So he would have to say that regardless of what the facts are.
Do you believe that there is going to be any type of new legislation in or oversight that will be impact with the staff this I mean obviously showing the public and letting parents and grandparents be aware of the real dangers here of exploitation and blackmail and human trafficking and sex trafficking are extremely important.
But what about oversight.
Well, I do think there is growing bipartisan interest in doing more to protect kids online, and in the Senate Judiciary Committee on which I serve, five different bills have passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I supported all five of them. They're all designed to enhance the protection for kids online. They passed with big bipartisan support, but to date none of them have gotten a vote on
the Senate floor. In the Senate Commerce Committee, as you know, I am the ranking member on the Senate Commerce Committee, which means I'm the senior Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee. We have passed several bills out of the Senate Commerce Committee aimed at the same thing, at protecting kids online, and again they passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. None has gotten a vote on the Senate floor. And I don't think it is coincidental that big tech are massive financial
supporters of Democrats in the twenty sixteen election. Do you know who who the employer was whose employees gave the most money to Hillary Clinton in twenty sixteen.
I'm gonna guess it was either at the time Twitter or it was Facebook.
Nope, neither one.
Google. Wow.
Google was the number one supporter of Hillary Clinton in twenty sixteen. If you look at do you know who the number one individual donors to Democrat causes was in twenty twenty, the Biden election year?
Who was it?
Mark Zuckerberg? The person I was questioning? And to give you a sort of order of magnitude, So in the twenty twenty cycle, the top Republican donor in the country was Sheldon Aatilson. Sheldon Natilson owned casinos. I know Sheldon very well. He was a good friend. Sadly Sheldon passed away, but Sheldon gave in twenty twenty, roughly one hundred million dollars supporting Republicans, biggest in the country. He gave a
hundred million. How much do you think Mark Zuckerberg gave same election cycle.
I'm going to guess a lot more than that, based on the way that you teed that up.
Four hundred million dollars. Grief, four hundred million dollars, and understand what Zuckerberg did. He did something that were called Zuckbucks. He paid four hundred million dollars to literally take over the election machinery, the apparatus in big blue cities in purple states. It was designed to dramatically increase Democrat turnout
to give the victory to Joe Biden. And there is a very real case to be made that Joe Biden is president today because of Mark Zuckerberg, that without Zuckerberg's four hundred billion dollars, Donald Trump would be in the White House.
And yet was he also buying the guarantee of no oversight or fake oversight so you could maximize profits doing some of the things that you exposed today.
Look, I think that is an obvious inference, and it's very reasonable to ask, why will Chuck Schumer not bring any of these bills to the Senate floor. And I think the answer is, if you've got the major funders of the Democrat Party there, they don't want to provide oversight.
You've got Democrats who will posture in hearings. So we had lots of Democrats make lots of noise get asking what seemed to be tough questions, although actually, oddly enough, this was a strange hearing and that many of the senators, most of the Democrats, didn't ask questions, Like we all had seven minutes in our rounds. Most of the Democrats just gave a seven minute speech, and they gave a seven minute speech about how kids are really nice, and I like kids, you know, puppy dogs are cool too,
and rainbows are okay. But they didn't actually ask very many questions of the witnesses, which is just weird.
So this is almost an essence of dog and pony show for the left. Hey, we're gonna bring you in. We're gonna maybe let them rough you up a little bit, but don't worry, there'll be no legislation that's going to really changing things.
So your good.
Well, look, we'll see, as I said, Judiciaries passed five bills. Commerce has passed several bills. All of them are hitting a roadblock with Charles Schumer and Schumer I think feels no pressure to do anything.
It's a new year, twenty twenty four and a lot of you are trying to get your finances in order. There are some great news for homeowners. Interest rates have dropped are now in the fives, a lot lower than they were last year. If you have been buried in high interest credit card debt and now's the time to break free, American Financing can help you access the cash in your home to pay off your high interest debt.
Last year, their salary based mortgage consultants help customers save an average of eight hundred and fifty four dollars a month. That's like giving yourself a ten thousand dollars raise. What a way to start the new year. And if you start today, you may be able to delay two mortgage payments. Call American Financing Today eight at eight six seven five forty ninety. That's eight eight eight six seven five forty ninety. Americanfinancing dot net in MLS eighteen twenty three thirty four
in the MLS Consumer Access dot org. APR for rates in the five start at six point four zero six percent. For well qualified borrowers call eight at eight six seven five forty ninety for details about credit costs and terms. I want to move also to another important issue, and this is one that's starting to pick up some steam here. It deals with liquid natural gas and these ports that
have basically been stopped out of nowhere. And the alibi for the Biden White House is we met shocking enough with a twenty five year old TikToker that really explained to us the environmental problem. So we're going to study the environmental problems with liquifiedinancial gas and it may take over a year, it will certainly be after the election. If we were to turn these back on, it's going to have a massive impact on Texas. But the timing
of it center is the part that's so suspect. It was right after Texas and the Supreme Court ruling came down that said that, hey, the federal government can get through your razor wire. The ruling also, as we talked about extensively on the show, it didn't say you had to stop putting down razor wire, and it didn't say to Texas.
You have to pick it up.
And it was almost like the White House said okay, well, if you're going to mess with us, And then twenty five other governors got involved and said, hey, we're going to send troopers at state troopers and our guardsmen, national guardsmen to help in Texas. What did a shout across about Texas with US out of nowhere plan of theirs that was like, hey, we're basically going to put sanctions on you guys, because you need to get in line.
In any other state that talping you, you could be next.
Yes, yes, and yes. So what happened was last week the Biden administration announced that it was halting new permits for the export of liquid natural gas and for export terminal projects to export liquid natural gas. Now what does that mean? It means three things. Number One, what Joe Biden did is effectively sanctioned the state of Texas. This is declaring war on Texas. And I think you're exactly right.
He did it because he's pissed off that Texas is standing up to the Biden administration on the border, is fighting to secure the border. And he said, all right, if you're going to stand up and fight us. We're going to attack you and try to destroy jobs in the state of Texas. This was very deliberate, a sanction on the great state of Texas. Number two, this is a fine on American families. Joe Biden said, hardworking families. I don't care about Americans. I'm going to punish you
by driving up energy costs. And number three, this announcement is a subsidy for Vladimir Putin. Understand this announcement is Joe Biden saying, I am going to give billions of dollars to Putin and Russia. Why because look, our allies, Europe, Asia, they need natural gas. Natural gas it's produced in a gases form and then it's liquefied to be transported, typically on ships. Natural gas is incredibly important for heating for power for all of the world, and Europe imports a
ton of natural gas. Asia imports a ton of natural gas. The largest producer of natural gas in the world is the United States of America. Now Russia is a massive producer of natural gas as well. When Joe Biden says we're going to halt new export terminals for natural gas, he is handing a gift to Vladimir Pudin, because the Europeans are not going to suddenly not heat their homes. They're not gonna say, okay, we're gonna freeze to death because Joe Biden's mad. No, They're going to get the
gas somewhere. And if they don't get it from the US, they're much much more likely to get it from Russia. So this is a gift to Russia. And here's the final amazing thing. You know what this decision also does. What is that hurts the environment?
You explain it, because this is the amo that everybody listening needs.
It is critically important. And I'll say twofold number one. US natural gas is produced much much more cleanly than natural gas virtually anywhere else on Earth, much much more cleanly than Russian natural gas. So if you want less pollution in the air, if you want less carbon in the air, you want to consume US natural gas because we have significant environmental protections on how we produce it here there they don't. So what Joe Biden is saying is, hey,
let's rely more on the Russians. Let's have them produce more gas, Let's have them pollute the environment even more. And by the way, if you notice the atmosphere, it doesn't stop a country's border, like the atmosphere goes all around the planet. So do you know who the biggest polluter on the face of the planet is. I'm going to go with either China or Russia. That's my best gas. When it comes to this, China, by a huge order of magnitude, China is massively the biggest polluter on the
face of the planet. China is also building more coal plants right now than the United States has in the entirety of our country. They're building new coal plants that exceed the total coal plants in America. Now, why does that matter? If you care about the environment, if you care about pollution, if you care about carbon which country, year after year after year has led the world in reduction of carbon emissions?
America? Why? Because?
Well, I think when we have tons of regulation, do we actually care about the environment?
Both true, but that's not Neither of those are Why what is it?
Then?
The biggest reason is the wide scale substitution of natural gas for coal and electricity production. So you want to talk about what really pollutes the hell out of the environment, it's burning coal in power plants to turn on electricity. You know, it's interesting. A lot of liberals they think, you know, they think, oh, I've got an electric car. I've got a fancy electric car. Isn't that great? And it never occurs to them. Where does that electricity come from? Well, like, well,
it comes from the wall. I plug it in and it just magically spews from the wall.
Yeah.
Well, well no, that electricity has to be generated, has to be generated in a power plant. Now how is it generated? For years, the predominant method of generating electricity was burning coal. The United States has a ton of coal. We're essentially the Saudi Arabia of coal. The problem is, when you burn coal, it pollutes a lot and it
emits a ton of carbon. Now, what we have seen in the last decade, because of the shale revolution, so the shale revolution shale and it's also the fracking revolution, we have unlocked massive reserves of natural gas. And what that has done in the United States is we have seen tons of coal electricity plants shutting down and being
replaced with natural gas electricity plants. Why does that matter because a natural gas electricity plant emits much, much, much less pollution than a coal plant, and it emits much much, much less carbon than a coal plant, and that is why America leads the world in carbon reductions. At the same time we're doing this, China is building coal plants
like crazy. And so when Joe Biden steps in and says we want to stop America from selling natural gas to the world, he is a saying, by your natural gas from Russia, from Iran, from Venezuela, from enemies of America run by dictators who are very dangerous. Number one. But number two, he's also saying, producer electricity from coal,
which pollutes the environment much much more. Understand if all you cared about was the environment, Joe Biden's announcement this past week was horrible for the environment, and he did it. I think you're exactly right. As a petulant attack on Texas. He's mad that Texas is fighting to secure the border, and he said, all right, I'm going to destroy jobs in the great state of time.
Last question on this, and I think it's interesting to see that this could backfire in a big way. The Washington Post, the liberal, hardcore socialist Washington Post, put out an opinion piece by the editorial board saying Biden's it's their headline, Biden's liquid natural gas decision is a win for political symbolism, not the climate. They're even calling him out for. This was petty and obviously a decision made to hurt Texas and they can cost seventy thousand Americans
or jobs and doing it for these other reasons. And by the way, saying it's not about the climate.
No, that's exactly right. Here's what the Washington Post editorial board said. Quote on Friday. However, that same Biden administration ordered a de facto halt so the approval of new facilities for exporting the resources to countries with which the United States does not have free trade agreements, a category that includes all of Europe. So, by the way, this is also a sanction on Europe. It's an election year sop to climate activists that will do much more to
unsettle vital US alliances than to save the planet. That's a quote from the Washington Post. That's how far out of the bounds of reasonableness when your two left wing for the Washington Post. Well, that's got to be the Biden administration, no doubt about it.
Don't forget we do this show Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and on Saturdays we do a week in review for you as well for what you may have missed during the week. Make sure you hit that subscribe or follow button if you especially if you're listening on Apple. They've changed their algorithms and many people have said, Hey, I'm not following the show anymore. You're gonna have to check and make sure you're following on a regular basis from now on.
That's what we've been told anyway, if it changes, will let you know. Don't forget, write that five sir review and the center and I will see you back here for the big week in review on Saturday morning as well.