Related topics

Killing Border wall would be a big political win for Democrats, says Tucker; Thank God there wasn’t a wall, says Congressman Gutierrez on Jesus,

December 21, 2018



<Date: December 20, 2018>

<Time: 20:00:00>

<Tran: 122001cb.260>

<Type: SHOW>

<Head: Killing Border wall would be a big political win for Democrats, says

Tucker; Thank God there wasn’t a wall, says Congressman Gutierrez on Jesus,

Mary, Joseph seeking refuge in Egypt; House approves $5 billion in Border

wall funding; Primary cause of illegal immigration is visa overstays, says

Julian Epstein; Gustavo Garcia-Ruiz, an illegal immigrant, is said to have

killed two people and injured numerous others; Authorities blame

California’s sanctuary laws for releasing the illegal immigrant felon,

Garcia-Ruiz; Defense Secretary James Mattis resigns and points to

differences with Trump; Department of Justice charges two Chinese hackers;

Senators Jeff Flake and Chris Coons team up to introduce revenue-neutral

carbon tax bill; Free speech is a requirement for free thought, says

Tucker; Final Exam’s winner is Lauren Blanchard; Claas Relotius, touted by

CNN as “Journalist of the Year,” canned for fabricating stories. Aired 8-

9pm ET - Part 2>

<Sect: News; Domestic>

<Byline: Tucker Carlson, Trace Gallagher, Griff Jenkins, Lauren Blanchard,

Daniel John Bongino>

<Guest: James Daniel Jordan, Julian Epstein, Michael Pillsbury, Ethan

Bearman, Robert Shibley, Jason Nichols, Mark Steyn>

<Spec: Democrats; House; Border wall; Luis Gutierrez; Christmas; Left;

Congress; Republicans; Trump; Immigration; California; Sanctuary; Garcia-

Ruiz; ICE; Mattis; China; France; Carbon tax; Climate change; Free speech;

College; Final Exam; CNN; Claas Relotius; Ship of Fools>

It’s massive. And it seems to be focused on the high-end technology sectors that China would need to dominate by 2030 or 2035 in order to be the world leader. So, in other words, they’re going to steal their way to global leadership, let’s put it that way, it’s more polite than domination. And the FBI is blowing the whistle today along with the Deputy Attorney General.

The PDS (ph), as you may - as you know from the - our local press, there’s been a big leak that Steve Mnuchin and the Treasury Department were going to offer sanctions today as punitive for these things that DoJ and the FBI are finding.

For some reason, at the last minute, Treasury pulled out, so they weren’t (ph) at the announcement and they’re not putting the sanctions forward. So, this leak shows dissent inside the Trump team.

And, of course, the Chinese have a strategy that Vice President Pence spoke about back in October that they want to divide the Trump Administration. They know they’re hawks and doves. So this is a good - this is good news. It’s raises public awareness for what China is up to.

There were no actual sanctions announced other than the indictment of these two Chinese hackers out of possible 10,000 hackers, let’s say.

CARLSON: Meanwhile, there are calls for more Russia sanctions. It just tells you--

PILLSBURY: Yes, absolutely.

CARLSON: --it just tells you everything. Michael Pillsbury, thank you very much for this and all you’ve done on this topic.

PILLSBURY: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well for more than a month now, France has been wracked by massive riots, the biggest in 50 years. The riots began in response to a planned gasoline tax. Why was the French government raising gasoline taxes? Obviously, climate agenda.

Well, in Washington, people only care about Russia, so they’ve barely noticed this. They think a carbon tax is still a great idea, such a great idea that outgoing Arizona Senator, Jeff Flake, has teamed up with Delaware Democrat, Chris Coons, to introduce a new bill that will impose a nationwide carbon tax.

Ethan Bearman is a California radio host and he joins us tonight. Ethan, thanks very much for coming on.


CARLSON: So, I think it’s pretty clear from what’s happening in France that maybe the public globally isn’t on board with this because most people care about gas prices because, you know, they don’t have their own planes or drivers. So, why would you, in the name of fighting climate change, crush the most vulnerable in your society? That doesn’t seem fair.

BEARMAN: Well we got two issues that are going on here. First off is in France, Emmanuel Macron, he actually did a massive tax cut on the rich. That’s part of what these protests are about. It’s not just about the gas tax. It’s also the fact that they feel - that people feel like he was just giving away these giant tax cuts to the wealthy.

That sounds familiar to the United States. Simultaneously--

CARLSON: Yes, it does.

BEARMAN: --the - the U.S. proposal is actually fundamentally different from France. What Senators Flake and Coons put forward is a revenue-neutral carbon tax and dividend, meaning, whatever tax money comes in gets distributed out to the American taxpayer.

Now, it will be a progressive--


BEARMAN: --no, it will be progressive. So, the lower end of the income (ph)--

CARLSON: OK. So, so, so, we’re going to - OK, so we’re going to raise--

BEARMAN: --the larger your dividend.

CARLSON: --gas taxes and then filter the money through a massive unionized bureaucracy and somehow it’ll drip back down to you. But I thought trickle- down economics didn’t work. But I guess we’re for it now?

BEARMAN: Well, that’s not trickle-down economics. Trickle-down economics means tax cut on the--

CARLSON: Oh? I think - I think it kind of is. But it trickles to Republic (ph)--

BEARMAN: --everyone (ph)--

CARLSON: --employee union first, right? There’s a different kind of trickling but it’s still - you’re still getting wet.

BEARMAN: Yes. But - but the difference here is, so we’re using a market force to dis-incentivize pollution. Now, one of my big issues with the carbon tax is we can - you can - you can argue all you want about whether or not climate change is man-made or not, but we do know that mercury pollution is a potent neurotoxin.

We do know that sulfur pollution has significant--


BEARMAN: --health effects. We do know that ground-based ozone, because of our burning of fossil fuels, causes people to die because they can’t breathe. I’m a big fan of reducing pollution. If we can use market solutions to incentivize, being more efficient, and dis-incentivize--


BEARMAN: --polluting, I think that’s--

CARLSON: Well how about then - then - then look--

BEARMAN: --reasonable.

CARLSON: --I mean some of this, I - I can’t weigh in on one way or another because I’m not a scientist. But I do understand who’s getting the short- end of the stick. Wouldn’t it be a display of good faith if the people behind this legislation said the first thing we’re going to do is ban all private air travel in this country?

We’re going to (ph) put you in prison if you get on a private plane because - because climate change is that serious. It’s an existential threat to the planet, to the human race itself, so like you can’t fly on a private plane. And then we’ll talk about taxing everybody else like people who make 40 grand. Why not start that way?

BEARMAN: So, we actually agree on the private plane issue. I hate when people will tell me how to live my life and then they do the exact opposite. I can’t stand hypocrisy.

CARLSON: Oh, do - do - do you see that happening--

BEARMAN: It’s absolutely fence (ph)--

CARLSON: --now the politicians who fly constantly private and these actors who fly private and Al Gore who flies private lecturing you--


CARLSON: --about you’re suburban. Does that - that is a problem--


CARLSON: --for you then?

BEARMAN: I’m offended by that. I wrote about it in my book, actually--

CARLSON: Good for you. But then why not--

BEARMAN: --and I specifically pointed out.

CARLSON: --why don’t we just ban it?


CARLSON: No, but seriously, if it’s that serious a problem, let’s just ban it. I mean I don’t want to be an authoritarian--


CARLSON: --I was always kind of libertarian. But climate change is too important, OK? So, if you show up at the FBO--

BEARMAN: So, so you don’t (ph)--

CARLSON: --at the private airport, we’re just going to put you in prison.

BEARMAN: --so, no. So, I don’t - I’m--


BEARMAN: --I’m actually a little bit on your side. I don’t like banning things.

CARLSON: Guess you’re not that serious about climate, are you?

BEARMAN: No. Because here’s what happens with the carbon tax, suddenly your private jet, instead of it being $3,000 an hour, because of the tax on your burning of the fossil fuel, will suddenly cost you $5,000 an hour and maybe some of the--

CARLSON: Yes. I - I guess I just take climate change--

BEARMAN: --B-list celebrities will stop flying private.

CARLSON: --a little more seriously than you do. You must be a denier. I just - I don’t want to see someone--

BEARMAN: I’m not.

CARLSON: --just spoiling (ph) the earth like that. So, you know, every private plane banned.

BEARMAN: Well I again, I don’t think we have to--

CARLSON: I’m only half-kidding, sort of--

BEARMAN: --ban them, but we - we make it expensive.


BEARMAN: We make it expensive and then--


BEARMAN: --then you’ll think of twice about doing it.

CARLSON: Ethan Bearman, thank you very much. Good to see you.

BEARMAN: Thank - thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well pretty much every college in America, almost every college in America restricts free speech, dramatically. Restricting free speech is, in fact, the signature fact of college, and it’s grotesque. Can we do anything about it? That’s after the break.





CARLSON: America’s college campuses were designed to be havens for free expression and for good reason. Free speech is a requirement for free thought. And free thought is central to the idea of universities. There’s no other reason to have it. But it’s the universities where those ideas, those freedoms are now under the gravest threat.

A new report by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, FIRE, finds that 90 percent of American college campuses have some kind of speech code that restricts what their students are allowed to say and, by extension, and this is intentional, what’s acceptable for them to think. When they can control what you say, they control what you think.

Robert Shibley is FIRE’s Executive Director and he joins us tonight. Robert, thanks very much for coming on.



SHIBLEY: --thanks for having me.

CARLSON: --when you say there are speech codes, is that strictly speaking? I mean are - are these rules that say you’re not allowed to express certain ideas or say certain things or they informal?

SHIBLEY: Yes. These are literally formal rules telling you what you can and cannot say on college campuses.

And you’re right. About 90 percent of them have codes that if it’s a public university are unconstitutional or if it is a private university, violates their own promises of free speech. So, FIRE only rates those codes that are written down. If a college is engaging in informal censorship, that’s not even part of these ratings.

CARLSON: So, I think except for a small handful of colleges, every college in America receives federal funding, every one. So, they would all be subject to the conventional protections, civil rights protection, voting rights. Why are they not required to uphold the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights, freedom of speech?

SHIBLEY: Well it’s interesting. There are some civil rights protections, Title IX, it’s probably the most - most well-known one but some--


SHIBLEY: --racial discrimination as well. Those do come - those are requirements when you get federal funding. But, actually, following the First Amendment is not one of those requirements. We don’t make that requirement of colleges who take federal funds. But you’re right, it’s - it’s virtually all of them.

CARLSON: So, why wouldn’t it be pretty simple for college - for Congress to pass a law saying if you’re going to take tax dollars, you have to follow the Bill of Rights? That doesn’t seem like a very tough ask.

SHIBLEY: Well that is something that Congress could do. And it wasn’t done back in the - the Civil Rights era. I think now you would see a lot of resistance on political bases because I think people are, you know, there’s a lot of support out there, particularly, among college administrators and folks who work at colleges for these kind of restrictions.

I think you’d see a lot of opposition to that. I don’t think you’d see a lot--


SHIBLEY: --among your average Americans though.

CARLSON: Man, well if we ever get a Republican Congress maybe they’ll do it and, you know, build a wall and stuff like that, protect Americans. Here’s hoping. Robert, thank you very much.

SHIBLEY: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: Well Jason Nichols is right in the middle of this debate. He’s an actual professor. He teaches African-American studies at the University of Maryland and a frequent guest on this show. Professor, thanks for coming on.


CARLSON: So, it seems like kind of a - would be a baseline for a university to have pretty much absolute freedom of speech a prerequisite for freedom of thought like what’s the point of having colleges if you can’t say whatever you think?

NICHOLS: Well I - I think number one, in society, we don’t have complete freedom of speech.


NICHOLS: Of course, you - you know, there’s libel, there’s defamation. There is, you know, threats of - of violence and--


NICHOLS: --and inciting violence.


NICHOLS: Those are limits on free speech. So, I think we have this idea that freedom of speech means that you can say anything at any time.

CARLSON: No, no, we know what it is--

NICHOLS: And it’s--

CARLSON: --because Brandenburg versus Ohio in 1967, the famous Supreme Court case, very specifically outlined the boundaries of free speech. And so--


CARLSON: --libel is not allowed, of course. Imminent threats of violence are not allowed. But everything else is allowed. Everything else is allowed. And you would think and - but it’s not allowed in Apple or Amazon or some big authoritarian company. But colleges exist to be an oasis in the middle of our commercial society for free thinking. So--

NICHOLS: I - I agree--

CARLSON: --why would they be the places where free thinking is punished most aggressively?

NICHOLS: --no, I - I agree that, you know, there - there are many cases. And you and I actually discussed, you know, a - a case a little while ago where there was a college professor who said something he shouldn’t have said, and then all of a sudden people are talking about, “Oh, he needs to be fired. Try to,” this is why we actually have tenure--


NICHOLS: --is, you know, to protect people so that they can say what it is that they want. But there have been all these attacks. There are these people who are trying to put limits on what it is you say. And I think that that’s, you know, problematic. But, you know, I think overall colleges do protect freedom of speech. They do protect freedom--

CARLSON: So, what would happen if you went in - into your class and say, “Yes (ph), I kind of like that Donald Trump. And what do I like about him? I like the family separation policy, I like the wall. He’s right that Mexico doesn’t send us its best, just kind of read portions of a Trump speech”--


CARLSON: --how’d that work out for you?

NICHOLS: I don’t - I don’t - well, I think students would disagree, and they’d have every right to disagree.

CARLSON: Of course, well, of course, they would. I would never contest their right.

NICHOLS: And - and as a matter of fact, even if they protested me, that’s part of their First Amendment right.

CARLSON: You’re not getting - no debate from me on that. I - I believe in the free exchange of ideas. And despite the efforts to shut us down and shut us up, we’re - we’re still doing it.

But if you said that in a faculty meeting, no one would engage you. People would just say, “You know what? You’re some - I know you’re African- American, but you’re obviously some kind of freaky bigot.”

You know what I mean? They would treat you like they treated Kanye West like no one would engage you and say, let’s talk through those ideas. You - you really think the family separation policy is a good idea? No, they would shout at you. Wouldn’t you?

NICHOLS: Well, I - I think people would disagree. And I think they would have every right to disagree.

CARLSON: Yes, yes, of course, no, but I’m saying--

NICHOLS: And I - and I think that is--

CARLSON: --like the whole idea of the college is, you say one thing, I say another, then we talk about them to get to wisdom.


CARLSON: Isn’t that the goal?

NICHOLS: Sure. But I think this - the--

CARLSON: But they wouldn’t do that (ph).

NICHOLS: --the conversation doesn’t always have to be comfortable. That means we--

CARLSON: Of course, not.

NICHOLS: --we can yell at each other, we can sit there and - and try to shut one another down. That’s part of free speech.

CARLSON: Of course, I guess the macro question is have you ever met a group of people with smaller minds than those who teach at America’s colleges, less open to new ideas to challenging like truly challenging concepts.

NICHOLS: I - I think that’s what we literally do on college campuses--

CARLSON: Really?

NICHOLS: --is challenge concepts and challenge popular ideas. I think number one, you know--

CARLSON: How about this? Why don’t you go to next faculty meeting and say, you know what (ph), just for the record, abortion’s murder?

NICHOLS: Well let me tell you, hold on, Tucker--

CARLSON: I just want to see how that works.

NICHOLS: --let me tell you something. Every semester--

CARLSON: Uh-huh?

NICHOLS: --we have abortion activists who come out and litter the campus with pictures of aborted fetuses.


NICHOLS: And there are pregnant women who - who are walking across campus crying and all these kinds of things. It’s still their First Amendment right to do that--

CARLSON: Well, of course it is. I’m just saying - I’m just wondering if your college (ph)--

NICHOLS: --and - and nobody (ph) complains.

CARLSON: --but what - people complain.

NICHOLS: People complain, right.

CARLSON: But what would your colleagues say if you said that?

NICHOLS: I’m sure they - they’d be disgusted. And they - they’d - they’d be upset with me--

CARLSON: Oh, they would.

NICHOLS: --some would, some wouldn’t--

CARLSON: They wouldn’t be open to like why is it insane (ph)?

NICHOLS: No, they--

CARLSON: What are the ideas behind that?

NICHOLS: --they don’t have - but they don’t have to be open to it.

CARLSON: No, of course because they’re - but they should be because they’re not supposed to be small-minded. They’re supposed to be broad-minded, but they’re not.

NICHOLS: No, these are people who - who are probably studied the issue and they have a--

CARLSON: No, they haven’t. They’re dumb people--

NICHOLS: --a particular view.

CARLSON: --come on.

NICHOLS: Oh, they’re dumb people. People who study for a living are dumb people.

CARLSON: No. Well, amazingly, that’s the irony wrapped in the riddle. You are none of those things, which is why we’re so grateful that you come on this show. Thank you, Professor.

NICHOLS: Right. Thanks a lot, Tucker. Appreciate it.

CARLSON: Good to see you.

Time now for Final Exam. Can you do better than the news professionals at remembering the news? A lot happened this week. What happened? We don’t know. Do you? Find out after the break.





CARLSON: Oh the best and calmest (ph) moment of the week. It’s time now for Final Exam where hardened news professionals compete to win an Erik Wemple mug and be crowned the ultimate news champion. This week’s exam, we’re pitting two of our top Fox News Correspondents against one another, but gently, Lauren Blanchard and Griff Jenkins join us on the set.

Griff is a longtime former champion, though I think every match you’ve won, you had an arm sling on.

GRIFF JENKINS, CORRESPONDENT, REPORTER, PRODUCER, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: We did. We had a four and O (ph) run in a sling. First time the sling came off, I lost.

CARLSON: Yes. Well we found out recently that Lauren is a very tough competitor, so best of luck to you and, of course, to you.


CARLSON: All right, you know the rules. I’m going to repeat them though for audience at home. Hands on buzzers, I ask the questions. The first one to buzz in gets to answer the question. This is key. You must wait until I finish asking the question in order to answer it.

You can answer once I acknowledge you saying your name. Each correct answer is worth a single point. Each incorrect answer detracts a point from your total, the cruel math of Final Exam. Best of five wins. Are you ready?

JENKINS: I’m ready.

BLANCHARD: I’m ready (ph).

JENKINS: Good luck.

CARLSON: All right.

BLANCHARD: Good luck, sir.

JENKINS: Let’s do it.

CARLSON: We’re going to begin with a multiple-choice question. In a marketing move that is either brilliant or insane, one fast-food chain is now selling fire logs that make your whole house smell like their food. Is the restaurant A, Burger King, B, KFC, C, Domino’s?


Lauren Blanchard.


CARLSON: B, KFC. Boy, you’re definitive--

BLANCHARD: I just hope so (ph).

CARLSON: --on that. Is it KFC?



JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE!: If you are looking to kick-start your Christmas season, you might want to get yourself one of these. This is the KFC 11 herbs and spices--



BLANCHARD: It’s absolutely (ph)--


KIMMEL: --fire logs. This is the logs that as you get (ph) you put in your fireplace--


BLANCHARD: So hard (ph)--


KIMMEL: --that smells like fried chicken--


JENKINS: It’s good stuff (ph)--

BLANCHARD: Well then (ph)--


KIMMEL: --for real.



CARLSON: It smells like your car in college.

BLANCHARD: No, absolutely not. I would - that would not come into my house.

CARLSON: Well it sounds like--

JENKINS: I’m going to run down and get one now.

CARLSON: Lauren Blanchard, you are up by one point. All right, Griff, it’s all you. Question two.

JENKINS: I agree with you (ph).

CARLSON: Traffic in Los Angeles is notoriously awful. But thanks to the brilliance and the foresight of Elon Musk, relief may be on the way. The billionaire inventor just unveiled what new faster way of getting around Los Angeles?


Griff Jenkins.

JENKINS: Tunnel.

CARLSON: Tunnels? Under L.A.?

JENKINS: L.A. tunnels.

CARLSON: I don’t believe you. Let’s check the tape.


GAYLE KING, CO-ANCHOR OF CBS THIS MORNING, CBS, EDITOR-AT-LARGE FOR O, THE OPRAH MAGAZINE: How about this? Underground tunnels to beat traffic congestion?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Autonomous technology in the cars ensure that they don’t run into each other despite going speeds over 125 miles--






JENKINS: Elon Musk, he’s got some bright ideas.

CARLSON: Because when you’re near the San Andreas Fault what you want is to drive in a tunnel, don’t you think?

JENKINS: That would be a little trepidacious to do in there.

CARLSON: For what it’s worth (ph) it’s California. They won’t even exist.

All right, question three, congratulations on that. This week, a man in Missouri was sentenced to a year in prison for illegally poaching hundreds of deer. The Judge also mandated that while the poacher is locked up, he is required to watch which classic Disney movie once a month?


Lauren Blanchard.




CARLSON: Well that’s cool and unusual.


CARLSON: Is it Bambi?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A Judge ordering the man who illegally killed hundreds of deer in Missouri to watch the Disney classic Bambi at least once a month during his one-year jail sentence.


BLANCHARD: That’s great (ph).

JENKINS: That’s fantastic.

CARLSON: That man has eaten a lot of venison.


JENKINS: That is poetic justice there--

CARLSON: Yes. Hope he’ll change as there (ph)--

JENKINS: --terrible was (ph).


CARLSON: Question four. Another multiple choice, so wait for each option. Forbes this week released its list of the richest celebrities of 2018. The top spot this year went to a filmmaker with a net worth of $5.4 billion. Was it A, George Lucas? Was it B, Steven Spielberg or, C, James Cameron?


Lauren Blanchard.

BLANCHARD: George Lucas.

CARLSON: George Lucas. And you’re fast--

BLANCHARD: Star Wars, right?

CARLSON: --with that buzzers.

JENKINS: Right (ph).

CARLSON: Is it George Lucas of Star Wars?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Top four U.S., Michael Jordan, Oprah Winfrey, not a surprise--




UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: --Steven Spielberg. And coming in at number one, Star Wars Creator, George Lucas--




UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: --with a net worth of $5.4 million.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: --billion with a B--

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did I say ba, ba, ba--

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, yes, yes (ph).




CARLSON: Did you know that or did you guess?

BLANCHARD: No. I - I - I feel like I knew that one.

CARLSON: You feel like you knew that?

BLANCHARD: And it’s Star Wars. It was a (ph)--

CARLSON: How did you do on the SAT?

BLANCHARD: Actually, I’m from Michigan. We don’t really take the SAT for a- -


BLANCHARD: --lot of Midwest schools, so ACT.

CARLSON: ACT. I bet you got a 100.

BLANCHARD: I wish. No, my parents would have been a lot--

JENKINS: You have fast - I feel like you’re fast (ph)--

CARLSON: Yes. No, she’s absolutely. She’s unbelievable (ph).

BLANCHARD: I have - I have two brothers.

JENKINS: A - a duel draw (ph).

BLANCHARD: I’ve had to fight for a lot of things growing up.

CARLSON: Yes, you can tell. Boy, you are the--

BLANCHARD: Grumpy (ph)--

CARLSON: --you’re really first duel (ph). All right, final question.

JENKINS: All right.

CARLSON: Which 90s child actor, famous for starring in a very popular Christmas movie, has just reprised his role for a new ad for Google?



BLANCHARD: Macaulay Culkin. I always want to see his--

CARLSON: Macaulay Culkin. Is it--

BLANCHARD: --Home Alone.

CARLSON: --Macaulay Culkin?


CARLSON: Is he back?




MACAULAY CARSON CULKIN, ACTOR MUSICIAN: Hey, Google, add after-shave--


BLANCHARD: It’s the Google app (ph).


CULKIN: --to my shopping list.


CULKIN: Hey Google, remind me to clean these sheets later.

GOOGLE: OK. I’ll remind you.


GOOGLE: Someone’s at the front door.

CULKIN: What do I owe you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Looks like you paid online.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Keep the change, you filthy animal.




JENKINS: It’s like (ph)--

CARLSON: Amazing.




CARLSON: Our and - well, I don’t usually add in a show timer (ph) here but I’m hearing from our judges who would have--


CULKIN: Hey Google, turn down the temperature two degrees.


CARLSON: --all the metrics in front of them on the Final Exam control room board.


CARLSON: And they’re saying that both of you have buzzed in but your reflexes are so lightning quick, you’re like a ninja, and they’re impressed.

JENKINS: It is. It’s like, you know, the old Western movies where the guy’s like--

Update hourly