Speaker 1: And Hi, how are you welcome to the Big Podcast?
It is Wednesday. Well, we had a holiday on Monday.
It's the third of September, year of our Lord, twenty
twenty five. My name is Tom Sullivan. So we've got
here's kind of a rundown of what I've got on
my list for you today. Chicago. Will federal troops wind
up in Chicago? Maybe? Maybe not. We're waiting to find
what that's all about. We've got in DC today at
the Capitol. There are a large number of Epstein's survivors
that are there. They're trying to get a bill passed
that would require everything be divulged from the Epstein files.
What else do we have today? Oh? Have you bought
a lottery ticket? I know, I feel like I'm pitching
for the lottery. I'm not, because the odds are one
in two hundred and ninety two million that you'll win.
But what I say, you must you got to play
if you're going to win. So one point four billion
on the line for tonight. Speaking of money, ill hand
omar the lady who keeps jumping up and down about
rich people and taxing rich people. We find out that
she is a multi multi millionaire, and that money has
been coming in rather quickly over the last year. So
we'll get into all of that. Let's start start with Chicago,
because there's a variety of people in Chicago that feel
like they want the National Guard. They are worried about
the crime in their city. Here's a little montage of
some of the people that they're all for the National
Guard coming in.
Speaker 2: They're just getting works and works every day every day.
Speaker 3: You know, the local media sometimes they report the crime
for one day and that's it.
Speaker 1: So it just gone from bad to worse to disasters.
These kids are carrying guns, like around the ages of
eight years old, and they're killing other eight year old
kids with guns. It's insane to me.
Speaker 4: I think the biggest piece of a pie has to
be more police officers, more protection.
Speaker 1: That's what the people want, more more visibility, all right.
So those were some people that we found on the
street that are bringing in the National Guard. Crime is
bad in Chicago. Then there's another group of Chicagoans on
the other side of the aisle.
Speaker 5: The purpose of federal military forces are not too police citisen.
That's why we have the police, so we don't need
federal forces to do.
Speaker 6: The police saying.
Speaker 1: Chicago won't be what it is and I don't care.
Speaker 7: You can send the National Guard, you can send anybody
you want to see.
Speaker 1: It is not going to stop.
Speaker 8: I think at this point, man trying something because nothing's working.
So if this works, and then what any helps?
Speaker 4: I mean, why not cooperate?
Speaker 1: Okay, So that last guy is kind of uh yeah,
why not cooperate? It's that's the problem with montage. You
can find people that will say either side of the isle.
So let's go to the man in charge. Let's go
to JB. Pritzker, the governor of Illinois. Let's see what
he thinks about how safe Chicago is or is not.
Speaker 8: Hi, everyone, Governor J. P.
Speaker 1: Pritzker.
Speaker 8: Here, I'm here in the little village, a beautiful part
of the city. Was able to just walk down the
street and say hello to some of the small business
owners and the patrons in those small business is just
a lovely day here. No emergency. So Donald Trump understands
no emergency in the city of Chicago to send troops in.
But I know people are very afraid because ice officials.
Ice officers are planning to come here to a little
village and I just want people to know that we're
doing everything we can in the state and in the
city to keep you safe. We'll make sure protect your rights,
but you need to know your rights and make sure
that you understand that the ICE officials don't have a
right to knock down doors to take people away. But
make sure you stay safe. All right, We're thinking of
you and doing everything we can to protect you.
Speaker 1: So that's the governor walking with a bunch of his
staff and security people around him and media around him,
and everything's great, everything's fine. There's no emergency. Oh oh
there is one. I mean, I don't blame you for
being afraid that ICE is a run around in Chicago.
And you got to be afraid of those federal police
officers called Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Yeah, that's worth being
afraid of. But everything else here is fine in Chicago.
Are A Fleischer, former press secretary for George W. Well.
These are his thought. Well.
Speaker 3: Mayor Muriel Browser of Washington d C is a smart
one here because she has actually talked about how much
help the federal intervention in Washington CEA has been, how
it's achieving the goals of reducing crime, reducing murder, reducing carjackings,
particularly in the poor awards of Washington, d C. So
what you've got are Democrats who are hung up on process.
They want to be in charge of the cities, and
it doesn't matter if it's been done well or poorly.
Leave it to them, they say. Trump looks at us,
says it's a mess. Crime is too high. We can
change who's in charge. I just want better results. I
think results matter a lot more to the people who
are victims of crime than process.
Speaker 9: Well.
Speaker 1: Megan Hay of Democrat Rategist, she has a very good
point about what happens when the National Guard leaves someday.
Speaker 10: Americans overwhelmingly have said that they do not want the
National Guard deployed into their cities, whether it's DC, Chicago, Memphis,
anywhere in the United States. They don't want that. But
I do think that there is a way that the government,
the federal government in these states governments can work together.
But they need to actually work together. Trump just can't
threaten to send them in and without talking to the
states governor and mayors to make this effective. One thing
I worry about here in Washington, DC, where I've lived
for over twenty years, is what happens when the National
Guard pulls out? What happens when this thirty day period
is up? Is crime going to go back up? We
still haven't solved the problem. We're still not investing in
more policing, We're not investing in more community resources here.
So then what happens when this goes away? Then it
just becomes all theater. And I think that people want
actual results, like Ari was saying, not just theater.
Speaker 1: She makes a great point. What happens when the National
Guard can't stay there forever and they can't be in
every study forever. So what happens when the National Guard
goes away? Is crime solved? That's why I say President
Trump has to be very careful. Remember what George W.
Bush got mocked for a long time because he landed
on an aircraft carrier and they put up a big
sign mission accomplished. And he got rightfully mocked about that
for a long time because the war continued on and
on and on and on. And I'm just thinking that
crime is not solved in Washington, DC. So he's kind
of putting up a mission accomplished sign, And what happens
when crime goes back to normal?
Speaker 3: Yeah? First of all, ICE, by law, does have the
ability to knock down doors and take people away if
they're here illegally or suspected of being here illegally. So
I don't know what the governor is talking about when
he tries to inform people like that. If you want
to make people safe, stop being a sanctuary city, stop
being a sanctuary state. Enforce the law. Work with your
federal partners. You were talking earlier about work with state
and local partners. Work with your federal partners. Don't say
to ICE, you're not allowed, we won't cooperate, we won't
turn people over to you. Why wouldn't you turn somebody
over if they're in America illegally, and especially if they
were in America illegally and committed a second crime, why
they were here having arrived illegally. So this is the
difference between red states and blue states and their approach
to law enforcement. And the final point I'll make is
it's not a question of investing more to get more police.
Police aren't joining because they think the politicians don't have
their back. That's why there's a recruitment crisis in law enforcement,
particularly in blue cities. Red cities, the National Bard Patrol.
They're getting people to sign up because they know their
leadership supports them and will let them do their job.
That's the difference between red and blue.
Speaker 1: Amen to that. He's absolutely right. I don't understand why
we've gotten so divided in this country that a Democrat
governor cannot work with the Republican administration and vice versa.
They just won't do it because the other side might
get a political browning point out of it. Many many
years ago, telling old police stories. When I was in
law enforcement, they had a federal program. I was highway patrols,
so we were interested in drunk drivers, and we flooded.
They brought in a bunch of federal money and they
paid us overtime. Me and a whole bunch of my
fellow troopers, we were out and we flooded this area
of the interstate highway system. It was I forget five
mile zone something like that. If you wobbled in that
five mile zone, you were being pulled over and checked
to see if you were a drunk driver. So what
do we do. We arrested a lot of drunk drivers,
many more than we normally would have. But then the
program ran out and we went back to our normal schedules,
and I don't think we solved drunk driving. I wish
we did. So what happens when some of these programs
get pulled back. I will give you this. During President clinton'sministration,
he saw the crime problem and he knew that crime
was something that bothered people. So he funded a federal
effort for police departments to hire one hundred thousand police officers.
And it took a few years, but they did. Did
it solve crime? No? But I think the effort was
about a much smarter way to go about it is
to hire, recruit, and train many more police officers for
whether it's Washington, d C. Or Chicago. I mean, Chicago
has just a very small police force compared to the
size of its city. So they'll fight with each other
for political points. But so far it looks like President
Trump wants to send troops to Chicago and then the
lawyers are going to get involved. That's the Chicago angle today.
What else have we got on the list here? Oh yeah?
Epstein big hearing in a big news conference outside the
Capitol today with a whole bunch of women that are
now middle aged women that were abused and victims of Epstein.
The reason they were in DC today was because of
the fact they're pushing Congress to pass a bill for
more documents documents to be released. Well, I don't I
play eclippment from James Comer here in a minute, but
they have released yes, was it yesterday? They released thirty
thousand pages. That's from the DOJ released thirty thousand pages
to Congress. Congress that we want the files on Epstein.
There were reactions in there to protect names of victims apparently.
But the problem with this is the people that have
received this in Congress, the staff have gone through and
has said ninety seven percent of those thirty thousand pages
have already been made public, so you didn't really release
all that much that was new, and they estimate there's
another one percent of documents still held by the DOJ.
So this brings up a couple of observations. Number One,
do you think there's any member of Congress that is
going to read through thirty thousand pages, especially since a
lot of it's already public. No, the answer is clearly no.
Secondly is why are they keeping anything at the DOJ?
Redact names of victims, but otherwise the pressure is not
going to back off on they want to see these names.
So two members of Congress are pushing for everything to
be released. One of them is Rokana, the Democrat from
San Jose, California. The other one is Tom Massey, the
Republican from Kentucky. Here's what Tom Massey had to say.
Speaker 6: What dishal information are you looking to get beyond the.
Speaker 1: Thirty FI thousand patres?
Speaker 5: What is actually out there the administration is what's holding by?
Speaker 1: Well?
Speaker 11: How about this?
Speaker 9: This is the flight logs they're withholding who was on
these planes? Like, this is a document that's publicly available,
Go find it on their website. They are redacting things
to prevent embarrassment, They're not redacting things to protect victims.
And in the process of preventing embarrassment, they're hiding some
criminals embarrassment, no embarrassment to rich and powerful individuals who
are connected to the president. I don't think the president
is redacted here. I don't think he's implicated in these files,
but I think his donors are, I think his friends are,
and I think our own DOJ and government are implicated
in this too.
Speaker 1: So yeah, Matthew thinks there's a big conspiracy about keeping
back some of the names of maybe some important wealthy
friends in high places. Donald Trump was asked about it
yesterday in the White House, and he's been in favor
when he was campaigning about releasing all the Epstein files,
and even as a matter of a week or two
ago he was saying, yeah, we need to cooperate on this.
And now yesterday this is what he said.
Speaker 12: Democrat hoax that never ends. From what I understand. I
could check, but from what I understand, thousands of pages
of documents have been given. But it's really a Democrat
hoax because they tried to get people to talk about
something that's totally irrelevant to the success that we've had
as a nation since I've been present.
Speaker 1: Well, I think we're capable of talking about the successes
that you're having as president, and at the same time,
we can chew gum and walk. I mean, we can
also talk about the fact that this cover up and
it appears to be a cover up, and the more
you fight it, the more people are going to dig
in and the more they think you're hiding something. So
and it's certainly not a hoax. Lisa Phillips is one
of the ladies who spoke today outside the capital. She
is a victim of Jeffrey Epstein, and she not only
said it's this isn't a hoax to these ladies, but
I also was amazed that she's not getting more coverage
because she brought up the idea about we know who
the people are that abused us. We know their names.
We're going to put a list together and reveal who
they are. Listen to this.
Speaker 2: Congress must choose will you continue to protect predators or
will you finally protect And also, I would like to
announce here today us Epstein survivors have been discussing creating
our own list.
Speaker 13: We know the names.
Speaker 2: Many of us were abused by them. Now, together as survivors,
we will confidentially compile the names we all know.
Speaker 1: I think that's a fantastic idea. They know who the
who the who the perpetrators are. They know who abused
them when they were underage girls. She said, they're going
to put out the list confidentially. I don't think so.
You've got to You've got to bust these pedophiles. I
don't care how rich they are, I don't care how
powerful they are. You got to go after them. So
James Comer, the head of the Oversight Committee that's looking
into all of this, he I don't know, man, he's
talking about they need this, they need that. But like
I said, they've already released the DOJ has already released
thirty thousand files or thirty thousand pages and not sure which,
and there's nothing new in ninety seven percent of them.
Here's Comer, Well, we're.
Speaker 14: Already doing that. I mean, we've already posted a bunch
of documents. And I don't think the discharge petition is necessary.
And if I don't think that they'll get the Republican
signatures on there to even require the discharge petition to
be on the floor. We're already four or five steps
ahead of what the distart petition wants to do. The
discharge petition would honestly only slow us down because we'd
have to wait for the Senate, and you know how
slow the Senate is to approve that. We're moving forward.
We've been doing this for about four weeks now. We've
already deposed former Attorney General Bill Barr. We have a
date set to interview alex Acosta, and that's going to
be a tough interview. That's again, bar and a Costa
are both Republicans. We're not making this a partisan investigation.
We're going to bring in Republicans and Democrats. We're going
to try to get the truth and finally provide some
accountability to the victims. The resolution gives us even more
authority than what the discharge petition does. And as I
said earlier, the resolution requires the Department of Justice to
explain why they were adacted a name or a certain
part of a document. So I think this is a
better deal. And you know, I would argue that the Democrats,
it appears if you watch the Rules Committee testimony last night,
they're more concerned about trying to embarrass Donald Trump then
trying to provide justice for the survivors. And that's what
our objective is. And I'll say this, the Trump administration
is working with us. They have complied with their subpoena
unlock the Body administration did last administration when we tried
to get documents. The Trump administration is complying with the
subpoena and I fully expect to get even more documents
very same from the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: So what about the names that the victims have that
they say that they're going to be releasing confidentially, gonna
do with those names when they're released.
Speaker 14: The attorneys are giving us names. Look, if they have
names of people that were on Eptey Island, we will
we will make those names public once we verify you
know that they were on the flight logs and everything else.
We want to provide transparency and we want to provide accountability.
So we're going to do everything that that that the
victims requested in your clip that you just showed, as
well as the private meeting we had in a bipartisan
manner yesterday.
Speaker 1: Forgive me. I mean, it sounds very nice that he's
working hard to get the truth or the American people,
uh and all of that, but the history shows that
these committees in Congress never achieve anything. I don't know,
I mean, he talks a good talk, but I will
be surprised if they actually are able to accomplish anything.
One of the attorneys representing some of the of the
they call them selves survivors, victims, whatever you want to
call them, named Spencer Covin. This is his reaction to
all of this.
Speaker 6: Well, it's about time. It's about time that people are
getting to hear the voices of these victims, you know,
and I applaud the bravery of these young women to
come forward. We know that there were tens, if not
hundreds of victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Glenn Maxwell. Some
of those victims have chosen to move past this issue
in their lives and they've decided to keep this in
their past and not come forward. Others have bravely stepped
forward and decided to speak their truth. But regardless, what
is unbelievable about this entire process is since I got
involved with the first victim in two thousand and six,
the federal government has never kept the victims in the loop.
They have never discussed what they were doing with the victims.
In fact, a federal judge in South Florida found that
the federal government violated the Crime Victim's Rights Act by
not keeping the victims in the loop during the sweetheart
deal that they negotiated back in two thousand and nine.
So it's about time that these victims are being heard.
We should listen to them, and the government should turn
over all of the information they have. Continue to protect
the victims, but turn over everything else. I mean, look,
there are different groups. When someone is sexually abused, especially
as a child, if you have gotten therapy and move
past that issue, then all this does is a constant
reminder of your abuse. So some of the victims have
chosen to move on with their lives and not play
a part of this. Others have decided to pick up
the mantle and step forward and be brave about this
and want the world to know. You know, look, it's
an individual victim's choice as to what they want to do.
I've written an open letter to the committee saying that
I'm willing to step forward and testify to give them
a history of how this litigation played out from its inception.
My letter was completely ignored by the committee. You know, look,
I don't think they're really trying to get to the
truth or get the information. I think what they're doing
is just trying to get past this problem for them
at this point. What I would say what's important is
this has spanned across multiple different administrations, be a Democrat
or Republican. This is not political, regardless of how our
current administration wants to couch this. This is about the truth,
it's about openness, and it's about protecting young children. That's
all this is about. We don't ever want this to
happen again. So let's see the evidence and let's bring
it forward.
Speaker 1: I know I can come across the cenecal, but I mean,
I just a I don't trust congressional committees to achieve anything.
And I also don't believe anybody that has anything to
do with Washington, DC is ever held accountable. So I
applaud their efforts, but to mark me down as surprised
if anybody actually gets charged with any of the pedophilia
that they committed years ago. So onto under money. Uh,
today we had the big what was it mega million's
yesterday three hundred million or something. Yeah, just three hundred million.
Today we've got the Now they're saying it's the fourth
largest ever lottery of power ball. It's one point four
billion dollars. And uh, I don't know. Here's a couple
of people they always they always ask these people on
the street, what would you do if you won?
Speaker 15: I would I would take care.
Speaker 3: Of my family, of course, you know, maybe doing it
a little bit of charities, live a good life, retire.
Speaker 7: I'm gonna help all those who help me. That's what
I'm gonna do, and I'm gonna build. I think I'm
gonna build like a church or something for kids to
go a church, plus like kids ground, kids playing ground.
I'm gonna do that.
Speaker 1: So back in my days when I had my investment company, uh,
I did have quite a large number of lottery winners
as clients. They yes, this was when I was out
in California, and people said you should write a book
about them without using their names. But I mean, there
were some great stories and sad stories. There was a
guy who was very young guy and he won a
very large prize. It wasn't this big, and he literally
couldn't handle it. And he moved off to a location
in the middle of nowhere in the woods and became
a hermit. And he had all this money and he
just couldn't handle it. There was also some wonderful stories.
I remember there was a single mother. She had a
daughter that she told me. She says, I always wanted
to be able to send her to college when she
gets that age. I think she was in high school
at the time. And the mother said, I just never
thought I was going to be able to do it,
and now I can send my daughter to college. There
was another guy that worked as a guy for heating
an air conditioning company, and he took the money that
he won. He quit, of course working for this company,
but he started his own company because he said, this
is great. Now I'll be able to provide for my
family forever with this company. And he built up a great, big,
h fat company. So there's good stories and bad stories
that come out of the lottery, but I'll tell you
this much. One of the things that I used to
do was I told all my clients, I said, when
the family and friends call, especially distant cousins and people
that you haven't seen in a long long time that
claim to be your dear friend, have them call me
and I'll be the no guy. I'll tell them I'm sorry,
know that we got all that money tied up in
long term something or others. And so it was it
was an experience that people, when they all of a
sudden have a lot of money that did not the
day before, it takes quite an adjustment. And you really,
if you win, you need you need a lawyer, you
need an accountant, you need an investment person, and you
need an insurance person. That will those four people and
if you have them all work together. They kind of
keep tabs on each other, so nobody really takes advantage
of you. So good luck. If I'm not here tomorrow,
you know why, No, I'll be here. The chances are
one in two hundred ninety two million that you will
win if you If you don't, they're given a thirty
year annuity. But if you say no, I want the
cash now, and Harry Anton, we'll point this out. Everybody
takes the cash. They don't want to wait thirty years
for the thing to pay out one thirtieth every single year.
But if you take the cash, it's five hundred and
eighty nine million, and then after tax three hundred and
seventy one million. But out of that they only take
out taxes, which is a standard number, but it's going
to be higher than that because of the huge amount
of money coming in for your tax return for this year.
So Harry Anton has the rundown on all of this.
Speaker 4: They're saying, there's a chance. I mean, look, I'd like
to think I can sometimes contort my body like Jim Carrey,
but I think I have a little bit more mathematical skill,
even if I am not nearly as funny as he is.
And I will say is, yes, you have a chance.
But the chance of winning the power ball has been
going down over the years. You know, back in nineteen
hundred and ninety two it was one in fifty five million,
two thousand and nine was one in one hundred ninety
five million. Now the chance of winning is one and
two hundred ninety two million, And that is because they
added more balls, which makes the odds go extremely longer,
but also means that, of course many people don't win,
so allows the jackpots to go higher and higher and higher.
To quote Jackie Wilson. Okay, so you see one in
two hundred and ninety two million. But the key thing
to keep in mind is if you're going to go
for at all, what you don't want to do is
tie with somebody else and then have to split the jackpot.
So how do you make sure that, in fact, you
don't have to split that jackpot? Will always choose numbers
above thirty one. Why is that? Because people often choose
their birthdays. And while I may not be a great
mathematical genius, I can tell you that according to my calendar,
there are no days in any month during the year
in which there are more than thirty one days, So
choosing numbers above thirty one strengthens your chance that if
you do somehow hit all the numbers, you won't have
to split that prize with anybody else. Look, if you're
a headline ryner, go with the annuity. But if you're
actually talking about what people actually take. Look, I looked
at all of them Powerball's biggest jackpot winners get this.
Fifty five out of fifty five, they all took the lumsum,
not the annuity. So it's really the lumsum we should
be looking at. Which, while it's not north of a
billion dollars, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars, still
seems pretty gosh darn nice to me.
Speaker 1: Well, speaking of people with money, this might surprise you.
But Congresswoman il Han Omar, who is constantly ragging on
taxing the rich, she wants to tax the rich, more
taxes for the rich. Well, what's happened is that her
twenty twenty five congressional disclosure form just reveals The headline
going around is that she's worth thirty million. Well, she's
worth something. Between congressional disclosure forms are weird that says
that she signed it, and she said that she and
her husband have a net worth ranging between six and
thirty million dollars, despite claims that she is not a millionaire.
Most of the money came from her husband's companies. He's
got They have a winery in California, and he also
has a venture capital firm. So they have, yeah, between
six and thirty million dollars worth of money. And I
don't know if she's going to keep claiming about the
fact that she wants to tax the rich. Here's a
little bit of a montage from Congresswoman Omar talking about
taxing the rich.
Speaker 13: Could increase the taxes that people are paying who are
the extremely wealthy. You are a billionaire, you could have
seven hundred dollars a day. Billionaires are getting tax cuts.
They voted to have the biggest Walsh transfer from the
poorest of Americans to the richest.
Speaker 1: Hmm. I wonder how that's going to go over with
all the people that have been cheering or on for
taxing the rich. It's Charlie Hurt from the Washington Times.
Speaker 16: You know, it's interesting, and of course it's important to
remember that these figures about her wealth are not a
Republican talking point. These are figures that she herself, her
office provided the House in terms of, you know, to
comply with House you know, reporting guidelines. So this is
not some sort of right wing thing. It's a remarkable exposure,
especially when you consider not only just the things that
she herself has said about rich people, but also when
you look at sort of the direction of her party
right now, which is going very much in the direction
of full blown socialism because of their you know, unhappiness
with wealthy people and the supposed income gap that occur
that you know that exists in this country. It's a
it's a real bad play for her. And when you
look at in particular, it's not just the wealth, it's
the sudden wealth when you look at somebody who by
her own based on her own numbers, her own wealth
has increased three thousand greater than three thousand percent, and
it's largely because of her access to power in Washington.
That's a real problem. At the very least, she should
be forced to explain all of that.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm not sure if it's about her access to power,
because this came from a winery and also from her
husband's venture capital, from a venture capital people business could
go to him because of the fact that he's married
to a member of Congress. I'm telling you it takes
a little while, but if you look up the spouses
of the congressional representatives and senators, you will see there's
a lot of conflict of interest in Washington, DC, tons
of it. The fight over at the CDC about vaccines continues.
There's a whole bunch of former I think there was
nine former CDC directors that have written a letter saying
that RFK Junior has to go. They do not like him.
One of the big deals in immunization in our country.
His name is doctor Paul. Often he doesn't like anything
that RFK is doing.
Speaker 11: You could not have found a worse person could be
in charge of Health and Human Services during this meetles
outbreak than him. And the only reason that had ended
was summer, because this is generally a winter and spring disease.
And I fully suspect that as we go back to
school again and we enter winter, you're going to see
measles once again flare up. Because Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Has consistently decried the the harness falsely of that vaccine.
Speaker 1: So we'll see if he's right, but it did raise
the suspiciousness of the fact that we basically pretty much
got rid of measles in this country and then we
had a big outbreak and there's a lot of people
who are afraid of vaccines and they did not want
to have that and the measles illness spread. So we'll
wait and see what happens. I got a phone call
from Sharon in Tennessee. She is a nurse and she
also some strong thoughts about RFK Junior.
Speaker 15: Hey, Tom, it's Sharon, your friendly neighborhood public health nurse,
and I could not let the yesterday's podcast go without
calling and commenting that the one thing that people don't
realize is the CDC's recommendations and the Advisory Committee on
Immunization Practices ACIP. Their recommendations are what govern medicare, Medicaid
and for most private insurances on what they will cover.
So if the recommendation is not there, yeah, you can
go get the vaccine, but you got to pay for
it out of pocket, and a lot of people don't
have that money. So it's really putting people at risk
who really can't afford to pay for immunizations. Because if
it's not put out by the CDC or ACIP as
a recommendation, the Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance will not
cover it. So it's a money thing. Like you always say,
follow the money, and I'm totally against even though I
lean to the right. As you know, I'm totally against
what Kennedy is doing with the CDC and the Advisory
Committee on Imanization Practices. I think he's just stacked it
full of people that are yes men and women that
are just going to go along with his in my opinion,
whack a doodle things. We need to get back to
some sanity here and just be because it's what he says,
doesn't make it right. Sometimes it's wrong, even though I
lean to the right. Hop if you're having a great day,
by the way, I love the podcast.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you, Sharon, and but that's a real eye opener.
I've got to dig into this even more. And she's right,
follow the money, and I'm very libertarian about it. If
you want to get a vaccine, go get your vaccine.
If you don't want to, then don't, but leave the
people alone that do want to get the vaccine. But
if if the CDC is not going to give the
thumbs up for the vaccines that we do have, and
you want to go get them, you're going to have
to pay for them yourself. And I don't want the government.
I don't want the government this heavy handed on whether
or not you can get a vaccine or not. Are
they are they banning you from getting certain vaccines? Because
well they're not technically banning, but I mean, how expensive
are vaccines? Wore out insurance coverage? So I thought I
wanted to play Sharon's call for you because it's it's
very disturbing to me at the very least. All right,
what do we have left to? Oh? We got you see,
you know the Big Beautiful Bill.
Speaker 10: Do you know?
Speaker 1: That's the actual name of the bill, is the Big
Beautiful Bill. And what's hilarious is apparently it's not polling
very well. No, apparently a lot of people do not
like it, and they're yelling at their members of Congress
when they did their town halls when they were home
for the month of August. So they have decided at
the White House to change it. The name is now no,
you can't say Big Beautiful Bill. They're going to change
it retroactively to the working Family's tax cut. Well that
sounds a lot better, doesn't it. Who could be against that?
Richard Hudson, who is a Republican from North Carolina, was
asked about this earlier today. Use the name one big
beautiful bill to help get it past, and now to
try to explain to American people, he's suggesting we call
it the working Family's tax cut.
Speaker 4: So you guys will also tell members, so when you
when you're when they're holding town halls and things like that,
to refer to it in that way.
Speaker 1: Well, that's what the White House told us this morning.
That just there's layers of problems with that. That's what
the White House told us this morning. So are they
just ponds members of Congress and they just salute whatever
the white House tells them to say? Here's your talking point.
Don't you call it the big beautiful bill anymore. It's
the working Family's tax cut bill. Do you understand? I'm
telling you, man, everybody is just it's such a cheesy
town I could no more via Congressman. No, you're telling
me what to say and what to do when to
stand up on you. No, I'm too much of a rouble.
But anyway, Wall Street today other than the nattack. It
basically I don't even know why it opened, because it
wasn't a bunch of movement. The Dow Jones industrials down
twenty four. The close of forty five thousand and two
seventy one, the S and P was up thirty two,
the NADAC up two hundred and eighteen. Decent day there.
The price of gold another big upday, up thirty two
dollars now at thirty six twenty four three thousand, six
hundred and twenty four dollars for an ounce of gold,
and oil prices fell almost two bucks, down to six
just under sixty four dollars for one barrel of oil.
Thank you for coming by today. Like I said, if
I'm not here tomorrow, you know why I won the lottery.
So I'll be here tomorrow. I hope you are too.
See event