The Eric Metaxas Show - Allum Bokhari and Salih Hudayar

Episode Date: August 4, 2020

Hi, welcome to the Eric Mataxis show. I just found out I'm supposed to be someplace else right now. So my sincere apologies, but I simply won't be able to introduce today's host, Mr. Eric Mataxis. Folks, welcome to the Eric Mataxis show. Recently, I was watching, I believe, Tucker Carlson, and it takes a lot to stagger me, to shock me. But he had a guest on Tucker did, named Alan Bakari, who was talking about Google's interference in media, things that I guess on some level we take for granted. But Alan Bacari was talking in some detail about it. And it was so shocking, I thought we ought to try to get him

on the show. And guess what? We succeeded. Here he is. Alan Baccari, welcome. Just to correct there was Alex Marlow, my editor was on Tucker. It was your editor. Yes. Okay. It's the same story, though. I guess not because you never had. on. Same story, yeah. I really, when I heard what he was saying, I mean, you're both at Breitbart, which is why I'm confused, but I couldn't believe effectively you have proof. This is the issue.

In other words, the game changer for me is that we can all speculate and we can all feel it, but he detailed proof. And when I have the possibility of actually getting to talk to you about it, I'm not And I thought, we've got to talk about it because this to me is, this is headline news. This is extremely significant for freedom around the world. So my audience, who probably didn't get to see that segment, tell us what I heard. Tell us what you now know. So what we discovered and what I published at Breitbart was that Google has essentially been almost openly

interfering in the search results of conservative publishers, what we found by looking at an SEO analysis was since the inauguration of Donald Trump, so over the past four years, bright button uses visibility on Google search. That's how likely you are to see Brightbart news links in an average Google search. It's gone down, and I'm not making this up by 99.7%. that's not an exaggeration, that's an actual figure from third-party SEO analysis. And not just that, in their most recent update, traffic to Breitbart from searches for Biden and Joe Biden has gone to zero. Previously, it's 30,000 impressions on average, just completely flatlined. So to me, this is like clear political manipulation, clear interference against conservative publishers in an election year.

I mean, like something out of a movie. I'm getting an echo. I don't know. James, can we fix that? Yeah, I just heard that. Just start again. We'll keep it out.

When I hear this, Alan, it's like something out of a horrible movie. A new technology is invented. I mean, it's that level because it's so universal. It's so, I mean, when you think about the advent of the internet and the advent of the world

in which we now live. It's so utterly different from the world before. And the opportunity for manipulation, the opportunity to squelch freedom has never been greater. And you and your colleagues at Breitbart know that this is true. So the question is, what can be done? It seems to me that if the U.S. government doesn't take this seriously, what in the world would they take seriously. Yeah, I mean, you consider the monopolies they've gone after in the past. Look, you look back to the turn of the 19th century, Teddy Roosevelt and trust busting. The reason that happened was because it was a recognition that the oil barons and the railroad barons had accumulated so much wealth and power that they posed a threat in terms of the

vast influence that they wield it over both, you know, the economy, society, and politics. but these tech giants go far beyond that. Not only they have a similar level of market dominance and a similar level of wealth, but they also have an unprecedented control over the flow of information. Google has over 90% of all searches last year went through Google. And that's not just in America, but around the world.

That's an extraordinary amount of power to have over what people see on the internet. You've got to keep in mind that most people do, not go beyond the first 10 results on Google search. So if you're not on the first page, you're effectively buried. People won't find you. The question is then what, what, how ought Google to be categorized? In other words, it seems to me it's, it's no different than if someone purchased the rivers and purchased the reservoirs and controlled our water supply. I think the government would step in and say, no, this is a national issue of safety. And you cannot have

private people controlling the water supply. It would change instantly. It would have to change instantly. This is really not very different than that, is it? Not at all. And, you know, there have been lawsuits in the past where private actors have been forced to allow First Amendment protected speech. There were lawsuits in the 1980s against shopping malls that prohibited political activists from distributing flyers. You compare a shopping mall to Google. You know, Google is a much more influential and important place to distribute information, and yet there's absolutely no oversight whatsoever. And in fact, psychologists, especially Dr. Robert Epstein, the former editor of psychology today, who's been spending the past four or five years looking at the

effects of search engines on political decisions. estimates that a biased Google search, a biased search engine, can shift undecided voters, their opinions of a candidate and their voting decisions by double-digit margins, which is more than enough to swing an election given how slim the majorities usually are. So the death of freedom and democracy, how do you suppose it can be that the United States government, whether senators or congressmen, have not taken action against this. This seems to me, you know, a threat on par with missiles being directed at us from Cuba. It's not fathomable to me that someone hasn't done something about this or tried to.

It's an enormous threat, like it said, even eclipses the threat posed by the oil and railroad barons at the turn of the 19th century. and the US government thought that was a big enough threat to take action. There's an easy answer to your question. I mean, Google and all these other tech giants have just flooded Washington, D.C. with lobbying money. They fund Democrats and Republicans. They fund conservative think tanks and progressive think tanks. You know, if you see a paper coming out talking about the need to protect the legal privileges of big tech, and those papers come from the left and the right, by the way.

It's usually Google funding those sorts of studies. They pay to have academics, repeat their arguments. They spend extraordinary amounts of money and funding political events and politicians. I mean, isn't this like the tobacco lobby? I mean, that they basically said, yes, people are dying. We're making a ton of money. We will use the money, which has been given to us by the people who are smoking our cigarettes and dying. And we will buy influence.

And we will continue to be able to do this, despite the facts. This is far worse than that. What is the argument on the conservative side, you know, since your senior technology correspondent at Breitbart, it would seem to me you would know what the conservatives could possibly say to defend leaving Google alone, for example? Well, what these Google-funded conservative institutions,

and they really are all Google-funded, the institutions make these arguments, you know, I think things like American Enterprise Institute, the National Review Institute, competitive Enterprise Institute, the Israel Conservative think tanks, they've all taken Google money. And the Heritage Foundation as well, by the way,

they've done lots of good things, but they also had wanted this argument that you have to leave Google alone. Essentially, it's a combination of the whole free market argument. You can't have big government interfering with private businesses. And they also argue that any attempt to regulate these tech companies will be like the fairness doctrine

in the, before the 1980s, when the government forced media to be so, to be balanced. But it's a silly argument on several levels because these tech companies owe their position, their market-dominating position to the legal privileges that Congress gave them in the 19-10. Actually, Alan, forgive me for cutting you up.

We're going to go to a break, and we will finish this conversation in the second segment. Folks, please don't go away. Folks, welcome back. I'm talking to the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News, We're talking about Google's monopoly over information and how they're using that to sway people away from conservative thinking, for one thing.

And I guess, Alam, let me ask you, the bright part has been a particular target of Google. Is that not the case with people at National Review or at other conservative places? Is it a particular kind of conservatism that they're trying to shut down? In other words, if National Review is mainly anti-Trump or never Trump or halfway anti-Trump, they get a pass, but Breitbart doesn't because it's been mainly pro-Trump. Is that the dividing line? Well, the funny thing is a lot of the sort of, I'd say,

more establishment, conservative institutions and magazines have actually defended at Google, and we were saying before the break, they argue that regulating would be like the fairness doctrine or it would be like, it would just be interfering in the free market. Even though this isn't really a free market, these tech companies owe their position to the fact that they got legal privileges from Congress in the early 1990s. So it's not really a free market when these companies are enjoying a government handout. Now, what do you mean when you say that they got legal privileges? It sounds like they got special privileges handed to them under what auspices would they be given that.

In other words, why are they not considered publishers? What is the category that they have been allowed to reside in legally so that they can get away with this? Right. So Congress passed a law in the 1990s called Section 230 for Communications Decency Act. And essentially, it says you can't sue these platforms for defamation. If someone defames you on Twitter or Facebook, you can't sue Twitter or Facebook over that. And it also says you can't sue them for taking down content wrongfully. So it gives them a pass on censorship as well.

Now, there's an argument for the first immunity so long as they behave as neutral platforms, which they don't. And in my view, there's no argument at all for the second immunity. I've never understood why they have immunity from lawsuits related to wrongful account termination. That would be like exempting a landlord from wrongful eviction. losses. Most people would think there's a big problem there. I guess the question becomes what one considers to be appropriate speech, right? In other words, I can understand that everyone would have standards. I could say in my store, you know, you can't come in here unless you're wearing shoes and a

shirt. I can say that. And at some point, the government steps in and says, well, you can't say that. I get that. But what we're talking about here, when you're quoting statistics that Breitbart on Google has been pushed to the side to the tune of more than 99%. How can they defend that? I mean, what do you support? First of all, what do they say when you confront them with this? Well, they always say the same thing. They go out of plausible deniability.

They say, well, we just introduced these algorithm changes and some sites go up and some sites go down. And there's nothing deliberate going on here. That's a completely nonsensical argument to me because no, I've never seen any site. And we've talked to SEO experts as well, people who are experts in search engines and how they rank in Google. And they've never seen a site decline this far unless it's been taken over by hackers and filled with malware links. And obviously it doesn't apply to us. And furthermore, search traffic doesn't just suddenly go to zero overnight. It doesn't suddenly flatline.

That's not something that happens organ. Clearly, someone at Google flipped a switch. So their argument doesn't really hold water at all, although they'll continue to say it until someone holds them to account. But how can it be that no one in Congress or the Senate would hold them to account? That's what I don't get. Well, first of all, the Democrats see political bias in Silicon Valley is a great asset for them. In fact, they press for more of it. We've seen over the past few months, the Biden campaign has been pressing Facebook to

do even more censorship than it already does, asking them to censor Donald Trump adds for social. Certainly, I don't expect action from the Democrats. Of course not. But I'm saying that, you know, we have 50 Republican senators. Is there not, are there not five of them or three of them who understand the gravity of this situation who would be willing to do something about it? Some of them have been taking action. They've been speaking out on it. Ted Cruz has been speaking out of it for a very long time. Josh Foley, Marsha Blackburn, more recently, Kelly Loughler.

So there's certainly some movement in the Senate, the House as well. Matt Gates, Paul Goz, Representative Gosar, Representative Gohmach, they will be very good on the issue. There's a number of good guys

and gals out there who are speaking up about this, but it doesn't seem that they're able to get anything done. What would they, what might they hope to get done. In other words, what might a senator or a congressperson be able to do? What kind of legislation are they looking to put forth and obviously have not been successful? Well, most of the talk and most of the proposed changes in produced have been to do with that law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and certainly reforming that law, getting rid of the second clause that exempts from lawsuits

about suspension of counsel. That would be a step in the right direction. It wouldn't actually solve all of the problems, though, because search bias doesn't really fall under that law. That's somewhere I think you need real oversight to prevent, just protect the integrity of American democracy. You can't really have this one company that has such a chokehold over the information Americans receive without some broad oversight, at least in the month leading up to an election. I was going to say, and particularly now with an election coming up, this is all unprecedented. We're in, you know, Terra Incognita. No one has ever been here before. We've never

had anything the equal of Google or the internet. And so we're trying to figure it out. But I guess I wonder, what are you all at Bright Barth able to do about this? Because to me, the numbers you've quoted are absolutely staggering. Yeah. Honestly, it's so staggering and the threat is so drastic, but I've been, you know, entertaining some very radical solutions. You know, there are some democracy is that shut down political news coverage a few days ahead of an election to give voters for time to like consider without being bombarded by propaganda, why not shut down Google's search for a month before the election and have people use dot-dot go instead? I mean, it's a small price to pay for a free and fair election.

So that's really the kind of radical solutions we need to be thinking about given the threat posed by Google, which is... Who would have the power to do something like that? I can't imagine that anyway... Yeah, I mean, that's a question for lawyers, not me, but certainly is the sort of thing that democracies need to be thinking about, given the power of the tech giants. Now, as far as what ordinary people can do, I would say you have to find ways around these Silicon Valley giants. Go old school. So don't rely on Google search, type, you know, brightbark.com into your web browser, keeping your bookmarks filled to sign up for email alerts.

And if you have friends who are undecided voters, just send them links to articles. don't let them just rely on Facebook and social media and Google, because what they're going to be seeing at the top of those sites is always going to be biased. So just make sure as many people you know have access to a wide variety of viewpoints and get both sides of the story, because Google won't be giving them that. Is there no way that the government could step in?

And, for example, you know, it's almost like with school busing or something like that, where you simply say, depending on your zip code, or depending on some algorithm, we're just going to send you to one of these search engines. It almost seems like that might help create something like a free market. I don't know if they have the authority to do that, to be honest with you, but I do know that Donald Trump just threatened to ban TikTok from the country for posing a threat to Americans.

I think it's time to start considering similarly drastic measures against Google, given how determined they are to interfere in this election. Well, also, you know, when we consider that because of globalization, a lot of these companies have less than zero feelings of patriotism toward the United States or the things for which the West has stood. They have no, they don't have any fidelity, any sense that they ought to have any fidelity toward those principles. And so if they can make money in China

and if Google can use its technology to help China oppress its people, they seem to be willing to do that. That's to me what is the most horrific. Yeah, Google was poised a couple of years ago to develop a censored Chinese search engine called Dragonfly and only backed down when they suffered momentous backlash

from the mainstream media from the press from both sides of the political aisle. And as you say, these are far-left companies. They see patriotism as suspect of anything. So you shouldn't count on them to not pose a similar threat to Americans just because they're not a Chinese company. Well, that's what it boils down to. And I think that, again, the irony is that they don't have the ability to understand that

if you don't have some patriotism toward America, you will help our enemies and the enemies of freedom and the enemies of human rights around the world flourish, which is precisely what they're doing. Alam Bakari, Senior Technology correspondent at Breitbart. Very grateful to you for your reportage and for your time today to be continued. Thank you so much. Thank you, right.

Great to be on. Let me know. I'm going to be around. If you got no place to go when you're treated. Hey, folks, Eric Metaxis here. The Trump campaign has a special offer just for you. The president really wants to give you a side. sign 2020 Make America Great Again hat.

He wants to make sure the lucky winner is one of his top supporters. Be sure to enter soon because this is an opportunity you don't want to miss. The offer is only going to a select group of supporters and you're one of them. All you have to do is text Metaxus to 88022 today for your chance to win a piece of history, a 2020 make America great again hat. Again, that's M-E-T-A-X-S, M-E-T-A-X-S to 880-22 to enter to win this contest. then joined President Trump in the fight to keep America great for four more years. This was paid for by Donald J. Trump for President Inc.

Folks, if you've been listening to this program, you know that one of the things that has really shaken me, and I've talked about it to a number of guests here, is what China is doing to its own citizens. And in particular, the way it has been treating the Uyghur Muslim population, we've also also talked about the organ harvesting. That's a nice word for it. This is out of the Nazi death camps. This is absolutely horrific. We need to be talking about this much more. It needs to be covered in the news much more. So today, I have someone who's been on this program before, who's an expert on this. His name is Salih Houdiar. He's a Uyghur political refugee, and actually Prime Minister of the East Turkestan government in exile.

Salih, welcome to the program. Thank you so much for being with us today. Thank you for having. Tell us from your perspective what most Americans don't know that is happening, what the Chinese communist government is doing to your people. So essentially what the Chinese government is doing to our people, the Uwur, and other people in East Turkestan is actually a genocide. We now have more evidence of this.

Leaked government documents shows that they are forcibly sterilizing our population. Over 3 million of our people are currently being held in concentration camps, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. Over half a million children have been forcibly separated from their families and sent to state-run orphanages and boarding schools to be raised as loyal Chinese citizens. I mean, these are just barely scratching the surfaces of what's happening, especially over the past several months. The global attention to this issue has frightened China in a way to where they're now secretly transferring

another Turk detainees out of the prisons and camps inside these Turkestan. to prisons inside China to harvest organs. So the Chinese government has been forcibly, you know, secretly transferring thousands of detainees from the camps and prisons to prisons inside China near, you know, for one area, it's Hailong-jong province, which is near the Korean border, which in Korea is a big market for organs. In other area is Henan province. And in Handan province, there's five hospitals that have been implicated by researchers for being involved in organ harvesting.

In addition to this, you know, you had 83 mostly Western companies implicated on having profited from forced labor of Uy Wars. This is something else I want to talk about. This is so important, and I hope my audience is listening and we'll take this YouTube video or this audio link and send it to everyone they know that we have to understand what China is doing. And it is demonic. It is wicked to use human beings in this way. We would denounce it no matter who is doing it. And what is being done to your people in particular is a stunning thing. So first we're talking about people being murdered, young people for their organs.

And you then referred to slave labor. And you said a number of U.S. companies are profiting from slave labor. This doesn't seem possible. Tell me, do you know the names of some of these companies? I'm familiar with Nike, Adidas, and Apple are the only three that I can think of. Yes, so there's Nike, you know, Apple, Microsoft, Google, H&M, I think Abercrombie and Fitch as well, among, you know, countless others. I mean, there were a total of 83 that the Australian Strategic Policy Institute mentioned. 83, I didn't realize.

Well, we have to publish a list of these and we have to get the information out there to the extent possible not to purchase. purchase anything by these companies. But what do you suppose, Salih, can allow a U.S. company like Nike or Apple to use slave labor? In other words, what are they telling themselves? Are they telling themselves it's not really slave labor? Well, they're saying that it's through their suppliers, you know, their supply chain and that they're investigating it or that they weren't aware. some instances. But really it's, I think, right now to really be sure that you're not complicit in this, I think it would be best to withdraw all of your operations, especially in occupied

East Turkestan, where there's millions of people locked up in concentration camps. So when you say occupied East Turkestan, obviously you present yourself as the Prime Minister, of the East Turkestan government in exile. In other words, the Chinese have taken over your people and are now, as you have said and others have said, trying to either wipe them out or turn them into proper Chinese communists. So let's go back for a moment. Actually, we're going to go to a break. When we come back, I want to talk to you again about your people being murdered for their organs. This is one of the most horrific things imaginable.

When we come back, folks, I'm talking to Salih Houdiar about this. We need to know what is going on, folks. Stick around. A fiery ring. By wild desire, I fell into a ring of fire. I fell into a burning ring of fire. I went down, down. Hey, Albin.

Yeah. I want to talk about relieffactor.com. Relieffactor.com. This is how you know that I believe it works. Okay. I will not stop bugging all my relatives and friends, right? I think I said the other day, I could almost ring their necks, but that would give them pain, so I don't do that. But they have all kinds of pain, and I say to them, I promise you, at least try relief factor.

Yeah. But my relatives sometimes don't listen to me because they know me so well. But to those people listening right now, you don't know me that well, please. take my word for it, Relieffactor.com. It works. It works. It works. It works. It's just, if you take the quick start pack, for example, okay? It's only 1999, right? You take it for three weeks and you'll know whether it works. That's what I say to people. At least take it for three weeks. It costs almost nothing. And by the way, if it does work, it'll change your life. Yeah. Okay, I went off it for a while and believe me, my pain came back. So I'm telling you, Relieffactor.com, it is natural.

Relieffactor.com. Check it out. Folks, I got some embarrassing news to share with you, but you know what? This is just the kind of a show where I don't care. I'm willing to lay my heart, you know, on the line. Here's the issue. Mike Lindell with my pillow, you may notice that I have a bobble hell of him near me. He's here to remind all of us that when you go to MyPillow.com, you get whopping discounts if you use the code Eric.

Okay. Now, there are a lot of people who haven't done that, and we have your names here. And Chris Heim's Ann Albin pointed out to me that there's like three pages of you whose first name is Eric. You, you're saying, I mean, that's humiliating for me that even though your name is Eric, you're still not willing to use the code Eric. I mean, if you don't want to use it because it's my name, use it because it's your name. But the point is that I see who you are, and I just feel humiliated by this. Please go to mypillar.com. It's okay, Mike.

It's going to be okay. Go to mypillar.com. Use the code, Eric. You're going to get whopping savings and really high-quality products. Did I mention that? Thank you. Folks, welcome back to the Eric from Texas show. I am talking to Salih Houdiar, who is a Uyghur political refugee.

He's also Prime Minister of the East Turkestan government in exile. Briefly, Sally, tell us when you talk about East Turkestan, what is the history that when did China take over your people? So up until December 22nd, 1949, we were an independent country known as the East Turkestan Republic. Communist China invaded and took over East Turkestan and renamed. it to Xinjiang, meaning the new territory. A year later, they invaded and took over Tibet and renamed Tibet to Shizang, which is another and his terminology. For the past seven decades, China has been overwhelmingly colonizing East Turkestan, and to a certain extent, they have been colonizing much of Tibet as well.

So they're trying to wipe you out, or in these re-education camps, turn you into proper communists who will bow to the secular regime. They don't believe, of course, in any human rights. An atheist communist government doesn't believe in the sanctity of the individual, doesn't believe in religious liberty, all the things most Americans take for granted. Tell us what do you believe is going on with the so-called Oregon harvesting? We had someone talking about this on the program who wrote a book about it, but what do you know? know that has been happening with people being killed for their organs? So previously, in the previous decades, the Chinese government would, you know,

harvest the organs of political prisoners, mostly Falun Gong and the Uywoos before they would execute them. However, in the recent years, there's been a booming market for organs, especially in China and Asia, and even amongst the wealthy Arab Muslim. countries as well. And so the Chinese government has been harvesting the organs of Uyghur and selling them to Muslims as halal organs. Well, again, this is hard for us to wrap our heads around this? We know that in the United States, planned parenthood and other organizations have been taking the organs and body parts of unborn human beings. And they've understood there's money to be made.

and if it's legal to kill someone, why not make a few bucks? Obviously, that's exactly what China was doing this. And we're executing someone. So before we execute them, let's get some money out of their bodies. But you're saying that this has advanced, and they have been doing this to people who were not slated to be executed. Do you know any details of any of these situations? Yes. In fact, a couple months ago, a nurse hospital staff, one of these hospitals broke, you know, news that the Chinese government was killing Uyghurs, Uyghur Muslims on demand to, you know, to supply Muslim, you know, people, wealthy Muslim people who wanted halal organs.

In fact, the newest report released by Fox News last week showed that there are certain hospitals in China that have, you know, both in Chinese and Arabic, even has a halal restaurant to eat, to place the prey while you wait on your halal organ. Now, when you say halal, I'm missing something. What do you mean halal organs? So in this concept of halal organs, so what they're saying is someone who hasn't, you know, eaten pork, someone who hasn't drank alcohol, someone who hasn't. You mean to tell me that somebody in Saudi Arabia needs a kidney, but they don't want a kidney from a dog or a pig like me. They want something from a human being, from a fellow Muslim, who has not polluted his body.

So you're telling me that they are serving. serving this market to make money? Absolutely. I'm speechless. I'm just stunned that the specificity of what you're saying is what is chilling to me, that they know that there is a lot of oil money in Saudi Arabia and countries like that. They know that they can make a lot of money in this way. So they are, of course, targeting Uyghur Muslims like yourself.

I can't remember the name of the person who wrote a book about this. Forgive me, but it is a staggering thing. I want to go back, if we could, to the camps and to the forced labor, the slave labor that is going on. Do you believe when companies like Nike say, we didn't know, we're investigating it, or do you think that they do know, but now they're being forced to investigate it? I think they do know. I mean, it's not everybody knows that China is operating concentration camps in East Turkestan. Everybody knows this. Everybody knows that people are being forced to, you know, work in, quote, vocational training for free, you know, for slave labor. And the fact that they're operating in those, in that region or that they're operating, they're using companies, you know, supply chains that are operating. that region is completely unacceptable. I mean, they know what's going on.

Well, I know that the New York Times reported recently that the East Turkestan National Awakening Movement and that you, as representative of the East Turkestan government in exile, filed a complaint with the international criminal court on this issue. Where does that stand right now? So we've formally submitted our complaint. Hopefully, once the coronavirus situation settles down a bit, we will be meeting with the prosecutor to push with this complaint. We want Chinese officials to be investigated and prosecute for genocide and other crimes against humanity.

The U.S. government actually, three days after we filed the complaint, sanctioned a couple of the Chinese officials that we wanted to investigate and prosecuted. Last Friday, they did something very huge. The U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, which is a 3.5 million paramilitary force, which is effectively the key player in maintaining China's control over East Turkestan, maintaining China's colonization in East Turkestan. And they're the ones responsible for running these forced labor camps. unbelievable. Sali, who do you are? I'm afraid we're out of time, but I'm so grateful to you for your voice. We will have you back. I want everyone in America to understand what is happening around the world to our fellow human beings. Thank you so much. Thank you for having. I've got to remind you of two things. Number one, have you given to food for the poor this month.

I'm just going to keep bugging you. It's a great organization doing great work for the poorest of the poor in developing countries, of COVID people are children are starving please give something I'm just going to keep bugging you you might as well do it today the food the phone number is 844 8663 hope it is really very important so I'm going to just keep reminding you until you either pick up the phone or you go to metaxis talk dot com actually the head executive director of Food for the Poor understands times are tough for us in America, but this is what he has to say. But please understand that for $37, you can feed a starving child for six months. $37. Divide that by the days in six months, which is about 180 days.

Think about it. $37 would mean a few cents a day. Please do it. I mean, when you put it like that, folks, $37. Almost everybody could do $37. And if you can't do that, would you do what you can? Would you please do what you can? $37 feeds a kid for six months. They are asking for $185 feeds five kids for six months. These kids are depending on food for the poor to feed them.

And food for the poor is depending on us. There are all kinds of things. If you go to metaxis talk.com, you'll see all the, the things we want to do for you as a thank you. One of the things is sending you copies of my new book, Donald, and the fake news. Oh my gosh, it's so funny that even I how laughing when I read it and I wrote it. That's how funny it is. So I want to remind you to go to Metaxistock.com. Here's the phone number, 844-863 Hope, 844-8663 Hope. And if you go to Metaxistok.com, you can see everything that we want to send you.

But the number is 844-863 Hope. When we go off the air in a couple of seconds, you can dial that number. 844-8-63 Hope. You can get this over with. You know you're going to give something because you don't have to give much to feed a starving kid, and they are depending on us.

That's why we do this. So any amount, by the way, you get entered into our grand prize where you get all kinds of Eric signed books. You get even a complete set. of my hamster homes. Whoa. Whoa. Box. I love it. Yeah. I love it. Yeah. You get all kinds of stuff. If you win the grand prize, hey, it's worth it just for that. My gosh, get your kids to participate. I say this. It's a wonderful way to teach kids about what's going on in the world and to make us count our

blessings. Understand that we're blessed to be a blessing. God blesses us to be a blessing. So whatever we have by way of blessing, we're obliged to think about how can I use that to bless somebody else who doesn't have what I have. So the phone number again is 844-863 Hope, 844-8-6-3 Hope. And I should mention, Albin, I don't know if you remember, but Mike Lindell, if you go to Mypillow.com and use the code Eric, you get like an insane discount, right? Yes, Eric. I want to say that he invented my pillow, which is a new pillow technology, but he also invented towels. And these towels, I used one the other day. You only have to kind of glance at it and you're bone dry.

It's a dangerous technology. It sucks the moisture away from you so powerfully. Mike Lindell, I'm telling you, I don't know how he does this. I think, and then he has these Giza sheets. They are made with a technology that was discovered in a hidden chamber in one of the great pyramids. And I just got to tell you, you want to talk about sheet technology. will freak you out. It's so comfortable again. You just, you just kind of glance at it and you're out like a light for eight hours. It's very dangerous, strong technology. Go to mypillow.com. Make sure

you use the code, Eric, and thank you so much for listening.