Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: In this episode, we try to make sense of efforts we've seen recently to ban Sharia law in the US at the state level and also coming out of the Senate, especially considering we haven't seen anyone trying to implement Sharia law in the U.S.
Hello, welcome to the Call Like I See it podcast. I'm James Keys and joining me today is a man who's tall enough to appreciate it when people call him Big Papa Tunde. Ogunlana Tunde. You ready to hit us today with some of that machine gun funk?
[00:00:45] Speaker B: Big Papa is one I've never been called, so that just makes me laugh.
[00:00:51] Speaker A: I just said you'd appreciate it, that's all.
[00:00:53] Speaker B: You know, let's just have a show before I start getting gross about it.
[00:01:00] Speaker A: Now, before we get started, if you enjoy the show, I ask that you subscribe and like the show on YouTube or your podcast app. Doing so really helps the show out. We're recording on June 9, 2026. And Tunde, over the past few months we've seen a steady stream of media coverage across many right leaning and extreme right outlets that are pushing for the ban of Sharia law in various states or the US in general.
And on cue, we've seen bills passed in Florida and that, among other things, bans Sharia law. And we've seen a bill introduced in the Senate a couple weeks ago which looks to do something similar as far as banning Sharia law.
Now it seems to me that the Constitution already bans religion from becoming the law of the land here in the U.S.
so there's that. But also notable is that there doesn't seem to be any effort or any efforts going on in the US to enact Sharia law. And so it's a bit confusing on where these efforts to ban it are coming from. If nobody, like if we're saying, hey, let's ban aliens from landing in the US and it's like, well, but there are no if there aren't. If that's not happening, then what are we doing? You know, so to speak?
So in other words, it seems to be a pure strawman act where people have created this push to eliminate something that's not already, that's not present and, and is already presumably prohibited. So Donne, what stands out to you in the recent push against Sharia law and more broadly, what appears to be a coordinated use of Sharia law as a straw man by right leaning media,
[00:02:35] Speaker B: I mean a lot stands out to me, which we'll discuss in the show. But I think something you just said Actually, I want to touch on it because it's important, which is you said that the Constitution already dictates what religion, how it should be treated in the country.
[00:02:53] Speaker A: No religion can be the law of the land. No religious law, that kind of stuff.
[00:02:56] Speaker B: Yeah, correct. So that's really. I'll start there. Which is just the competing narratives we have in our country. Right. Like that you and I know this. A lot of people that aren't you and I also know it. And a lot of people claim how much they revere the Constitution.
And we've had this conversation of the Constitution kind of being treated like the Bible sometimes, where people will cherry pick things that they like out of it and then they will not talk about the things they don't like and all that kind of stuff. So clearly this is an example where the people who are targets, the audience that are the targets of this messaging, are either ignorant to the Constitution or they've chosen to ignore what it says. And so I think there's a third option there.
[00:03:42] Speaker A: But you could take it, because I'll
[00:03:45] Speaker B: just finish up here, I mean, look, and we'll get into it more detail. But what saddens me is all the reading and preparation for today that I've done is really, this is just about leadership.
It's about how leaders present things to audiences and the fact that in any population you'll have, you know, a certain percentage of people that will grab on to certain messages that confirm their preexisting biases. So that's kind of what stands out to me in biases in general.
And yeah, so pass it back to
[00:04:13] Speaker A: you for your fear word is the key word here. Because to me what this is, is a overt attempt to take advantage of people who are overly triggered by fear.
Because if you stop and think, this makes no sense. But if you are a person who is overly triggered by fear, you can't stop and think. That's the point is that you're going to, it's going to be presented to you as a threat. If something's presented to you as a threat, you immediately go into this hyper overdrive mode of there's a threat, there's a threat, there's a threat, we got to do something about it, we got to do something about it. And so it seems to me that these right leaning or right wing outlets have cultivated an audience that is very responsive to fear messages, such that they can say things that don't make any sense, but if it's presented in a fear context, they can then get the Pavlov response like, okay, yeah, yeah, Sharia law. So, you know, we now everybody focuses on this, this thing that's not a real threat. And presumably you can only focus on so many things at one time. So I remember when we were talking about like the kind of show we were going to do and you, you had sent me this thing about cancer rates in Iowa that are like going off, off, off the charts. And they're thinking it's doing to chemicals and stuff from industrial activity that's going on in the area. Like that's a real threat to people. Like that's a real thing that's happening. That's not. We would. Bringing that up isn't trying to make somebody afraid of something that doesn't really exist or that or that doesn't exist at all in order to, you know, for whatever we can get into the whys later. But just the idea that bringing up something like media uses fear all the time to capture your attention. They leave with bad news. Oh, there was a shooting downtown today. Everything like that. But usually that stuff actually happened, you know, like, usually there actually was a shooting and they're like, yeah, they lead the news with it. But in this case, what we're seeing is that they're confident enough that they have these people captured enough that they can't. They're not getting information elsewhere.
They only come to the one place and they respond to fear enough that they won't question the messages they're getting. And so they're kind of just. They have them stuck in this prison of their own fear and they're just making up stuff to keep them in the prison and to further manipulate them into again, the wise we can get into later.
[00:06:34] Speaker B: Yeah, no, it's very sad, man. And that's the thing. I don't make fun of the people that consume this stuff.
I think they are victims of an abusive relationship. This is no different than an abusive marriage or something like that where one partner is gaslighting and constantly kind of stressing out the other partner so that they can't really.
They can't function. You know what I mean? Like you're saying about this, about that, though.
[00:07:00] Speaker A: Remember, like, they always say, hey, don't listen to what anybody else says, you know, like, don't exactly.
[00:07:06] Speaker B: This is classic authoritarianism. And again, whether it's authoritarianism, well, you
[00:07:09] Speaker A: have to bring authoritarianism because your relationship, your comparison to an abusive relationship isn't necessarily authoritarianism. That's just kind of the abusive relationship. I thought that was a really good. You Know, analogy.
[00:07:19] Speaker B: No, no, I know, but that's, that's, I'm just making a greater point that the authoritarian type of mindset, whether it's a leadership like a political class, or whether it's an individual in a home or let's say a professor. Right. A teacher, someone like that or someone at work, is the, the things that they share is that they don't want any new information coming into their target. The, the, the, the people or the person or the group that they want to keep under their control. They, because new information is threatening to them. And I think that's, I mean, you and I have had these in private conversations, right? We kind of, when we go out 30,000ft, we call it cooperatives versus non cooperatives. This idea that just some people are wired to be open minded to other things and new things and new people, whatever, and other people aren't. And I think that there's leaders who have reasons that they want to manipulate people in a population. And one of the ways historically that's been showing is fear. And I think the Sharia law thing, to me it swims in the same sandbox as the transgender fear. Because out of my own curiosity, I just was like, I wonder how many Muslims are in the United States? So I went and checked. 4.3 million. It's around 1.3% of the US population.
Then I decided to look up trans. And 0.8% of US adults are considered trans. Over 18, 1.8 million people. So these are very small numbers. And I think just like the Jews in Germany, which were 0.75% of the German population in 1933, when you have a group that's small enough that not enough people are connected and all that, unlike let's say black Americans, who are 14%. So a lot more people in the majority group have had exposure to black Americans where it might be harder to make such a case, to put such
[00:09:01] Speaker A: feelings also made though. So I mean that basically for fear purposes.
[00:09:06] Speaker B: Yeah, but it seems like like you said, this is where to me it's interesting, this conversation about Sharia law because it's made up out of whole clothes. And so I decided to look at what's going on in the States and how is this now before you, before
[00:09:19] Speaker A: you go past that last, because that to me is the distinguishing point, like whatever you think about the trans thing, there are trans people. And so that's a scale issue. Maybe they're making it a bigger deal than it would be based on the number of people. But in this Instance, there aren't people trying to do what they're trying to stop from happening. And so there, it's made up of great replacement, which again, great replacement I think is very deceptive. And it's meant to prey on people who are overly dominated by fear, who can be made afraid. And once they're made afraid, they can't do anything else.
They get their marks, so to speak. At least there is immigration.
There is an immigration. It happens. And so you might over exaggerate what's happening, but you're talking about something that's actually happening. This is something that's different because it's not happening. Like, there's nobody pushing for it, you know, like. And so it's, it's, it shows you the extent of that they're willing to go one and the confidence that they, that they have, that they have these people captured, you know, because. So it's quite a bold thing to just make up something and run with it like that.
[00:10:26] Speaker B: What this looks to me, James, is more of a coordinated effort.
There must be other things going on that they don't want this audience to see or to learn about going on in politics or the nation. And they, like you said, maybe things in Iowa going on and they want to put their audience in a state of fear so that they can't think of the other things. And I think it's sad. That's why I said a sad. It's like preying on American people.
[00:10:54] Speaker A: It's interesting that you talk about that from the audience standpoint, because I have an observation about that as well. And from the audience standpoint, I think that they actually understand and I say they being the right wing people, these conservative leaning outlets and so forth, I think they have an understanding of some American psychology better than the rest of us.
One of the things that I look at when I look at history, a time in the United States where there was all this crazy stuff going on, but people still stuck together a little bit more. Like right now, the partisanship and so forth is ripping us apart in ways that maybe have parallel. You know, obviously there was a civil war, but you know, the way it's so easily manipulated and the differences aren't that large, you know, like it's. There were bigger differences. There were bigger asks of people when things were this disjointed in the past than there are right now. Now the ass are kind of like, hey, let's have everybody obey the law or not. Let's not have everybody obey the law. Like the ass are kind of they're marginal. And what I think they understand that the rest of us don't is that there are many people in any society and then they've been able to kind of, I guess coalesce these people into a single party or movement or whatever that they don't organize under the spirit of cooperation as much as they organize under the spirit of that we have to stop some enemy. They need to be given an enemy. This was easy when there were the communists and the Russians. You know, like we could all, everybody, you know, like in the United States was like, oh yeah, we, the Soviet Union, you know, like we, we had. And so we could all organize together off of this enemy. You know, Japan bombs, Pearl harbor, we can all organize together about this enemy. A lot of people don't need an enemy in order to try to cooperate and mobilize together. And that gets into the thing I was telling you before about cooperatives and what I call cooperatives and imposers. Some people like to are capable and are willing and happy to cooperate. Other people aren't happy unless they can impose what they want to impose on others. That's it. They can't work side by side basically with people. It's really difficult for them absent some other factors. So if they understand, and I don't understand or you don't understand that some people need an enemy to rally around in order to get into that spirit of cooperation.
They're just giving people enemies. That's what they're doing. They're saying, okay, what we can't, our enemy's not going to be this. Sometimes they float China as an enemy. Sometimes it's constant trying to give people enemies because they understand that this the kind of personality that needs an enemy to rally around and rally together, you know, like. And so you, if you look at what they're doing with a lot of these kind of stories that, that, that the right leaning media will go into a lot of these stories. They all, it's all about uniting around some enemy. You know, the enemy is the people trying to get rid of the gas stoves or the enemy is this and that. So, and if you're not a person that needs to unite around an enemy, you're just like, oh, what are they doing? So I think it's actually an insight that they have in terms of how these personalities work. And it's unfortunate, you know, you look, are they trying to break apart the country as you ask the question? Because it's like, well hold on, how come you're in all the Enemies you're pointing at are people in the country. Like, maybe point at people outside of the country if you want to do this game where, hey, these people need an enemy to organize against, you know? But that's just me. But again, I think that it's hard for people who think like me to recognize and understand this.
[00:14:15] Speaker B: I think you're 100% correct.
I think the problem for all of us as human beings is that we tend to project.
And so you're right. Me and you and people like us project ourselves and our sense of sensibilities onto this crowd. And we're looking at them with what we feel is rationality, say, why are you guys behaving like this? Why do you hate other people? And this and that.
And they look at us the same way, right? Like, they look at us with their sensibility, and they probably looking at us. Well, how do you not see this as a threat? How do you not see all these brown people coming in the country as a threat?
[00:14:51] Speaker A: Like the current president?
They would look at us and say, you're only critical of him because you've designated him as somebody you don't like. You're not being critical of the things he's doing. You just don't like him. You see what I'm saying? And so wearing what I'm like, well, no, no. If he would obey the law and let's say, let's do the Constitution stuff and hey, if you want to lower taxes, those are political arguments, fine. But I have a problem with rounding up people and putting them in concentration camps. I have a problem with what you're doing, but they can't see that. They're seeing it as me just having a problem with the person, not with what the person's doing. Because of the projection issue you bring up.
[00:15:28] Speaker B: Well, and also, I think part of the big issue, as you say that is also radicalization.
I think that this country went through a lot back in 2020, and I think a lot of people with lockdowns and all that had a lot of time on the Internet and were targets and were radicalized. Much more so than, let's say, the percentage of the population that had been radicalized prior to that kind of era, the 2020, because you had some very emotional things, right? You had the BLM summer, George Floyd's murder. You had the protests in the street, which for some people were expressions of the First Amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, so on and so forth. For others, they saw a bunch of brown and black people in their city Streets. And it scared them. Right.
[00:16:13] Speaker A: If they are people that are fear sensitive, then once that happened, they could be told anything because their brain will turn off.
[00:16:21] Speaker B: Correct. So confirmation bias became the law of the land for some of them. And remember, we did stories about that. I remember we had a show back then. About 93% of all the BLM protests were nonviolent. Da, da, da. There were stories about people in there from the Proud Boys and other groups that were instigating situations to become violent, all that stuff. But none of that mattered because once images are so important. Once people saw black people on the street protesting, that triggered emotions, just like you and I have documented and seen many times. Certain media outlets on the right that have used fake images, like people crossing through barbed wire somewhere in the Middle East. But it doesn't matter. They're just brown. So they told their viewers that was the southern border of the United States or a president of the United States.
[00:17:12] Speaker A: That was another one that was.
[00:17:14] Speaker B: Or think about last year. This is the last one I'll give. But the President of the United States, when hosting the president of South Africa in the White House, showed a picture of grave sites and said there was a genocide against white people, and it wasn't true. Even the president of South Africa said, that's not in South Africa. That's another country, dude. So the point is, is that this is. This is why I say leadership's important. These people have always been in our country. It's just. This is the first time we have an entire political party that's catering to their fear. And then the question is not the
[00:17:43] Speaker A: first time, I'd say, in our lifetime.
[00:17:46] Speaker B: So, yes, you're right. In our lifetime does this.
[00:17:49] Speaker A: But I think you're. This is. Actually, I brought this up to you offline because you're like a good person, you know, like, I see you as a good person. And we had this conversation, and I want to bring it out now.
[00:18:02] Speaker B: Can I pay you to say that in front of my children?
[00:18:05] Speaker A: Just clip that. Just clip that.
[00:18:06] Speaker B: Sorry.
[00:18:06] Speaker A: Yeah, there you go. But some people see someone else's vulnerability or some group's vulnerability and say, hey, how can we help this? How can we, like, help them with this so that they're not running around with their hair, you know, on fire, their tails on, you know, chasing their tails all the time. How can we help them? You can say that politicians in the past, in the Republican Party or, you know, whatever Democratic Party, whatever party it would be. Politicians in the past have tried to, like when George Bush. George W. Bush, when 911 happens, he tries to help the people and say, look, this isn't a war against Islam. We're going after the people that did this. This is not some, the walls are not closing in all around you, you know, at least initially now, you know, they started becoming more opportunistic with fear later on. But initially the instinct, you know, before the consultants got in and the military industrial complex, they said, and the instinct was let me help. People are afraid, let me help them. There are other people though that see a vulnerability in people and say, how can I exploit this? And so what you're observing right there is that right now within the leadership we have in this country and people that, whether it be political leadership, media leadership and in various circles, they see these people that are very fear triggered, not as someone that they can help, be more brave, help with their fear. What did FDR say? Nothing to fear. Is that fear itself after we get attacked in Hawaii? Like that's again, that's trying to help people with their fear and particularly people that are fear sensitive, trying to help people work, work through this.
The people that we have now in these media places, in the political places that are doing these things to take, they're taking advantage, they see this, they see these people as marks, as weak links. We can take advantage of them. I want more money, let me get them chasing some ghost and then they'll support me as I just enrich myself. Let me do this.
I can create stuff out of thin air, have them all afraid about that stuff. So they're constantly thinking about things and thinking of dreaming up ways to make these people run into their fear cave so that they can support them while they do any, all these other types of crazy stuff. And so that's really what we're seeing here is the different types of leadership. Do you have leadership that when they see you struggle with fear or the fellow Americans struggle with fear, they try to help them, they try to bring them up, they try to make them more brave. Or do they say ah, we got one, we're we're about to get.
And that's the problem that we have.
[00:20:37] Speaker B: Yeah, you're right.
We know by their behavior, the answer is what you just finished on that. They say, haha, we got one. I mean one of the things, let
[00:20:47] Speaker A: me tell them, a gold phone, a gold plated phone or a gold phone that looks gold, we got them, we got.
[00:20:51] Speaker B: Or how about remember after the 2020 election when we had the stop the steal and all this again, the propaganda wedging Americans apart.
And there was something that came and we all learned about on the news where the campaign had raised for the president who had lost the 2020 election, had raised $67 million, but had duped the people who were contributing because they didn't tell them they were going to do a recurring contribution, remember?
So they had to return $67 million to 500,000 individual donors. And I remember that's the kind of first time I really started thinking about how they're grifting their own people.
I was like, wow, that's just bad. You're lying and you're basically stealing from people. And you got busted.
But you said something very important, James. I want to make sure that gets highlighted because you talked about the military industrial complex. And one thing that I've kind of realized is we have other industrial complexes that have risen up since DWIGHT Eisenhower's famous 1960 speech about warning Americans about the military industrial complex. That's the technology industrial complex, which is now seeded, which is bigger than all of them.
Yeah. But think about Jay, on a serious note, that's why I want to mention this. Remember last year in early 2025, they ceded responsibility for misinformation. Right. Mark Zuckerberg said, I'm no longer going to care about. So they're part of it. Like you said about, and we did a discussion this year, that 10% of Facebook's revenue knowingly, they know this comes from them allowing their own users to be scammed by scam artists.
[00:22:33] Speaker A: Oh, hold on. Remember the key part about that? They charge the scammers more than they do legit ads. So they know that like, oh yeah, you're a scam ad. You gotta pay this rent.
[00:22:41] Speaker B: So that's my point is it's like proving that our system leadership, now maybe they're not political leaders, but they're business leaders, they're corporate leaders. Right. These big companies. Then you have the financial industrial complex that. What do we just do? The richest man in the world last year was allowed to be co president for five months and destroyed the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. So looks like the financial industrial complex complex got a win and they can now prey on us even easier because remember the stats, James, just for the audience. That cost the taxpayer $800 million, that agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and it recovered $21 billion from financial institutions. And it was consumers that got wrong.
[00:23:23] Speaker A: And it was a deterrent. It's exist. So it was a deterrent. Yeah.
[00:23:27] Speaker B: So who would have thought we'd bring the richest guy in the World into government. And he would just do something like that. Wow.
[00:23:32] Speaker A: The guy who had multiple complaints and had multiple issues dealing with that agency.
[00:23:37] Speaker B: So that's my point, is that we now have leadership, not just politically, but in the corporate world and some of these other areas that also has followed the political class and said, okay, we'll take all these guardrails off and we'll prey on the American people. Let's not even get into food and pharmaceuticals and the things you and I can talk about all day. Then the next thing I was going to say, James, is it's like you said, support me while I enrich myself. I wrote that down. I want to just stop on that. That's so good because I just shared an article with you, I think a week ago.
One of the things I've had a big problem with, James, you know this because of the industry I am personally of financial planning, capital market stuff is Congress having access to inside information and trading on it. However, I was surprised that the President himself disclosed in a financial disclosure like in the last two weeks that he personally has made $750 million in 90 days in the first quarter through trading.
And we're looking at things that we can see now because of the transparency of the markets where during the initial month of the Iran war, when they were going to bomb oil fields or make announcements of ceasefires or not trading activity would happen within five to 10 minutes before. And some people made fabulous sums of money. And to your point, James, I think this is why we got to hear about Sharia law. I guess. Let me, let me, let me land a plane a little bit on this one is because there's so much other stuff that's absolutely serious that I think that the American people would be horrified with if, you know, at least this percentage of people weren't shielded from, well,
[00:25:16] Speaker A: I was going to say a certain number, a large number of people are bothered by what's happening, but they're able to, they've been able to gap gather this group of fear sensitive people and keep them in this scary world cocoon where they're their protectors. You know, like the people that the President or the Zuckerbergs or the muscle of the world are the protectors of all of this scary world. And so they tell them the world is so scary and then they say they're their protector. And so, I mean, I think that we really have to look at as the rest of us, you know, like, so what do the rest of us do? Because as you've said, it to me before you call it interference, you know, like we have a selection of people in the country who have decided to just run interference on the rest of the country the whole time. And they've got their marks, so to speak, the fear sensitive people. So what do the rest of us do? I think one of the lessons we have to walk away with and this isn't to take advantage of people, it's to understand that, not to stop projecting your spirit of that things can all work based on, solely on cooperation. Stop projecting that on everybody because it's just not the way everybody's mind works. Some people need to be working against something and so give them something else to work against. You know, whether that be what's, what's happening. Russia and Ukraine, that could be something, an organizing principle for some people. There's plenty of things going on around the world that we can say. But we can say, hey let's, let's have this. Let's give people who need an enemy an enemy. And because really the most destructive part about what's happening here is I mentioned earlier, is that the right wing ecosystem, the enemies that they give their fears, the fear sensitive people that are, that are in those ecosystems are their countrymen. That's the biggest problem. You can't have a country, what do you say, Lincoln? A nation divided against itself can't stand like it's almost. Their intention is to divide the country against itself so that it runs interference so they can do whatever they want, but their intention is to divide the country against itself by playing fear sensitive people who need an enemy to organize around, giving them enemies that are only internal, that are in the internal enemy. And so with that we in this, we're in this situation where the country not only is interference is run, we can't get anything productive done, but we're marching towards this thing where the country is going to be so divided that people aren't going to want to be in the country again. You already, you know, together and so they won't be able to go ahead.
[00:27:38] Speaker B: Yeah, I just want to speak to something you said. I think it's very important because you mentioned Russia and Ukraine. I think this is another reason why more so than. Because everything you said I could see myself at a Bush administration kind of, you know, the media helped them mislead us into Iraq. You know, there was no wmd. I think you're right that this is not new.
I think the reason why though it feels like it's on steroids in this moment is because of the level of incompetence of our current political leadership, period. I mean, think about what I just said about the amount of money that the President just disclosed himself.
[00:28:10] Speaker A: It's a good point.
[00:28:11] Speaker B: Right.
But what I was going to say is think about how much we were told about the prior President, about his crime family. Right. And the amount of time that the US Congress spent investigating, which is fine. And what were the two pieces of evidence that I saw a $4,300 check from a father to a son because he, I guess, helped him buy a car. And then the other was a $200,000 check that his brother gave him to repay him for something that's okay, let's investigate it. But nobody, none of these same people want to investigate any of this. And so ballroom stuff, all that. And so I think that part of it is not only the grift and the fact that these people came into office to enrich themselves, it's also the absolute incompetence. Because when you said Russia and Ukraine, you know what I thought of, James?
That we all had to suffer as Americans watching In August of 2025, the Russian President and the American President meeting in Alaska and to see a Russian president driven around in the presidential U.S. president's limousine. And this was supposed to be a ceasefire summit.
And here we are in June of 26, and they're having the worst strikes, Ukraine and Russia with each other since the start of the war in four years. So I think it's. And the same thing with Iran. You know, it seems like we did this whole thing at the behest of another nation. And this is now costing the American taxpayer and it's costing the world in global energy prices doubling. So this is a lot of incompetence,
[00:29:37] Speaker A: you know, a lot of people.
[00:29:38] Speaker B: Yeah. And let's not forget that. But it's a level of incompetence that we've never seen from a US administration post World War II. And I think that's why they gotta make up things like Sharia law now. It's like we gotta make things up actually outta whole clothes to just distract people.
[00:29:53] Speaker A: I don't think it's reactive though, is my. What I'm saying. I think that that's the plan is to make. Make things up. Because I think the incompetence is, is not something that incompetence isn't an accident. They don't care. They're not in office to be competent stewards of the nation. They're in office to make money for themselves and their family and their friends. They are not incompetent at that. Like, so it's their. The thing they're there to do, they're doing very effectively.
It's the things that the other stuff that they kind of supposed to be doing because of the title that they're doing incompetently, but they're doing it incompetently because they're not there to do it. They care less about that stuff.
So that's the issue that you have, but that's the way the political system has evolved, is that those are the kind of people that seek power more often than not in our nation, because the offices have become ways to enrich yourself in many cases, not all cases, but there are plenty of people out there who aren't out there to enrich themselves. But the offices have come places to enrich yourself for many people, especially if you can have a captured group of voters who will support you no matter what, as long as you just keep them afraid. And so again, we have people that see that as an opportunity. We have people that see that as unfortunate. Maybe we can help them out. We got to get more leaders in power that will see those fear sensitive people as someone to help with their fear, help work through that. And the only way to do that is honestly to give them something to be afraid of that's outside of the country so we can try to work together again, you know, so. But I think we can wrap this topic from there. We appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of Call Like I see it. Subscribe to the podcast, rate it, review it, tell us what you think, send it to a friend. Until next time, I'm James Keys.
[00:31:38] Speaker B: I'm Tunde.
[00:31:39] Speaker A: All right, we'll talk soon.
