Deep Dive
Shownotes Transcript
Well, we're back with another guest that we've had on before, and he is the president of Downsize DC and the podcast Grace Arkey. Jim Babka, how you doing, Jim? I'm great. How are you? Great. So are you excited about this new inauguration coming up here? You know, it's just another inauguration. They happen every four years or so. Are you preferring that you have this one in instead of Kamala, or were you looking forward to Kamala?
No, definitely. And I don't use her first name or I try not to. I strive not to because I'm not I'm not friends with her. But I don't I did not want that regime precisely because of the censorship issue. And I think the thing that we just saw with Mark Zuckerberg would not have been possible with her in power. The opposite, I think, very clearly would have occurred.
And so the latest episode that we have out in Gracearchy is about that very issue. So I think the first positive development has already occurred. And it's the one that I feared the most if she were chosen. So if Trump called you into his office, what would you be advising him to do? You know, realistically, not just giving your extreme, you know, what you fully believe, but like, what would you actually realistically tell him to do?
I had a friend years ago, Michael Cloud, who talked about the Weight Watchers test. Politicians routinely talk about making cuts. We cut this, we cut that. But the way that works is there's a system called baseline budgeting. So the amount of money that they're going to spend is going to, let's say, go up by 8%. And then if they cut it, if they reduce the rate of increase to 4% instead of 8%, they call that a 100% cut. They'll say, we cut spending 100%. And everybody kind of knows something's wrong.
And usually it's much more marginal than what I just said, but it's not a cut. It's still an increase. You would not go to a Weight Watchers meeting. There's a moment at that meeting where you stand on the scale and you said, you know, I knew I had a birthday this week. My friend had a birthday. I was going to eat a lot of cake. I expected to gain three pounds. I only gained two, ergo, I lost one pound. You wouldn't do that.
And that's what politicians do all the time. So I would say to answer your question, I want to see Weight Watchers cuts, real cuts in spending. Can they actually reduce federal spending enough that we could begin to do something about the national debt? That's the thing. Think the thing that would be the most liberating for us. It's also the most important national security issue.
What do you think about the Doge thing? Do you like what they're doing and what they're saying and how they're going about it as an entity, not a government agency, but a private thing? I want to be as hopeful as I possibly can. And I believe that Elon in particular has a talent for the type of thing he's looking to do here. However, the way that our federal budget is set up, there are things called entitlements and they are not part of the budget.
And the debt is going to be the debt payments. The interest on those payments is going to be what the interest is. So the four largest, three of the four largest things are already off the plate. One of the five largest things is already off the plate. And that only leaves the only major thing that's left is defense spending.
And I'm hopeful that they will find some cuts to make at the Pentagon, but I'm suspicious and doubtful. I think there will be a lot of small symbolic things that are done having to do with some of the federal workforce. I see that as positive. I don't want to diminish that, but I don't think it will amount to enough to actually engender real cuts.
Well, you know, we had, I don't know if you saw that, but we put Ron Paul on the team with Doge. You know, I don't know if it'll be followed through, you know. You know, the problem with this stuff is we put a lot of work into making that alliance happen and God did all the magic. But, you know, it's amazing with headlines as crazy as it's been during the transition period. It seems like it's been, you know, pushed down the memory hole to some degree. But I hope that Ron Paul can be
brought to the table in some capacity to be a real credible, you know, advisor to the wisdom of how to cut and everything. Because I think he's the best there is, the best there was and the best there ever will be in Capitol Hill in terms of elected officials with a record of moral governance consistently throughout his lifetime.
So with that said, I'm hopeful that maybe they'll keep good on their word. We put that together and it made it a big thing. And that partly was the reason why he got elected. When I had Ron Paul on my show, I asked him if he'd want to help. And then it went trending, viral, nuts. It went nuts. It was one of the top stories a lot of libertarians read.
People like a Jim Babka all over this country were saying, you know, I wasn't going to vote for Trump, but if this has the chance of getting Ron Paul close to cutting the government, I'm going to walk through glass to do that, you know. So hopefully, you know, they won't just exploit that and never do anything. Hopefully there'll be some teeth to it.
Yeah, I hope you're right too. And I thank you for doing that. You did make national news and it's a good thing. And it's got a conversation going and people are paying attention. The inner cynic in me cannot help thinking that
This is going to be more of the same. It's going to be more of, you know, meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Trump was no budget hawk in the first administration. So I have a regular weekly, nearly weekly radio appearance that I make. And I told that audience after his election that the national debt will increase by seven trillion during his term. That's the minimum.
I'm kind of placing that out there as a bet. I'm putting my name on that. I believe that's what's going to happen. I would love nothing more than to be wrong. Yeah.
And we don't have good news with Thomas Massey being stripped of his rules committee position by Mike Johnson, according to reports today, as of today. So that doesn't bode well for cutting government, does it? Well, you know, there's a rule in politics that you're not supposed to wound the prince. If you can't take him out, you're supposed to keep your powder dry and wait for another day. And he waged a one point at its peak, I think, was a two man war against Johnson's election.
And he failed. Yeah. What would you do? Would you be doing stuff like that? Like if you were in Congress, would you do that kind of stuff or would you play a long game? It would depend on the issue and the circumstances. I'm not sure that that was the particular place he had been doing. Let me put it this way. He's had the last couple of months, he's been absolutely on fire.
And he has said a lot of very powerful and important things about the regime and how it works. And so, you know, the one I'm happiest about is as you know, you, you mentioned your work, my work includes being the coauthor of the one subject of the time act. Oh yeah. We pushed that for years back in the day. Yeah. And the house, these house Republicans we're talking now are talking now about a single subject act. It's basically our bill with a different title on it and a couple of things added to it. But again,
The One Subject at a Time Act or Single Subject Act, whichever you want to call it, there was a Twitter. In fact, we're writing about this right now. There was a Twitter trend right before Christmas during this budget debate that Massey helped kick off. And he basically had a very, very simple direct tweet explained how it would work and why it was superior to the one clean bill that Donald Trump was attempting to introduce or push. Mm-hmm.
What do you think of that debate with the H-1B visas, Elon and Vivek versus Steve Bannon and Laura Loomer and those folks? So I think that Vivek had some misdiagnosis, a little bit of mis... His errors were small, but his critics were not even in touch with reality and in some cases quite ugly. There actually was real discussion. It even happened with somebody that Elon Musk interacted with during that exchange meeting.
real instances of racism or white supremacy were exhibited, which I think is really unfortunate.
I have this belief that when you say to me, I'm opposed to immigration, I say, well, okay, are you sure that you're not committing an offense against human beings made in the image of God? You say, oh, no, no, no, no. I mean, I want a legal process. And then I propose a legal process to you and you say, oh, no, we can't let those people in, full stop.
That's already a hint that something is really wrong with kind of your spiritual view of human beings. So I was a little bit disturbed by what I saw and read there. H-1B itself is not a libertarian idea. It's a little bit of an indentured servitude program.
But it might be the case that the only way that we could bring in the talent that's necessary for a couple of different reasons to this country might be processes like this. This might be the compromise we have to live with for the time being in order to get things done. So I think Vivek was overall right, but his individual prescription as to the causes, his description of culture and what corrodes culture, I don't think they were the right diagnosis of the situation. Mm-hmm.
Steve Bannon says it's going to be my job to make sure Elon does not step foot in the White House. Yeah, so here we are just discussing moments ago cutting the budget and Elon's heading up Doge. And I think that the tech bros, as they're called now, if they hadn't jumped on board, hadn't left the Biden team and come on board the Trump team, the election might have been a different outcome.
They were already starting to defect long before we found out that Joe Biden, long before the Democrats discovered that Joe Biden was feeble. They were very late to that game. The rest of us kind of knew earlier. But
So they're an important part of that coalition that got Donald Trump elected. The other thing is that Donald Trump wants to pursue gains in GDP. He wants an economy that's growing at as much as 4 or 5 percent per year. He's actually called for a 5 percent growth.
I don't know how they do that with some of the economic policies he wants to pursue, including immigration restrictions and deportations. I think that's actually going to make achieving those goals significantly harder. So for Steve Bannon to say we're going to banish them from the room is to also say we're going to banish growth from the room. Mm-hmm.
Steve Bannon says to abolish the Fed, or at least he said that a few years ago. I don't know if he's still saying that right now. He said a couple of years ago. Yeah. And I'm not so certain that Elon Musk wouldn't want to do the same thing. I do kind of detect in both Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk something of a libertarian streak. So but again, I excuse me. I made cynical about all this stuff. We'll see. You know, time will tell. Why are you cynical? Well.
Because what politicians, their product is promises and promises are hollow. And all these are promises until they're actually delivered on. If he stands up and says, I'm trying to fight and I need your help, then I think, you know, it's then it's really on the people themselves to see to it that it happens. But they've elected him and he needs to be the initiator now. He needs to be someone that wants to make things happen as an individual, as a human being.
He has shown a predisposition to being influenced by the last person that came and spoke to him. So in 2017, the very last of the JFK records were supposed to be released. And he got up that morning knowing full well that this was what was on the agenda for the day and tweeted to all of us that they were going to release all the rest of the files.
But they didn't. Mike Pompeo showed up in his office at some point that day and they delayed the release of those records. Biden further delayed and in some cases basically permanently delayed the release of those files. And I'm only holding that up. Trump has promised to release them. So that's one of the things we can test in the early weeks of this administration. Will they indeed be released? But
And even that morning, he was ready to do the right thing. But we found out that one person walking into the room changed that. And that wasn't the only time something like that happened during his first term. Yeah. Yeah. Whoever's the last person to talk sometimes is the one you're saying, huh? Yes. Yes. What is your biggest priority coming into this new year that we have 2025? Me personally? Yeah.
Yeah. Or for the country. Or for whatever. What do you want to do? You want to build a dam in Idaho? I'm actually involved in a variety of projects. And one of them I'm going to be deepening my time with. We want to help people begin to understand that self-ownership. First off, let me back up a step. That self-government.
Is is the desired goal, the the ability to solve problems without turning to your state capital or Washington, D.C., but rather, you know, working where you're at to begin interacting with other human beings. I'm a very big believer in the real relationships we have as opposed to the abstract problems that we're bombarded with through the media.
really being engaged with our neighbors in proactive ways. And so the advocates for self-government and I are going to be working together on a project to do that this year. So I'm supposed to start on that project sometime in February. And I'm really looking forward to beginning to get to that work. Teach people about self-ownership or what to do with it? Yeah, so the first level would be self-ownership. And I don't, I, so there's, this is somewhat spiritual take on this. I believe that every human being has agency.
They have the ability to make decisions for themselves about what they'll do, but a lot of people don't really take ownership of their lives. And the very first person or the very first thing we have to learn about governance is governance of ourselves. And so we're looking to try to connect all those dots from the things that we do with ourselves to the things that we do as we're looking to achieve goals, working with others on up to how we solve major social problems in our communities. And all of them have a common theme running through them that
That we cannot use coercion to get things done because that almost that always diminishes happiness, harmony and prosperity. Instead, we have to find ways to interact with one another. When we do that, our spiritual and social muscles grow. Our compassion improves instead of division like we have so much in our political culture. We have much more coming together.
with much better understanding and compassion. So that's one of the projects I'm going to be working on. And then the other is my podcast. I want to continue to expand the podcast itself, Grace Arkey with Jim Bamka. Your podcast, you talk about Rene Girard and stuff like that, don't you? I do get into that a lot. And this is something I think that ties us, you and I both a bit together. I
In fact, I'm getting ready right now. There was a documentary released on Christmas Day, which was his 101st birthday. I'm re-watching that documentary and compiling notes to potentially do a review episode on it because I really do think his message is extremely important. Whose message is this? Rene Girard. Oh, okay. He said something on Christmas? What is it? No, there was a documentary about his life released on Christmas Day. Did you like that movie? Yeah.
I did. I did. That's why I'm watching it through a second time and making notes now. I want to do a review show and promote this. I want more people to see it. It's up to around 51,000 views when I looked this morning on YouTube. I don't think that's enough. I think this is something that we need a couple million people to be aware of. Welcome to our world. When you talk about Rene Girard, it's not quite caught on yet. It has been used by tech bros and stuff because of Peter Thiel's fame and the world of people who want to start businesses.
And that's been cool, but it hasn't really, the good meat hasn't really percolated into public conceptions yet. And it's, it's a tough one to, it's tough in some ways and other ways it's easy, but it's kind of a, it's kind of complex. So what are the ways in which it's easy?
It's easy because everybody knows about a scapegoat. Everybody knows it. You know, they all know that intuitively there's an office scapegoat. There's an office punching bag. There's a guy that gets picked on at the school, you know, and they know they, they, they viscerally know they feel better when they pick on the weirdo or whatever, or the pick. So what do you think is the toughest part? Is, is, is comprehending just how, how, and how pervasive the,
that thing is on everything they do. You know, people kind of, I think, I think the thing about the scapegoat thing is that people know it's there, but they don't agree or come to the,
uh conclusion like uh renee would that it's so fundamental to everything around them they would probably yes that's just a random kind of thing that i can see and then just like envy you know when renee says that people are envious of other people people like yeah i can see that but they don't think of it as so fundamental and it and and that's where it gets hard to like when you really start you know chiseling away at the the layers of the um
of the human person and culture and all of it to really see how, how, how these kind of random quirks, you know, you see, well, there's envy, there's gluttony, there's pride. Why are you taking envy and making it so undergirding of everything wrong with our society? And why are you taking scapegoating as so pivotal to understanding religion? It feels a little ad hoc. I would think if I'm, if I'm steel manning, the average person's conception of it, if they kind of wrap their, if they try to wrap their mind around why they should get into it, then
They're like, well, I can see that here or there. I don't understand why that's so important for everything. But, you know, it takes... So maybe you can help me with something. Gerard talks about the romantic delusion wherein someone believes that their own thoughts, their own desires are internally generated. They don't recognize the influence of...
I have a friend who is convinced that he has completely falsified this because somebody, A, had to have the original idea, right? There had to be a first person who did a thing before others could imitate it. And B, he's convinced that he internally has a whole bunch of things in his life that have zero outside input. He just likes them because that's who he is. He chose to like them.
Yeah. How do you respond to that? I mean, it doesn't really matter, you know, because at the end of the day, that's, you know, where the line draws between, you know, divine intervention into your mind. Because I think that God can give us, and Renee would tell you that too, right? Renee would say that God can give you divine inspiration that's not mimetically transmitted, you know, through that.
You know, like Nikola Tesla having visions of things and then doing stuff in the lab. I mean, that's a little bit, that's a little, that's a little vertical maybe, you know, but the way in which he got there, you know, is mimetically entwined and kind of, you know, like the way in which he functions and
His father was a priest. His mother was very religious and spiritual, very smart. Excuse me. She wasn't, I don't know if she was as religious, but she was super smart and very like, uh, a lot of his great ideas came from his mother's like a special mind, you know? So there's a lot of stuff in the medic, you know, even in someone who gets these divine inspirations like Nikola Tesla, but, uh,
You know, I try not to argue too much with people because a lot of people like to do that, you know, and that's where they get stuck with mimetic theory is they want to say, no, I really, really, really am a unique snowflake. They don't want to let go of that because a lot of people are, you know, a lot of people, you know, it's very unsettling to realize that so much of what you are is not really that original, you know?
But here's the difference. Here's the thing. The way in which you combine your memetic relationships is your free agency. Yes. That's where the innovation, that's where the uniqueness comes, right? Is that you are influenced by all this stuff. But the way in which you connect the dots, you can make it a rhino out of your life or a hippo or a squirrel. And the way you combine those dots on the pattern of your relationship.
perception and actions and reality. So to this friend, yeah, to this friend, I explained the fact that you're talking to me right now, right? He's on the phone and we're having this conversation. The fact that you're talking to me right now means you're not talking to someone else. It means I have an input into your mind. I'm helping you think thoughts that if you were somewhere else, you would be having different thoughts that has to have some kind of impact. And
I was also raised in an environment where there was this folk wisdom that you should choose carefully who your friends are, who your associates are, how you spend your time, and what you spend your time thinking about. That all those things added up to who you were as a human character. No, that's really true. And we don't appreciate how much of
What we are really is influenced by our peers and that, that the peer influence is what destroys Congress. Going back to the subject matter earlier of this interview, you know, that's why Mike Johnson can't do what he wants to do. Maybe deep down. He's maybe deep down. Mike Johnson's a little bit of a Jim Babka.
You know, when he gets out at night, he looks at the stars and he says, man, I wish I could be like my buddy Jim Babcock on Grace Harky. I watch him every day. And I say, man, if I could be free like Jim. From your lips to God's ears. Free to pontificate, free to free to express the Grace Harky. And then he says, oh, crap, I'm getting a call from B.B. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. B.B. B.B. What is it, sir?
I think there's some validity to what you're saying because he was apparently very opposed to Section 702, the FISA amendments, this warrantless surveillance court that they have set up. He wanted to repeal that and he was very vocal about that and expressed that opinion less than a year before he suddenly got elevated to speaker from the back bench to the top very quickly. Yeah.
And all of a sudden we had to renew that bill. He was also a guy that had some budget restraints in his background. And then he's trying to pass this one clean bill, as Donald Trump called it. And this is what I'm going to keep pushing you on, because you can help me do it. You have the ability to do it. Is that in order for statism to die, libertarianism must die first.
I don't agree with that. Yes, you do. No, I don't. You just don't like the way I framed it yet, but you're going to agree one day. Well, I've had a lot of time to think about this, actually. And there is a point by that. So I understand that, you know, I don't want to make. I think that you. Well, OK, I suspect that you believe that these intermediate structures that we have, these various hierarchies are somehow protecting us from from contagion. Go ahead. What do you mean?
No, no, that's what those conservatives say or something. Conservative René Jarre people might say that. What I'm saying is that libertarianism is itself statism because it's always in reaction to the state. So it's memetically entwined. Jim Babka, libertarianism is...
the guy dressing as golf because everybody in his country, Western town dresses in country Western. It's not really solving the problem. Okay. I'm going to change the framework of the conversation. And then until the libertarians do that. And the reason why I put it on libertarians is they kind of, because they're typically the systems thinkers and the rebel rousers, they have a better noble calling to, to, to be the trendsetters to pull the statist mimetic double twin and,
along to the better path, but they don't. And so therefore we're stuck. So in order for statism to die, anarchism or anti-stata must die first because it's the leader relative to, in terms of the person who's willing to go against the crowd must go in the right direction so that the crowd can go in the right direction. Most of what you just said, I think I recognize as existing. I don't think it describes me. If you'll give me a moment, I'll explain why.
The creation of a show, Grace Arkey with Jim Babka, is trying to get to a root issue. I don't believe it's possible. First of all, I believe that all of politics, all of politics is a conflict machine.
It is a purposeful decision that the way that we're going to solve a social problem requires us to have a fight first. The conclusion of which is that one side gets all the loot. They get all of the power. So if you win 51% of the vote, you get 100% of the power. And now your side are the angelic side that will make everything good.
I don't even remotely believe that that's the right thing to do. I believe personally in what I would call voluntary post-statism. I think that there's an idea that we need to emerge past the state, we need to emerge past all of these conflict mechanisms, and we need to instead sit down and talk with one another and create neighbor and relationship associations where we begin to together take on and tackle problems with one another.
So because I reject at the very start, this idea that we can solve problems through not only through force, but through simply winning the election. Like, I don't believe that. Take all that off the table. But how do you get the people to understand the neighbor to neighbor thing? So my number one answer is Jesus Christ. Right. I believe that relationship with an imitation of Jesus Christ is the perfect mark so
So the definition for sin that is found in Scripture, the word is harmartia. It means to miss the mark. So everything that is not Christ misses the mark. It might be in the general right direction. Like you can aim at a target and only be off by a little bit and still get pretty close. But the bullseye is to imitate and have relationship with Jesus Christ.
So I think there's a host of things that people can do from their various traditions that are going to be closer and closer to the right thing. But Jesus is the best answer. Right. But what? OK, so how do you how do you how would Jesus get people to pay attention to Jesus? Love and service to others. What did what did he do to do that? He took on the form of a servant and and then came in and taught and acted and
in the role of servant. What did he do to get the crowd to come? Well, ultimately, he was willing to die. No, he didn't get the crowd to come. They came after him for that part. I'm saying, how did he get them to hear his message in the first place? I'm not sure what answer you're looking for. Signs and wonders. So I, okay, I believe that if we practiced what we believed in terms of actually reaching out to our neighbors, actually building community where we're solving problems in a more self-governing fashion,
that there would be signs and wonders as a result of that. In fact, there almost always are. We see this, for example, in education. Homeschooling was a heavily derided idea. Parents reasserted and took responsibility. We've had this now basically for three generations of children. Thanks to that first generation, they paved the way. The second generation built it up into a wider accepted practice. And then this recent worldwide sickness, I won't use the P word,
led to a lot of people seeing how bad the system was and having somewhere to escape to. And so that to me is just one example of a sign and a wonder. Why is it wonderful? Why is it a sign? I mean, just to the average person who's unconvinced about anything about Jesus.
Because they can perform well in school or something with homeschool? Yeah, it shows that there's... It shows in that way. I think their socialization... So the fair of school doesn't work as well as what can be done outside with freedom? Yeah, and the socialization question has been completely demolished. Most people that have met a homeschooler know better than that because they've met them. It was interesting. We had someone very close to us who's a schoolteacher.
who initially was very suspicious of what we were doing when we homeschooled our three children, all of whom are in their mid to late 20s now. Did you register with the state and all that stuff, or did you just do it unschool style? No, we did. Well, we did two years of what is of the John Holt kind of unschooling with our two boys, not with our daughter. It wasn't the right thing for her. But we did still send the paperwork in. It was relatively easy to do so.
And I didn't want to do anything that was going, I didn't want to do anything that was going to invite the state into our house at all under any circumstances. I didn't want them showing up. And that maintained enough distance between the two of us. It's the same reason I pay my taxes. It's the ability to stay. I realize I'm being robbed. I realize that what they're doing with the money is wrong, but I kind of live to fight another day under this. And then I'll speak up against it at every juncture I get. Yeah.
Yeah, I mean, we're almost out of time here, so we'll try to wrap it up here. I just wanted to just kind of throw out some food for thought things and think about, like, why is it that, you know, how would Jesus get people to pay attention to his message? And think about that. So, you know, I view— He was an artist, right? He was a performance artist, right? Yeah.
He was a lot of things. He was also a rabbi or a teacher. Why would an average person come out and see Jesus in a crowd?
Well, I think you're right. I mean, I think there were signs and wonders. I mean, I think that's part of it. I also think he probably had some degree of charisma. I think the things that he said when people started trying to follow them worked. And I think there was something divine happening. You can't dismiss the power of the spirit in all of this, right? There's something that's kind of moving through the people themselves, drawing them to him.
We're going to get into Ray Peet with you next time. We're going to get Ray Peet on the Grace Archey too. I'm not even sure who that is. He's a biology genius. He's going to be your Rene Girard for biology. You're going to fit him right into your Christian package really excitingly. I can't wait to see that happen. But I want to go back to something real quick. So the idea here is, okay, how can we really get people – because we don't want –
the whole neighbor to neighbor thing to be a little crunchy niche thing. Like it's been, we want it to be like the big deal, the big enchilada, the big mainstream thing. Come on. That's what we want. We're going for nations being baptized, not, not niche granola health food stores. We want the big deal. We want the whole thing. We want the whole nation baptized in the nation and the image of God. And that's what we have to think about. Let's leave that as a cliffhanger, but yeah,
Actually, I'd like to respond to that if I could, if you don't mind. Okay, it's a cliffhanger. How can you rebuttal? I know, I hate it. Only Jim Babka can rebuttal a cliffhanger. I'm sorry. I just, I have to. I don't want the nation. That's beyond my ambition. Jesus said, baptize all nations. All nations. He's God, so he should say that. And he's giving a command to everyone there. But I believe that you, David, should be working where you're planted, and I should be working where I'm planted. I'm going to do that.
That's where it begins. It's a real relationship. What did Jesus say would make all people believe that he was God or was sent from God? He told us what to do. And I'm not trying to put you on the spot, so please don't. I'm not trying to get you. No, no, it's okay. It's okay. What did he say? He said something very specifically we had to do in order for the world to know. Make disciples of all nations and baptize them.
He said in John 17, I wish above all that they would be one as you and I are one so that the whole world would know that you sent me. So that's an example of what I'm talking about, to be that exemplar to the world. You build something in your space that other people come and they want it. You've got to go to your local Catholic church and start making alliances. You've got to start going to your Lutheran church.
All those churches that you've had enough of, you've got to start learning how to get on with them. Right? Oh, I guess you got me there. Once you become unified, Jesus says the whole world will know that God sent him. So he's not being, do you think he's being like theoretical? Do you think he's being like hypothetical or like kind of like tongue in cheek there? Or do you think he's being like a literal prophecy? When they are one, the whole world will know that you sent me.
I have my own answer for that. I'm going to leave this as the cliffhanger. Thank you. You don't want to answer, Jesus? No, okay. I can't answer that. I believe that I have a responsibility to model love where I'm at, wherever that is. I'm just saying, do you think he was saying, I want that, like that's literally going to happen? Yeah, I do think there's a point at which that happens. But I think that also happens naturally. I think I'm only responsible for me in that particular transaction.
All right, let's leave it there. Thanks, Jeb Babka. Any last thing you want to plug? Sure. Check out DownsidesDC.org as well. We are just this week. Downsides DC is your Weight Watchers program for DCP. Yes, exactly right. And Rand Paul introduced our Read the Bills Act, Write the Laws Act, and One Subject at a Time Act. They were the first pieces of legislation he introduced into this new Senate. Good.
Well, very good. Thanks, Jim. I appreciate you coming on. Thank you, David. It's always a thrill. Take care.