Speaker 1: Hello and welcome. How are you welcome to the Big Radio,
the Big Podcast. I should say, yeah, it's Tuesday. Today
is the tenth day of June, year of Our Lord,
twenty twenty five. My name is Tom Sullivan. We have
a lot to go over today. We've got the fifth
day of Los Angeles being a city under riots and
school shooting in Austria, so it doesn't always happen here.
Like the media likes to report vaccines, I've got to
ask you about vaccines. We'll get into that. Because of
RFK Junior let all seventeen members of his vaccine panel,
the ones who approved vaccines or suggest approvals, fired all
seventeen of them. I'll ask you where you sit on that.
And Harry Entton, the statistician from CNN back again with
some surprisingly positive polling on Donald Trump's moves with immigration
before we get started today. If you're listening to this,
that means you found the podcast. But there's a number
of people that are still trying to figure out how
do you get the podcast? Well, it's there on It
took a while for a lot of the places that
carry podcast to shall we say, upload the podcast, but
it's on most of your major podcast locations. Hopefully you
found it by now, and I'm also looking for your participation.
You pick the topic, but I mean, if you hear
one of the topics on this podcast or something else
you're seeing on the news today, you're more than welcome
to call. The old radio show phone line is still working.
It goes directly to voicemail, and so leave your messages
and we will play some of them. And the numbers
eight five five two nine five sixty six hundred eight
nine five two nine five sixty six hundred. Leave your messages.
I would love to have your comments be part of
the program today. So let's start with Harry Entton. He
has been surprising a lot of people. Again he does
his work on CNN, but uh, he's pointing out the facts,
and the facts are somewhat surprising, I think for the
CNN audience, maybe not for you. But here's Harry Nton
from earlier today.
Speaker 2: Interestingly enough, how immigrant voters feel about immigration and the
immigration crackdown. Where do you want to start?
Speaker 3: Yeah, let's let's just sort of start off on the
fact that immigrant citizens, immigrant voters, foreign born voters have
gone tremendously to the right on this issue in twenty
twenty four and twenty twenty five versus where they were
in twenty twenty. Closest to or trust more in immigration,
You go back to twenty twenty, Democrats, get this, held
a thirty two point lead on this issue. Immigrant voters
were in the Democratic camp. Jump forward to twenty twenty
four to twenty twenty five. Look at that shift, a
forty point shift to the right among immigrant voters. Republicans
now lead on this issue by eight points over Democrats,
more so than any other group that I could find.
The group of voters who became more hawkish on immigration
were in fact immigrants themselves, immigrants who are registered to
vote in this country.
Speaker 2: So that's on that issue. How about how they feel
about kind of traditionally historically about Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so you know, you see this shift, and you go,
what is going on underneath the hood? Well take a
look donald Trump. You remember when he first ran back
in twenty sixteen, immigrant voters are one of his weakest box.
But look at this. Trump's vote share in presidential election
among again immigrant citizens, those who registered vote. Look at
this twenty sixteen, you got thirty six percent of the vote.
You go to twenty twenty, thirty nine percent of the vote.
Look at this in twenty twenty four, all the way
up to forty seven percent of the vote. Some polls
I looked at had him barely losing that vote. Some
polls I looked at had him barely winning that vote. Again,
there is no block of voters that shifted more to
the right from twenty twenty to twenty twenty four than
immigrant voters, and Donald Trump, at least in some surveys,
actually won that vote. On average, it's about equal. So
there may be all this stuff right about undocumented immigrants
and Trump being harsh on them, but immigrant voters themselves
have increasingly liked Donald Trump and have increasingly moved to
the right on immigration into the Republican camp.
Speaker 2: Well, then on that what you're getting at, how how
immigrant citizens voters feel about people in the country illegally.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and this is where it all kind of comes together,
Cape Paul. When look at this the net favorable rating
immigrants who are here illegal among immigrants citizens again, those
registered to vote in twenty twenty look at this plus
twenty three points on the net favorable rating. But look
at where we were in twenty twenty four minus six
points underwater. So immigrant citizens have become increasingly unfavorable in
their views of those immigrants who are here illegally.
Speaker 4: So I think it's so.
Speaker 3: Important when we're talking about this debate from a political
angle to separate those out who are undocumented immigrants versus
those who are here legally and those who are citizens
and those who are voters, because that group of voters
has felt increasingly distant from those immigrants who are here legally.
And so again, when we're talking about this, at least
from a political angle, this is why Donald Trump feels
so comfortable because in fact, amongst the group that you
would think that would be most opposed to this, in fact,
they become increasingly favorable, not just towards Donald Trump, but
towards a Republican point of view on immigration and becoming
distant from those immigrants who are here illegally.
Speaker 1: And so that is not a surprise to me, not
at all. There is not a shred of surprise, because
I've done this show for all a long long time,
and what I have found is that people will call
the program and they will say I immigrated to the
United States from and they will fill you know, whatever country, Peru, Hungary, Japan,
it doesn't matter, from all over the world, and they
all are very upset, more upset than I think the
average citizen about the people that are coming into our
country illegally. And every one of these people that are
here legally, they got in line, they waited, they went
through the process, they took the citizenship test, they paid
their fees, and you see these other people. Nobody likes
somebody that cuts in front of you in the line.
So the fact that Harry Enton said that the immigrants
that are here legally are very much in favor of
what Donald Trump has been doing, so no surprise to me.
But I'm glad that this is Harry Nton and he's
talking to the CNN audience. They've they've got to be
sitting and go, oh oh.
Speaker 5: How about that.
Speaker 1: So, speaking of the illegals and all of that, let's
talk about Los Angeles for just a moment, because the
governor and the mayor are the governor of California, mayor
of Los Angeles are talking about that, and a lot
of the politicians, the Democrat politicians that are being interviewed,
they all go, I'll tell you what this all started
with Donald Trump. Everything was fine until Donald Trump came
along and started putting troops in here. Donald Trump did
not put troops in there on Friday, and that's when
people attacked the ice officers who were arresting a number
of illegals that are now in their custody. So other
observation that I know people don't pay that much attention,
but I do. If you look, there are no federal
troops that are There's the National Guard that has been
federalized by the president. They are not out on the street.
They are surrounding the federal building in downtown Los Angeles.
They are protecting the building. They're protecting the detainees that
they have in the jails in those buildings in that building.
They're not out, they're not moving out to the barely
the sidewalk. The people that you see fighting law enforcement,
those are the Los Angeles Police Department, and they are overwhelmed,
literally overwhelmed. They have somewhere around eight thousand police officers
in Los Angeles. That's it. New York, which is slightly
bigger than Los Angeles, has thirty eight thousand. They are
way understand the reason they are understaffed in Los Angeles
is because the City of Los Angeles, and I think
this goes back before the Karen Bass was mayor, when
the defund the police movement was working through city budgets.
LA cut the budget they were defunding, not completely, but
they defunded the police. They are way below what they
are supposed to what they used to have, so they
are overwhelmed. They do need help. They're now calling in
for help the Los Angeles County Sheriff, who has a
large department as well that doesn't usually work in the city,
but they're going to come in and help. The California
Highway Patrol has been there, but they're not a huge agency.
So they do need help. And we'll see what happens
with the federal troops and the Marines and everything else
that's in the news. But I got the sneak and
feeling that you're not going to see anything other than
local police that are out there fighting off these people. Now,
who are these people? That's the other question. These people
are obviously anarchists and antagonists. It's red meat for them.
They are ready to go. You just find yourself a
protest somewhere. And these people they communicate online and they
can be there in twenty four hours. And that's what
they're doing. They're professional agitators that are now not only
fighting the police, but they're also doing a lot of
looting in downtown Los Angeles. They're going in the building.
So the troops have not been involved with the crowds,
only the LAPD and the LA Sheriff's Office and the
California Highway Patrol Bresident. Trump said LA would be burning
if he did not mobilize troops. I'm not sure that's true.
I think the LAPD has done a tremendously good job.
I don't think the troops or no troops makes any
difference to the professional agitators. I think they show up regardless.
Like I said, it's red meat for those people. So
what do you make of the response? Donald Trump is
basically a law and order president. That's what he ran on.
He's the first president to run on law and order
as one of his main topics since Richard Nixon. Nixon
did the same thing, and that he was going after
the riots that were going on regarding the Vietnam War
back in the seventies, late sixties, early seventies. So law
and order, But how much law and order is Donald
Trump being too aggressive or not aggressive enough, or just
about doing what's right? But the Democrat are I guess
you could say that they must be. If they're not
with law and order, they must be siding with the
people that are doing the demonstrating. And I don't care
if you're a Democrat, pink o, I don't care what
you are. Nobody is in favor of siding with rioters now,
not ever, never has been, And they have got themselves
into a situation where they are basically they keep saying, oh,
we want a peaceful, peaceful, peaceful, but will they actually
bring to the table how to shut these people down
so that LA doesn't burn. By the way, the other day,
was watching some live coverage of it, and somebody had
like a burn barrel fifty gallon drum or something like,
out on the street. It was out on the street
all by itself. Somebody poured some fuel in they're gasoline
or whatever, lit it on fire, and a whole bunch
of photographers ran over to the burn barrel and started
taking a funs And what are they taking a photo
of a burn barrel for? Because there were flames coming
out of it. So if you frame the photo on
the flames and you see the buildings in the background.
It looks like La is burning, but it's not. Have
they been, Yes, they've been doing looting. The other thing
that's in the crowd, which is also a bad sign,
is I told you this yesterday, what's with the Mexican flags? Seriously,
what is with the Mexican flags? I don't get it.
Maybe you do. It just seems like if you are
in a country that you're trying to I don't know this.
Great Gutfeld put a post yesterday on x He said,
trying to find a country to establish a sanctuary city
where I can burn stuff while waving my native country's
flag while violently demanding that they don't send me back
to the native country of the flag that I am waving.
Is there a country I can terrorize then demand sympathy
when they want me to leave. That's what's going on,
and it's not making a lot of sense. So that's
by the way they're talking about. There's probably six thousand demonstrators, rioters,
whatever you want to call them, agitators, six thousand of them.
I say again, LAPD one hundred. If everybody showed up
from the LPD, there'd be eight thousand lapds. So they
do need help, there's no question about it. And by
the way, since they threw Gascone out as their DA
in Los Angeles, they have a DA that's a real DA.
And he says that he is going to prosecute the
people that are arrested to the fullest extent of the law.
Won't that be interesting to see what they do? I
trust him. I'd be interesting to see what the if
that makes any difference to the people that because when
they're in New York and they're riding at Columbia University,
they go in the front door and go right out
the back door and go back to Columbia and start
protesting again. But LA maybe cracking the whip. The president
is cracking the whip. Is that too much for you
or is it just right?
Speaker 6: Again?
Speaker 1: Your comments are welcome. The phone numbers eight five, five, two, nine, five,
sixty six hundred. So the fight between the California governor
and the president continues. Gavin Newsom is saying, come and
get me if you want, mister, mister tough, or something
along those lines paraphrasing. But he also has filed a
lawsuit and the Attorney general in the state of California
has filed the lawsuit for California to say that the
president it's illegal for him to send the troops. Andy McCarthy,
former Southern District of New York prosecutor, and this response.
Speaker 7: He absolutely, the president absolutely has the law on his side.
Since the Civil War, the courts have recognized that the
president not only has the authority but the duty to
protect the United States when there are conditions that could
lead to violent rebellion. Enforcement of the immigration laws is
a plenary federal responsibility.
Speaker 5: The Supreme Court has held that.
Speaker 7: For years now, and the President has unquestioned authority to
protect federal personnel, federal resources, federal facilities, including the buildings
that have been attacked, and obviously to protect the execution
of federal law. So I really don't think Newsom has
a light to stand on here, all.
Speaker 6: Right, So let me ask you this question.
Speaker 8: Newsom obviously is going to try to go to some
friendly district court in California. How quickly do you think
could this get to the Supreme Court on an emergency
petition from the White House?
Speaker 6: Very quickly?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 7: I think Chief Justice Roberts has been pretty emphatic John
that the court can act quickly when there's an emergent situation.
I don't expect that Newsom is going to find the
courts to be as friendly as perhaps he expects.
Speaker 1: This is the viewpoint of the mayor of Los Angeles,
Karen Bass. This is what she had to say, Democrats out.
Speaker 6: Of touch on this issue.
Speaker 9: Well, I think if you did the polling in Los Angeles,
I'm not sure it would be that way. Considering we
are a city of immigrants.
Speaker 4: Do people really.
Speaker 9: Approve the federal government coming in and seizing power from
a state and from a city. So I drilled down
a little further on that poll because I do not
believe that Americans support the federal intervention in a city
takeover or a state takeover.
Speaker 1: What she's referring to CNN had put up on their
screen before they before she talked the fact that a
CNN poll showed that fifty four percent. Yeah, it's split,
but it's decently in the majority of people in this
country are supportive of Donald Trump's efforts on stopping the
illegals in this country and stopping the la riots. But
she does not believe it. She lives in her own bubble,
and I truly believe that she doesn't think that that's possible.
And she also points out again the fact that she
says fifty two percent of the citizens of Los Angeles
are Hispanic, Okay, but ten percent of them are illegally
in this country. So most of the citizens of Los
Angeles are legal. We pointed out just a minute ago
about the fact that the people that are in this
country legally, they came here from another country. Don't like
this business of these illegals coming in because they paid,
they jumped the line. Then the people that are here
legally went through the whole rigmarole to come to become
a citizen. Here's Byron Yorke responding to Karen Bass's disbelief
about the fact that anybody is in favor of Donald Trump.
Speaker 4: Here's Byron York where she has.
Speaker 10: It completely wrong. Because the federal government has the sole
authority to enforce immigration law. I'll bring back in the
Barack Obama years, you may remember the state of Arizona
said to Obama, you're not enforcing immigration laws, so we're
going to do it. And Obama said, no, you're not.
And it went to court and Obama won it went
to the Supreme Court and Obama won, and the ruling
is the federal government has the sole authority to do this.
So when Karen Bass says, it's like the federal government
is coming in and taking our state and local authority, No,
they don't have any state and local authority.
Speaker 1: But Bim in York isn't sure that troops are needed,
and he doesn't think the President has made the case
for it.
Speaker 11: I think the polls would suggest that they want communities
that are safe, they don't want people rioting.
Speaker 10: I don't know if the President has fully made the
case for that. It doesn't seem on the surface all
that needed because you do have the National Guard. It
appears we were reporting this morning that it's quieter at
the moment, but it could get bad again tonight. But
not sure that active duty troops are actually needed in
this situation. But national Guard, which hadn't been done since
nineteen sixty five, in these circumstances was definitely needed.
Speaker 1: And then Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana always has an
interesting observation on all of this.
Speaker 12: Here's the Senator, Well, number one, I think all those
those people need to popo Zoe.
Speaker 6: Loft and relax. Little bit number two.
Speaker 12: I don't think this situation is especially complicated. You don't
need to be an astrophysicist to figure it out. We've
got a wolf problem in Los Angeles. They're not peaceful protesters,
they're wolves. They're hurting people, they're destroying property. So you say, well,
where's the governor. Well, the governor is a sheep. He'll
tell you I'm a sheep. He's a sheep in sheep's clothing.
He thinks cops are a bigger problem than criminals. So
then you say, well, where's the mayor of Los Angeles,
maybe she can stop it. Well, she's a sheep too.
More sheep is not going to stop the wolf problem.
So the federal government sent in troops and we're stopping
the wolf problem. Last night was a better night, and
tonight it'll be better.
Speaker 4: Still.
Speaker 6: It's not hard to figure out.
Speaker 12: To me, And I think this is what I think
most Americans are looking at this and going stop the wolves,
and a lot of them are thinking, you know, nobody's
talking about it, but who's going to pay for all this?
You know, who's going to pay for all this destruction?
Are we going to get the bill. That's the way
I said.
Speaker 8: You know, Senator would see that not all Democrats are
in the same boat the d MS outrage. Listen to
what Senator John Fetter Pennsylvania said about this. He said, quote,
I unapologetically stand for free speech, peaceful demonstrations, and immigration.
But this is not that. This is anarchy and true chaos.
My party loses the moral high ground when we refuse
to condemn setting cars on fire, destroying buildings, and assaulting
law enforcement. Now Democrats are calling for demonstrations across the country.
It almost looks like they're looking for a repeat of
the Summer of Love from twenty twenty.
Speaker 12: Well, I think I think Senator fetterman has given us
some wise advice.
Speaker 6: We ought to take it.
Speaker 12: Number two, My Democratic colleagues have a game plan. I
don't think it's a very good one, but it it's
the same game plan we've seen forever. President Trump is
a dictator. He's trying to destroy democracy. Now he's trying
to take over our cities, and they're trying.
Speaker 6: To convince the American people if that's true.
Speaker 12: This is one problem. The American people can see what's
going on. It's just like they could see that President
Biden had neuro degender to disease. They can see the
riots in Los Angeles. So when the Democrats try to
tell them not to believe, they're lying eyes and nobody
believes them. I mean, I think they ought to get
a new strategy here. But aside from the politics, Los
Angeles is one of.
Speaker 6: The greatest cities in the world.
Speaker 12: We shouldn't stand by and let the wolves destroy it
air devoured. Well, they're not peacefully. I mean, you can
see it. I see what you see.
Speaker 6: The American people see what we both see.
Speaker 12: They see wolves acting like wolves, and they see they
see sheep. My Governor Newsom and Mayor Bass telling the
wolves please stop it, you know, please stop it. Well,
the wolves aren't going to stop. And you see the
American taxpayer and the good people of California and they're
going on the wolves are taken over. Now, who am
I going to call Gavin Newsom, Karen Bass or a
marine the good people of Los Angeles saying I think
I'll take door number three.
Speaker 1: So let's move on. We've got the story that's been brewing,
and it is very controversial. There are people that are Republicans, Democrats,
doesn't matter. There are very much on one side or
the other regarding vaccines. And if you haven't heard the news,
RFK JR has ousta the entire vaccine panel. The story
is is that the Health Secretary he has chosen to
retire members of the committee that make the decisions about
who receives immunizations and who doesn't. So he has decided
to retire this committee. They all seventeen members of the
Advisory Committee. Every one of them was let go. Two
thirds of the panel had been appointed in the last
year by the Biden administration. They're very influential. They wield
enormous power, but they are the ones that review the
data on vaccines, debate the evidence, vote on who should
get the shots, and win. Doctor Vin Gupta from the
University of Washington is this is his view on what's
going on.
Speaker 4: There's Mika. You know if it's still up, and it
was up a two minutes ago. I encouraged all your
viewers to google.
Speaker 11: Asip, ACIP and the CDC and you'll go to the
roster that's still live on Surprises Live probably for the
next few hours, and you can read the bios of
the individuals currently on a SIP through June.
Speaker 4: End of June.
Speaker 11: These are professors of infectious diseases like doctor Helen Chu
at the University of Washington.
Speaker 4: They're professors of.
Speaker 11: Epidemiology doctor Jane Zucker at Sunny Downstate, not far from you,
and in no way their conflicts.
Speaker 4: Kennedy and his.
Speaker 11: Piece at the Wall Street Journal said that there was
conflicts of interests, that somehow these individuals are in.
Speaker 4: The pocket of pharma. That's not true.
Speaker 11: That they have to submit very rigorous conflicts of interests
forms that are scrutinized. They cannot hold stock and the
advisory committees anything to do with vaccine manufacturers.
Speaker 4: So there is no relationship between.
Speaker 11: Any of these individuals and their credentials and a conflict
of interests Number one, your point, you know, what is
this going to mean. I'm very close to the American
Academy of Pediatrics and we just had a town hall
in this conversation in the wake of his announcements over
the last few weeks. What does this rolling thunder set
of announcements can mean for public health? And it's pretty
darn clear. No clinician likes the fact that he's doing
what he's doing. He's doing exactly what he said he's
been doing. Well, he's doing exactly what he's the last
twenty years, which is reducing confidence in vaccines. But no
clinician wants a lack of transparency and a lack of
here guidelines that's not expert driven, and that's exactly what
he's doing number one. Number two, he also knows that
insurance companies rely heavily. Medicaid relies heavily on what ACIP recommends.
If ACIP says we need to get a flue booster
or MMR every few years, they're going to have to
cover it.
Speaker 4: It's actually statutory by law. So he knows what he's doing.
Speaker 11: He's actually undermining the very framework of how we get
vaccines covered for the American people, including kids, and he's going.
Speaker 4: Right at the heart of that.
Speaker 11: What I would say, number one is look at the doctors,
so called doctors that he has surrounded himself with RSK.
These are former doctors who once practiced medicine, or doctors
in name only who have never practiced the art of
medicine at.
Speaker 4: The bedside, And so why does.
Speaker 11: That matter if you don't have somebody that understands the
consequences of something fundamental like we're going to ruin the
vaccine or the infrastructure for people to have access to vaccines.
If you've never dealt with the consequences of caring for
a patient, you're going.
Speaker 4: To run rough shot. You're you're not going to have accountability.
Speaker 11: And so that's the phenotype that I worry he is
going to surround himself with in government and these.
Speaker 4: Types of committees. Really, what does that mean?
Speaker 11: Fundamentally, he has this acip A revised ASIP He can
now appoint all new seventeen members. He doesn't have to
wait till twenty twenty eight, which was the original deadline
that they had to wait till twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 4: Now he can do it tomorrow if you wanted to,
or in July.
Speaker 11: The worry here is that this committee is powerful enough
to completely revise the vaccine schedule for children, and he
can go on and say, this new committee can say,
you know what, we don't like the recommendations as they
exist today. We're going to completely alter them. What does
that mean for the everyday family? That means that once
covered vaccines by insurance companies may go away. Unfortunately, that
is part of the risk care Willy what I hope,
and I just to say, I hope insurance companies fundamentally
rethink how they cover vaccines because they can no longer
rely on ASIP or what the government says.
Speaker 1: So some of you are probably cheering at this news.
Senator Bill Cassidy, the Republican from Louisiana, one of the
medical doctors in Congress. He was the head of the
committee that we heard the nomination of RFK Junior to
be the of Health and Human Services, and during that
testimony he asked Kennedy to pledge to him to maintain
this panel's recommendations without changes, and Kennedy recently said that
the CDC would no longer routinely recommend COVID nineteen vaccines
for children or pregnant women. Cassidy posted on his x account.
He says, of course, now the fear is that ASIP
the panel will be filled up with people who know
nothing about vaccines. Accept suspicion. I've just spoken with Secretary Kennedy.
I'll continue to talk to him to ensure that this
is not the case. So the next panel of these
vaccine doctors meets at the end of June. So Kennedy
is going to have to name the new people to
replace the seventeen here within the next couple of weeks.
But this was I'm sure, like I said, some of
you are cheering because you don't like vaccines, you're suspicious
of them. So it was RFK Junior. Others of you
rely upon the doctor to tell you what to do,
and I mean, there's nothing else you can say at
this point. It goes back to the shows we had
during COVID. Talk to your family doctor, ask your doctor
whether or not you should get this vaccine or that
vaccine or not get them. But this is not the
first time that Robert F. Kennedy has basically gone one
point eighty on a word that he had given. He
does not keep his word. That is clear. He lies.
He's done it and been caught many times in the past.
So he pulled a fast one. Nobody's surprised. I'm not
surprised that he did it, but he pulled a fast
one after being nominated and approved by the Senate to
be the head of HHS. And finally, let's cover one
more look back, if you will, at Joe Biden's decline,
because the Washington Post has come out with an article
that basically said that, no, there was no cover up
by the media. The media did a perfectly good job.
And you've got to scratch your head that Washington Post
thinks they did a good job of making sure that
everybody knew that Joe Biden was having a problem. We
all knew if you washed any television. But the Washington
Post thinks that the media did a great job of
covering it. Carl Rove weighs in on all of that. Oh.
Speaker 13: Absolutely, Look, I was taken by there's a book out
about Biden's decline by Jake Typer and another journalist named Thompson.
They had an interview in Chicago. I was taken aback
by what they had to say because they couldn't admit
what we all know. One of them said, some people
let their owns, referring to reporters. Some reporters let their
own personal ideological leanings affect how they reported.
Speaker 5: You really, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 13: Sometimes reporters got caught up in thinking about the externalities
and the consequences of putting this out. In other words,
they were defending Joe Biden, knowing that he was in
mental decline, but they were afraid of what would happen
to the Biden presidency and the Democratic Party's chances of
holding onto the White House in the face of another
Trump campaign.
Speaker 5: This is not what journalists should be thinking about.
Speaker 13: And it is clear that the mindset of most journalists
are are center left or are further left. But as
journalists have a responsibility for following the facts wherever they
take them, and on this instance they turned a blind eye.
Speaker 1: So the Washington Post went on to talk about how
journalists really need to dig into what presidents are doing
more than just the policies that are coming out of
the White House, but really dig in as if they
did not do that during the first Trump administration. They
dug in a lot, they just did not do it
during the Biden administration. And so Carl reacts to that
comment from the.
Speaker 13: Post, Instan says of him, you know, we had a
couple of stories about have people being discomforted by his
behavior at fundraisers in twenty twenty three, and that was
plenty did go there. I mean, read these books that
are coming out. I mean there are hundreds of people
who now say I was concerned about this in twenty
twenty three and early twenty twenty four, well before the
June debate, where we all saw it. Look, we knew
it as a country, the American people are not dumb.
We saw him in action, and we knew he'd lost
more than a couple of steps. And the media, though,
conspired the externalities and the consequences of reporting that the
president was in the midst of a serious mental and
physical decline.
Speaker 1: One more question for Carl of the George Soros Foundation
is putting millions of dollars into an effort. They have four,
but this is a brand new effort to try to
turn Texas blue. And since that's where Karl Rove lives,
that's his base is Texas, what's he know about this
latest effort by Soros to turn Texas pro Democrat.
Speaker 5: It's not a new effort, it's an old effort.
Speaker 13: Soros has been pouring millions of dollars into the Democratic
Party in Texas in an effort to turn the state
blue because if Republicans lose Texas, they lose the country.
Now full disclosure, I've been involved in an effort on
the other side, the GP margins in Texas in twenty eighteen,
six hundred and seventy eight thousand, was the average number
of votes of Republicans won by by twenty twenty four,
it was a million two eighty. Part of it is
because of voter registration that I helped set up with
a guy named Steve munistery five hundred and seventy nine
thousand new Republicans have been added to the roles in Texas.
Speaker 5: That's one out of every five new voters.
Speaker 13: Thousands of Texas Federation of Republican volunteers led by a
very able young staff guy named Rocky Gage as the
executive director of it.
Speaker 5: It's that's offsetting what the Democrats are doing.
Speaker 1: And wrapping up with Wall Street, the market today based
on we have we haven't gotten the read out by
the time the market closed today about what is going
on in London with the talks between the US and
China and the Wall Street traders are obviously hoping for
something good coming out of that meeting, and that's why
the market pushed up a little bit higher today and
tomorrow morning when I'm sorry, yeah, Wednesday morning, the consumer
Price Index inflation report for the month of May comes out,
so the markets are kind of waiting for that as well.
But as far as the stocks today the Dow up
one hundred and five up to forty two thousand and
eight sixty six, the S and P up thirty two
to six thousand and thirty eight, Nasdaq up one hundred
and two twenty three. We are within two percent of
a new record high. Gold was down seven to seventy
to thirty three forty seven, and the price of oil
was down about thirty cents sixty five dollars roughly for
one barrel of oil. Thank you for coming by today.
We hope to see you again tomorrow. Oh and don't
forget if you have comments about about Los Angeles riots,
about the vaccine debate going on, do you support RFK
Junior or not? About the Biden comments and Karl Rove
looking at georls Toros trying to make Texas blue again.
It's been a long time. Give me a call. You
can leave your message. The phone number is eight five
five two nine five sixty six hundred. Thank you, and
again we'll see you tomorrow.