Speaker 1: And here we go. Hi, how are hold it down? Man?
How are you welcome to the Big podcast. It's Tuesday.
Today is the second day of December, Year of Our Lord,
twenty twenty five. My name is Tom Sullivan. And this
whole business about the shooting the Narco boats and killing
the occupants of those boats is still it's not going
to go away anytime soon. But I find it fascinating
on many different levels. First of all, you start thinking
about the fact that this sounds very political, because what
it what a lot of people anti Trump, people, people
on the left, people that are in the middle whatever
that are anti Trump. They're certainly anti Hagseath as well,
and and so you would expect that they would accuse
the president and the Defense secretary of all kinds of
terrible things. But this is different because, and by the way,
I have I have a number of prominent people that
are on both sides of this issue. One side of
the issue says you can't do that. You can't shoot
survivors in a wrect boat. That, no, you gotta You've
got to pick them up as prisoners of war. You
gotta do somebody. You can't just kill them. You cannot
kill everybody after the damage to the ship has been done,
or the boat is not a ship, and the other
there's another group of people that say, yes, you do.
You kill the enemy. You break things, and you kill
the enemy. That's what the military does. So we've got
both sides of this. But investigations have already started. It's bipartisan.
I've got Republicans and Democrats that are saying we need
to look into this, and they started today the gathering
together to put together investigations into what happened with the
Narco boat that was hit for the second time. The
first time blew up the boat. The second time was
to blow up whatever survivors were there. And so the
thing that makes this different to me is that this
isn't just political mud being thrown around. It's that, but
it's much more because somebody is going to be right
and somebody is going to be wrong. They're going to
investigate this to find out was there a war crime
committed or not. And if there wasn't, then there's going
to be some people that are throwing the mud that
are going to look pretty pretty bad. I guess they
don't care. I guess they don't care. If there was
a war crime committed? What's gonna happen. Well, normally war
crimes are are prosecuted by the Uniform Code of Military
Justice by the military, they prosecute their own under UCMJ.
But the civilian head of the military, the Defense secretary,
is not going to be court martialed. It's for uniform
active duty military. Certainly the president won't be court martialed,
but it And then you've got this admiral who Pete
Hegsath is talking very positively about Admiral I'll get his
name here in a minute. Admiral Mitch Bradley is his name,
highly decorated admiral. And people are now starting to ask
the question about the Defense secretary. Hegseth is trying to say,
look at I gave the original orders to attack the boat,
but then I left, I left the room, and what
happened after that? And I'm falling back whatever the admiral
decisions were. So it sounds like he's trying to shift
the blame over to the admiral Colonel Cedric Layton while
he thinks that they are trying to throw the admiral
under the bus.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think there's a great potential for that. The
way this is characterized was kind of interesting because when
Secretary Hegseth made his announcement via tweet basically saying that
he backs up all the decisions that Admiral Bradley may
the real underlying current here seems to be the fact
that the decisions were Admiral Bradley's and Hexeth himself is
not really taking responsibility for these actions. But the fact
of the matter is these actions were carried out at
the behest not only of Secretary Headset but also of
President Trump. So they are ultimately responsible for how the
military carries out these missions. They have to not only
ensure that these orders are carried out if they want
them carried out, but they also have to make sure
that those orders are lawful. And if you don't make
sure those orders are lawful and people engage in in
these kinds of attacks and called double tap attack, that
would be a significant not only breach of the laws
of war, but it is also potentially a war crime.
And that's the kind of thing that we're looking at.
Speaker 1: But is it a war crime? Because you have different
people saying different things. Mark Kelly, the Senator from Arizona,
the guy who was getting a lot of attention because
of the don't of a illegal orders tape that went
out by the Democrats. And he's a former Navy captain,
he retired Navy captain. He was an astronaut. So this
is his reaction to this so far.
Speaker 3: I will not be intimidated by this president. I am
not going to be silenced by this president for the
people around him, because I've given too much in service
to this country to back down to this guy. There
needs to be an investigation. We need to pull some
of these members of DD in the military into the
Armed Services committees in the House and the Senate.
Speaker 1: Well, and that apparently is is underway. However, one of
the other senators who serves on the Armed Forces Committee,
Mark Wayne Mullen from Oklahoma, as a totally different attitude
about this.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 5: Mark is out there trying to talk like a tough guy,
and it's not becoming of him. I used to really
take him serious because he actually is a pretty smart guy.
But I mean, just yesterday I was on a news
program right before him, and he goes out and says,
the President doesn't like brown people. He's just he's trying
to get attention for whatever reason. Maybe he's trying to
think there's an opportunity for him to run for president,
but he's felling. I mean, what he said about our
men and women in uniform about not falling direct orders
was completely reckless and ridiculous by sowing any type of
doubt and dissent inside over men and women while we're
at a time of you know, unprecedented dangers from abroad
and home, and then you see him go out like
this and starts, you know, throwing out this rhetoric. It
sounds like to me, he's pandering to this far left base,
which is why the Democrats have a low approval rating,
which is the lowest they've had in since they've you know,
actually measured the Democrat Party's approval ratings. So I hate
that Mark Kelly's going down this path, but you know,
this is what happens when you have people that are
more interested in political gain than they are actually leading
for American people. Because who could argue about us being
proactive against these drug terrorist organizations that are flooding our
streets with drugs bill that no one can can deny.
I mean, think about this, We've had more overdose deaths
in the United States in twenty twenty four than we
had in the entire Vietnam War, and so we should
be applauding President Trump and Secretary Hegseth for being proactive
when the previous administration turned a blind eye to it
and open our borders.
Speaker 1: And he's absolutely right. There were eighty According to the CDC,
there were eighty thousand, three hundred ninety one deaths by
illegal drugs in this country, which was better than that
was twenty twenty four. Twenty twenty three, it was one
hundred and a little more than one hundred and ten thousand.
So a lot of people dying by voluntarily taking illegal drugs,
which is another whole topic. But Dan Crenshaw, who was
a congressman from Texas, he has decided to not be
a congressman anymore. He's a former United States Navy seal
officer and so he was involved in counter terrorism missions.
And while his reaction is this.
Speaker 6: I can't recall any time in my history doing counter
chairs on operations where we strike a group, whether that's
a building or a boat or a vehicle, and then
we were like, oh, well, they're survivors. We have to
go we can't kill them. Of course they killed them. Yeah, so,
I mean, I don't know. I'm not a lawyer, I'm
not a JAG officer. But they're going to have to
decide was this in fact a war crime, yes or no?
Dan Grenshaw says, that's what they did. General Jack Keen
I always listen carefully to what he has to say.
Speaker 7: Yeah, well, first of all, I think we should just
hold off fire here a little bit and let's get
on with an investigation. I think the Pentagon should do
the investigation. They do a lot of these things in
the past, and they're very good at getting the facts out.
With all the variables and complexities that are involved here,
and things are flying around by people, they just don't
know what they're talking about. A couple of examples. You
have an operation on the ground, then you have wounded
soldiers as a result of it. Of course, we don't
kill those wounded soldiers because we're in control. Actually, the
obligation is to take them prisoner and after are wounded
is treated, treat those as wounded and evacuate them. But
these are isolated events. Airstrike's done sometimes on the ground
or sometimes at sea, and there's nobody there in control
of the situation. So if the target is people or
it's a facility, and both of those are important, the
objective is to kill the people and destroy the facility.
If the target is a boat and people, the mission
is to destroy the boat and kill the people. In
about twenty five percent of these kind of attacks, we
do reattack either. If the facility was the objective to
destroy the rest of the facility, if the people is
the objective to kill the rest of the people, that's
just the reality of what we're dealing with. The people
got to get to head around this, and they're misinterpreting
what is taking place here. And certainly when we reattack
on the ground or at sea, many of those people
are obviously they may have been armed, but they're going
to be in a disarranged state. But the target is
the people. And if we can't get to those people
and take them prisoner, then I think the commander is
likely acting properly. But I don't even know all the
facts and circumstances. Certainly, I'm just basing it on my
years of experience. Well, I need an investigation.
Speaker 1: Here, Yeah, so we need an investigation. Is the way
he left it. But it's interesting where sometimes you kill
the people, sometimes you don't. I'm thinking of a column
obominator because President Obama sent all kinds of drones in
to kill people in the Middle East when we were
fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. So it's been done, but
all of a sudden, they're coming out of their shoes
about the fact this is a war crime because they
went back not only blew up the boat, but also
blew up the people that were on the boat. Which
brings us to the question about the Afghan refugee that
killed the one National Guard soldier in Washington and critically
wounded the other. He's still in critical condition in the
hospital in DC. And the question is about bringing I
mentioned this yesterday about bringing people in to this country
on these refugee programs, and I placed myself in the
shoes of somebody that was picked up out of Syria
and brought to somewhere in the United States. You talk
about a culture shock, it's got to be. I would
think if I was a Syrian resident and I was
escaping the country, I would want to be put in
a country next to Syria, nearby the same geographic area
they have the same culture, same religion, same all that
same food. So now apparently the president is very interested
in banning people coming into this country from countries that
are of concern. I don't know what that means. It's
not defined. I'm sure we could probably agree. There's nineteen
of them on the list, and apparently that is the
beginning list. It's going to grow about a travel ban.
And remember when President Trump one point, oh, he wasn't
in office a month and they came up with the
Muslim travel band and that did not go very far.
It got adjusted and changed. But the idea has been
there ever since about people from countries that have a
different attitude about us, a different culture. Whatever you want,
do we want them in this country. Now. What we
have historically is we have people from Western Europe and
from Asia and they have come to this country and
have assimilated. The problem with a lot of the people
that have come into the country in the last twenty years,
there's been little, to know assimilation by lots of them.
So a ban on foreigners coming into this nation. Caroline
Levitt addressed it at a White House briefing.
Speaker 8: As you know, for those who do not align with
our country's national interests. The Secretary of State has the
right to do that, and we've taken unprecedented action to
do just that. We are also now pausing all asylum
adjudications for additional vetting as well. And again, having a
visa in the United States is not a right, it
is a privilege. In the Secretary of State, if you
are deemed contrary to our countries for national interests, has
the right to revoke that privilege.
Speaker 1: Well, that's been tried by the Secretary of State. Marco
Rubio was the guy that went to Columbia University, was
a protester, and they tried to deport him and they
got into a court fight. I saw some events the
other day where there was a bunch of Democrats celebrating.
I think it was one of the races, the governor's
races in New Jersey, I believe, and he was there.
He was at the at the victory party for the
woman that won New Jersey governorship. So he never I think.
They sent him to a detention center in Houston, but
he got out of that and back. And this is
not a good person, but he is bound to determine
that he wants to be in America. If he hates America,
why does he want to be here? So, but in
any case, because it's a better place to live than
what he's used to. So I don't know how far
this is going to go, this proclamation about if you
don't align with our values? What is that? Byron Donalds
was asked the same question about this banning of foreigners,
certain foreigners it is.
Speaker 9: I mean, look, obviously, in light of what happened in Washington,
d C. We could go coupled with the fact that
the nation is still dealing with massive amounts of illegal
immigration in our country that has flooded every city and
every state in America.
Speaker 2: So yes, is warranted.
Speaker 9: I think the administration's take on this is the appropriate one.
This is why when President Trump came into office, the
first order or business was shutting the border down completely.
That promise was made and that promise was kept. Now
it's about making sure that we really just pause a
lot of the immigration into the United States while we
get our house in order to a large degree, So
I think what Secretary Nomens talking about is warranted.
Speaker 1: So this is interesting, but it hasn't been really well defined.
And so who are people from other parts of the
world that we want in our country or don't. And again,
I go back to our early days in this country.
Back up until the early nineteen hundreds, you got on
a ship, you sailed to America. You were here. There
was no immigration issue. But most of those people came
from Western Europe or from Asia, and they went through
the vetting process and they had to prove that they
had somebody here that could support them and that they
had a skill that we wanted in this country. There
were a lot of requirements to be able to come
into this country that we don't have anymore. And that's
one of the problems is we have a lot of
people that come into the country. Maybe their children or
their grandchildren will be full fledged American someday, but they're lost.
They don't speak the language, they don't have the same culture.
They may hate America and everything that we stand for.
But that's what has moved in over the last twenty
years or so. And one of those groups are the Somalis. Yes,
the people from Somalia, and a lot of them, as
many immigrants have done here in New York City. We
have in Brooklyn and in Queens there are neighborhoods that
are I mean ethnic, it doesn't say it. They have
to come over from another country and they find the
people that came from that same country. And so there
are neighborhoods of people who are from the same ethnic area,
and they have the same culture in their neighborhoods. They
wear the same clothes that they used to wear, They
have the same for the grocery stores are all filled
with foods that they like, all of that and so.
But in Minnesota there is a large contingent of somalions
and apparently there is a giant scandal that all the
fingers are being pointed at Tim Walls, the governor, for
doing nothing about a billion dollar fraud. It's added up
to about a billion dollars worth of money that have
gone through the Somalian neighborhood to Somalia to one of
the big terrorist groups, Al Shabbad, and nobody in Minnesota
was doing anything about it until now. Oh here's Tom Emmers,
one of the congressmen from Minnesota.
Speaker 4: Al Shabab controls all the financial infrastructure in Somalia. This
money has gone back to Somalia. Ergo, common sense would
tell you that millions of dollars taxpayer dollars from Minnesotan's
has gone to terrace known as al Shabab in Somalia.
This is an awful situation. Tim Wallace should be held accountably.
Speaker 1: Walls is up for election next year and there's a
woman that's running against him. She is the Speaker of
the House. Her name is Lisa Dumuth and she is
making this part of her campaign.
Speaker 10: Fraud in Minnesota under the watch of Governor Walls has
exploded in his seven years as governor. There are twenty
eight known scandals of fraud just over seven years. He
takes responsibility for putting people in jail, but he's never
apologized to the taxpayers. He's never taken accountability of saying
this has happened on his watch, and he's pushed it aside.
Speaker 1: Apparently it's pretty brazen. Even one of the defense attorneys
that was representing people who were accused of taking the
Minnesota money and funneling it off to the Somalis is
stunned by how this was so obvious that it was
going on.
Speaker 11: By liking that to someone saying, hey, someone stealing all
the cookies out of the cookie jar and the government
just running over itself to refill it as fast as
it can and not getting to the root of the problem.
Speaker 1: So apparently people knew about the problem and did not
try to stop it. They just put more money into
the money going to Somalia. Back to Brian Donalds again
about what's going on in Minnesota.
Speaker 9: Well, honestly, a lot of this stuff happens because you
have these Democrat front groups who are using government money.
They have people who probably work in the Walls administration
who are partial to these groups. So when this money
goes out the door or nobody's really tracking. It's one
of the bigger issues in our government, both federally and
actually in a lot of states, is that you don't
really have real controls minding the store per se, and
so you have these front groups. They sign up for
different grant programs, they get this money, they put some
baseless line item in for why they need it, but
it goes to so many of their activities. It's that
nobody's tracking. So I think that the investigations into this
are are going to be critical. I'm glad that the
Treasury Secretary is stepping up to investigate this matter. More
needs to come and there needs to be a lot
of oversight on these dollars. One of the big things
this is why usaid when Donald Trump came into office,
had to be thoroughly reviewed shut down. Most of it
is because a lot of these dollars, which everybody says
is going to humanitarian efforts, actually go to a lot
of radicalism around the globe and here in the United States.
Speaker 1: So it is common and it's not sending money off
to Somalia into Al Shabbad, but it is common enough
to wear somebody sets up some nonprofit organization Citizens for
good Goodness, and then they have their political friends fund
them with huge amounts of money, and that money then
goes back to causes that those people belong to their
their party, at various aspects of their party, they will
get the money. In this case, it's going to a
terrorist group, and Tim Walls did nothing about it. John
Ashbrook thinks this story is going to get even bigger,
especially around the re election potential of Tim Waaltz.
Speaker 12: Yeah, I'm telling you this is a huge, huge story.
You got Tim Walls saying that he wants to start
investigating now. But the truth was there there were government
employees who raised red flags and investigated these frauds at
the time, and what happened The left wing NGO bullied
them out of saying something about it, So it's it's
not a problem. It was just recently uncovered. They're locals
who knew about it at the time. The New York
Times reported this, And the worst thing about this is
that the money was supposed to go to the neediest
of all people who were hungry, the homeless, families who
have children with autism. They rely on those sorts of
resources that were stolen and sent to Somalia. That original
City Journal article that reported the money was siphoned by
al Shabab quoted multiple law enforcement sources who have investigated
this sort of fraud over multiple states, starting in Seattle
and leading to Minneapolis.
Speaker 1: Like I said, this is pretty common in state government
and even in big cities as well, Los Angeles for example,
where they have these groups that are friends of the
politicians that can move lots of money, millions and millions
of dollars of money. And did you hear what he said?
He said, The New York Times is reporting all this.
We accuse the New York Times of not reporting on
anything that is not favorable for a Democrat. But here,
obviously they think this is big enough to go after,
even though Tim Waltz is on the left side of
the aisle. So this story is probably going to grow.
Speaker 9: But I.
Speaker 1: Think this is probably a problem going on in your
very state because it's so easy for them to set
this up and make it look like they're doing wonderful
things when they're just stealing the money. And today in
Tennessee they are voting Nashville area. It's the seventh congressional district.
They have an interesting race going there. This is Mark Green,
who stepped down from Congress. It was a Republican. It's
a Republican area. Donald Trump won this district by twenty
two points, so he walked away with it. But that
was Donald Trump. So now you've got Mark Green who's
stepping aside, and they have a Democrat and Republican. The
Democrat is a woman who is well kind of falls
into these categories that we've been watching lately. She is
a big socialist, she wants to defund the police. She
hates Nashville, she hates country music, she hates Christiana religious
religious people make her nervous. This is so we'll see
how she does. But she's running against a guy who's
a very staid Republican, and we'll see how it turns out.
Tim Burshett is a congressman from Tennessee, and listen to
what he has to say.
Speaker 13: Now, Sarah, shit and except it's a special election. You've
got weather coming into Tennessee and we don't you know,
we get a half inch of snow and it's shut
the schools and ride the stores of milk and bread.
And President Trump is exactly right. This is an indicator.
Look this lady, it was educated in Knoxville, Tennessee, my hometown.
We need to wake up of what's going on. It's
not these people moving in from California or New York
or Chicago. Even it's our own homegrown Marxist that we're
bringing up. We've got to start paying attention to our
base and what the heck's going on. And Matt is
one of the best candidates I've ever seen. And you're correct,
it does go from north to south in Tennessee. I've
been in over fifty counties in the last year, and
I've been all over his district. I've been back three
different times to help him. Look, he is an exceptional candidate.
But President Reagan said it best. He said, we're one
generation from losing the Republic. Brother, we're three We're one
vote series away from losing the Republic. We lose three votes,
you know, we've already got people leaving, talking of others leading.
This is the proverbial canary in the cave. If Matt
Van Epps, a qualified candidate a district that Trump won
by over fifteen points, can't carry this thing, we're in trouble.
Republicans are asleep at the switch. We pay attention to presidents,
because President Trump is a great president. We should be
paying attention to him. When it gets down to the
other rices, we forget about it. We forget Congress, we
forget to you a Senate, We forget our school boards,
our mayors, and then we scratch our heads and wonder
why are our taxes so high? Why are these crazy policies.
It's because our own homegrown Marxists are sticking it to us,
and we don't have the guts of the gumption to
get out of bed and go vote. Forty five percent
of Evangelical Christians, and I consider myself in that crowd
thirty percent of the gun owners are not even going
to go to the polls. This is what happens when
twelve percent of the population votes. This is what we get.
Matt Vanipps should not even it should not even be
a race. This lady is a Marxist and she's not
even a friendly Marxist like AOC.
Speaker 1: I have to go back and look at it. If
I remember, right, I think Zoron ma'm donnie won the
Democrat nomination for New York City mayor, not for the
general election, but for the nomination for the Democrat Party.
I think it was twelve or fourteen percent because it
was a special election. And so in Tennessee today they've
got a special election and it's cold. I don't know
if they're getting snow today. If not, they're close. So
this is the kind of election where a lot of
people like he said, that normally turn out and vote,
are not going to turn out and vote, and as
a result, the woman that's running could have a decent
chance of actually winning. The Democrats are not sitting back idly.
They're really working this particular race. And AOC she's there
with her campaign group, her money. If I remember, she
also her first win was with a very small percentage.
Here's what AOC had to say about this Tennessee race.
Speaker 14: After the horrific Medicaid cuts that Republicans have passed in
the last year, there are going to be that thousands
of Tennesseeans who are going to be cut off from
their healthcare next year, starting in January. We cannot take
that sitting down. And the way that we fight back,
the way that we fight for each other, and the
way that we fight for a better and brighter future,
is by voting for aften.
Speaker 1: Often the first name of this lady, that's Ronny aften Ben.
And well, she was asked a question about do you
still believe in defunding police and listen to her answer.
Speaker 15: Those past comments were at a time when I was
a private citizen.
Speaker 3: What do you think now?
Speaker 4: What more money for cops be good or bad? I
think it depends on what the community wants.
Speaker 15: And so I've worked with communities all these my constituents
want to ensure that there is investment in their community
for community safety, community protection, mental health services.
Speaker 1: So she didn't answer the question, and she's talking about
basically instead of the police being arriving on a nine
to one one call. They'll send mental health professionals or whatever,
anything but the police. She doesn't like the police. Timber
Shed is pulling his hair out.
Speaker 13: Well, she's got all that soro sesque dart money coming
in and look, and she doesn't represent the extreme part
of the Democrat Party. She is the main stream of
the congressional Democrat Party. And by not answering that question,
she will fit perfectly in Congress because this gutless bunch
up here can't They can't pull water out of a
boat if you had the instructions written on the heel.
She is clearly the far left dream girl. She doesn't
say anything and she will vote. Is so far to
the left that she will make AOC look like she
subscribes to the National Review. It is a pathetic situation, brother,
that this is where the Democrat this is. You know,
people say it's not Kennedy's Democrat Party. He can's not
even Bill Clinton's Democrat Party anymore. This thing is so
far to the left. They're bringing in Aosa and al
Gore for goodness, sikes a guy that tells us we're
going to have this global warming and yet it's record
calls in Tennessee and he still has a platform. We've
got a wake. She is the mainstream of the Democrat
Party and we've got to stop it. And surely to
goodness and we can stop it and kind of say
Matt Van Epps is the candidate. If you're out there, folks,
plays vote for him.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Tim Verseett sounded like he's worried this
should be this should be a walk a walk away
for the Republicans. But he's worried about it. AOC is there,
they're putting money into it, and he is fussing about it.
Today was day two of the hearing about for Luigi Maggione.
Court here in New York is trying to figure out
as far as a pre trial hearing, which is what
will be admissible in that hearing when it finally comes around.
Josh Ritter, defense lawyer, explained what's going.
Speaker 16: On absolutely and this is critically important too, because what
this goes to is the officer's state of mind when
they're first making contact with this individual, because now they
believe that they're not just contacting somebody who's loitering at
a McDonald's, they're contacting somebody who could potentially have assassinated
someone brazenly on New York street, meaning he could be armed,
meaning officer safety is of primary concern. So the idea
that they might search his backpack to make sure that
he doesn't have any weapons, search his person to make
sure he doesn't have anything on him is perfectly reasonable
and goes towards their probable cause to do that, which
is at issue in this hearing whether or not they
could have searched him and seize those items, the weapon,
and what they also find inside that backpack was his journal,
which is going to become critical evidence at trial.
Speaker 1: Yeah, his defense lawyers are saying they should have gotten
the search warrant before looking in his backpack, and they
asked him or talked to him a little bit before
they read him his miranda rights. So what he said
before his Miranda warr they want thrown out. They want
everything in the backpack thrown out, which is the notebook,
the gun, the fake ID. There's a bunch of stuff
in there. But this is a call about a guy
that they think might be the guy who just gunned
down insurance executive on the streets in New York a
couple days before. So the Altuona Police Department comes over there.
They're thinking this guy could be dangerous. Of course, they're
going to pat him down, find out if he has
any arms on him. Look, what's this backpack? What's in there?
He also seemed like the kind of guy that probably
was talking a lot, rather talkative type of person before
the police were able to find out who he really was.
Here's Donna Rotuneau, also a defense lawyer.
Speaker 17: They're doing what they have to do. The lawyers have
filed these motions. These are appropriate motions to file. They
of course want to suppress the gun. They want to
suppress them magazine. They want to suppress the manifesto, his
own writings, because those are very damaging pieces of evidence.
Speaker 4: So they're doing their job.
Speaker 17: I'm not so sure legally they have a great ground
to stand on. I agree with Josh. The police are
coming into that situation knowing what they know about what
the allegations are against this person. And you know, if
you're capable of carrying out that type of a murder
on the streets of New York, they have a right
to make sure not only they are safe, but how
about everyone else In the McDonald's so.
Speaker 1: On Wall Streek today we did a up one day
down the next. Today with an upday, the Dow Jones
industrials up one hundred eighty five the close of forty
seven thousand and four to seventy four s and p
up sixteen. Nazdack up one hundred and thirty seven. Crypto
if you're following bitcoin, ninety one thousand to day back
up a little from been falling and falling and falling,
so that went on the rise. Gold was down thirty
three dollars to forty two forty two, and oil was
down a buck to fifty eight dollars now for one
barrel of oil, and no the national average triple a
gas prices. The national average for gasoline is now two
dollars and ninety nine cents a gallon. Then, I know
some of you out in California you're still paying a
huge for something. Is the average price there, but nationally
two dollars ninety nine cents. That's it for today. Thank
you for coming by. We will be back again tomorrow.
Hope to see you then