GLENN

Read the Fine Print: iTunes Is NOT Liable if You Start a Nuclear War

Don't even think about blaming iTunes for that nuclear war you're about to start. You can't hold them liable. It's in the fine print of the terms and conditions you agreed to but didn't read.

Filmmaker Cullen Hoback, director of the documentary Terms and Conditions May Apply, has read the fine print, and he joined Glenn in studio today for an enlightening --- and frightening --- conversation about your online privacy.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: Cullen, welcome to the program. How are you?

CULLEN: Oh, very good today. Glad to be in studio.

GLENN: Yeah, it's nice to have you here.

We wanted to talk to you about this ISP discussion that was going on last week with the government rolling it back. And we had a discussion here that I don't like the government getting involved in private relationships. I have a relationship with a company. If I don't like it, I'll go switch to another company.

CULLEN: Right.

GLENN: You are saying that there's a difference between that and -- and Apple. The ISP is different than Apple.

CULLEN: Well, I mean, the ISP is very different than a Google or a Facebook, right? Because with a company like Google, it's a search engine company, primarily. They also provide email. But you can go to some other search engine.

GLENN: Ask Jeeves.

CULLEN: Yeah, you can -- Ask Jeeves, if you wanted to. And same with Facebook. There are other social media tools out there, and they're free.

An ISP, we're already paying, you know, however much they can charge us, depending on how much competition is in the region. Right? And many people only have one option, especially when it comes to a higher speed broadband. So what we're essentially saying now is that, you know, you get the internet or you don't. And if you want the internet, well, everything you do online now is the property of that internet provider.

PAT: As far as terms and conditions do apply. How did this start with you? Did you just -- were you curious about what all these rules and regulations were that we were agreeing to, and then you started reading them? How did this begin?

GLENN: It was a lot of boring reading.

GLENN: I bet it was.

PAT: So you actually did read the terms and conditions that do apply?

CULLEN: I did.

PAT: Wow. You are the one.

(chuckling)

CULLEN: And that actually -- in fact, actually a lot of these companies just copy and paste other company's terms and conditions.

PAT: Do they really?

CULLEN: Yeah. They don't -- yeah, this happens.

PAT: Word-for-word. And so how long are these things generally? And what's the longest you've seen?

CULLEN: Gosh, it's between Apple and LinkedIn. LinkedIn has some of the most egregious concerns. And Apple is out to protect themselves. They're not really in the business of taking your data because they're trying to sell you a really expensive product.

PAT: Right.

CULLEN: So Apple, you'll just read through everything they've got. I mean, they go to the extent to protect themselves from an incident where you may use their technology to start a nuclear war.

GLENN: Seriously?

CULLEN: Yeah, if you read in their terms, yeah, they say, we are not responsible if our technology -- you are not allowed to use it for this purpose. Therefore, if you do, we are not liable.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: What -- what could I possibly buy on iTunes that could start a nuclear war?

STU: Well, the documentary War Games.

CULLEN: Talk to Kim Jong-un. It's a message just for him.

GLENN: That's amazing. So how much trouble are we in with privacy? For instance, Stu and I used to be the biggest advocate of -- of keeping our fingerprints sacred. You're not -- no, you're not taking my fingerprints. And we've handed them over.

And we actually don't mind it now because we're so mentally lazy.

PAT: In fact, Stu loves it.

STU: I was telling Cullen off the air. Because I had him on Wonderful World of Stu, I don't know, three years ago or something. It was right when the fingerprint thing came out for iPhones and I didn't have it yet. And I remember it was kind of a story at the time, of, wow, you're putting your fingerprint in these things. And it's digital. And maybe it is locally stored. But, still, it was like another step of you, you were giving up to technology.

And at the time, we were talking about that, and I was critical of it in that like -- just like, this kind of freaks me out. Now, the one-tenth of a second that saves me every time I log into my phone is irreplaceable. I would fall on my sword to defend it. And because at any time you can improve convenience just a little bit, these things seem to go down the tubes.

CULLEN: And you're right. With each step, we're just turning up the heat up a little bit more. You know, the Constitution guarantees us a reasonable right to privacy. So what is our reasonable expectation of privacy?

And when we come to accept fingerprint scanning, or we come to accept going through an airport or having some kind of naked monitoring of our bodies, the bar keeps getting pushed back. And so now I think when it comes to all of the technologies that we're using, our experiences online, what are we willing to accept?

And I think that it's very difficult right now for people to feel the cost of digital services spying on them. Because they can't see it.

And what you can't see is hard to feel.

GLENN: Like what don't we -- what should we feel every time?

CULLEN: I mean, you should feel like a bunch of -- hundreds of weird people you've never met are looking through your -- through your window, rifling through your diary, getting into your brain and trying to know you better than you know yourself.

PAT: And they truly are doing this. They're going through all our stuff?

CULLEN: Everything.

PAT: Or is it just there, and they could go through it if they wanted to?

CULLEN: Well, there's not some person sitting around --

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And they're not looking at Pat, per se.

CULLEN: Yeah.

GLENN: They're looking at metadata.

PAT: Habits, trends.

CULLEN: Well, who is they?

GLENN: I don't know. You're the one with the conspiracy theory.

CULLEN: I mean, you have the companies. Right? And then you have the government. And there really is no separation between the two.

PAT: Really?

STU: That's a big problem.

GLENN: Why do you say that?

PAT: So the government has access to the things that Google and Apple collect?

CULLEN: Yes. I mean, this is what Edward Snowden and the PRISM program showed us, is that there was backdoor access.

PAT: That changes the whole thing. Wow.

CULLEN: And there's something called the third party doctrine. And it's the ruling from the early '80s, which says, if you give your information to a third party, a Google, a Facebook, a bank, you've given up your right to control that information.

PAT: And that includes going to the government? Holy cow.

CULLEN: Yeah, it's way easier for the government to go to one of those companies and get our information. They can get it directly from us. There's virtually no firewall there.

PAT: Let's get into the time tunnel, Glenn, and go back three days. Now how do you feel? Because that changes it, right? That changes it. Because the government is involved. It's not just selling to private companies. The government does have access, right?

STU: But the problem you have there is the firewall between government and corporation.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah, I still don't think the government should be passing laws. I mean, that's just like passing another bad gun law. Pass the right law. Put a firewall in between the government and the private companies.

STU: And we've argued with that on the Snowden -- with all the Snowden information. I mean, we disagreed with a lot of people who would be conservative in the audience and a lot of the candidates that ran last year. Because a lot of them embraced that sort of NSA needs to be seeing everything you're doing.

GLENN: No.

STU: And we're not on that bandwagon. The conversation initially started here -- it's an interesting one in that with this ISP ruling where they're talking about -- can your ISP sell the data? Pat was arguing I think the same way you're arguing. No, you have this agreement. And we were kind of arguing, I don't want the government involved in that. I don't want the government to make a rule saying they can't --

PAT: To mandate. Uh-huh.

STU: And my issue with that is, while I agree with you, it's a terrible policy. And it should be one of those things that they shouldn't do. They should not sell your data.

But even if -- let's just take it to a crazy extreme. There's only one provider. And they say everything that you search for, we're going to publicly put on our Twitter page with your name and face. And we're going to identify every aspect of what you've done online publicly every single time and we're you're only option.

Still, the government does not have a role there. Because of the fact that the government does not give you the right to get on the internet. If a corporation decides to build the infrastructure that lets you get on the internet, well, then they can put the terms that they want to allow you to access. It's not the government's job to guarantee you access.

GLENN: And, Pat, I want to just say that my argument hasn't changed. Your argument has changed. You're saying because the government --

PAT: No, it hasn't, Glenn. No, it hasn't. Your argument has changed.

GLENN: You're saying that, well, now, Glenn, your argument has changed because the government can get it. Well, no, what he's saying is, the government is getting it whether they sell it or not. The government is getting it. So the problem is not selling it. The problem is the government is getting it.

PAT: But still -- it's still a problem for me, but...

GLENN: Right.

CULLEN: Well, I think the factor here -- I think we can all agree we like the Constitutions.

STU: We're fans.

GLENN: Yes, big fans.

PAT: Yes.

CULLEN: Right now, the Constitution doesn't apply online.

GLENN: Anything.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: The Fourth Amendment in particular.

CULLEN: Yeah, it doesn't follow us into the digital realm. And so when the government I think passes laws related to the Constitution on the internet, we're not talking about egregious regulations, we're talking about constitutional regulation, which is different. It's different -- in essence, they're blocking themselves from easily getting access to this information.

PAT: Uh-huh.

CULLEN: Though, ISPs are required to retain -- I think we should be moving more in the direction of ways to stop the government from being able to access this information.

GLENN: Yes, I agree. I agree.

CULLEN: That's --

GLENN: Because the Constitution is a document on what the government can do, not what a private corporation can do.

PAT: Can't do. Yeah. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Or can't do. So I don't have a right to privacy in my -- I have an implied contract of privacy with Apple. But not a constitutional right to privacy with Apple. That's the government.

I have a constitutional right to privacy with the government. And they're not fulfilling that in any way, shape, or form. And they're trying to look like they're great guys by saying, "Oh, look, we're protecting your privacy with the ISP.

No, you're not. You're not -- you're not filling your fundamental mandate of the Fourth Amendment in the first place. So which is all just a puppet show.

CULLEN: So if there was a -- say your phone provider suddenly developed a tool where they could hear all of your thoughts and maybe they didn't tell you that this is -- this was going on.

GLENN: Yes.

CULLEN: Is there then a role for the government to say, no, you can't record people's thoughts and not let them know about that?

GLENN: If they didn't tell people, then yes. But I think there would be such an uproar that this phone company had installed this and didn't let anybody know about it.

CULLEN: So many years ago when I first made Terms and Conditions, I discovered it wasn't me. There were lots of technologies who knew -- there were keyloggers recording every single thing that we do on our phones. All of it without our knowledge. There was never uproar.

PAT: Wow. Did we agree to that in their terms and conditions?

CULLEN: No. No.

But they would have some way to justify it. If you're a good lawyer, you can kind of come up with some wishy-washy way to describe it. But they weren't specifically saying, we're recording every stroke.

GLENN: Does the AI thing bother you at all, there at that there doesn't seem to be any restraint on anyone anymore. Especially in technology. It's -- it's not should we do it? It's, can we do it? Can it be done? Yeah. Okay. Do it.

There's no -- there's no -- there doesn't seem to be real ethics applied on a lot of things. And when we get into AI. We're starting to get into territory now that things are going to change so rapidly. And we're really going to be boxed in to -- I mean, you know, fingerprints, six years ago. We're not going to use fingerprints. How dare you -- now -- because it's convenient. Brave New World was correct. Not 1984. They're just packaging everything the way we want it. Is there any concern with you on where we're headed?

CULLEN: I mean, if you look at what's happening with privacy since basically the advent of the internet, the march is moving more and more towards this kind of idea of total transparency. But that total transparency doesn't seem to apply to the government.

PAT: That's for sure.

CULLEN: So it's -- they want us to be as transparent as possible, have as much access to everything we're doing.

GLENN: Should be the opposite way. We should be --

CULLEN: Yeah, who is watching the watchers?

GLENN: Right.

CULLEN: And when you talk about this kind of technology, it is in direct relationship to how much information is shared and captured in the background. It's part of Google's master plan. It's why they want us to share all of our searches and desires with them.

GLENN: Right. Edward Snowden, hero, traitor, somewhere in between?

CULLEN: It's somewhere -- it's somewhere in between.

I consider him a patriot. He -- he made that decision, not for his own benefit. He lived a pretty sweet life in Hawaii, making a pretty decent wage, with a -- with a pretty hot girlfriend. So things were not bad for him. I'm going to tell you they were a lot worse in Russia for him right now than they were before.

GLENN: Sure. Sure.

CULLEN: I think what's a challenge here for him or for me at least what he did -- he released documents that were beyond just domestic spying. So you had released the documents related to Angela Merkel.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

CULLEN: You had released the documents related to spy programs abroad.

And that's where I think things start to get kind of gray. I wish he just focused on domestic. But, again, we're talking about one individual. Tens of thousands of documents. It was difficult for him to go through that. And he trusted a news outlet to then, you know, disseminate information in a way that was responsible. So that's where I think it's gray.

STU: What I find so incredible is that we went through the Snowden thing. All the conspiracy theories leading up to that would have said, this is happening. This is happening. And then Edward Snowden shows that it was actually happening.

GLENN: And nobody cared.

STU: And we still are going down this road faster and faster and faster.

GLENN: Is that crazy?

CULLEN: I thought everything was going to change after Edward Snowden came out with those documents. I was so hopeful.

PAT: Not at all.

CULLEN: And the only thing that Congress passed was something that separates their ability to directly have metadata. And now it's in the hands of the company. But we know that they can easily just get it from the -- that's all that really changed.

GLENN: It's crazy.

STU: Incredible.

GLENN: Everything since the last -- since Snowden and this last election, everything I thought about the American people, I'm like, no. Uh-huh.

PAT: We don't know them at all.

STU: Oh, crap.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: You know, you keep using that word "American people," I do not think it means what you think it means.

Thank you so much for being on with us. Appreciate it.

PAT: Really fascinating.

CULLEN: Yeah, glad I was in town.

STU: Where should people go to check out your stuff?

CULLEN: Oh, sure. Well, this film was Terms and Conditions May Apply. The new one is What Lies Upstream. And actually, I was in Dallas, at the Dallas International Film Festival with this new --

STU: Very cool.

CULLEN: Again, it's investigating corruption at the top level.

PAT: Is it coming out in theaters? Or the internet? How is it being released?

CULLEN: It will be in theaters. It will be on TV come the fall.

PAT: Awesome.

CULLEN: Yeah, there's lots of ways to see it.

GLENN: Good. Send us a preview copy. So we can see it. I would love to see it.

CULLEN: Will do. We'll have a spirited conversation about corruption at the EPA.

GLENN: You'll be back. You'll be back.

JEFFY: I'm sure that's zero.

GLENN: Thank you so much.

CULLEN: Sure.

RADIO

This Russian nuke warning is HORRIFIC… for an UNEXPECTED reason

Glenn Beck reviews a video of Aleksandr Dugin, known as “Putin’s brain,” warning that nuclear war is inevitable. But this warning from Russia is absolutely terrifying for another reason: it’s NOT REAL …

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Operation Fast and Furious: The TRUE Story of How the Feds were Running Guns into Mexico

The Border Crisis has been ongoing for years, and one of the biggest scandals was the ATF “gunwalking” scandal known as Operation Fast and Furious which occurred during when Barack Obama was President. Glenn Beck talks with John Dodson, the whistleblower who revealed the scandal to get the facts about what happened and why it was a flawed operation from its inception.
Watch the FULL Interview HERE

VIDEOS

Glenn Beck & Piers Morgan REACT to Trump's Iran Strike & What Comes Next

Glenn Beck joins Piers Morgan to react to President Trump's decision to strike Iran's Nuclear Facilities and what could come next with the conflict. Is this just the start of a larger conflict involving Iran, Israel and the United States, or will this move by Trump put at least a temporary end to the brewing tensions?

RADIO

Meet the pro-Intifada candidate NYC Democrats just elected

New York City Democrats just elected 33-year-old Zohran Mamdani, a "socialist Muslim", as the Party's candidate for mayor. But Glenn Beck argues that his radical beliefs are actually communist and Islamist.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

VOICE: Z10852. Something weird is going on. The World Trade Center is on fire.

VOICE: Seriously the top of the building. We're trying to get information.

VOICE: Top level of one of the --

VOICE: To unfold from New York City.

VOICE: A plane crashed just --

VOICE: My sister is in that believe. I hope she's okay. I have to come to New York.

VOICE: It's pandemonium.

VOICE: It's raining papers.

VOICE: Wait a minute! Stop just a second. Why are we -- why are we -- I've got breaking news. Breaking news, yesterday. New York City just elected as their mayoral candidate for the left. And the Democrats, a -- a Muslim radical, who is also a communist!

So, you know, it only took you 25 years. It only took you 25 years, New York, to go completely insane.

Somebody who is -- well, I mean, if I might quote Michael malice today. I am old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.

But you've got a -- you've got a communist jihadist apologist now.

Who was -- you know, well, CAIR put $100,000 behind his bid for New York City mayor.

So you have somebody who is endorsed by CAIR. That's really good.

He also was somebody who said, you know, he was -- he was for the shooting of the United Health Care CEO.

Said he was looking forward to driving down magnum Joan avenue. I don't know. Sounds like supporting people in the streets. Maybe it's just me.

Then he also said that he was going to globalize the intifada, which I think that's -- maybe -- maybe that's just me.

I mean, what do I know?

Tim Miller who is a podcaster. Asked him a few weeks ago. Asked him about his pro Palestinian slogan. Globalized the intifada. And he said, for me, ultimately, what I hear in so many, is a desperate desire for equality and equal rights, in standing up for Palistinian human rights. Oh, is that what you hear, Mr. CAIR?

Really? Huh, that's interesting.

Right. So globalize the intifada.

I mean, I mean, sure, that's -- I mean well, let me go on.

Because I don't want to take him out of context.

He then delved into the semantics of the intifada, citing the United States Holocaust memorial museum's use of a word for a translation for uprising, in an Arabic version of an article, a museum published about the Warsaw ghetto.

Oh!

So this is just a comparison, about the -- the armed rebellion against the Nazis!

I don't know if that makes me feel better!

I mean, if we're globalizing that.

We're the Nazis in this scenario.

Because I don't think it's the Palestinians.

I certainly don't think it's anybody who is like, hey.

Global jihad. I don't think it's those guys.

Or the Nazis. Who are the Nazis in that?

And it seems, if that's what you mean, then it's not just a harmless kind of slogan about human rights. It is a call for violence on the streets.

Because I don't know if you know, that's what happened when the Jews had their uprising against the Nazis.

I'm just saying!

But, hey, hey, free Palestine.

Oh, that's not what that means, gang. That is not what that means, but don't worry about it. He's just going to be possibly the new mayor.

And that's great. By the way, the Columbia faculty members signed a letter defending Hamas.

They were also among the donors to his mayoral campaign.

So, you know, you don't have anything to worry about.

And his father, who used to work at Columbia. Do you know, Stu?

Is his Dad -- is he still a professor at Columbia University?

He said that -- this violent terror thing of Islam, is not a part of Islam. Now, I've read the Koran, and much of the hadith.

And I'm pretty sure the violence is a part of that. But no.

No. This is something entirely new.

And his father while at Columbia university, wanted everybody to know, that this is actually -- this is something that came out of America!

America is really responsible for this.

And, you know, it really started with the Reagan administration, you know, when he started -- when he started with his very religious terms, to finish the war against the evil empire.

So, you know, that's where -- that's where 9/11 came from.

Is what -- don't worry about it! Don't worry about it!

Because who am I? I'm clearly just -- am I an anti-Semite today, or am I an Islamophobic? I can't remember which one.

Oh, it's probably both. Anyway, Islamophobia. Let me just explain Islamophobia. I haven't even gotten to the Communist part of it. Which is really, really -- New York, you're in one for hell of a ride. Buckle up.

It will be a fun rollercoaster for you. My gosh, I've never been happier that I've been away are if New York.

Anyway, I just want I to know, there is Islam. And then there is Islamists. Now, an Islamist is somebody who really wants Sharia law.

That's political Islam!

That's not a faith. That's political Islam.

Now, let me make really -- something really clear. Criticizing Islamism, is not Islamophobia. Pointing out the dangers of, oh. I don't know.

Political Islam. The ideology that seeks to use the tools of democracy, ultimately to destroy democracy, is not an attack on Muslims.

No. Uh-uh.

You know why?

Because Muslims are often the first people in line.

The first victims of the ideology.

So let's draw a bright, bright line between Islam as a faith, millions of people can practice that faithfully and peacefully.

It's mostly peaceful, okay?

Then there's the Islamism.

Islamism is something entirely -- that's a political project.

A theocratic political -- oh. Left loves theocracies. They love it.

Of course, you never see a problem with it.

See it when an Islamist is touting it. Anyway, it's not about prayer. It's not about fasting. It's not about spiritual life.

It's all about power. It's about merging of mosque and state. It's about implementing Sharia, not as a personal code of conduct. But as a governing legal system.

And it's -- it's supremacy.

Absolutely. Faith.

Religion.

It's -- there's one thing that's supreme.

It's misogynistic.

Deeply intolerant of all kinds of things.

Descent. Secularism. Other faiths. Even competing interpretations from inside the faith itself.

It will behead them too.

So let's -- let's be honest here for a second.

You know, CAIR should be labeled an international terror organization.

In my opinion. In my opinion.

Oh, does that make me -- that makes me an Islamophobe. I'm sure. I'm sure they will start a campaign against me on being an Islamophobe.

Stand in line, guys. You've been doing it since 2001, okay?

I don't really care. And I don't think the American people. I think that record, all the grooves are worn-out on that one, okay?

This is not a religion we're talking about. When we're talking about Sharia law. And we're talking about globalize the intifada. What does that mean, actually, to globalize it?

Does that mean we now want to do what is happening to Israel? All over the world?

Has the Palestinian plight become our plight you now, as Americans?

That there has to be an intifada here!

Because it's the kind of the same. You know. It's kind of the same over, you know, with what the Palestinians are going through.

Well, it's very much like what the Jews went through with the Nazis.

That's a weird one. That one makes my head hurt. It's very much the same as that. And very much the same as the fight against Donald Trump.

Oh, this is going to be fun. It's fun!

Really fun. You know, the irony here is, the ones that will scream Islamophobia the most, are the ones in the progressive left, the champions of feminism, LGBTQ rights. And secularism.

They're going to -- no. You want -- they're going to stand with the people, who want to kill them first.

See, this is how smart they are!

This is why it's going to work out well, in New York City.

Let me just say. If you have an ounce of common sense, you run a business, you have an ounce of wealth. And I don't mean wealth like, you know, hey, Lovey.

Let's get on the boat for a three-hour tour with a suitcase full of cash. I mean you saved anything, anything, get the hell out of New York City.

I mean, this is about survival. This is about free speech. This is about women's rights.
Religious pluralism. Secular legal systems. Liberal democracy.

But it's also about failed principles of Communism. Okay?

First, you have to call out political Islam for what it is. Okay?

And we have to do it with the clarity that we call out white nationalism.

Got to do it with that. Got to -- you know, the Klan. Really bad people.

Really bad people.

Anybody who is shouting for globalized intifada?

Pretty bad. Pretty bad people.

Okay?

Now, let's get to communism.

Because that's another cool, cool angle of the new Democratic candidate for -- for mayor of New York City.

That I just -- I think is cuddly and cute. Sure, it led to 100 million deaths. But this time, New York is going to be radically different. Oh, did I use the word radical?

I didn't mean to use that. What's radical about this guy?

Nothing. He's just like you!

Well, not exactly.

But let's talk about communism, next!

Now, the new mayoral candidate that's running there in New York City. That so many young people rushed to defend and vote for. He's promising free buses.

That's going to work out.

Where are you going to get the money for free buses.

It's free!

City-run grocery stores.

Oh, rent freezes. And finally somebody has done it. A 30-dollar minimum wage.

So under the banner of equity. And, you know, we will tax the wealthy. And the corporations. You know, we're going to squeeze another $10 billion out of them.

Really?

Because they're going to call a U-Haul.

You know, they will call something like U-Haul. There will be a lot of -- there will be a lot of movers that are like, how do I get the truck back from Texas or Florida back up to New York? Nobody is moving up there.

But he's going to do it.

Now, his vision isn't really new. You know, just -- just tax people, so we could have city-run grocery stores. You know, I remember -- I'm old enough to remember those city-run grocery stores in Moscow.

They were great.

The shelves were empty.

But that's just Moscow.

It worked out completely different in Venezuela.

Where, oh, no.

It didn't. That's right. The grocery store.

They were eating the zoo animals.

But it will be different in New York.

Because they have rent controls too.

And that will just choke the housing supply, but don't worry. As a young family.

You know, you voted for it.

You know better.

It will work this time.

So, you know, I like building ideas, I just don't like usually building on the graves of 100 million people.

But, you know, why not? Why not?

You know, use this dogma.

And this time, it will be different. It's not like it was in China. Where the great leap forward, was a gross -- a gross parody of progress. Venezuela, which was oil rich. One of the richest nations in the hemisphere now sees 90 percent of its population in poverty!

Yeah. Darn it. You know what they did?

They decided to take state control of things.

You know, like grocery stores. And it worked out well. How is that free busing working out in Venezuela?

I just want to -- I just want to know.

Anyway, then you've got the globalize the intifada. Which is going to drop a little violence in, and anti-Semitism in with your communism.

Which is weird!

Because violence and anti-Semitism, always happen. When it -- when it comes to -- when it comes to communism.

This is weird!

I've got to play something for you. Because this has talked about on me earlier this morning.

Oh, wow.

Wait a minute. This is -- this is the whole coalition coming together here.

So this is going to be good. New York, this is going to be great.

It's going to be great for you.

No. He's going to uplift you. Then the social fabric of New York City is just going to be -- just one.

It's going to be fantastic. Don't worry about your 120 billion dollars in debt. Or your 10 billion-dollar deficit that you have right now.

You are going to charge the rich more taxes, and they will stay right there.

They will be like, you know what, that 46 percent in taxes that I'm paying, this is just not enough. It's just not enough.

I need to pay 60 or 70 percent to be able to pay my fair share. So that's good. That's good. That's good.

You know, they're not risking 100 million people. It's just 8 million people.

This time, it's just 8 million people.

But, hey. For those of you in upstate New York. That aren't going to be part of this experiment.

Don't worry, you get to pay for it. Because they'll kick it up to the state. The state will have to subsidize everything. And don't you love it?

Really, don't you want to subsidize the really crazy ideas of New York City?

I mean, why don't you have a -- why don't you have a democratic socialist. A/k/a communist mayor.

Why haven't you done that? Are you not progressive enough? Are you not looking into the future?

Are you stuck in the past?

I don't know. I don't know. The graveyard is pretty big. I have a hard time getting past that one. You know, yeah, so I'm stuck in the past. Because I can't seem to pass that graveyard, and get to be down the path with you. But it's going to be a paradise.

Forget arithmetic. You know, or human nature. This time, it's going to work. It's going to work. So all right!

Wish I lived in this morning.

No wait. Nope. I don't. Nope, I don't.

And Ted Cruz, stop it. Stop writing, hey, come to Texas. No. No. Don't come to Texas. Don't come to Florida. Go to California. It's beautiful this time of year. Go there. Go there.