Live from Music Row Wednesday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed national political editor for The Tennessee StarNeil W. McCabe to the newsmaker line to weigh in on Joe Biden’s latest speech and political omens.
Leahy: We welcome now to our newsmaker line, the very best Washington correspondent in the country, Neil W. McCabe. Neil, good morning.
McCabe: Morning, Michael. Good morning, Crom. We’re all very excited about the omens. Everyone remembers from Roman history that birds are very important for telling us what’s going to happen in the future, to tell us about the times that we’re going through now.
You’ll recall the Romans had special priests who would cut open birds and examine their livers. They would watch the way birds flew in the air to see which way the war was going to go. Birds are very important to the Romans.
Leahy:(McCabe laughs) So there was a bird that had a special delivery in Iowa. The legal but not legitimate grifter-in-chief, Joe Biden was giving a speech in a big barn in Iowa. Tell the audience what that special message the bird had for President Joe Biden.
McCabe: He made a special delivery, a little deposit … (Laughter)
Leahy: He’s in his speech, and this little white deposit is dropped on his shoulder just above his lapel flag pin. And it’s sort of, I mean, you can see this white substance kind of dribbling down above his lapel. Did you see, Neil, what the White House said that substance was?
McCabe: It said it was a kernel of corn, right?
Leahy: Yeah, that’s what you call spin. Crom Carmichael, do you want to weigh in on this?
Carmichael: It’s just hysterical. Kate Beddingfield, who is the White House communications director tweeted, if you guys knew your way around a corn silo at all, you’d know it was corn.
Leahy: Well, he wasn’t speaking inside of a corn silo. He was speaking inside of a barn. And if you look at it, your lying eyes will tell you corn does not leave that drizzly white imprint down your lapel.
Carmichael: This is very similar to the White House explanation on inflation. (Leahy laughs) It’s not bird poop. It’s not inflation. It’s corn and Putin.
McCabe: If anybody has spent any time in a barn, they would know that there are often birds in the rafters. So that was just bad advance work, I think.
Leahy: Yes! By the way, that’s a very good point. Knowing that there’s a risk that a bird would, I don’t know, give you a special delivery, why would you hold this in a barn?
McCabe: Because they’ve never actually been in a barn. They’ve seen pictures of barns, and they think they’re amazing, and what a great vista. The president didn’t seem to be aware at first that he was in a barn. I believe he called it a hall at first.
(Laughter) Whatever. It’s tough! It’s almost cruel to ask the guy questions, because he doesn’t know any more than anybody else what’s going on, and he’s supposed to be in charge. And so here we are. But it does remind me of, again, the parallels with James Earl and Jimmy Carter.
McCabe: And when we saw him collapse when he was jogging, or he was attacked by a rabbit.
Leahy: Very similar.
McCabe: George H. W. Bush, vomiting on the Prime Minister of Japan, whatever, as one does. I guess the Japanese assume that was just a custom.
Leahy: But the bird is an omen, I suppose you could say.
Leahy: But related to Jimmy Carter: inflation. Yesterday they came out with the numbers, 8.5 percent. We haven’t seen that since the days of Jimmy Carter. Your thoughts, Neil W. McCabe.
McCabe: So we were coming out of that Carter presidency when Ronald Wilson Reagan took office and it took about two years, and it was a tough transition.
And Reagan said that he finally knew that his policies were working when they stopped calling his policies Reaganomics.
Because with Paul Volcker at the Fed, they had to raise interest rates, and it was crushing. And it really flipped a lot of companies and a lot of businesses.
Businesses had learned to sort of function in a high-inflation environment with a weak dollar. And when the Fed and Reagan took the steps necessary to rein in inflation, everybody had to sort of make those adjustments, and not everybody made the adjustments well.
The other comparison I’ll make to the Carter sort of years is that for four years of Jimmy Carter, there was a man named Reagan waiting in the wings, and he was trying to stay relevant.
He was trying to stay involved, trying not to do too much, but trying to keep his viability as a candidate for 1980. And we see the same thing with Donald J. Trump as he’s sort of waiting.
He’s always there, waiting in the wings, but far more active in politics than Reagan was during that time in the winter between ’76 and ’80.
Leahy: Last week you were down inside Mar-a-Lago and had a chance to see the former president give a speech there.
Leahy: I have a big question for you. Are you ready, Neil W. McCabe?
McCabe: I’m ready, sir.
Leahy: Were there any birds flying around Mar-a-Lago when you were down there? (Laughter)
McCabe: There was an eagle soaring over the grounds.
Carmichael: Very good answer.
McCabe: Which the Romans would tell you that that’s a good sign. The other thing is that the Chinese talk about the mandate of heaven, right? So, you know that a dynasty is going to fall when there’s an earthquake or some kind of natural disaster.
And there was a massive earthquake in China that marked the end of the Cultural Revolution. Basically, a lot of people attribute that earthquake and the attitude of the earthquake to the fall of the Gang of Four in that group. And so we’re just sort of seeing these things.
Biden does not enjoy the mandate of heaven. And bad things are happening, and bad things happen when there’s a bad leader. You talk about the Fisher King, Michael, the land and the King are one.
Michael, I’m going to tie three completely disparate issues together under the category of grifting. And that’s what I’ve said. The essence of the entire Biden administration is that. We know that Biden took out a terrorist in Syria, and that’s a good thing.
But the bad thing about that is that Biden is still just determined to strike, to redo the nuclear deal with Iran and give Iran billions and billions of dollars. And it is Iran that is the chief sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East and, in fact, around the world.
To take out one terrorist and then give money to a government that funds terrorists makes no sense. The other little footnote on that is that when Trump took out Soleimani, who is equally a terrorist, Biden condemned Trump for doing that, claiming that we don’t need another war in the Middle East.
One could make the same claim here but that would be an incorrect claim. If Biden was truly concerned about terrorism in the Middle East, he would not be giving Iran billions of dollars.
The second one is – and this is so typical, unfortunately – the entire Democratic Party, there was a bill that was introduced in the House. It was about to pass the House, and the goal of the bill was to provide incentives and support to move manufacturing back from China.
Now, we can argue over whether or not the federal government should have any responsibility for that, and we certainly could argue it shouldn’t target particular businesses. It should just pass policies that encourage manufacturing.
But in the bill – the America Compete Act – at the last minute, Democrat Eddie Bernice Johnson from Texas, stuck in the bill that all private manufacturers who take money must unionize their workforce.
This is so typical and unfortunate of the Democrat Party that anytime federal dollars are being used, they just cannot bring themselves to help all Americans. They have to help only themselves at the expense of everybody else.
And the last one that I want to tie together under grifting – and this one is actually much more serious – what Biden is doing is he is populating the Federal Reserve with a bunch of grifters who are a bunch of people who believe that it should be the policy of the Federal Reserve to mandate and change our energy system.
When Congress established the Federal Reserve it established it to do two things. One is to keep inflation in check and to keep unemployment low. I’m not sure that the Federal Reserve can do both of those things.
But if you add on top of that, switching our economy from a fossil-based economy to a green economy and then include those two things, it is not possible to do all of those three things at the same time.
And now we have people who are in front of the Senate actually lying about their own record. And they won’t be called to task, as Roger Stone was when they claimed he lied to Congress and to the FBI. But this lady, Sarah Bloom Raskin, has a long record of claiming that it’s up to the government to move us to a green economy and to hurt fossil fuel companies. And she’s denying what she has previously said.
Let’s talk about Biden’s plan to add more seats to the Supreme Court. So a controversial commission set up by President Joe Biden to explore changes to the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in a draft final report on Monday that there was, quote, profound disagreement over whether to add more seats to the Supreme Court bench.
Profound disagreement. The report from the commission, which was established in April, comes as polls show that public approval of the Supreme Court has dropped in recent months. That’s CNN’s reporting right there. And I’m here to say, who cares!
Who cares about the approval rating for the Supreme Court? The court is not there for your approval. The Supreme Court is not there to write our laws and tell us how to change society. It is merely there to interpret laws that the people have duly passed in the federal paper number 78, Alexander Hamilton said, “The judiciary has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of society and can take no active resolution whatever. It may be truly said to have neither force nor will but merely judgment.”
You see, Hamilton pondered that the judiciary should be the least dangerous branch of government because it couldn’t control the military or the money. Now there’s a clear reason why there is a profound disagreement over whether to add more seats in the Supreme Court, even in the progressive Biden administration, because the political tactic to circumvent the will of the people by adding justices is both obvious and perverse.
This is not the first time this has been tried. Just look at what happened to the Commerce Clause when the Roosevelt administration threatened to expand the court. Then the federal government arguably grew more during that time period than at any other point in American history.
And hopefully, there is disagreement within the Biden administration because some of those imbeciles up there recognize that the Supreme Court is not meant to be a political body. Listen ya’ll, Democrats figured out how to circumvent the legislature 50 years ago.
They forced everything to the courts, whether it was abortion to Roe v. Wade decision or same-sex marriage issues through the Borderville decision, or even something like Obamacare when Roberts flip-flopped in the whole tax fee, fee tax nonsense. Democrats have used five unelected people to force their beliefs in the rest of the country for several decades.
And that tactic has squelched the voice of at least half of this country. Why do you think Trump was able to beat Hillary? Because the people had had enough! In some sense, Trump was merely a market force reaction. So change will occur. It must.
But societal change is meant to be slow, a thoughtful, deliberate process whereby you convince your fellow men. Change hearts and minds and cement things in stone by passing a law. Doing it properly means that we don’t have to continually revisit the same issues year after year. Change is inevitable.
Progress is healthy, but it must be done through the proper channels. There’s a very clearly designed constitutional mechanism through which societal change must occur. In other words, the legislature. I’ll end with this story, Michael. Justice Scalia used to tell my favorite story all the time about the passing of the 19th Amendment.
This is the right to vote for women. And of course, everything nowadays is being pushed through the 14th Amendment. This substantive due process claims whether it’s Bergfeld and same-sex marriage or Roe v Wade and abortion, it’s all a 14th Amendment claim. So presumably, the right to vote would be a right.
That is our constitutional protection that’s issued well before the alleged right for women to vote or same-sex marriage or anything.
But if the 14th Amendment actually did mean what it meant, why did women not rely upon that to push the 19th Amendment? The 14th Amendment had been around for 55 years prior to women getting the right to vote.
They didn’t use the 14th Amendment because they wanted it to last. They wanted to set it in stone so that we would never have to visit this issue again. They convinced their fellow man they changed hearts and minds, and they passed the 19th Amendment. again.
There are clearly defined ways to change our society, relying on five unelected people to tell the entire country what to think. That ain’t it. And increasing the number of justices to flip the vote in your favor for a decade or two is borderline treasonous behavior. We deserve better and we know better.
Live from Music Row Monday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed Texas Tech Professor of Atmospheric Science, Christopher Weiss to the newsmakers line to give insight into the recent tornados hitting Kentucky, Middle Tennessee, and other states late Friday evening.
Leahy: We are joined on the newsmaker line by Professor Christopher Weiss, a Professor of Atmospheric Science at Texas Tech University. Welcome, Professor Weiss. Thanks for joining us this morning.
Weiss: Yeah. Good morning. Thank you for having me. So you have a BS in Atmospheric and Space Sciences from Michigan-Ann Arbor. By the way, a pretty good season for the Blue, huh?
Weiss: Yeah. Beating Ohio State was certainly a big plus. (Chuckles)
Leahy: And in the National Championship, you think your guys are going to make it?
Weiss: Oh, boy, I don’t know. I don’t want to jinx it here, but we’re certainly optimistic. I don’t know. We might get past Georgia. I’m not sure in the Championship.
Leahy: So you actually have gone to these big powerhouse football schools majoring in atmospheric sciences. You got your PhD from the University of Oklahoma in Norman. So you’ve seen some great college football games, haven’t you?
Weiss: I sure have. Obviously, things are kind of going the opposite direction at the moment, but, yeah, I can’t have everything I suppose.
Leahy: Now you’re an expert on tornadoes, then. Is that right?
Weiss: I’ve studied tornadoes.
Leahy: Now tell us about this. The recent tornadoes, it’s pretty devastating. Is this the worst tornado in decades to hit Kentucky primarily, but also some in Tennessee, Arkansas, Illinois and I think a little bit in Missouri?
Weiss: Yeah. There are a lot of things about this event that are noteworthy, for sure. The fact that it’s occurring so far out of season here in December, that’s certainly one noteworthy item. The number of tornadoes in the event, I’ve seen numbers anywhere from 60.
Well, I’m sorry, 60 reports for these tornadoes, but the fact that we had these long-track tornadoes. We had two long-track tornadoes and one extremely long-track tornado that might be a record in terms of a continuous path lengths.
We’ll have to see with the study here whether it was one continuous tornado or if it was a series of tornado segments, what we call tornado families. That’s what often happens in these outbreaks.
So we’re trying to figure out exactly what makes this event unique, but certainly probably the highest impact tornado event for your region in recent memory, for sure.
Leahy: So I don’t know if you’ve looked into this issue, but there were claims by, I think President Biden sort of advanced the claim that this may be a consequence of ‘global warming.’ Have you seen those claims? What’s your take on all this?
Weiss: Anytime we have a significant weather event, this question certainly pops up. It’s a hot button issue right now, and it’s the strong opinions on both sides of course. Yes.
The standard answer we give is that we have to be careful because we’re talking about different scales here. When we talk about climate change, we’re talking about something that’s been occurring over decades.
And then you try to connect that individual, short-fused events like tornadoes, which are called from minutes to hours. We need to be careful in that comparison.
And when we look at large compilation of reports over multiple decades of tornadoes, then we can start trying to align the apples up with the apples. It depends on what your metric is on tornado occurrence.
If you’re looking at the total number of tornadoes that occur across the country, when we look at the trend, we don’t really see a significant increase when you take into account some of the other non-Meteorological factors that are in play.
For example, the fact that there are more people observing these storms, and there are a lot more spotters out. Certainly, the built environment has increased over the past few decades. There’s more things for the tornadoes to hit.
So when you take into account those factors and we don’t see a real strong signal for the increase in the number of tornadoes. What we do see is a shift, a shift in where the tornadoes are occurring.
And that’s been proven in some recent papers in the peer review literature. So traditionally, if you think about tornado alley being here, where we’re at here in Texas or Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, that’s the traditional tornado alley.
That’s where we see most of the tornadoes in April, May and parts of June. And that’s still true. We still have the most tornadoes here at that time of year. But the relative frequency has decreased, and instead we’re seeing increases now out in your neck of the woods.
When we get out to Tennessee, Kentucky, and parts of the upper Midwest up there, we receive a shift in where the tornadoes are happening. That seems to be the climate signal that’s most assailant I suppose.
Leahy: Is there a reason or any hypotheses as to why there’s a greater frequency of tornadoes in the Tennessee general Midwest area, Upper South Midwest area than there have been previously?
Weiss: That’s a great question. You’re hitting some key topics that are currently being studied right now. There’s a paper that looked at this in some detail and actually looked at it as a function of El Nino as well.
Currently, we’re in the El Nino phase. But I think it also applies to this just overall evolution and the climate signal, too. Let’s back up just a second here. Just to review how we get these types of traumatic events.
So there’s a few things you need to have in place. One thing is you need to have it needs to rise (Inaudible talk) If you ever look at a tonnetic thunderstorm from a distance, you’ll see this up draft.
This area that’s going up very quickly creates beautiful, cauliflower-looking cumulus clouds, and they go upwards of 100 miles per hour in the strongest storm. So imagine getting a car and pointing straight up and gunning it.
That’s basically what these storms look like. We need to have buoyant air to make that happen. And part of that is temperature. So we need to have warmer at the ground compared to the temperature of the air loft.
There’s kind of two ends to that. When you have colder air aloft and warmer at the ground that tends to produce thunderstorms, the only thing we need is moisture. We need to have water vapor.
And this is one of the things that’s really key for this signal is we need to have higher amounts of water vapor. So that area that affects you if you look back upstream, comes primarily off the Gulf of Mexico.
And when air sits over top of a water basin for a while, it starts picking up as water vapor. That water evaporates from the Gulf and into the air above. And then the wind blows that water vapor up into one your case, into central Tennessee.
So that’s a big part of it. In global climate change, of course, the water is warming with time, hence this is why we hurricanes as well. But it also means that the amount of water vapor that the air can hold is also higher.
Leahy: Let me ask you this. Our last question because we’re running out of time, here. Very interesting explanation. Have you ever been in or near a tornado yourself?
Weiss: Yes, I certainly have. I’ve been in the field studying these things for a number of years. We had some fairly close calls. It’s kind of a dangerous job out there, but it’s one that I feel is important that we get to observe these tornadoes.
Leahy: Are you like the guys in that movie twister?
Weiss: Yeah. We have all the instrumentation. We have doppler radars.
Leahy: Do you get your truck and, like, chase after a tornado?
Leahy: You do really? Oh, my goodness. Are you worried that it might come turn towards you?
Weiss: Yeah. We try to stay at a distance. And we allow the storm to evolve as it comes towards us.
Leahy: Have you ever thought my time is about to be up? Have you ever thought this tornado might get me?
Weiss: Yeah. Well, I’ve been in the outer fringes of tornadoes before unexpectedly.
Leahy: Well, we’re glad you made it through. Dr. Christopher Weiss, thanks so much for joining us today from Texas Tech. It’s been a pleasure.
Live from Music Row Monday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed U.S. (R-TN-07), Rep. Mark Green, to the newsmaker line to discuss Biden’s no show at annual Army-Navy football game, the destruction of tornadoes in Tennessee, and the Democrats quest for authoritarianism.
Leahy: On the newsmaker line, our good friend, Representative Mark Green, a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, served in combat in Iraq and decorated. H also left the army, was a major, I think when he left the army. Welcome to The Tennessee Star Report, Congressman Green.
Green: Hey! Thanks for having me on.
Leahy: Did you watch the Army-Navy game? Who won that game? Oh, that would be Navy. 17 to 13. What was your reaction to that?
Green:(Chuckles) Well, I think the Navy wanted it more. I think the Army went in a little too confident. They had a great season so far. And, of course, we had a few of our better players on injured reserve, but we just didn’t look like we wanted it. And Navy did.
Leahy: What’s it like being a cadet going to the Army-Navy game?
Green: Oh, it’s pretty amazing. Of course, you’ve got always in the background the life of being a cadet. So it’s sort of like you’re out of prison for four hours or five hours for the weekend. And you’re there in Philadelphia most of the time. In all my years at West Point, except for one when we went out to Anaheim. But, yeah, it’s a great game. A great American tradition.
Leahy: Well, I noticed that the current President, Joe Biden, broke with tradition. Former President Donald Trump went to every single Army-Navy game.
Joe Biden didn’t go. I don’t know. I mean, if I were a cadet or a Midshipman, I don’t think I would be very pleased with that. What’s your reaction to Biden’s not showing up?
Green: I really don’t know. I didn’t give it much thought. The only thing when I think about Joe Biden, I think about the destruction to the country. I don’t think about whether he goes to the football game or not. But it is a little bit of a slap in the face I suppose.
Leahy: One of your colleagues, Lee Zeldin from New York. I’ll just throw this out there. Said the reason the White House staff didn’t want him to go there was because they were afraid the crowd would break out in chance of Let’s Go Brandon!
Green: I don’t doubt that there’s a reason why Kamala Harris doesn’t go to the border, even though she’s the border czar. It’s because the cameras go there and they see things they don’t want to see. So in that case, they would hear things they don’t want to hear.
Leahy: Well, parts of your district had very, very I think it was parts of your district were affected by these tornadoes late Friday night, early Saturday morning. What’s the status? What can you report on that?
Green: Well, obviously, just like the floods in Waverley, just like the floods in Hardin County. I mean, Tennessee and rally to each other. People are all over the district helping those who’ve lost property damage and things like that.
Our district fared better than David Kustoff’s district. The tornado actually started out there in West Tennessee. The big tornado that ripped through Kentucky. And of course, the images from Kentucky are just grieving everyone.
Leahy: I want to follow up on another question. I call this Build Back Broker bill. What’s the status of that bill?
Green: So it looks like the Senate is going to hold it. I mean, so far Manchin has done what he said he was going to do and pushed back. Now, both he and Kyrsten Sinema have said that they aren’t supportive of the bill.
And I think after Virginia, both of those folks saw what happened there and realized this kind of woke craziness that’s going on and I would even say Marxist stuff that’s going on in the far-left Democrat Party are not going to be a part of it. And they know it’s not very good for their political lifespan.
Leahy: Crom Carmichael has a question for you, Mark.
Carmichael: Congressman, on the Build Back Better, his bill. Whatever you want to call it. I’m of the opinion that there are at least a half dozen other Senate Democrats that do not want it to come to the floor for a vote, but they don’t want to be vocal against the bill.
They just want it to die and never come to the floor. And among those would be Mark Kelly, Hassan in New Hampshire and the Senator from Nevada, and then also Tester who’s not up for reelection this time but still does not want to have to vote for that bill. Your comment on that?
Green: Well, I can only share what our senators say with me or say to me. And Marsha has made it very clear that there are five to six over there who definitely will not vote for it if it comes to the floor. And so that kind of confirms your suspicion. But yeah, Marsha has said that there’s more than just Manchin incentive.
Leahy: Congressman Green, I have a question on a breaking story to see if you can give us some insight into this. So the January 6th ‘select committee’ that is looking into the breach of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, subpoenaed Steve Bannon. He said he wouldn’t comply with the subpoena due to executive privilege.
The committee wanted to hold him in contempt. The House voted yes to hold him in contempt. And now the Justice Department is prosecuting him. Just yesterday, apparently, or Friday, the committee then also said they want to hold former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, also a former congressman in contempt.
That’s going to the House for a vote. Do you think that House vote will have the same result as the recommendation to hold Bannon in contempt, or will it be different because he’s Mark Meadows?
Green: It’s very interesting. Mark Meadows was a member of the Freedom Caucus. He was a very conservative member of Congress, and Democrats liked him. It’s very interesting. He would always get extra courtesy when debated in committee beyond what others would get.
And I think it’s because he just was a very nice person and worked very diligently for compromise at times. And so I think there’ll be some Democrats who do not vote to hold Meadows in contempt. Now we’ll see. Pelosi is the master at whipping her caucus. So we’ll see.
Carmichael: Is that literally or figuratively?
Leahy: She’s got the whip. Boom! (Laughter)
Carmichael: I just want to be clear, because it could be either. (Laughs)
Leahy: When will that vote come up?
Green: That’s a hard question. So we may be voting Tuesday or Wednesday this week and that’s on passage of some budget-related stuff. But if we go for that, they’ll put the Meadows thing on. If not, it’s going to be the first week of January.
Leahy: You had a piece at the Washington Examiner. I think recently talking about the triangle of tyranny. I thought that was quite profound.
In the minute and a half we have, describe the triangle of tyranny and what reaction people have had to that piece that you wrote.
Green: Basically, if you look at the Os Guinness Freedom Triangle or Golden Triangle, where freedom is the objective to get there, you have to have a virtuous society. To get a virtuous society. You have to have a fixed moral right.
And to get faith or a fixed moral right, you have to have freedom. So there’s this circular. And I wondered, what is it that’s driving the Democrats? Not all Democrats, but at least these Marxists.
And instead of freedom, they want authoritarianism with themselves in control, dictating to everybody else. And in order to get everyone to want authoritarianism, you have to have chaos.
So when there are riots in the streets, people will even accept martial law when there are riots. So to get authoritarianism, you have to have chaos. And to get chaos, you have to have moral relativity. And you can see moral relativity and the best example, of course, is their views on abortion.
And of course, once you get moral relativity and morality is relative, the authoritarians can tell you what’s right and wrong. They can tell you what they want to say and what you can say. So that is my vision of what the leftists and the Democrats want.
Leahy: What’s been the reaction to people who have thought about that?
Green: People really go, wow, that’s pretty deep thinking.
Leahy: Something profound from a member of Congress. It rarely happens. Congratulations on getting something profound out there.
Green: I’m a reader. I love to read and to think about these kinds of things.
Leahy: We’re out of time. But thanks so much. We got so much more to talk about. Come in studio sometime, if you would please. We’ll have a full hour. All right?
Green: I will. Absolutely.
Leahy: Congressman Mark Green, always interesting to talk to you.