 Hello everyone, I'm here with a very special guest, the meme god himself, former senator from Alaska, current 2020 presidential candidate, Senator Mike Gravel. Senator Gravel, thank you so much for coming on the program. Well, thank you for having me. I was just complimenting Senator Gravel before he came on about his Twitter game, and he tells me that this isn't actually him, which is a little bit disappointing, but nonetheless, whoever's running your Twitter, they're amazing. I just got to start by giving them the kudos there. Well, not only that, they're articulating via their own intelligence and betting the issues that we both agree on. So there's nothing at variance. It's just that you've got younger persons, certainly more enthusiastic and more energy than I can muster at this point in my life. So it's good. It is. I want to talk to you about that because this originally to run for president. I mean, this wasn't your idea. This is something that was brought to you by individuals who wanted you to run after they saw your performance in the 2008 debates. And for those of you who haven't seen this, I'm going to play a short clip of Senator Gravel basically railing against Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. And this is the clip that initially got me on board because I was a little iffy at first, like who's this Mike Gravel guy? Watch this clip and then you're going to understand why there's so much hype around him. Senator Gravel, at a forum earlier this year, I want to get this right. You said it doesn't matter whether you are elected president or not. So then why are you here tonight? Shouldn't debates be for candidates who are in the race to win the race? You're right. I made that statement. But that's before I had a chance to stand with them a couple of three times. It's like going into the Senate. You know, the first time you get there, you're all excited, my God, how did I ever get here? Then about six months later, you say, how the hell did the rest of them get here? And I got to tell you, after standing up with them, some of these people frightened me. They frightened me. When you have mainline candidates that turn around and say that there's nothing off the table with respect to Iran, that's code for using nukes, nuclear devices. I got to tell you, I'm president of the United States. There will be no preemptive wars with nuclear devices. To my mind, it's immoral and it's been immoral for the last 50 years as part of American foreign policy. Let's use a little moderator discretion here. Senator Gravel, that's a weighty charge. Who on this stage exactly tonight worries you so much? Well, I would say the top tier ones. They've made statements. Oh, Joe, I'll include you too. You have a certain arrogance. You want to tell the Iraqis how to run their country. I got to tell you, we should just play get out. Just play get out. It's their country. They're asking us to leave and we insist on staying there. And why not get out? What harm is it going to do? Oh, you hear the statement, well, my God, the soldiers will have died in vain. The entire deaths of Vietnam died in vain. And they're dying in vain right this very second. You know what's worse than a soldier dying in vain is more soldiers dying in vain. That's what's worse. Okay, so let me ask you this, Senator. What was it then made you agree to this? Because if I were in your shoes, if I were 88 years old, I if these kids came up to me and said, hey, let's run for president. I tell them no way. So what made you believe that this was the right decision? When they called and it was David Oaks that called and asked me if I'd run for president. And I said to David with the snicker, David, do you realize how old I am? And I'm 88, but I'll be 89. I'm 89. I'll be 89 next week. Next Tuesday at my birthday. Happy birthday. Thank you. And so what David did, I was really not into it. But David sent me a communication that included the list of issues that he was concerned with. And at the top of the list was the issue of creating a legislature of the people. That's what I've been working on for the last 25, 30 years. And so when I saw that saw that at the top of his list, I really got my attention at that point in time. And so now it became a question of how we're going to do this. And so he asked if he could use ab access to my Twitter. Well, I developed a Twitter in the 08 presidential period and also Facebook. I never used them. I'm just not into tweeting, as they say. And so I had no problem giving him access. They took a lot of activity to be able to get them authorized to do this. But it was a question of my just trusting him and trusting his associate, Henry Williams. And there's nothing that they've done to cause me to question that decision that I made. And point of fact, I'm just so proud of the way it's done. They gave me originally veto proof on anything that they were doing. I've only exercised it once, and that was, well, twice. One was to not use the F word, which obviously I use privately. But I don't think it's a good public image for them or my campaign to have. The other was to limit the amount of negative on other candidates. We need to get our message across. We don't need to address the other messages. It's a normal situation of critiquing some of these other candidates when they go too far. And so I don't mind doing that. I don't really want them to do that, but I think I can do it and get away with it. Because they can critique me if they want. There's no barrier to that at all. That's how we got in. And what confirmed it with me was I had friends that would call me and say, God prevailed, you're just doing a great job on Twitter. And I said, well, great job as being done by these kids, because they understand the issues that float my boat, and they're exercising their judgment and amplifying those issues in an intelligent fashion. I can't tell you how fortunate I am that David Oaks is 17 years old. He's just finished high school and going to go on to Oxford. David Williams is a freshman at Columbia. And all the others are young. Plus, they admit to me that there are professionals that have contacted them and said, we want to help, pro bono. And they admit that a lot of these professionals know a lot more about campaigning than they do. But by the end of this exercise, they'll be pretty sophisticated on campaigns. And as we go forward. Let me ask you this, Senator. It was the break that we really needed, because we need to bring attention to the empowerment of the people. I often use the comparison that what's the most important virtue that a person could possess? Most important one is courage. If you don't have courage, you won't have the tools to implement the other virtues that you may have. And so it's the same thing. What's the most important thing in human governance? The law. We all live under the law. And so we give a monopoly to representative government in lawmaking. Both in lawmaking and in the Constitution. So if you're ever going to want to see a change, a fundamental change in representative government, you're going to have to become a lawmaker. And I have the whole procedure to bring that about with a constitutional amendment and with a federal statute, which is the legislative procedures to which the people will be empowered to act upon. So that's what floats my boat. I've been at it for 25 to 30 years, and that's what the kids understood as to how to get me involved and run for president, was to be able to exercise a communications process to bring people's attention to that the answer is not just electing somebody to public office. The answer is to empowering themselves to make laws in partnership with their representatives. And I certainly can get on board with that. But I want to ask you where are you guys at because you need 65,000 individual donors to get you on the debate stage so you can put this agenda front and center. So where are you guys at approximately in that process? Well, all I can do is give you an approximation because I don't follow it on a daily basis. They do. And we're talking about probably maybe 25,000, 30,000 signatures. So we're probably halfway there. Okay. And so what we've learned is that we could, you know, well, I lost the point. I had what you call a senior moment. Well, what I want to ask you is I want to play devil's advocate here because on one hand, I do understand the need to take what you're saying to a national stage. But on the other hand, certainly in my lifetime, this is probably the best crop of presidential candidates because we have a number of really progressive people running who I support and admire. You know, Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, Elizabeth Warren. So let me ask you this. What do you say if somebody says, well, Mike, I see what you're doing, but you're just taking time away from the candidates who actually want to be president. How do you respond to that objection? Very simply because I have a better concept of what needs to be done here. Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie, and to some degree, Warren, I endorse, oh, I donated to Bernie's last election. And I think that Tulsi has the finest gravitas and the delivery of intellectual ideas of anybody I've ever heard of. But now what is it that I bring to the table? I'm not sucking up their oxygen because obviously I won't win any more than 20 some odd others won't win. They're not going anywhere. But so what's important is let's say Bernie's got an agenda. Let me ask you a question. Do you think he's going to get his agenda enacted if the Democrats don't get a hold of the Senate? What's going to happen to his agenda? Yeah, it's not going to go anywhere. Absolutely. So even if they got the Senate, when the last time the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate was when they passed Obamacare, at the time that it came out of the committee, 70% of the Americans wanted the public auction. They never put it there. They made the judgment that, well, we don't think we can sell that. That's crap. If you don't reach out, you'll never get it. And so what I'm advocating is that we elect the progressives, the most progressives to office, which would be Bernie and Tulsi in my mind. And then we equip them with the ability to get their agenda enacted into law. It's not going to be the Congress. It's going to have to be the American people who can be able to make laws. So if you ask the American people, are you for single-payer health care? They'll win overwhelmingly. Are you for doing away with the, let me get some issues out that I would continue. Do you want to repeal the Electoral College? You think that would pass by the people? And of course, that would benefit cleaning up elections. Then I want term limits for all federal judges. So if we've got a bunch of bad judges on the Supreme Court, the sooner we can turn a little bit them, the sooner we can clean that up. And then you can go on to other issues, like the right. It should be in the Constitution, the right to health care, the right to education, the right to economic security. These should be in the Constitution of the United States. I've got a process to bring this about them. And all it is, it's a constitutional amendment and a legislative procedures act that is enacted by the people. The Congress will never enact this. The elites who control our society will fight this tooth and nail. But with the constitutional amendment that I have designed, we don't have to worry about them. So basically, your goal is to get them to adopt this amendment that will empower the people. This reminds me of, I don't know if you've heard of Wolfpack. It's essentially a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics. And their goal is to get two-thirds of state legislatures to sign on to this to get a constitutional convention and basically ban money from politics. Is this kind of similar to that in strategy? He'll know. With all due respect to these people, it's a fool's errand. If you're going to go through the trouble of getting a constitutional amendment, you better empower the people to be able to make other amendments. So if you do this one, and of course what they're trying to do is to control money via law, that's not going to happen. You control this process by a constitutional amendment. And that's what they failed to do. Well, that's what Wolfpack is about. They do want to ban it by constitution, like ban money in politics. How are they going to get the constitutional amendment enacted? Well, with the two-thirds of state legislatures, that's the strategy. So I'm asking if that's your... What they're talking about is Article 5, which is a monopoly by representative government to deny the people to amend the constitution. So how would you go about getting a constitutional amendment? Oh, very simple. We get a group of people that accept the text of a constitutional amendment and they go out and raise several hundred million dollars and conduct a national election. They will permit people to vote to empower themselves to make laws. And at the same time, as they do that, they turn around and they equip the people with the Legislative Procedures Act so that just enacting the people to make laws without deliberative procedures is creating anarchy. And so this is where a lot of these people fall off the rails in not thinking through this whole process. And I don't say this with disrespect. I say this with the fact that I have 12 years of elective office. I am a history buff and I've been at this for 30 years. But how do you get them to even get this on the ballot? Because we can't have a national referendum. First of all, what do you say that again now? So how do you get your constitutional amendment? Because if you're saying that you want people to vote to give them the power, well, how do you do that? Because you can't do this federally, so you have to go state by state. So I'm just curious about the strategy. Well, first off, you've got to not do it federal, because if you did it within the government of representatives, you're going to get sabotaged. Do you think for a minute, the elites would permit their employees to go ahead and get involved in this without sabotaging it? We see this with initiative laws across the country. Well, we can't have a federal referendum, is what I'm saying. So how do you use this? Well, first off, it's not a referendum. Reference is what government feeds the people. What we're talking about is people taking the initiative. So you and I, and a few of our friends, we decide that we're going to be the group that's going to go out and create an opportunity for the people to vote on this subject. So what does that mean? That we've got to raise, a voting in a national election is going to cost millions of dollars. So we've got to raise a lot of money. But if there's people committed to this, that money will come forward. So now what we do is we take this proposal, a constitutional amendment and a legislative procedures act, an amendment and a law. We put that before the people and we raise the money to be able to put it before the people and we use the modern technology very simply. Do you want to be empowered to make laws like the people who hold a monopoly on that process today in representative government? That's a question to you. Do you want to, do you want, and of course you would vote yes because you're informed. I would vote yes. Now we've got to get a standard. We've got to get at least 50% of the people plus one who voted in the last presidential election. We're talking to 70, 80 million people and we can leave the election going on. So maybe 100 million people want to vote to empower themselves to make laws. The minute we read the standard of what Alexia President, we then declare this the law of the land. And I would like to see the politicians basically as a group, they're cowards. I'd like to see them go ahead and fight the people, 80% of the people who want to be empowered to make laws. It's going to be Katie bar the door. Now when you say that the elites will campaign against, of course they'll campaign against this, because they got to turn around and get the message across that you are too dumb to be able to make laws. Let, let these, let these representatives that you don't know anything about manipulate you into voting for them. And so the only time you have power is on election day when you go into the booth and you click the switch. That's it. After that you're stuck. All you got to do is beg, plead and protest for the next two, four and six years. And I like this idea of empowering people, but here's the problem that I have. How do you sell this to people within 30 seconds or a minute on a debate stage? Because it's, it's a relatively complex scheme to kind of just pull off. So how do you condense that message and get to the debate and explain it to people so that way one, they understand it. Not just what it is, but also the strategy. How do you do that? Because this seems extremely complicated. Well, do you know something? Have you focused on the details of how you make laws in Congress? That's very complicated. That's all I've copied. That's exactly what I've copied in the legislative procedures that I've tweaked it. So it works for a hundred million people. So if you're prepared to say, oh, this is too complicated. But then what you're doing right now is even more complicated and dysfunctional. Sure. So what you can say is, do people, do people want to pay that much? No, they don't want to pay that much attention to it. But enough people hopefully will pay enough attention to it because you want to correct what's going on. You know that the government's dysfunctional right now. So what are you going to do? You elect another body of people that act no differently than they've been acting for the last 100 years, 300 years. You stop and think. Science has moved ahead from the discovery at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Science has moved ahead with discovery and change beyond our imaginations. What about the structure of government? It hasn't moved an inch beyond its founding in 1787. And what it was then was a device to perpetuate slavery and set up the device for genocide against the indigenous people of the continent. This is just the beginning. And so what you see, the murderous imperial society that we control today, no different than what it used to be. So what we need to do is to advance human governance to the level that we have scientific advancement. And we have to do that. Otherwise, we'll commit suicide. And that's because of the advance scientifically in the nuclear capability of planetary destruction. Right. And look, I'm on board with this idea. I know you're on board, but you wouldn't be talking to me. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. No, and I'm definitely interested, but I'm just trying to think about this in terms of how you really get that attention that you want. I mean, do you drop a web address and say, go to senatorbrefeld.com. I do what I do what I'm doing right now. I'm talking to you. Right. You have influence within your footprint. But on a debate stage on that national stage when the spotlight's on you and they say, Senator Gravel explained this. Are you going to say, well, look, here's just the quick rundown, but for more info, go to, you know, Mike Gravel.com. Like what I'm failing to grasp is how do you sell this to people? I mean, the American people, for the most part, they're misinformed by propagandists, you know, corporate media. A lot of people think Judge Judy's on the Supreme Court. So how do you get something like this across to people in a very precise way when it's so difficult, when you're going to be up against other candidates, when the moderator is going to want to cut you off? How do you cut across that? How do you get this across? Well, real simple. First off, I'm under no delusions. I get into debates. I'll be lucky if I get six, five, five, six, seven minutes. Yeah. What can you do in that period of time? Yeah. Do you think I can explain the whole legislative procedure the way the Congress works? No. Of course not. So what I do is what I've been doing. I try to articulate it as best I can so that people can be aware of it. So I can talk about issues like the nuclear suicide pact that our nation is on, or how the suicide pact exists for the implosion of the planet as a result of the environmental problems that we're not addressing. So I can talk to those and also point forward and look at, you're not happy the way things are going? You're being supplied minority. I'm talking about ruling by majority of the people. Now, if you don't want to buy into that, that's your problem. All I can do is do the best I can, and that may not be adequate. It hasn't been adequate for the last 30 years, and it may not be for another 30 years, but it may be just right now that the people are so fed up with the crap of what's going on in Washington and the government that maybe they would take a look over there and say, hey, maybe there's something too what Gravel is saying. So I don't know. All I can do is the best I can. Sure. But communications responsibility is yours. I'll have a book out in mid-summer. You take that book and you understand it. Read it through two or three times. It took me 30 years to get this on the table, and it would be the height of arrogance to think that you can read through what I've spent 30 years at and you can understand it totally. No. What you do is you go in and you ask questions. And if I'm still around, I'll be responding to those questions in great detail. What we need is to get this book. The title says it all. Human governance, the failure of representative government, and a solution, quote, the people. There's only two venues for change. One is the government, which is dysfunctional, and rules us by a minority of elites. And the other is the people, and the people don't have the power to make laws because that was categorically designed to not permit the people to make laws by the framers of the Constitution because they knew the people would not buy into slavery. And we have the example of what happened in Massachusetts to prove that. So since the founders got it wrong, and so it really serves the elites who control us as a minority to lionize the founders that walk on water. They didn't walk on water. They were elites that provided for their own sustained power and the continuation of their power by their progeny. This is what we have. And I'm not denigrating them. I'm just saying they were human beings like we have human beings today. So basically that's not enough. We need, and it's to understand, this is where you can help understand what is the central power of government, any government. It's always the people. No, no, it's the law. The people live under the law. So now the question becomes, who makes the law? Well, under the representative government, which is all we have in the world today, don't talk to the tyrants. Forget them. Just representative government. The people who make the law have a monopoly on making law. Those are the people you elect. And so the point I was making with you is that on election day, the only power you have is to give your power away. And so once it's gone, all you can do is write a letter to your congressman to protest in the streets over what they're not doing right. You know, go through the charade or elect some more people at the public office who are stuck into... See, it's not that we're electing bad people, or there's a lot of them. There's enough of that. Yeah, I'd say I'd probably disagree with that. Donald and family, bad people. Or Trump, bad people. But no, what's going on is that we... Here, I just got another senior moment. I forget the point I was making. Well, listen, I'll just say this, because I'm on board with it. And what I'm kind of grasping is that this is essentially to plant a seed to get people thinking about power structures differently, to get them to think about governance and really self-governance differently. And I can absolutely respect that. The way that I'm thinking about this in terms of how you sell this is all about your debate strategy on that stage, because basically this is what your campaign is about. So let me shift gears a little bit here. So one of the things that I disagree with you with is your stance on 9-11 being an inside job. I actually don't want to talk about that, because you actually had... I do if you disagree. Well, no, no, listen. You talked to David Pakman about this for about 17 minutes, and I think that basically... I heard it, yeah, I watched it, and I agree more with David Pakman than I do you, to be honest. However, let me say this. I don't care. Like, you and that's not a deal breaker for me, because what I want is for you to get your message and your platform across, because I think if you have a robust platform, I don't care if you have these other views that I disagree with. But let me ask you this. Strategically speaking, you're going to be called on, and the first question that they're going to ask you, we both know it, it's going to be Senator Gravel. You've made some controversial remarks. You claim that you have no doubt that 9-11 is an inside job. How do you respond to that question on a debate stage? Real simple. I say, are you not aware of the fact that the commission that was created by Bush was first to be chaired by Henry Kissinger? Does that not give you an inkling that there was something going on that he was acceptable because he's the classic cover your behind government? The second thing is going to be, does it not disturb you that the commission never even acknowledged the existence of Building 7 coming down by controlled demolition? Does that not raise a question? Does it not raise a question that this was the excuse that the neocons put forward to be able to, as they articulated in a letter, to be able to have a situation like the Pearl Harbor to energize the people to fight the war against terror, which is not a war, which is a war for infinity? Does it not disturb you a little bit to wonder when you follow the money that the chief beneficiaries of 9-11 are the military-industrial complex? Does that make you suspicious? All I'm asking for when I say it, let me finish. All I'm asking for is that we have a new commission to look at this. We had three commissions look at the press with Kennedy assassination. What's so wrong? I don't know who the insiders are. I'd like a commission to look at this again and maybe tell me who the insiders are. What's so wrong with that? Why can't you accept that? Another commission, not of politicians. I would insist that members of the commission, the last three heads of the United Nations should be on that commission. And scientists, and not politicians. We don't need any more politicians covering our backside. What we need is going after the truth. And right now, yes. The whole point in me asking you this hypothetical is to see how you would answer that question. And I think that you and I both know that the way that corporate media works is they don't want to give you the time to talk about your platform. So what I was hoping that you would do if that question came up is completely dodge it, swatter away and jump straight to your platform. Not even get into it because to me it doesn't matter. I don't care about that position. You know what I mean? Good advice, and I'll tell you what, when you see me in debates, I'll assert myself. With all due respect, that's not the question you should be asking me. Does that sound like a good way to handle it? I think that would be fantastic because this is the way that I, when I hear you talk about this, I think, okay, I disagree, but like I said, it's not a deal breaker. I don't care enough because your platform is what you're most about. But the initial thing that worried me was that this is the one thing that we're going to take away from this debate. They're not going to let you get out the rest of your platform. They're not going to let you talk about your agenda. We'll see how the debate goes. But if you've got a taste of the way the debate goes, just look at the last debate. Right, which is why I'm also, I am confident. What I'm living on is what I said in the last debate. And isn't it interesting that all of the problems that we had at the last debate before Obama got elected and now Trump, that nothing has changed? Does that give you a message to let's have another election, get all these people elected to do all these things? They can't do these things. Obama wasn't able to do it. Trump isn't even worse. So what we need is a new device, that permits the issues that we want to be dealt with, to be dealt with. That's what I want you to say on the debate stage. That's what I want you to say on the debate stage, regardless if they ask you because they want to draw you in so you just talk about 9-11. But that's what I think would really be something that makes this a success. You pretend as if you're the host of that debate and you just take charge and you talk about your platform. That's what I want to see. Isn't that what they did in 08? That's exactly what you did in 08. I just want to confess that I haven't changed. Got a little older, every so often I'll have some senior moments but I think people will understand the senior moments because they don't detract from the message. What I was harking back 11 years ago and I had a book, I was in power and I'll have another book out that I can point to and here is the blueprint to solve the problem. Your assessment is spot on. Spot on. You've got to understand that you have a venue of communication and you're using that venue and now by trying to get into what I'm talking about in human governance that I think it is a very positive way. So don't worry about the fact that how the people are going to get this. You just keep communicating. I've learned a long time ago that people are not at all They're very bright and knowledgeable. All they're going to do is focus on the issue and so it's so tough to make a living today and raise a family and all that is time to reflect. But now if you put things in front of them they'll begin to reflect on it. No question. We've got 25% of the people that may be done as fence posts. I don't know but Trump is there. But then you've got 75% of the people that are open. They're just misinformed a lot of the time by cable news, misinformation. The problem is mainstream media. Who owns mainstream media? Military industrial complex. Wendy. And they sneak stuff in. They put forth some facts that if you understand the dynamics of what's going on you can use those facts against them. Like right now in the news today was a Trump which is Bolton and the Secretary of State a religious nut at best. There are things that are making the case that Iran is a threat to us. Iran is not a threat to us. It never has been. We're the ones that damaged them when we took out Mosaddeg when they had a representative government. So no. But today we're moving the fleet into threaten and scare the leadership of Iran. Will they react? I hope not. When I was in Iran talking and made a couple of speeches and spoke to the intelligence community elements of it I said, hey, just be patient. We're very immature in what we're doing as global imperialists. Just be patient. And as you were saying what can the powerful do whatever they want? What can the people who don't have power, they suffer what they have to? And so that's where we're stuck. We are the global imperialists and whether it's Venezuela whether it's Iran you name it and of course we use our sanctions. Sanctions are a tool of war. And so right now we are murdering thousands of young children who are being denied medicines and economic survivability in Venezuela. When you come back, when you compare that to what China has done between 600 million people from poverty to middle class and you then read the papers about the threat is coming from China that's just crap. China is in my mind performing a better service to the global economy than is the United States because we're misusing the power we have with the dollar and I'll tell you the dollar being reserve currency is going to disappear and because we're not going to be able to cover a foot to change that abusive power that we have and that's the foundation of how we can sanction people how we can do things to them and so once we don't have that power anymore our sanctions won't be worth a thing. Well let me say this the one thing that sold me on what you're doing is your debate performance in 2008 I actually feel bad that and for whatever reason you weren't on my radar but I'm writing that wrong now and second of all the thing that I liked was your platform the platform I set on my show is basically the gold standard it's better than Bernie's it's better than Tulsi's it's better than Warren's your platform is phenomenal so I don't want your platform to go away once this process is complete once you go on the debate stage so my one plea to you and your team is to put that platform online basically if you can't get out what you need to have people know that there's a resource they can go to a website or Twitter to see what you're talking about and what issues they're not being informed about and with that being said I will leave you with the last word to make your pitch to people as to why they should just chip in a buck to help you get on the debate stage one just go to the debates that occurred in 08 and if you like what I said then you just like what I'm going to say at the new debates secondly your other question is what happens after the debates first off I have a book out there that only deals with direct democracy it doesn't deal with like citizen powered deal as was a polemic plus direct democracy this is only going to deal with that and it's not going to be any more than 80 pages so you could read it in one sitting and if you want to then re-read it again because it will take you're absorbing the concept of what's involved and so that opportunity now secondly here we got David and Henry and what they got several hundred other supporters including yourself that you can now continue the battle the campaign to educate the people and so we will have plans I've got plans in my mind for these kids which have demonstrated their ability to organize and communicate and that's what it takes to bring about a national election that will give you the opportunity to vote for a constitutional amendment and a legislative procedures act that will equip you to make laws to address the problems that you think are so important and I think you're putting me on and you've given me some good ideas I can assure you that David Oaks and Henry will absorb them too after the debates they're going to be coming out here and visit with me or I'll visit with them when I'm back east but I don't intend to travel until it's two debates I'm keeping my powder dry as what happened with William McKinley who up until recently you know people went out and traveled in the old days you didn't you sat at your front porch and your minions went out there and so that's what's going on I don't have a front porch but I got a patio so this is a patio campaign and David is David and Henry are the co-chairmen and they're doing a fabulous job I rely on their judgment so you'll see us again and you'll see them again because you're going to want to interview them they've got the message just as well so I've got the message I look forward to covering their congressional campaigns absolutely so I look forward to you dunking that's on the debate stage Mike thank you so much for coming on the program Mike Gravel, tell us your website www.MikeGravel.org www.MikeGravel.org don't get mixed up I've got www.MikeGravel.us but this is the campaign one and just go to that one and you can contribute a dollar I need you to contribute a dollar and that's not much to pay to get me out of debates I'll entertain you that much for sure you pay $5 to rent a movie on Amazon you could pay a dollar to watch Mike Gravel dunk on corporatists on the debate stage well said alright we'll leave that there thank you so much for coming on thank you for having me