10-25-25 The Weekend Hour 2: Harvard Astronomer: Alien Mothership Approaching Earth. Possible Black Swan Event?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Fo night, Michael Brown joins me here the former FEMA
director of talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, No, Brownie,
You're doing a heck of a job.

Speaker 2 (00:07):
The Weekend with Michael Brown broadcasting life from Denver, Colorado.
It's the Weekend with Michael Brown. Glad to have you
joining the program today. If you want to send me
a message, text message the message on your message app,
the number is three three one zero three three three
one zero three, just use the keyword Mike or Michael.
Go follow me on x at Michael Brown USA. So
I'm just I was scrolling through the text messages. We

(00:30):
just finished talking about the NBA, and I didn't you know,
I don't want to spend any more time on it.
If you want to hear what I think about the
mob and the mafia involvement, then go listen to yesterday's
podcast from the local program speaking to which you should
be subscribing to the podcast anyway. So in your podcast app,
search for the Situation with Michael Brown, the Situation with

(00:53):
Michael Brown, hit that subscribe button, leave a five star
review which helps us in the rankings, and then you
can listen to what I had to say yesterday about
the MOB. So I'm pretty much done with the NBA.
In fact, I'm already sick of it. But Goober number
seventy one oh five sent me a text message that says, Michael,
you gamble every time you turn on your microphone. I

(01:15):
thought that was pretty damn good. You're exactly right. I
do take a gamble every time I turn on this microphone.
But I do so because you never know when we're
going to suddenly disappear. There's a mysterious interstellar object, thirty
one slash Atlas, is expected to reach the nearest point

(01:39):
to the Sun somewhere this coming week, on or around
October twenty nine, if it follows its unusual trajectory through
the Solar System. Right now, now, right now, the object
is opposite the Earth on the other side of the Sun. Now,
I most science as I can't well, I didn't find
a scientist, but most scientists have concluded that thirty one,

(02:05):
or actually it's not technically thirty one, it's three I
three I slash atlas. They've concluded that this is a
common that's comprised of carbon dioxide ice. However, an astronomer
from Harvard continues to suggest that this object is more

(02:28):
likely than not an extraterrestrial mothership sent by an intelligent civilization. Hmm,
sweet Meteor of Death twenty twenty five. We may we
may finally be eliminated, and we may finally be put
out of our misery. Now evidence as evidence of his claim,

(02:52):
which i'd come on some critics suggests, is more of
a publicity stunt than a serious proposal. Gee whiz you
think so? This astronomer All the Lobe notes that the
interstellar object's unusual trajectory given its size, and claims that
the object's path taking it close to Mars, Venus and

(03:13):
Jupiter may be more than extremely rare coincidences. So last
week he wrote in a post on medium quote, if
you want to take a vacation, I'm just look. I
try to be helpful here, try to provide you guys,
things to think about, things to do. He wrote a

(03:35):
medium that if you want to take a vacation, take
it before October twenty nine, because who knows what will happen. Okay,
maybe I should just quit now. He elaborated on the
potential for the object to be you know, it might
use the Sun to gravitational pull to either accelerate itself
or to slow it down, referencing what's called the Oberth effect.

(03:58):
That's a principle in physics. Don't trust me. I looked
this one up. I didn't know this one. It's a
principle in physics that allows a spacecraft to generate more
energy when its engine is fired at higher speeds. So
he writes, if three I Atlas is a massive mothership,
it will likely continue along its original gravitational path and

(04:22):
ultimately exit the Solar System. But he speculates in that case,
the Overth maneuver might apply to the many probes it
releases at Perihelium towards Solar System planets. Now, NASA's leads
scientists are they getting paid? Is NASA geting? I don't know,

(04:44):
because I don't whether I can trust what the NASA
leads scientist says. Here, he says that for Solar System
small bodies, the guy's name is Tom Statler. He dismisses
this professor's this astronomer's theory, says that quote it looks
like a comment. It does comment things. It very very

(05:04):
strongly resembles in just about every way the comments that
we know. You know, if it looks like a duck,
acts like a duck, quacks like a duck. What must
be a duck? Did you ever stop to think that
perhaps that if it's from a super intelligent you know,
galaxy somewhere far far away, that they might know, Hey,
we need to look like a comment, act like a comet,

(05:25):
quack like a comet. So if people on the Earth
will think we're a comment, so that when we finally,
you know, get past the Sun, we can head straight
to Earth and we can overtake it. I'm just I'm
not making this crap up. This is in the news.
You can go google it yourself now. The lead scientist
that Statler says that the object has quote some interesting properties.

(05:50):
They're a little bit different from our solar system comments.
See see now they're all starting to like, oh, let's
waiver just a little a little bit now. The Harvard astronomer,
I mean it's Harvard. He's admitted that the likelihood of
three Eye Atlas being technological in origin is slim, but
he emphasizes the importance of evidence based science. Okay, well,

(06:16):
you're the astronomer, not me. He wrote in a blog
post that as of now, three Eye Atlas appears most
likely to be a natural comment, but the remote possibility
of an oprah maneuver must be considered seriously as a
black Swan event with a small probability because of its

(06:37):
huge implications for humanity. I never ever thought, in almost
twenty years of radio that it would be giving you.
I know I've kind of joked about this, but this
is a real serious news story. This Harvard astronomer, writing
on Medium believes that this AI Atlas comment or whatever

(07:01):
it is, this on the other side of the Sun,
but coming toward us, and once it hits the Sun,
the overth effect might speed it up or slow it down,
change its trajectory. And NASA is over here saying that, oh,
come on, this looks like a comment, acts like aunt comment,
and clocks like a comment, so it must be a comment.
But oh, but I must note it's got some anomalies

(07:27):
that are different from any other comment that NASA has
observed in our solar system. It's on a trajectory to
hit us, and he's telling us that it's a remote possibility.
But we have to consider it seriously as a black
Swan event with a small probability because of the huge

(07:47):
implications for humanity. So what do you think the implications
for humanity are? If we have a spaceship, you know,
a mothership as he calls it. If we have a
mothership from a higher intelligence solar system making its way
toward the Earth. Are you ready? What will we do? Well?

(08:09):
Will Trump greet it? I mean, Trump's gonna want all
the credit for it, right, Trump's gonna want credit for it.
G King Pan's gonna want credit for meeting them, Vadimir
Putin will want credit for it. Everybody on the Plan's
gonna want credit. Oh, you know, I want to be
the one to shake hands with the little you know
creatures that they come down the ladder of the mother
ship once it hovers over. Are you ready for it?

(08:31):
The second part is I don't at all say it's
outside the realm of possibility. Yes, just call me Art Bell.
This is the Art Bell segment of the Weekend with
Michael Brown. Hang tight, I'll be right back. Am I

(08:54):
really here? Have I been as a black Swan event
taking place? And I've really been, you know, taking off
the mother ship? Who knows? Yeah? Since the Art Bell program. Now,
let's talk about some about congressional redistricting. Plans, because interestingly,

(09:14):
Democrat Democrats in Virginia and Colorado are now looking at
at least weighing congressional redistricting plans ahead of the twenty
twenty six midterm elections. What they're doing is they're trying
to mirror recent moves by Republicans in states like Texas,
North Carolina, Missouri, and Indiana. So in Virginia, Democrat lawmakers

(09:38):
are reportedly looking at ways to create two or three
additional districts they would be favorable to the Democrats. In Colorado.
Right here, I said, Democrats are considering a constitutional amendment
to allowt mid decade redistricting. Now that's interesting because that
move would require approval from fifty five percent the voters.

(10:01):
I don't think they can get that. The Governor of Virginia,
Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, obviously, is criticizing the proposals, saying
that quote, this is a shameless, reprehensible political power grabbed
by Democrat lawmakers desperate for anything to distract from the
disastrous Democrat shut down. And of course Jay jonesas he's

(10:22):
the guy running for attorney general in Virginia, his dominic
comments and criminal investigation, his dominic comments where he's the
guy that made a comment about he'd like to kill
the former Speaker of the Virginia Assembly, and he needs
to go further than that. He needs to kill the
two children. Two bullets to kill the two kids, because
the mother and the father will never understand the need

(10:45):
to make changes in their way of thinking until their
kids are killed.

Speaker 3 (10:50):
You know.

Speaker 2 (10:50):
He's also apparently in trouble because now there's an investigation
into a either reckless I think both a reckless driving
and a speeding charge. I'm not sure, but one or both,
in which other defendants that appeared on the same day
he did got either some jail time and hefty fines.
And what did he get? Community service? And his community

(11:13):
service he did work for his own political action committee.
This guy wants to be the attorney general in Virginia. No,
he couldn't even pass a background check with that kind
of record, and he wants to be the chief law
enforcement of Virginia. No, but I digress. Here in Colorado
our attorney general who's a real idiot, Phil Wiser, he's

(11:35):
defending the idea of changing the law. He's trying to
match actions in Republican led states and he says that
if he sees states breaking the norm doing mid decade redistricting,
give a mechanism so that we can match that. Now. Currently,
Democrats hold five of Virginia's eleven congressional seats, and they

(11:57):
hold four of Colorado's eight. In both states, Colorado and
Virginia have several competitive districts that could shift under these
new maps. This push in Virginia and Colorado that's because
of a nationwide redistricting battle going on that we really
haven't talked that much about. In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott

(12:18):
has signed a redistricting bill signed it back in August.
That bill could eliminate five Democrat leaning seats and would
strengthen the Republicans hold on the state's delegation, at least
in Texas. That plan was outright endorsed by President Trump,
quickly approved by the Republican controlled legislature. Democrats in California

(12:41):
they want to redraw their state's congressional boundaries through a
proposed ballot measure back by Governor Newsom. That plan could
potentially yield up to five new Democrat seats because that
would allow the legislature to take temporary control of the
redistricting process from the state's independent commission. That's important to

(13:03):
note because California has done something that it still doesn't
work out perfectly, but at least they had tried. You know,
it's the one time I'll give California, and I'll give
them a B minus for effort. They took redistricting out
of the hands of the California Legislature, of the California
General Assembly and instead gave it to a commission, and

(13:25):
independent commission is said, you go draw the districts. Here's
what's really going on with all of these stories. We
have for decades, decades allowed people to come into this
country illegally. Now, I'm not talking about illegal aliens voting.

(13:46):
That's obviously against the law, particularly in federal elections. Now,
if a municipality, let's just say, you know, a little
podunk town, USA, decides that they want illegal aliens to
be able to vote in a municipal in a municipal
election to elect the city councilmen or a mayor, there

(14:06):
is some legal authority that would allow them to do that.
I happen to disagree with that legal authority, but they
could do it. I'm talking about congressional seats, because we
have allowed for years illegal aliens to move into this
to come into this country. I started to say, move
into the country. That was stupid to allow illegal aliens.

(14:30):
In fact, to encourage illegal aliens to come in. Where
did most of the illegal aliens go? Have you thought
about that?

Speaker 4 (14:39):
Now?

Speaker 2 (14:39):
Of course a lot of them decided to stay in
Texas because they were it was just convenient. They went
to They went to Colorado, they went to Illinois, they
went to Massachusetts, they went to California. Now why would
they do that? Oh, because what we forget is the

(15:01):
number of congressional seats is determined by the census, and
the census currently counts bodies. They don't care whether you're
a citizen or not. They just count bodies. How many
people are in the state of Colorado. I am opposed

(15:21):
to that. I think we should have a separate question
on the census that says, Okay, we're going to count everybody,
and then we're going to divide you up into citizens
and non citizens. Because citizens that cannot vote, citizens who
are here in violation of the law should not be

(15:42):
counted by the census for purposes of determining a state's population,
thereby determining how many congressional seats they get. And that's
why this battle is so important, and that's why what's
happened in Texas is so important. And that's why any
mood by the President to get the Department of Commerce,

(16:05):
which the Census Bureau is under, to do two counts
or to at least add a question to the current census.
You can do the two counts either way, but I
want citizens and citizens only to be counted toward the
number of people in a state to determine how many

(16:25):
congressional seats that particular state gets. Now, if you want
to know just how many people are living in the
state of Colorado, that's fine. You can count that number,
but don't use that number to tell me how many
congressional seats I get. That's why Democrats suddenly are in
a gither trying to figure out some way to take

(16:47):
back control of redistricting and do it prior to the midterms.
I'm not gonna talk about the NBA again, but another
exist ample of how because in my opinion, this is cheating,
absolute cheating. I understand that the Constitution requires that we

(17:09):
do every ten years, every decade that we do a
census how many people are in the country. But the
Constitution is not specific about whether or not those particular
people whether we should count everybody in terms of apportionment
for congressional seats. So I think it's well within the
authority of the President to tell the Census Bureau that

(17:32):
when you do the census count ask an additional question,
are you a citizen or not a citizen? It's not racist.
Ask the question. If it scares people to not ask,
to not answer the question, then you don't get counted.
And I wouldn't count you anyway in terms of apportionment.

(17:55):
So be aware of what Democrats are trying to do
in California and other places, because once again they're trying
to cheat. I'll be right back.

Speaker 1 (18:09):
Tonight. Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA director
of talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, No, Brownie, You're
doing a heck of a job.

Speaker 2 (18:15):
The Weekend with Michael Brown. Glad to have you joining
the Weekend with Michael Brown. Thanks for coming back to
the program, even after talking about the Mothership. So when
I walked into the studio this morning, I had the
TV on. I just don't tell the Greeny whenies. But
I leave the TV on in the studio all the time.
When I walked in, obviously it's Fox News, but here,

(18:39):
as opposed to my morning studio, I have the volume
up so I can hear it. I walked in and
I don't know whose show it is, but they were
interviewing John Fetterman, the Senator from Pennsylvania, and I was
mesmerized by the conversation, and I've got a few sound
bites from it that I want you to hear. But
I mentioned that because I had intent in this segment

(19:00):
to talk about Bill Maher, which I will talk about
Bill Maher and then we'll swing back in the Fetterman.
But you combine the two of them, and you have
to wonder, are they Republicans in the making. No, I
don't think so at all. But I think what they
are doing, I think both of these guys are doing it.

(19:23):
Now before you, you know, have a conneption. I know
they are both solid Democrats and they are solid Liberals.
But they're solid liberals in the tradition of the liberals
that say, I grew up with the liberals of say

(19:45):
even twenty or twenty five years ago. They are not
the Marxist communist socialists of today. But listening to them,
you would really think that they're going to switch political
parties anytime soon. But I don't think they are at all.
Neither one of these guys are on the path on
which I think that they've been. They've been on this

(20:08):
path for some time now, and it's interesting. I would
ask you this question. Do you think that Bill Maher
and John Fetterman are standing still? They're in the same spot,
and the Democrat Party is moving moving? Are they the
ones walking away? Or is the Democrat Party here Marxist, communist,

(20:33):
socialist whatever you want to, progressive however you want to,
And are Federman and Bill Maher walking away? Who's moving?
Are they both moving? I mean, are both Feederman and
Marr and the Democrat Party moving? Because I find these
two individuals because one is become one is a cultural icon.

(20:59):
You may despite Bill Maher, but he is a cultural icon.
John Fetterman is becoming a political icon, if not already.
I mean, he breaks all the norms. I think I've
seen him in a suit one time. He's a member
of the second most exclusive club in the world, the

(21:19):
most exclusive club in the world are obviously presidents and
next presidents of the United States of America, and the
second most exclusive club in the world are members of
the United States Senate, never more than one hundred members.
That's it. I don't think he needs either one of
them at anytime going to join the MAGA movement. But

(21:41):
Fetterman is a guy who's having a political awakening. He
is gradually figuring out that, unlike his malleable colleagues in
the Senate, he cannot will not sacrifice his personal beliefs
and principles to mold himself around the anti American well
that now controls the Democrat Party. He's a lifelong Democrat,

(22:05):
and he's remaining resistant to making the obvious switch to
the Republicans, with whose policy he now appears. I'm just
guessing maybe eighty percent on board with Republican policies. A
year ago, I think that percentage would have been maybe
twenty percent, which is why I asked the question, who's
moving here? Are Democrats becoming worse or is the Federman

(22:28):
becoming better? I would guess. I would speculate the Federman
is maybe another year away from announcing that he might
run through re election in twenty twenty eight as a Republican. Now,
that depends all hell of a lot on what happens
in the state of Pennsylvania. What happens with Governor Shapiro,

(22:51):
what happens with the energy sector in Pennsylvania, what happens
with the AI data centers in Pennsylvania, What happens to
the coal industry in Pennsylvania, what happens in the natural
gas industry in Pennsylvania. A lot is going to determine
what Fetterman does. But I think it's at least worth
asking the question. Bill Maher, now he's a different case.

(23:13):
He's drugged out and movesd out half the time, at
least lays awake. I don't know what he's doing, why
he's asleep. And I have a personal not affinity, but
I accept Bill Maher as someone who I probably disagree
with ninety nine point percent of the time. But I

(23:35):
have to admit that when when Bill Maher some twenty
years ago, when Bill Maher ripped me apart as being
an absolute idiotic buffoon, which is my wife says to
what to change, When Bill Maher ripped me as an
absolutely incompetent, idiotic buffoon. And then when he heard my

(23:58):
congressional testimony, when he began to hear my side of
the story about what took place during Hurricane Katrina, Bill
Maher's producer reached out to me and want to meet.
He go on a show much like Keith Oberman did,
and my gut instinct was Nope, not going to do that.
But my lawyer steps in. I asked my lawyer. I said,

(24:19):
you know, don't don't talk to me, talk to my lawyer.
So Bill Maher's producer talked to my lawyer. Long story short,
we end up agreeing that I will go on his program.
So I didn't travel to LA but I went on
remotely and I appeared, and Bill Maher apologized to me.
You can read about it. You can go back and
google it and find it in the New York Times.

(24:41):
So I have this, for lack of a better word,
affinity for Bill Maher simply because oh, he recognized he
was wrong, and he came on and apologized and acknowledged
to his entire audience that he was wrong. I have
an affinity for anybody who makes a mistake and then says,
you know, I was wrong about that, But he's still

(25:02):
a different case compared to Fetterman, because mar really is
drugged out boost out during half of his waking hours,
and a lot of times he doesn't really make any
sense at all, but he is this. He is a
classic nineteen eighties nineteen seventy style liberal in that he
still has a very modest sense of self awareness, and

(25:23):
he is at least capable of engaging in introspective thought,
but he fights against doing that with all of his might,
because those are the times when he briefly realizes that
everything he has believed during his entire adult life is
probably wrong and frankly stupid. So it's a lot easier

(25:44):
to avoid those moments of introspection when you're a drunker stone,
which may help explain why Bill Maher spends so much
of his life in one of both of those states.
Every time that I find or use the sound bite
of Bill mom it's usually when he's interviewing somebody else's podcast.
They got two chairs, they get a table between them,

(26:06):
and Bill Maher is always either has been smoking dope
or and then drinking drinking bourbon, whiskey, tequila, whatever it
is that he drinks. Here's Bill Maher recently in an
interview on his podcast, it's they're talking about Mandani, and.

Speaker 3 (26:26):
I think that if Mandani wins on it with a
coalition of voters who have been not all that excited
about the Democratic Party over the last few years, I
think that's a good thing for the Democrats. And I
think if you're in a purple district, say you disagree
with some of the things that he does and use
that to establish your independent cred well, you make.

Speaker 1 (26:46):
It sound like he's a little more mainstream than he
I think he is. I mean, the issue now that
Andrew Cuomo is bringing up in New York is that
he is a Ugandan citizen. You Ganda is a country
where they kill homosexuals.

Speaker 3 (27:00):
So somebody who is a dual citizen can't be Mayor
of New York.

Speaker 1 (27:04):
Or I would renounce if I was the dual citizen
with a country whose policy, the government policy, was we
kill homosexuals.

Speaker 5 (27:12):
Yeah, I would renounce that citizenship.

Speaker 1 (27:15):
I don't and and.

Speaker 3 (27:20):
Buying into a fear I think that is buying into
a fear framework that is almost good. Races good for
the country. It is not good for the country.

Speaker 5 (27:28):
You shouldn't be afraid.

Speaker 3 (27:29):
I think the way that Coloma, I think the way
that Clomo is closing out this race and really and
really race baiting and really leaning.

Speaker 1 (27:36):
In on.

Speaker 5 (27:39):
You know what, just because for the country, I understand,
But just because something is done by people in Africa
doesn't mean it's always okay. Well, but you said race, baid,
it has nothing to do with race. Oh I'm talking.

Speaker 3 (27:50):
I'm talking about what Clomo's doing, suggesting that Mombani couldn't
be a leader in a terror situation if he were
mayor of New York and god forbid something else like.

Speaker 1 (27:59):
He did campaign with a terrorist.

Speaker 3 (28:00):
He did say it well, but Cuomo was pretty clear,
I thought in the way he talked about that in
a way that I thought was ugly.

Speaker 1 (28:06):
Will the campaign this week with a guy who was
an unindicted co conspirator in the nineteen ninety three World
Trade Center bombing and served as a character witness for
Omar abdel Rahman the terrorist to organize it? So Sarah
Palin used to say Obama powed around the terrorists, which but.

Speaker 4 (28:28):
I just don't know if this is a great look
for it party. I really tell you, I just don't
think this is a great look for the party. So
there he is during which that discussion, during which he
tries and fails to get one of the people he's
interviewing betting Field to admit that Mandani is going to

(28:50):
be a disaster for the Democrat Party. The topic was
the New York City mayor a race, and I likely
you have a radical Islamic commy named ZORAHM. Mamdani winning that.
But during that discussion, it's amazing to me that he
of course he uses the word BS, which I leaked out,

(29:12):
but brings up, you know, Sarah Pala Palin and you know,
powling around with you know, accusing Obama polling around with Terras,
which he says was BS. But he admits that this
guy did power around with one of the unindicted co
conspirators of the nineteen ninety three World Trade Center bombing.
That goes against everything that his party believes in. Even

(29:36):
in that exchange, in which mar generally makes sense, you
see him clinging desperately to his soothing myth about Obama
his own self. There's no question.

Speaker 2 (29:48):
Obama did power around with the Terras. As Sarah Palin playing.
It is a simple fact of history that Obama's political
mentors were domestic terrorists from the seventies, and that Obama
did everything he could to pop up the MOA was
in the in Iran, and he wanted to foam in
a pro radical Islamic color revolution across North Africa and
the Middle East during his disastrous residency. Yet Maher still

(30:12):
knee jerks to soothing himself by parenting that long disproved
talking point about Sarah Palin. The point is it's fun
when he has these semi coherent moments like that one
was for the most part. And then you got John
Fetterman over there, who's actually making more sense than some Republicans.

(30:36):
Hang Tipe, I'll be right back. Welcome back to the
Weekend with Michael Brown. So as an example of what
I mean about, you heard Bill Maher who actually made
some rational sense in that SoundBite during that interview with
Kate Eddington Bendington. Now Here he is, he's outside the

(31:02):
US capital. He's confronted by some reporters and ask about
the government shutdown. Do you know that he's one of
We need five Democrats or a couple of Democrats and
an independent to join the Republicans to reopen the government,
and they would not even do that to even pay

(31:22):
the military. Trump's now talking about taking some of the
money from the tariffs and using that to fund the
SNAP program or the women and Children's program at a minimum.
So Republicans are doing everything they can to soften the
blow to people who actually get some benefits. And of
course we should be paying the military, and I think

(31:43):
we should be paying the air Tropic controllers, but Democrats
won't budge it. Pisss off fetterment.

Speaker 6 (31:52):
During the government shutdown. Do you think there should be
a bill that prevents that from happening.

Speaker 7 (31:56):
Well, I mean, I'm not primarily concerned about two million
Pennsylvanians rely on SNAP to feed themselves in their families,
and that's that's going to stop. And I'm also concerned
about our military not paid and we're all protected by
members of the Capitol Police and they're not getting paid.

(32:18):
I'm always going to vote to support those things. I'm
a guy that's a country over party, So that's those
are my concern Now, you know, two things must be
true that you know, keep our government open and make
sure people can count on SNAP and people they are paid,
and then we can have the conversations about extending, extending

(32:42):
those tax credits. And then I do believe, you know,
but Leader Thune is an honorable guy, and I do
believe we could have a meaningful sincere conversation and negotiate
these things. Let's open up the government and let's figure
out a way forward. Because when you shoot, when you
shout down our government, America loses.

Speaker 6 (33:04):
The longer this goes on, though, do you think lawmakers
should be accepting paychecks pay while this is going on.

Speaker 7 (33:12):
That's a personal that's a personal choice. But as this
continues to as it continues that you have folks like
Capitol police and the military and other people aren't going
to get paid. And now there's there's mortgages. You know,
they have to put food on their table. Also, I mean,
like this is crazy. It's we have to stop this.

(33:32):
I mean, you know, we need to put country first
and this is our core responsibility. It's it's very dismaying
and just I think it's the thirteenth or fourteenth time.
I just voted to vote to open our government up,
and I was the I think I was one of
only two Democrats, much more Democrats.

Speaker 2 (33:52):
So where are the other Democrats doing it? He also
said on Fox News.

Speaker 8 (33:57):
This morning, Senator Fetterman, you know, I want to talk
to about the ideological way forward for the Democratic Party
because we've seen this rise of democratic socialism and progressivism,
and you know, I'm wondering, what do you think the
ideological path is for your party?

Speaker 7 (34:14):
Well, really, the party is going to go its own way.
But I've been going my way. I'm going to fight
for wins in Pennsylvania. And there's issues that I will
agree in aligne with on the Republican side, specifically like Israel,
and I celebrated those great peace steel and I also

(34:34):
really very strong that we have to secure our border.
And I was the co sponsor of the Lake and
Bill as well. And right now I'm in a minority
that I think it's wrong to shut our government down
in this situation right now and now, so for me,
and there's things that I strongly believe in too on
the Democratic side, But I'm just gonna I'm always going

(34:55):
to vote country over party. I'm always going to vote
for paying for the military over my party and those
things because I think that's what's appropriate right now. The
direction where my party's going, I mean, we won't see,
but I can can control my vote and my voice,
and that's exactly where I am, and I'm going to
call balls and strikes. And it's an easy, easy choice

(35:17):
to pick my country over the party. Especially in circumstances
like this.

Speaker 2 (35:21):
It's easy for us to hear someone like him and
to glom onto that and say, wow, that's really good.
How quickly would we turn on him? Because he says
there are some things where I align with my party.
I don't know what those are, but maybe the things
that I absolutely I find abhorrent, and I would I

(35:42):
would vociferously disagree with him on some issues that he
might align with his party on. So the point is
he's probably right when he says, I'm going to do
what I think is right. I'm gonna put country above party,
and I'm going to vote well. And I happened to
be in this position, right. I think we ought to
be paying you know, ice, we all to be paying

(36:05):
the US Capitol police, we all to be paying the military,
we all to be paying air traffic control. And then
if he were to do something that would be opposite
of what we believe, then will you jump all over him?
And I understand that, but at least give him credit
for saying what he believes and sticking to it regardless
of what his party says.

Speaker 4 (36:26):
Are you surprised that vote?

Speaker 5 (36:27):
After those it's just in three.

Speaker 6 (36:29):
Democrats time and again, who was voted for this going?
Does that surprise you?

Speaker 4 (36:33):
Yeah?

Speaker 7 (36:34):
It's Groundhoul days, you know. And I'm just saying, and
it's not entertaining. That's a great movie, but this is.

Speaker 8 (36:41):
Senator Fetterman joins me. Now, Senator, an honor to have you.
That clip was from Tuesday, and you said you weren't
surprised by the continual votes by your party to not
reopen the government. But were you surprised when the vote
came on Thursday to pay military to pay for a
load workers and you were just one of three Democrats
saying let's pay these essential workers.

Speaker 7 (37:02):
I mean, I'm not I'm not surprised when I'm not surprised.

Speaker 2 (37:07):
Wow, that says a lot. I'll be right back