Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 367 | China’s Real Threat & Dems’ Fake Impeachment | Guest: Melissa Chen

Episode Date: February 11, 2021

Today we're speaking with Melissa Chen, a writer for the Spectator and an expert on China. Melissa describes how the Biden administration's approach to China (or lack thereof) compares to what the Trump administration has done. Basically all that has happened so far is that Biden has reversed many of Trump's executive actions and orders regarding China, and his administration banned the term "China virus," so that's just great. Seems like the current president is more concerned with moral posturing around race rather than the geopolitical threat presented by the CCP. Then, we give a quick rundown of what's going on with Trump's impeachment. The Senate voted to move forward with the trial, but conviction is very unlikely. As we've said before, Trump is often clumsy with his words, but he definitely did not incite violence on January 6. -- Today's Sponsors: Patriot Mobile: Get free PREMIERE activation where they set up the phone for you, and get a special gift, with the offer code 'ALLIE'. Go to PatrioMobile.com/ALLIE! Raycon: A pair of Raycons in your ears can make all the difference. Right now they're offering 15% off all their products for 'Relatable' listeners -> go to BuyRaycon.com/ALLIE! -- Today's Sources: Impeachment trial Day One: Democrats defeat move to end trial https://washex.am/3p8vrrx Texas lawyer, trapped by cat filter on Zoom call, informs judge he is not a cat https://bit.ly/3rBeGqo -- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Wednesday. Hope everyone has had a great first half of your week. Today, I have an awesome interview ahead with Melissa Chin of Spectator USA. She is an expert on China. She grew up in Singapore, so she is very familiar with this authoritarian regime, having grown up in proximity to it, and even under some authoritarian laws herself. So she just has an amazing perspective on not just the threat of China, but specifically how she sees Biden being soft on China. And what we can do about it, why should we should be hopeful, why we should be concerned. So I'm excited for you to listen to that conversation. And then I'm going to tell you what is going on with this impeachment trial.

I'm going to be honest, guys. Didn't really know that was going on yesterday. I just slipped my mind. I am not on Twitter as much. Maybe that's why. but also this just seems so pointless, but I'll get all into that in just a little bit. So first, let me talk to Melissa Chin without further ado. Here she is.

Melissa, thank you so much for joining me. I want to talk to you about the Biden administration and their take on China. You write about this a lot for the spectator. And I just want to kind of get first your general take. What do you think the Biden administration? approach is going to be to the threat of China? You know, I think, so firstly to kind of frame this, I think the Trump administration ushered in a very new bipartisan attitude towards China, which sees it not as a potential

collaborator, a partner any longer, but more as a strategic threat or rival. And this position did push Biden quite, you know, sharply to the right. at least compared to where Biden was as vice president. And so you've seen even during the campaign trail, Biden was actually very hawkish on China. He called Xi Jinping a thug. He actually, I think in August, said that, yes, what's going on in Xinjiang is a genocide.

So he has adopted a very hawkish stance on China, and that was very apparent since he started campaigning for the 2020 elections. And in terms of, you know, it's still early days in the Biden administration and, you know, looking back in the first three weeks. People are hopeful that, that has, you know, he's going to follow through on his rhetoric. But I'm a bit more skeptical because he's presenting that he's very tough on China. And in part, it's not just that it's become bipartisan consensus, but also because that's where American public opinion is. So in a way, you know, it's, he has to kind of meet the American public.

like where they are. But in terms of actions, there have been some very questionable actions, and in some cases, non-actions by Biden in the first three weeks. So I could, you know, pars it out in terms of where he was more hawkish, where he was more like appeasing. But a very good example of this sort of, okay, let's talk about where he actually has been hawkish. So recently, you know, they beefed up military presence in the South China Sea. But this was about two weeks after China sent about two dozen jets into Taiwanese airspace to provoke the Taiwanese. But that's all that has happened. There hasn't been any verbal condemnation.

He hasn't even met with Xi Jinping since he took office or even spoken to him. And, you know, that's probably one of the, probably the only good sign for the, the Biden administration so far, it's just beefed up military presence there. But other than that, if you look at his actions in terms of executive order sign, it looks very much more like a peaceman. So one of the EOs that he resigned it was pertaining to the Keystone Pipeline. Embedded in one of the clauses was a clause that blocked China from supplying electrical equipment to the U.S. power grid. And so he basically blocked this clause. So now, you know, the possibility of China being involved in the U.S. power grid is open.

Okay. So just to clarify, so I understand he rescinded an executive order by Donald Trump on the Keystone pipeline. And by rescinding that, he also rescinded a clause which prevented China from having any control over our power grid. So now China does have the potential to have control over our power grid. Thanks to Joe Biden. China and Russia, perfect. So that's what happened when Joe Biden decided to rescind to this. It wasn't just the Keystone pipeline.

It also has to do with our power grid. Exactly, which is a huge national security threat, I think. That's just one of the things that he has done in the last two weeks. The other one was that he rejoined the WHO and the UN Human Rights Council. And, you know, for me personally, that that's like tacitly accepting Chinese corruption in these institutions, especially because he also rejoined the WHO before the investigation. There is some WHO investigation going on right now into the origins of the coronavirus epidemic. And they have a team for the first time on the ground in China, of course, overseen by the Chinese government, probably 24 hours a day. And so, you know, he, we're back now with the WHO and almost like what has come out of this awareness now that the world has come to about Chinese influence in the WHO and how, you know, they have essentially co-opted some of these global institutions to parrot their narrative to, you know, to kind of close one eye about Chinese actions and how they were culpable in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in,

spreading COVID. Yeah. A lot of people don't know that Dr. Tedros, who is the head of the WHO, actually has a very, he's also a communist himself. He comes from the Communist Party. He has a very long history, not just of personal corruption when he was the health director of his country and covering up a cholera outbreak in Ethiopia, but also being in bed with China.

He has had a long relationship, not just with the Chinese Communist Party, but with other communist leaders like Robert Mugabe, who he tapped as his goodwill ambassador before there was a ton of backlash about that because of how, unfortunately, tyrannical Robert Mugabe was in his leadership of Zimbabwe. And so the head of the WHO is very corrupt himself. He's a corrupt communist who is then in bed with other corrupt communists in the Chinese Communist Party. And so for us to, for Trump to get out of the WHO, I thought was a really good move. And for Biden to get in, like you said, it just seems like a tacit approval of the Chinese influence and Chinese corruption in the WHO. And I think a lot of people just don't, they don't know that World Health Organization.

The name sounds really good. I don't know. I guess it's just a lot of ignorance. But surely the Biden administration isn't ignorant of all of that. Right, right. And then the other thing that the Biden administration has done is to roll back this transparency rule on this Confucius Institutes, which are. Yeah, which are almost like outposts. See the Confucius institutes as outposts of the Chinese Communist Party's information exchange kind of operations.

So they're basically like they're billed as language learning programs that are usually affiliated with either a K to 12 school or a college. If you enroll, you'll get to learn Mandarin, you'll get to learn about Chinese culture. And it's, that's what it's built as. And a lot of people have taken lessons there to learn the language. But one of the more subversive kind of purposes of this kind of organization is to spread communist propaganda and also affect or use or pressure universities to, for example, not discuss Taiwan, not discuss Tibet. And so they're using that as leverage to control what can be discussed in universities. And professors, there have been faculty groups, national faculty groups that have sounded the alarm on this problem, saying that, you know, university is supposed to stand for freedom

of speech, but, you know, the Confucius Institute at my institution is actually controlling speech and determining or are you trying to mold what I can and cannot say in class. And so, you know, the Trump administration actually required these schools to actually start reporting and be more transparent and to disclose details in the contracts who is funding these institutes and, you know, little details like that. And the Biden administration just yesterday kind of quietly rescinded this executive order. Is it just an anti-Trump stance? Is he just trying to rescind all the measures that were put forward while. Trump was president or is there some kind of like ideological agreement between the Biden administration and the values of the CCP? Now I think so I think it's two things. The first one you mentioned,

I think is, you know, pretty spot on. He did come in saying that he wanted to reverse. I mean, a lot of, you know, Trump's executive orders. And in part, that's what he campaigned on, right? I'm not Trump. The second thing is I suspect also that there's this notion that anything that promotes cultural exchange is good, anything that suppresses it is racist and bad. And I think I think that's where that comes from. There is a push to kind of recognize such, you know, that Trump sort of being conservative on immigration, for example, for taking down spaces where different cultures can. actually integrate and exchange ideas is racist, basically. And this goes also along with Tom Cotton's suggestion that we should be scrutinizing the visas that we give to Chinese students, especially at the post-grat level, when it comes

to like STEM fields, so like say nuclear physics, a PhD nuclear physics, maybe we should be a bit more scrutinized the incoming students that are Chinese that have Chinese passports. And of course, such a thing when Trump, when Cotton suggested it, I think last year, really erupted, the press erupted with like accusations of racism. So you can see that, you know, this is the kind of approach they're taking, I think, even with the Confucius Institutes, because that's the kind of place where people get to meet and learn about a different culture. And so anything that that's trying to, you know, take that away is just a racist force in society. That's That's my guess.

You can really see how, and you hear how the Chinese Communist Party has kind of like used the charge of racism against the United States, which is so popular, especially right now to say that America is just terribly systemically racist, that racism is our biggest problem. The Chinese Communist Party loves that. And they use that to their benefit to, one, make people here kind of look away from their sins. They can, for example, get the support of the NBA and, you know, kind of turn the NBA's social justice passion towards the racist problems in America. And I think the same goes for academia. The same goes for some Democrats and some progressives. If they can kind of turn their attention towards how racist America is, they can kind

of be shielded. They can be shielded by that kind of social justice cause in a way to say that any criticism of China is actually. just, you know, America's very racist roots manifesting themselves. Actually, I don't know if you notice a similarity between, you know, the criticism of Islamophobia because criticizing, say, the theocracy of Iran and say they're very poor record of human rights, for example, can be considered Islamophobic, which is racist, right, by proxy. It's become a synonym for racism. And by doing that, you are shielding Iranian theocracy from criticism, which is exactly

the same race card that the Chinese Communist Party wants to play because it shields them from any sort of criticism. And they know what they're doing. Right. So, right. The other thing, sorry, no, go ahead. Well, the other thing that the Biden administration has, has done is, in the first week, actually was to issue a memorandum, effectively banning the phrases China virus or Wuhan flu in the federal government. That seemed to be his priority, which is strange, right? Because it happened in the week that Taiwan was basically menacing Chinese airspace jets. And, you know, again, this for me was a very classic case of moral posturing. because, you know, in the first place, this naming convention of tying a virus to its geographical

location where it was either detected or where it came from has been pretty much consensus, scientific consensus for the last hundred years. So nobody was up in arms about the Zyka virus or the Middle East respiratory syndrome or even Lyme disease, which is a place in Connecticut. it. This has been just how epidemiology and virology, like this has been a common practice, but all of a sudden when it came to Chinese virus, there was this huge uproar about this kind of being a xenophobic statement that is causing violence against Asians in America. And, you know, I think one of, again, this is very much in line with what the Chinese Communist Party wants to portray, they want to delink China from the virus.

I mean, you know, just their actions in terms of trying to steer the theory of how, of how this virus originated very much in line. Like they've actually, state media has actually paired at the claim that that COVID was actually created by the CIA or released by the U.S. military. So, you know, so this only helps the Chinese government. Now, whether or not the rhetoric actually direct. causes any violence or harassment. That's up in the air.

As far as I can see, you know, I don't think there's been any proof that of correlation, of causation. You do see correlation, right? It seems that in the last year that hate crimes against Asian Americans who are on the rise. That said, crime in general has been on the rise in 2020. I mean, I think murder rates and, you know, robberies have all gone up in almost every major city. So how much of that is ambient racism and how much of that is directly caused because of COVID is very difficult to establish. But of course, there are going to be people who are,

you know, just regular run-of-the-mill apples who are going to take it out and attack Asians for this. But it's just never been proven to me that rhetoric is directly causing this because everybody knows where this is from. Everybody does. like, you know, just because you shifted words and called it something else doesn't really change the knowledge that this came from China. So I don't know what, you know, I mean, and also like how effective is this memorandum, given that Trump is no longer in office, he's also been removed from every social media platform. So I don't understand why this was a priority for the, for the Biden administration. And by the way, if this was racist, if China virus is racist, we

really have to revamp everything. Like, we shouldn't be calling it the UK variant or the South African variant because apparently linking a geographic location to a virus is racist. So we just, we're just going to have to change everything if we're going to be consistent. Yeah. But it's, you know, it's, it's, it's that worldview of intersectionality and critical race theory that the only people that are allowed to have any kind of negative connotation associated with them, according to many progressives is the Western world, white people, and any kind of criticism of non-white, non-Western people is automatically seen as racist and wrong. And never mind the fact that the CCP is the most racist regime and actually was ousting African people during, you know,

the height of COVID trying to say that they were actually the vectors for the virus, kicking them out of the apartments, kicking them out of restaurants, of course, colonizing, South, America and colonizing Africa. But this, it's a very limiting world view, this kind of racialized worldview, white bad, non-white good. It kind of causes you to not see evil and right and wrong correctly. And it only empowers tyrants. You know, everyone from Xi Jinping to Ordogan to, you know, other world leaders that basically have almost carte blanche to to be a tyrant and not. not be criticized simply because the amount of melanin and their skin color is a shield. This is why, you know, this ideology is so dangerous because it prohibits us from viewing this

issue with moral clarity. Absolutely right. And moral clarity is what we need, but we also need it from the Biden administration. And I hope, I mean, I can't say that I'm optimistic, but I hope and I pray that their actions on China actually show that kind of hawkishness and, um, you know, um, that kind of toughness. And I will be glad and ready to praise any tough moves against China, even by the administration that, you know, I didn't vote for and whose policies I don't really support. Yeah, I hope the Biden administration is successful. I would say two things to look out for in terms of the difference also is that Biden definitely has, you know, paid a lot of lip service to multilateralism.

He's going to work with a lot of allies. He wants to plug us back into the international. rules-based order and work with, you know, global institutions. And the other thing is actually Biden, you know, is probably going to rely a lot more on diplomacy to try to engage. I'm very skeptical because returning to that era of foreign policy seemed to have is what brought us to this point anyway. But I really, really hope that he's successful in challenging China because this is really existential for the United States and actually really for freedom around the world. Yep, absolutely, absolutely. Well, thank you for the work that you do and bringing awareness to these issues. Can you tell everyone where- Thank you for talking about it. Of course. Of course. Can you tell everyone where they can find you how they can support you?

You can read my articles at just find my page, Melissa Chen, on Spectator USA. It's a website, spectator.us. Or you can just find me on Twitter, which is at, at sign, Ms. M-S-M-S-M-S-M-E-L-C-H-E-N. Wonderful. Thank you so much, Melissa. Ellie, thank you so much for having me on. Okay, so President Trump getting impeached once again. Exciting. The media just couldn't, they just, they missed. They missed Trump so much. Their ratings certainly missed Trump so much that they were like, how can we get the ratings back up? How can we talk about our favorite subject, our favorite person we'd love to hate? we can impeach it. And so that's exactly what's happening right now. It is just a show.

I feel like it is very unconsequential. It's very unsubstantial. The Senate has voted 56 to 44 that the impeachment trial is constitutional and that it should proceed. Obviously, there's a lot of disagreement on that. The six Republicans that voted with Democrats were Cassidy, Collins, Murkowski, Sass, Romney, and To Me, not too surprising there. For Trump to actually be convicted, there would have to be 67 plus votes in his favor, which is unlikely. The Washington Examiner is summarizing the impeachment trial like this. The vote to proceed with the trial means it will continue for at least a week.

So that's what the vote that said that the trial is constitutional, dead. The trial is going to continue to go on. Democratic impeachment managers will present evidence that Trump provoked the January 6th attack on the Capitol. You guys know we've talked about this many times. I have been very clear about my stance on the Capitol and how it was wrong and how it was bad and how I believed that Trump could have been more responsible in his rhetoric and that everything that he has pushed or everything that he did push in the months after the election in some cases just wasn't helpful. at the same time, that can be a very slippery slope of saying someone incited violence, incited an insurrection, without them actually explicitly saying the words and actually physically encouraging people to use violence and to storm the capital. It is a very slippery slope trying to accuse that person of inciting violence. Like, you can see the consequences of that, right?

Of basically saying all kinds of rhetoric or talking about election fraud in general, that that is all an incitement of violence and incitement of terrorism. Please, if you are on the left, just put the shoes on your feet and think about what it would be like. If you had an unpopular opinion or you were stating what everyone thought was a conspiracy theory, but what you believe is true, like, for example, the Russian collusion conspiracy theory. Think about if you were held liable for any violence or any, quote, insurrection that was supposedly motivated because of something you believed.

And I mean, we can look at that. We can look at a lot of the rhetoric of Democratic lawmakers and Democrats in the media who carry false narratives about racialized police brutality, in particular in some cases that they jumped the gun and they say that a person was unarmed, for example, when he wasn't unarmed, that then incite the kind of chaos and violence that we've seen in cities across the country. How would you like it if you, say, reposted some kind of false narrative surrounding a police shooting, or you have pushed these false narratives that are propagated by groups like BLM, and you were held liable for any violence that was.

seen as a consequence of that speech. Like that would be a problem, right? You see that? How we really need to take a step back and think about the repercussions of saying someone incited violence if they did not explicitly incite violence. Like we have to have a very firm definition of what that actually means. You can say what you, what President Trump said was wrong. You can say that you didn't like what he said or you don't like President Trump

or you don't like certain speech or you hated what happened at the Capitol. I hated what happened at the Capitol, too. I'm right there with you. But we have to be objective when we lay down these standards of what speech is actually condemnable, like through a conviction like this of a president. And what is not? What should just be chastised? There's a big difference.

And there should be a big difference. Chief Justice Roberts presided over Trump's 2020 impeachment trial. but this time Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont is presiding. He will also serve as a juror too, and he's already said he believes the president is guilty of inciting an insurrection. House impeachment managers showed a gripping video carefully edited to show Trump provoked the violent attack on the Capitol. Trump's defense team showed a video montage of House Democrats repeatedly calling for Trump's

impeachment beginning soon after he took office in 2017, which of course, I mean, that's a good point. They have been calling for his impeachment for a very long time. The whole Ukrainian quid pro quo story also wasn't impeachable, but they have been wanting to impeach him and they have been calling him an illegitimate president since 2016. And it's just interesting that today the Democrats are saying how dangerous and how violence inciting it is to question the credibility of the 2020 election. And I say that is someone who doesn't think that there was enough fraud to have changed. the results of the election in favor of Donald Trump. But the people who are saying that it is so wrong, that it's so violence-inducing and inciting

to question the credibility of the 2020 election also didn't accept the result of the 2016 election for months. They called him a Russian agent. And we spent millions of taxpayer dollars on an investigation into what ended up being and what we knew all along was a conspiracy theory, that the Trump campaign only won because he was a Russian agent and he was working with Russia in order to rig the election to win. I mean, that was a conspiracy theory that, again, we spent hundreds of thousands, millions of taxpayer dollars on investigating for years in order to try to get Trump out of office. That was led by the Democrats.

And so for them to say, oh, it is just so dangerous. It is just so wrong. It is just so ignorant and imbecilic of all of you to question. at all the results of the election after they questioned the results of the election for years and spend our money investigating into their pet conspiracy theory. Are you kidding? Like, I just, I'm sorry. I just can't take their integrity seriously. I just can't. I think there's every reason for people to kind of roll their eyes at what's going on now. Like I said, you can condemn Trump in a thousand different ways. You can criticize him in a thousand different ways. I think that's fine. But you do have

to ask yourself what kind of precedent this sets. Like, are we just going to keep on exchanging power and using the power and the capital that we have to ruin political opponents based on very little, very little reasoning, very little grounding? That just doesn't seem very sustainable to me. That doesn't seem like a country that we really want to live in. It doesn't seem like that is creating any sort of progress. And so it's, It's a national embarrassment that we are, that we're even having this conversation about a retroactive impeachment that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It just, it doesn't make to me any constitutional sense. It doesn't make to me any sort of legal sense.

And again, you can be as against Trump as you want to. I'm totally fine with that. I'm fine with criticism of Trump. But to say that this is justified, but it doesn't, the standards don't apply to your side when you could be saying that plenty of Democrats rhetoric did in some ways encourage violence or perpetuate false narratives and conspiracy theories that have encouraged the violence that we've seen completely ruined cities over the past few months. I don't know.

It's just, it's hard for me. It's hard for me to see that. It's hard for me to see the consistency and the logic. and the logic there. Like I said, I think that this is just a way for Democrats to bring back their punching bag to try to distract people from the far left progressivism that the Biden administration has been pushing. It's a way for media to get their ratings back up. I mean, the Democratic Party and the media, yes, they hate Trump, but they love Trump because Trump gives them a way to be virtuous without having to be virtuous.

I was talking about the other day on Twitter about how hating Trump became a personality trait for a lot of people. It became like their most interesting fact that they would tell when they were introduced to a group. And it also became kind of an arrow in their quiver, like a virtue arrow in their quiver. And that they would kind of use their hatred of Trump as a signal of their virtue. They could be a terrible person in every other way. But if they hated Trump enough, that means that you're really tolerant, that you're

really compassionate, that you're really a loving person. I mean, we've seen that over and over again. People get all the points in the world for hating Donald Trump, even if the rest of their life is in shambles and they're actually a very selfish, grotesque person. We saw that, we've seen that a lot. Unfortunately, with some of the leaders of the Lincoln Project, they are bowed down to by a ton of people on the left. Not everyone.

There are a lot of true progressives that still don't like the Lincoln Project and see them as the grifters that they are. But there are a lot of people who bowed down to the Lincoln Project for being so virtuous and for being so great and for being true Republicans because they hated Donald Trump

and they hated all the Republicans that the left hates. Well, as it turns out, one of the co-founders of the Lincoln Project has been trying to, has been harassing sexually. harassing young men for years and has offered professional favors. This is according to the New York Times

in exchange for sex. And so just realize that hating Donald Trump is not a signal of virtue. Like it doesn't make you more moral than other people. You can still be a really terrible person and hate Donald Trump. You can be a really terrible person and love Donald Trump as well. but I think for whatever reason, the standards of morality and virtue in this country have become so politicized that people unfortunately see it as this virtue and this signal of tolerance and love if you hate Donald Trump. Not so, not so. And I think that's probably part of what this whole impeachment thing is about to show just how virtuous and peaceful and wonderful Democrats in the media are and how bad Trump and his supporters are to let all of this link. and to remind people of what they got rid of when, in the words of Bruce Springsteen, we exercised the White House of its demonic force that is Donald Trump. So that's what's going on. Some of you

might disagree with me. Some of you might be all in favor of impeachment. But remember, impeachment is not reserved for just presidents that you don't like or who said something that you don't like. There needs to be a very exact and I think a very narrow standard of what actually incites violence and incites a quote insurrection. That's all my argument is not to justify anything at all, not to excuse or to condone or to encourage anything that was said, but just to say what actually is impeachable and convictable when it comes to speech, I think that the bar needs to be very, very, very, very high in a country with the First Amendment. All right. That's all I have to say about that. I've got one more thing for you guys. I don't know if you guys saw the cat lawyer.

that appeared in a viral video on Twitter. So this is according to The Guardian. The coronavirus has been responsible for a series of video calls stumbles and mishaps, and the phenomenon seemingly reaches Zenith this week with the Texas lawyer appearing before a judge is a cat after being unable to change a video filter. If you guys are not watching on YouTube, you are missing out. the YouTube version of this if you're listening comes out later in the evening. And so you have to watch this if you haven't already.

I'll go ahead and play it. Chapant, and I believe you have a filter turned on in the video settings. You might want to take a little. Can you hear me, Judge? I can hear you. I think it's a filter. It is.

And I don't know how to remove it. I've got my assistant here. She's trying to. but I'm prepared to go forward with it. I'm here live. I'm not a cat. I can see that. Oh, my goodness.

Oh, my gosh. I think the panicked look of the kitten is really what made it, because I'm sure that this lawyer felt exactly the way that the kitten looked. And so apparently there was like some filter that was on his Zoom camera, or on his Zoom that he didn't realize was on there. I don't know if it's because a child had been on there, but he didn't know it was on there. So he gets on the Zoom call,

and his face is like a kitten's face. Like you can't see him at all if you're just listening to this. But his voice is coming through. I felt bad for the guy. He didn't know how to change it. And the other people on the call were trying to be respectful and serious. But, oh, my goodness, that was hilarious. And I think a comedic break that all of us needed.

All right. That's all I got for today. We will be back here tomorrow. We are going to have that Bible-focused episode that a lot of you have been asking about. It's going to be a Valentine's themed episode, but you guys are really going to like it. So I will see you back here then.