June 11, 2025 • 32 mins
Elon Musk dialed it back on his posts about Trump on X last week.
France has banned social media for anyone under the age of 15. How much more paternal can governments get? This is not something for governments to decide.
France has banned social media for anyone under the age of 15. How much more paternal can governments get? This is not something for governments to decide.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
They've had two days of talks in London. Obviously, what
they're trying to do is to ease tensions in this
trade war that we've got going on between us. Interestingly, though,
it still requires the formal approval by both Trump and
Chinese President Ggen Ping. From what I can tell, the
(00:20):
negotiations concluded late last night. Both sides confirmed progress. The
Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lucknik, described the talks as an
effort to get the negativity out of the bilateral relationship,
adding that the focus is now on fostering positive trade,
growing trade. So here's what I can gather from what
(00:42):
little information I've got right now. China maintains a ten
percent tariff on US goods. We retain a fifty five
percent tariff on Chinese imports. It also includes commitments for
China to resume and increase exports of rare earth minerals,
obviously critical to many of our industries here.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
In exchange for.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
That, we will provide aerospace parts and semiconductor programming technology
to China, along with renewed access for Chinese students to
American universities. Good deal not good deal, I mean, I
don't know that those are just the details, but we're
(01:30):
going to provide what aerospace parts and what semiconductor programming
tech to China. Now, I don't care that much about
Chinese students having access to American universities as long as
we recognize two things. One, they are because they are
(01:54):
from China, probably sympathetic towards the Chinese Communist Party. Two
do we vet them Are they really students or are
they operatives? And I've got a little bit of a problem. Look,
I'm really conflicted on this issue of foreign students in
(02:14):
American universities because if if the likelihood is I mean,
obviously can't mandate it, but I guess we could have
Congress passed the law. But if they if they came
here to study and they you know, they graduate from MIT,
or they graduate from you know, UC Berkeley or Stanford,
they graduate from you know, a top tier school, and
(02:35):
they've got all this wonderful knowledge and they happen to
be the next Einstein. I'd really prefer they stay in
the United States, but they they're not. They they take
advantage of all of our education abilities, which may be questionable,
and then they go to their own they go back
to their countries. Now, I know sometimes they go back
(02:56):
to their own countries and they become political leaders in
those countries and they actually start, you know, transforming their
countries into some form of a republican form of government.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
And I say, Yahoo, way, way to go. Good for you.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
But that's not always the case anyway. On true social
Trump says in all caps, so that means, like is
he shouting at us? Our deal with China is done
subject to final approval with President she and me, which
means it's not really done, but I hope it is
full magnets and any necessary rare earth will be supplied
(03:36):
up front by China. Now, this follows a preliminary agreement
that they reached back in Geneva last sometime last month.
I forget when, which remember that caused the stock market
to go screaming because it paused the record high tears
of wealth that were well over one hundred percent on
(03:57):
some imports from both nations. The current tip tariffs reduced
the thirty percent for US imports from China and reduced
ten percent of Chinese imports from the US could spike
again if this is not finalized before July nine. I
thought it was done subject to approval from she and Trump.
(04:21):
But then if the frameworks, so, I think what we
should take away from this is we've got a framework,
we finalized a framework. The deal isn't actually struck because
when the news story says these tariffs could spike again
if the framework is not finalized before July nine, would
(04:42):
indicate to me that all the established is a framework. Interestingly,
China state run media has acknowledged quote new progress in
the talks, but they didn't provide any specifics. Let's see
if there was anything else on truth social that's no,
that's pretty much it. So uh take that, take with
(05:04):
that what you will.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
I don't. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Elon Musk has folded, probably smart on his part. He
says he now regrets some of the attacks that he
posted against Trump on X last year when we had
this full, full blown divorce going on. Let's see, I
(05:29):
regret some of my posts about President Trump last week.
They went too far. So during what's being described as
a social media crashout, Musk endorsed a post calling for
President Trump to be impeach replaced with the JD Events
suggests that DJ withhold is withholding the Epstein files because
(05:50):
Trump's name is in them. You know, it seems like
earlier this year some that we already had publicly released
portions of the files comprised of the epstein's flight and
phone logs, and that we already knew that Trump's name
was listed in the phone book, but nothing nefarious. He
(06:15):
wasn't on any of the flight logs. He wasn't on
the island. He was in his phone book. Hell's bells.
There are probably people that I'm ashamed of not that
have my number in their phone book. Hey, Rod, looking
at you? Or I've got I've got people's phone numbers
from my time in government. They probably wish I didn't
have their phone number. So I don't know how big
(06:37):
of a deal that is. I do find this funny, though. France,
now I heard on the way in. I don't have
the details on this, so I just heard on Fox
News headlines that France has banned social I'm just telling
you what I heard. France has banned social media for
(06:58):
anyone under the age of.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
Now.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
When I heard that, I thought, good grief, how much
more paternal can we as governments get? Because as goes
France pretty soon, we'll so go Germany. And then we'll
go to the UK and then somebody in you know,
California or Colorado they'll adopt the same idea. Now, do
(07:22):
I think social media is necessarily good or bad for
brains that are younger than fifteen? Yeah, I think it's
probably generally speaking bad. But that's not for me to decide.
That's for a parent to decide. What is it about?
And I know France has a history of doing this,
But why do we have this kind of general attitude
(07:46):
that takes away parenting from parents and we're always wanting
to turn it over to schools or government pretty much
the same thing. Schools, government, it's all the same. Wh
Why is that? Are parents too busy? Too lazy? Are
are people that are in their twenties and thirties incapable
(08:08):
of raising children? Are too lazy to raise children? I mean,
if you're too lazy or too stupid to raise kids,
they don't have kids. But trust me, raising a kid
you're pretty stupid anyway. Because kids, it doesn't come with
any sort of instructions. Oh, you can read books, and
you can go online, and you there's there's there's all
(08:29):
sorts of I mean, we even have government programs ever.
Have you ever heard those programs about how to be
a parent. This is not the u ur L, but
it's something like how to be a parent dot gov.
And they'll have all these stupid PSAs about you know,
if you're struggling and raising your child, well, we're here
to help. Go to how to be a parent, how
(08:50):
to be a good parent dot gov. I think the
last thing I go to for anything about advice on
how to do anything is something called dot gov. Anyway,
back to Europe, France again is considering making a move
to require X formerly Twitter, to require verifying the age
of its users because of the presence of pornography on X. Yeah,
(09:15):
I found it. I've found the pornography on X. It's
insofar as pornography goes, pretty blase, a pretty boring. French
Digital Minister Clara Chapause Officers stated this week that is
considering labeling X a pornography platform, which could also.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Ban minors from accessing it.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
X is indicated since twenty twenty four that it accepts
the distribution of pornographic content therefore must be treated as such,
so they're reviewing whether or not they meet the requirements.
In French law that demands pornography websites verify users age.
So she went on French television last week so that
X will get begetting the same instruct just as the
(10:00):
website you porn, which is nothing but porn according to
a Rod anyway, demanding that X band pornographic content or
comply with the age of verification requirements. Now in France,
porn websites are trying to resist these measures, which had
to be in place as of June seventh Czechs calendar
(10:21):
that was four days ago. Or be geo blocked in
France entirely, or have your results scrub from major search engines.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Verman's always trying to protect us from everything.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
I don't know that. I mean, I'm not pro pornography.
I think pornography has really bad, debilitating effects on society
and on relationships and all sorts of things. But I
think it's protected by free speech. So whether it can
be minimally regulated or not, I don't know. Julie, Swedish
(10:57):
law makes it illegal for any one to purchase sexual
material from any other person remotely, banning webcam, corn platforms
or others where the users directly pay for sexual acts.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
I think don't ay, Rod.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Don't you have one of those channels where you can
you pay and and you'll take your clothes off for people?
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Are you asking? Are you curious?
Speaker 1 (11:23):
I'm not curious. I just I'm curious what your rates
are like? How much can what would you do for
how much money.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
You can't afford it?
Speaker 1 (11:33):
Okay, well, how if if I had? If I took
my American Express card? No, no expending limit on it.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
No limit I get there's no limit on your card?
No what could I get? A couple of thousand an hour?
I can't tell you on these airways. You're avoiding you
telling me what I get for that. I can't tell
you in the airways.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
You've been a producer long enough that you can say
it without saying You know how to say it without
saying it.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Such as your imagination. Whatever you want, well from you.
Speaker 1 (12:08):
I don't want anything. I don't want anything. In fact,
I don't even want to think about it. The Department
of Health and Human Services unveiled its FY twenty twenty
six budget. They are going to consolidate a bunch of divisions.
They're introducing a new public health agency called the Administration
(12:30):
for a Healthy America AHA. Its reorganization is going to
reduce HHS's twenty eight divisions down to fifteen divisions. The
Administration for a Healthy America is going to get a
twenty plus billion dollar budget to support the Make America
Healthy Again agenda. So how are they going to do this? Well,
(12:53):
they want to address the root causes of chronic diseases,
shifting focus from individual programs to kind of a water
based prevention strategy. I think I'm actually kind of for this,
although once again, I don't really trust the CDC or
Health and Human Services to tell me about what I
(13:14):
would be doing in terms of my health. I kind
of prefer my doctors to do that. You know, I
got a call from the pharmacy. I tell you about
the pharmacy issue. So I take blood pressure medication. I
probably eight years ago, developed blood high blood pressure. I
(13:36):
was shocked by it because I didn't think anybody in
my family had high blood pressure. So I called my mom, Mom,
do you have high blood pressure?
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (13:43):
When did you discovery blood pressure? She gave me the age, Oh,
same age I just turned. So I've been taking blood
pressure medication for about eight years.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Now do you ever take eight.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
Years and it's fully under control and every thing's fine.
I got great blood pressures. My I average about you know,
one twelve one eighteen over eighty eighty two or so,
so it's it's pretty good. But I my anti aging
doctor on my concierge program provides it directly to me
(14:18):
out of his own clinics pharmacy, so I head it
through my stupid uh Medicare Part D or whatever whatever
the drug program is. I'd been I had been getting
it through there, so I canceled the prescription.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
I get a call from.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
A a green pharmacy and they leave a message, We're
looking for Michael Brown. We're concerned about your blood pressure medication.
And I thought, why does the pharmacy care about my
blood pressure medication? Yeah, I canceled an order, but is
(15:00):
it really their business about whether or not I'm taking
blood pressure medication? That's between me and my Doctor's out
of curiosity, because you know me, I'm really curious about
how people who should not interfere in your life try
to interfere in your life. So I called this green
(15:22):
pharmacy back and said, my name is Michael Brown. I
had a number I had just totally call this number,
and this young woman identifies herself as a pharmacist, and
she started asking me about whether I was taking my
pressure medication. And my first reaction is, it's none of
(15:43):
your damn business whether I'm taking my blood pressure medication
or not. So I said, well, why do you ask?
Because now you know I'm in full lawyer mode. Now
why are you asking? Well, we just call a kids.
Now think about this. I canceled an order. I canceled
(16:05):
an order that had been called in for blood pressure
medication because I'm now getting it directly from my doctor,
so it's just part of the concierge fee that I pay.
So I canceled the order.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
I know this.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
I ask, why are you asking me about whether I'm
taking my blood pressure medication or not. Her answer is,
to this effect, well, we're just concerned about our patients
that take certain kinds of medications. And I'm thinking, you're
lying at your teeth to me. You're calling me because
I canceled an order, and now you're not going to
(16:43):
get the kickback from the pharmacy benefit manager for whatever
dominimus amount of money you get from you know, the
centipril or whatever it was. And so I keep grilling her. Well,
I take a whole bunch of medications. Are you concerned
about those two? Well, if you're on any sort of antidepressants,
we would be concerned about those. Why don't take any antidepressants. Well,
(17:06):
that's why we're just calling about your blood pressure medication?
I said, are you aware that I canceled my order
with you for blood pressure medication? About five seconds? Societal Yes,
we are. Oh, and that's why you're really calling me,
isn't it. Well when I take it between me and
my doctor, well, I'm a doctor of pharmacy.
Speaker 2 (17:26):
Oh God, leave me alone.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
A few days ago, Kerry Moran, the chief political correspondent
he maybe no, he's not the White House. I think
he's chief political correspondent for ABC News.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
Posted a tweet on x in which.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
He basically accused Stephen Miller of being the president's wtchief
of Staff for policy, of being a just a hateful,
hateful individual. I mean, it's just a scathing Well you'll
hear about in a second.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
He said.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
Miller is a man who is richly endowed with a
capacity for hatred. He's a world class hater. You can
see this.
Speaker 2 (18:07):
Just by looking at him. Because you can see that.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
His hatreds are his spiritual nourishment. He loves his hate. Well,
Joe Concha was over on Fox News talking to. You
may have been talking to. Doesn't make any difference, Sandra Smith. Maybe,
and Concha said this all right.
Speaker 3 (18:31):
The legacy media handing over Trump Team Trump Freshmo in
its war on the press. ABC News has suspended senior
Correspondentarry Moran after a new now deleted post where he wrote, impart,
Stephen Miller's a man who is richly endowed with the
capacity for hatred. He's a world class hater. You can
see this just by looking at him, because you can
(18:51):
see this that his hatreds are his spiritual nourishment. He
eats his hate. Bring in Joe kancha Fox Who's contributor
to discuss this. I don't know what tell us what
we need to know here.
Speaker 4 (19:05):
You can make a good argument that Terry Moran should.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Not be suspended.
Speaker 4 (19:08):
He should be fired after a screed like that, because remember,
this isn't some MSNBC or CNN opinion person talking head.
This isn't somebody on the view or a podcaster who's
supposed to give strong, provocative opinions. His title literally a
senior national correspondent for ABC News. That means he's there
to report, he's there to follow the facts, he's there
to be objected without fear of favorite of party. And
(19:29):
instead that was a screed like you would read on
the X feed of Keith Operman or George Conway. And
here's the thing, and this is a rhetorical question, obviously,
could you ever imagine because ABC News has had some
journalistic heavyweights over the years, whether we're talking about Ted
Copple or Peter Jennings or David Brinkley, could you ever
imagine them ever saying this about an administration official. It's
(19:51):
thirty one flavors of insanity. And quite frankly, he's lucky
that he wasn't fired because they just lost a lawsuit
Sandra to Donald Trump for misreport warding things. And now
for him to do this, ABC's reputation, they might as
well be MSNBC.
Speaker 3 (20:04):
Well, Steven Miller has away with words. And what he
did in his response here was he took it out
to the broader media as this a reflection of the
broader media. Here's his response on X. The most important
fact about Terry's full public meltdown is what it shows
about the corporate press in America. For decades, the privileged
anchors and reporters narrating and gatekeeping our society had been
(20:26):
radicals adopting a journalists pose. Terry pulled off his mask.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
That's exactly right.
Speaker 1 (20:35):
The privileged anchors and reporters narrating a gatekeeping our society
had been radically adopting a journalist pose. But Terry pulled
off the mask.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
Journalism. This is why I really, I truly.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
Do despise all of the cable chains because they're so
good at flip flopping between opinion shows and news shows
and oftentimes even within news shows. Now, for example, this
is not a news show, but I use the news
as the springboard for the opinions that I give. But
(21:15):
oftentimes on the cable channels they will be giving opinions
and then go on to the next story, but they
will actually present it as a news story. So the
line between news and opinion gets very, very blurred. And again,
if you're a drive by consumer of the news, you
really sometimes don't know which is which.
Speaker 4 (21:37):
It looks more like activism than journalism now, doesn't it.
And here's the thing, until leadership changes at ABC News.
This could continue to go on because the person who.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
Runs ABC News Sandra.
Speaker 4 (21:48):
Her name is Dana Walden. She has contributed to Kamala
Harris's campaigns in the past, she has hosted parties for
Kamala Harris at her house, and she's running a news
division when clearly she is a Democrat. We saw the
way ABC News during that debate between Donald Trump and
Kamala Harris, or may remember, five follow up questions for
Donald Trump, six fact checks, none for Kamala Harris in
either category. So this is where that we're at.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
At this point.
Speaker 4 (22:11):
Yeah, Democrats in the media are to the lowest polling
entities right now in terms of trust. And this is
exhibit a today with Terry Moran.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
Well, guess what. ABC News has announced that it will
not renew the contract of senior national correspondent Terry Moran
following that social media post because they say it violated
the network's standards.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
What standards?
Speaker 1 (22:39):
And as Contact points out, the president of ABC News
is a publicly avowed Democrat, publicly contributes to Kamala Harris's campaign.
Uh fact checks Donald Trump six times, but not Kamala Harris.
So Moran has been with ABC News for almost thirty years.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
I think.
Speaker 1 (23:05):
The network confirmed the decision last night, stating, we are
at the end of our agreement with Terry Moran, and
based on his recent post, which was a clear violation
of ABC News policies, we have made the decision to
not renew. Then a spokesperson comes out and says, at
ABC News, we hold all of our reporters to the
(23:28):
highest standards of objectivity.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
Don't choke on this.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
At ABC News, we hold all of our reporters to
the highest standards of objectivity, fairness, and professionalism, and we
remain committed to delivering straightforward, trusted journalism. Now knowing how
many corporate how large corporations work, checks the door looks around.
(23:58):
His contract was set to expire Friday. So the journalist
who's held various roles during his tenure at ABC News
interviewed with President Trump in the Oval Office. I remember
watching that so suspended and then fired, just or not fire?
(24:20):
I should say, but you didn't renew the contract, You
say Tomato. I say, Tomato just didn't renew the contract.
And Chris Moran has not yet publicly commented. So my
question to you is justified, not justified. Now, one thing
that nobody I don't think anybody mentioned. I don't think
Joe Contra mentioned it. But he posted a tweet and
(24:43):
then he deleted it, which I don't think really makes
a difference. But nonetheless he probably realized after he did it, oopsie,
probably should not have done that, and he did delete it.
Does this indicate ABC News really trying to adhere to
objective journalistic standards? Or is this he's been here twenty
(25:08):
eight years, he's gotten, you know, raised after raise after raise.
We're in kind of deep doo doo. Anyway, financially, we
could terminate this long contract we've had where over the
years he's gotten bonuses and pay raises, and we can
hire somebody cheaper. You think, guess what's going on? Because
(25:30):
there's part of me that when you think about how
large puddalty traded corporations operate, my guess is it was
the latter and this he just handed them the excuse
as if they needed one, because they didn't really need
to do anything. They could have just said, hey, we
(25:50):
decided to go a different direction. We're not going to
renew your contract. How do I know that's what they're
going to say, how do I know that's what they
would have said. Huh, imagine that you to keep some
polling numbers that have been covered by CNN and reported
widely on their network. Let's first look, this is all
(26:12):
among immigrant citizens, not illegal aliens. Immigrant citizens. So Trump's
vote share in presidential elections among immigrant citizens in twenty sixteen,
he got thirty six percent of them. In twenty twenty,
he got thirty nine percent of them. Last year he
(26:33):
got forty seven percent of immigrant citizens' votes.
Speaker 2 (26:38):
He just keeps racking up immigrant votes.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
Now, the net favorable polling again among immigrant citizens immigrants
here illegally. That net favorable went in twenty twenty from
a plus twenty three all the way down to a
negative six and twenty twenty four. Immigrant citizens are fed
(27:02):
up with illegal aliens in this country. So you need
to go tell all your friends about this polling. However,
it's even better than that. And I love the fact
this is coming from CNN. And you've heard this guy before,
Harry Inton. He gets very animated when he gives these
poll numbers. No group has become more hockey on immigration
(27:30):
and shifted to Republicans than legal immigrants, immigrant voters trust
more on immigration, Republicans nave Democrats. The net favorability of
immigrant citizens here illegally has dropped down to a negative six.
Trump's vote, as I said, went from thirty six percent
(27:50):
in twenty sixteen all the way up to forty seven
percent in twenty twenty four. And then CNN, bless their
little hearts, has to report this.
Speaker 5 (28:00):
Start off on the fact that immigrant citizens, immigrant voters,
form 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
(28:20):
forward to twenty twenty four to twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
Look at that.
Speaker 5 (28:22):
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 (28:44):
So that's on the issue.
Speaker 6 (28:45):
How about how they feel about kind of traditionally historically
about Donald Trump.
Speaker 5 (28:50):
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 foughts.
Speaker 2 (28:59):
But look at this.
Speaker 5 (29:00):
Trump's vote share in presidential election among again, immigrant citizens,
those who are registered to vote.
Speaker 2 (29:04):
Look at this.
Speaker 5 (29:04):
In 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
(29:26):
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 truck 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 6 (29:45):
Well, then on that what you're getting at, how how
immigrant citizens voters feel about people in the country legally.
Speaker 5 (29:53):
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 illegally among grant citizens again, those
registered to vote in twenty twenty look at this plus
twenty three points on the net favorable rating.
Speaker 2 (30:06):
But look at where we were in.
Speaker 5 (30:07):
Twenty twenty four minus six points underwater. So immigrant citizens
have become increasingly unfavorable in their views of those immigrants
who are here illegally. So I think it's so 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
(30:27):
those who are voters, because that group of voters has
felt increasingly distant.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
From those immigrants who are here legally. And so again, when.
Speaker 5 (30:34):
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. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (30:51):
Important, And I think there's a very easy explanation for that.
This country is based and what we believe to be
equality and fairness. We're all born equal, and we all
have equal opportunity. We all have different skills, talent abilities,
and how we use those gifts is really much pretty
(31:13):
much up to us. You have there are obstacles to overcome,
but we have the ability to overcome those obstacles. And
then it's the idea of basic fairness. We believe in fairness.
And if you think about if you are a legal immigrant,
you've become you know, you moved here from Mexico, You've
(31:34):
got a green card, you worked hard, you applied for
and passed your citizenship tests, you got sworn as a
US citizen because that was always your dream, and you
did it entirely the right way. And now there are
people who for everything that you worked hard for as
a legal immigrant, someone over here comes in from all
(32:00):
owners of the world illegally, and we hand them a phone,
a healthcare, we put their kids in school, we clothe them,
we feed them, we give them everything, and these legal
immigrants look at it and say that's not fair. Who's
treating us fairly? Oh yeah, it's the Republican. That's pretty
(32:30):
much all I got, Ladies, gentlemen, Elvis, I've loved the
building
They've had two days of talks in London. Obviously, what
they're trying to do is to ease tensions in this
trade war that we've got going on between us. Interestingly, though,
it still requires the formal approval by both Trump and
Chinese President Ggen Ping. From what I can tell, the
(00:20):
negotiations concluded late last night. Both sides confirmed progress. The
Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lucknik, described the talks as an
effort to get the negativity out of the bilateral relationship,
adding that the focus is now on fostering positive trade,
growing trade. So here's what I can gather from what
(00:42):
little information I've got right now. China maintains a ten
percent tariff on US goods. We retain a fifty five
percent tariff on Chinese imports. It also includes commitments for
China to resume and increase exports of rare earth minerals,
obviously critical to many of our industries here.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
In exchange for.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
That, we will provide aerospace parts and semiconductor programming technology
to China, along with renewed access for Chinese students to
American universities. Good deal not good deal, I mean, I
don't know that those are just the details, but we're
(01:30):
going to provide what aerospace parts and what semiconductor programming
tech to China. Now, I don't care that much about
Chinese students having access to American universities as long as
we recognize two things. One, they are because they are
(01:54):
from China, probably sympathetic towards the Chinese Communist Party. Two
do we vet them Are they really students or are
they operatives? And I've got a little bit of a problem. Look,
I'm really conflicted on this issue of foreign students in
(02:14):
American universities because if if the likelihood is I mean,
obviously can't mandate it, but I guess we could have
Congress passed the law. But if they if they came
here to study and they you know, they graduate from MIT,
or they graduate from you know, UC Berkeley or Stanford,
they graduate from you know, a top tier school, and
(02:35):
they've got all this wonderful knowledge and they happen to
be the next Einstein. I'd really prefer they stay in
the United States, but they they're not. They they take
advantage of all of our education abilities, which may be questionable,
and then they go to their own they go back
to their countries. Now, I know sometimes they go back
(02:56):
to their own countries and they become political leaders in
those countries and they actually start, you know, transforming their
countries into some form of a republican form of government.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
And I say, Yahoo, way, way to go. Good for you.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
But that's not always the case anyway. On true social
Trump says in all caps, so that means, like is
he shouting at us? Our deal with China is done
subject to final approval with President she and me, which
means it's not really done, but I hope it is
full magnets and any necessary rare earth will be supplied
(03:36):
up front by China. Now, this follows a preliminary agreement
that they reached back in Geneva last sometime last month.
I forget when, which remember that caused the stock market
to go screaming because it paused the record high tears
of wealth that were well over one hundred percent on
(03:57):
some imports from both nations. The current tip tariffs reduced
the thirty percent for US imports from China and reduced
ten percent of Chinese imports from the US could spike
again if this is not finalized before July nine. I
thought it was done subject to approval from she and Trump.
(04:21):
But then if the frameworks, so, I think what we
should take away from this is we've got a framework,
we finalized a framework. The deal isn't actually struck because
when the news story says these tariffs could spike again
if the framework is not finalized before July nine, would
(04:42):
indicate to me that all the established is a framework. Interestingly,
China state run media has acknowledged quote new progress in
the talks, but they didn't provide any specifics. Let's see
if there was anything else on truth social that's no,
that's pretty much it. So uh take that, take with
(05:04):
that what you will.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
I don't. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Elon Musk has folded, probably smart on his part. He
says he now regrets some of the attacks that he
posted against Trump on X last year when we had
this full, full blown divorce going on. Let's see, I
(05:29):
regret some of my posts about President Trump last week.
They went too far. So during what's being described as
a social media crashout, Musk endorsed a post calling for
President Trump to be impeach replaced with the JD Events
suggests that DJ withhold is withholding the Epstein files because
(05:50):
Trump's name is in them. You know, it seems like
earlier this year some that we already had publicly released
portions of the files comprised of the epstein's flight and
phone logs, and that we already knew that Trump's name
was listed in the phone book, but nothing nefarious. He
(06:15):
wasn't on any of the flight logs. He wasn't on
the island. He was in his phone book. Hell's bells.
There are probably people that I'm ashamed of not that
have my number in their phone book. Hey, Rod, looking
at you? Or I've got I've got people's phone numbers
from my time in government. They probably wish I didn't
have their phone number. So I don't know how big
(06:37):
of a deal that is. I do find this funny, though. France,
now I heard on the way in. I don't have
the details on this, so I just heard on Fox
News headlines that France has banned social I'm just telling
you what I heard. France has banned social media for
(06:58):
anyone under the age of.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
Now.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
When I heard that, I thought, good grief, how much
more paternal can we as governments get? Because as goes
France pretty soon, we'll so go Germany. And then we'll
go to the UK and then somebody in you know,
California or Colorado they'll adopt the same idea. Now, do
(07:22):
I think social media is necessarily good or bad for
brains that are younger than fifteen? Yeah, I think it's
probably generally speaking bad. But that's not for me to decide.
That's for a parent to decide. What is it about?
And I know France has a history of doing this,
But why do we have this kind of general attitude
(07:46):
that takes away parenting from parents and we're always wanting
to turn it over to schools or government pretty much
the same thing. Schools, government, it's all the same. Wh
Why is that? Are parents too busy? Too lazy? Are
are people that are in their twenties and thirties incapable
(08:08):
of raising children? Are too lazy to raise children? I mean,
if you're too lazy or too stupid to raise kids,
they don't have kids. But trust me, raising a kid
you're pretty stupid anyway. Because kids, it doesn't come with
any sort of instructions. Oh, you can read books, and
you can go online, and you there's there's there's all
(08:29):
sorts of I mean, we even have government programs ever.
Have you ever heard those programs about how to be
a parent. This is not the u ur L, but
it's something like how to be a parent dot gov.
And they'll have all these stupid PSAs about you know,
if you're struggling and raising your child, well, we're here
to help. Go to how to be a parent, how
(08:50):
to be a good parent dot gov. I think the
last thing I go to for anything about advice on
how to do anything is something called dot gov. Anyway,
back to Europe, France again is considering making a move
to require X formerly Twitter, to require verifying the age
of its users because of the presence of pornography on X. Yeah,
(09:15):
I found it. I've found the pornography on X. It's
insofar as pornography goes, pretty blase, a pretty boring. French
Digital Minister Clara Chapause Officers stated this week that is
considering labeling X a pornography platform, which could also.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Ban minors from accessing it.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
X is indicated since twenty twenty four that it accepts
the distribution of pornographic content therefore must be treated as such,
so they're reviewing whether or not they meet the requirements.
In French law that demands pornography websites verify users age.
So she went on French television last week so that
X will get begetting the same instruct just as the
(10:00):
website you porn, which is nothing but porn according to
a Rod anyway, demanding that X band pornographic content or
comply with the age of verification requirements. Now in France,
porn websites are trying to resist these measures, which had
to be in place as of June seventh Czechs calendar
(10:21):
that was four days ago. Or be geo blocked in
France entirely, or have your results scrub from major search engines.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Verman's always trying to protect us from everything.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
I don't know that. I mean, I'm not pro pornography.
I think pornography has really bad, debilitating effects on society
and on relationships and all sorts of things. But I
think it's protected by free speech. So whether it can
be minimally regulated or not, I don't know. Julie, Swedish
(10:57):
law makes it illegal for any one to purchase sexual
material from any other person remotely, banning webcam, corn platforms
or others where the users directly pay for sexual acts.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
I think don't ay, Rod.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Don't you have one of those channels where you can
you pay and and you'll take your clothes off for people?
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Are you asking? Are you curious?
Speaker 1 (11:23):
I'm not curious. I just I'm curious what your rates
are like? How much can what would you do for
how much money.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
You can't afford it?
Speaker 1 (11:33):
Okay, well, how if if I had? If I took
my American Express card? No, no expending limit on it.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
No limit I get there's no limit on your card?
No what could I get? A couple of thousand an hour?
I can't tell you on these airways. You're avoiding you
telling me what I get for that. I can't tell
you in the airways.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
You've been a producer long enough that you can say
it without saying You know how to say it without
saying it.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Such as your imagination. Whatever you want, well from you.
Speaker 1 (12:08):
I don't want anything. I don't want anything. In fact,
I don't even want to think about it. The Department
of Health and Human Services unveiled its FY twenty twenty
six budget. They are going to consolidate a bunch of divisions.
They're introducing a new public health agency called the Administration
(12:30):
for a Healthy America AHA. Its reorganization is going to
reduce HHS's twenty eight divisions down to fifteen divisions. The
Administration for a Healthy America is going to get a
twenty plus billion dollar budget to support the Make America
Healthy Again agenda. So how are they going to do this? Well,
(12:53):
they want to address the root causes of chronic diseases,
shifting focus from individual programs to kind of a water
based prevention strategy. I think I'm actually kind of for this,
although once again, I don't really trust the CDC or
Health and Human Services to tell me about what I
(13:14):
would be doing in terms of my health. I kind
of prefer my doctors to do that. You know, I
got a call from the pharmacy. I tell you about
the pharmacy issue. So I take blood pressure medication. I
probably eight years ago, developed blood high blood pressure. I
(13:36):
was shocked by it because I didn't think anybody in
my family had high blood pressure. So I called my mom, Mom,
do you have high blood pressure?
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (13:43):
When did you discovery blood pressure? She gave me the age, Oh,
same age I just turned. So I've been taking blood
pressure medication for about eight years.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Now do you ever take eight.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
Years and it's fully under control and every thing's fine.
I got great blood pressures. My I average about you know,
one twelve one eighteen over eighty eighty two or so,
so it's it's pretty good. But I my anti aging
doctor on my concierge program provides it directly to me
(14:18):
out of his own clinics pharmacy, so I head it
through my stupid uh Medicare Part D or whatever whatever
the drug program is. I'd been I had been getting
it through there, so I canceled the prescription.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
I get a call from.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
A a green pharmacy and they leave a message, We're
looking for Michael Brown. We're concerned about your blood pressure medication.
And I thought, why does the pharmacy care about my
blood pressure medication? Yeah, I canceled an order, but is
(15:00):
it really their business about whether or not I'm taking
blood pressure medication? That's between me and my Doctor's out
of curiosity, because you know me, I'm really curious about
how people who should not interfere in your life try
to interfere in your life. So I called this green
(15:22):
pharmacy back and said, my name is Michael Brown. I
had a number I had just totally call this number,
and this young woman identifies herself as a pharmacist, and
she started asking me about whether I was taking my
pressure medication. And my first reaction is, it's none of
(15:43):
your damn business whether I'm taking my blood pressure medication
or not. So I said, well, why do you ask?
Because now you know I'm in full lawyer mode. Now
why are you asking? Well, we just call a kids.
Now think about this. I canceled an order. I canceled
(16:05):
an order that had been called in for blood pressure
medication because I'm now getting it directly from my doctor,
so it's just part of the concierge fee that I pay.
So I canceled the order.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
I know this.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
I ask, why are you asking me about whether I'm
taking my blood pressure medication or not. Her answer is,
to this effect, well, we're just concerned about our patients
that take certain kinds of medications. And I'm thinking, you're
lying at your teeth to me. You're calling me because
I canceled an order, and now you're not going to
(16:43):
get the kickback from the pharmacy benefit manager for whatever
dominimus amount of money you get from you know, the
centipril or whatever it was. And so I keep grilling her. Well,
I take a whole bunch of medications. Are you concerned
about those two? Well, if you're on any sort of antidepressants,
we would be concerned about those. Why don't take any antidepressants. Well,
(17:06):
that's why we're just calling about your blood pressure medication?
I said, are you aware that I canceled my order
with you for blood pressure medication? About five seconds? Societal Yes,
we are. Oh, and that's why you're really calling me,
isn't it. Well when I take it between me and
my doctor, well, I'm a doctor of pharmacy.
Speaker 2 (17:26):
Oh God, leave me alone.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
A few days ago, Kerry Moran, the chief political correspondent
he maybe no, he's not the White House. I think
he's chief political correspondent for ABC News.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
Posted a tweet on x in which.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
He basically accused Stephen Miller of being the president's wtchief
of Staff for policy, of being a just a hateful,
hateful individual. I mean, it's just a scathing Well you'll
hear about in a second.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
He said.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
Miller is a man who is richly endowed with a
capacity for hatred. He's a world class hater. You can
see this.
Speaker 2 (18:07):
Just by looking at him. Because you can see that.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
His hatreds are his spiritual nourishment. He loves his hate. Well,
Joe Concha was over on Fox News talking to. You
may have been talking to. Doesn't make any difference, Sandra Smith. Maybe,
and Concha said this all right.
Speaker 3 (18:31):
The legacy media handing over Trump Team Trump Freshmo in
its war on the press. ABC News has suspended senior
Correspondentarry Moran after a new now deleted post where he wrote, impart,
Stephen Miller's a man who is richly endowed with the
capacity for hatred. He's a world class hater. You can
see this just by looking at him, because you can
(18:51):
see this that his hatreds are his spiritual nourishment. He
eats his hate. Bring in Joe kancha Fox Who's contributor
to discuss this. I don't know what tell us what
we need to know here.
Speaker 4 (19:05):
You can make a good argument that Terry Moran should.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Not be suspended.
Speaker 4 (19:08):
He should be fired after a screed like that, because remember,
this isn't some MSNBC or CNN opinion person talking head.
This isn't somebody on the view or a podcaster who's
supposed to give strong, provocative opinions. His title literally a
senior national correspondent for ABC News. That means he's there
to report, he's there to follow the facts, he's there
to be objected without fear of favorite of party. And
(19:29):
instead that was a screed like you would read on
the X feed of Keith Operman or George Conway. And
here's the thing, and this is a rhetorical question, obviously,
could you ever imagine because ABC News has had some
journalistic heavyweights over the years, whether we're talking about Ted
Copple or Peter Jennings or David Brinkley, could you ever
imagine them ever saying this about an administration official. It's
(19:51):
thirty one flavors of insanity. And quite frankly, he's lucky
that he wasn't fired because they just lost a lawsuit
Sandra to Donald Trump for misreport warding things. And now
for him to do this, ABC's reputation, they might as
well be MSNBC.
Speaker 3 (20:04):
Well, Steven Miller has away with words. And what he
did in his response here was he took it out
to the broader media as this a reflection of the
broader media. Here's his response on X. The most important
fact about Terry's full public meltdown is what it shows
about the corporate press in America. For decades, the privileged
anchors and reporters narrating and gatekeeping our society had been
(20:26):
radicals adopting a journalists pose. Terry pulled off his mask.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
That's exactly right.
Speaker 1 (20:35):
The privileged anchors and reporters narrating a gatekeeping our society
had been radically adopting a journalist pose. But Terry pulled
off the mask.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
Journalism. This is why I really, I truly.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
Do despise all of the cable chains because they're so
good at flip flopping between opinion shows and news shows
and oftentimes even within news shows. Now, for example, this
is not a news show, but I use the news
as the springboard for the opinions that I give. But
(21:15):
oftentimes on the cable channels they will be giving opinions
and then go on to the next story, but they
will actually present it as a news story. So the
line between news and opinion gets very, very blurred. And again,
if you're a drive by consumer of the news, you
really sometimes don't know which is which.
Speaker 4 (21:37):
It looks more like activism than journalism now, doesn't it.
And here's the thing, until leadership changes at ABC News.
This could continue to go on because the person who.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
Runs ABC News Sandra.
Speaker 4 (21:48):
Her name is Dana Walden. She has contributed to Kamala
Harris's campaigns in the past, she has hosted parties for
Kamala Harris at her house, and she's running a news
division when clearly she is a Democrat. We saw the
way ABC News during that debate between Donald Trump and
Kamala Harris, or may remember, five follow up questions for
Donald Trump, six fact checks, none for Kamala Harris in
either category. So this is where that we're at.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
At this point.
Speaker 4 (22:11):
Yeah, Democrats in the media are to the lowest polling
entities right now in terms of trust. And this is
exhibit a today with Terry Moran.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
Well, guess what. ABC News has announced that it will
not renew the contract of senior national correspondent Terry Moran
following that social media post because they say it violated
the network's standards.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
What standards?
Speaker 1 (22:39):
And as Contact points out, the president of ABC News
is a publicly avowed Democrat, publicly contributes to Kamala Harris's campaign.
Uh fact checks Donald Trump six times, but not Kamala Harris.
So Moran has been with ABC News for almost thirty years.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
I think.
Speaker 1 (23:05):
The network confirmed the decision last night, stating, we are
at the end of our agreement with Terry Moran, and
based on his recent post, which was a clear violation
of ABC News policies, we have made the decision to
not renew. Then a spokesperson comes out and says, at
ABC News, we hold all of our reporters to the
(23:28):
highest standards of objectivity.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
Don't choke on this.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
At ABC News, we hold all of our reporters to
the highest standards of objectivity, fairness, and professionalism, and we
remain committed to delivering straightforward, trusted journalism. Now knowing how
many corporate how large corporations work, checks the door looks around.
(23:58):
His contract was set to expire Friday. So the journalist
who's held various roles during his tenure at ABC News
interviewed with President Trump in the Oval Office. I remember
watching that so suspended and then fired, just or not fire?
(24:20):
I should say, but you didn't renew the contract, You
say Tomato. I say, Tomato just didn't renew the contract.
And Chris Moran has not yet publicly commented. So my
question to you is justified, not justified. Now, one thing
that nobody I don't think anybody mentioned. I don't think
Joe Contra mentioned it. But he posted a tweet and
(24:43):
then he deleted it, which I don't think really makes
a difference. But nonetheless he probably realized after he did it, oopsie,
probably should not have done that, and he did delete it.
Does this indicate ABC News really trying to adhere to
objective journalistic standards? Or is this he's been here twenty
(25:08):
eight years, he's gotten, you know, raised after raise after raise.
We're in kind of deep doo doo. Anyway, financially, we
could terminate this long contract we've had where over the
years he's gotten bonuses and pay raises, and we can
hire somebody cheaper. You think, guess what's going on? Because
(25:30):
there's part of me that when you think about how
large puddalty traded corporations operate, my guess is it was
the latter and this he just handed them the excuse
as if they needed one, because they didn't really need
to do anything. They could have just said, hey, we
(25:50):
decided to go a different direction. We're not going to
renew your contract. How do I know that's what they're
going to say, how do I know that's what they
would have said. Huh, imagine that you to keep some
polling numbers that have been covered by CNN and reported
widely on their network. Let's first look, this is all
(26:12):
among immigrant citizens, not illegal aliens. Immigrant citizens. So Trump's
vote share in presidential elections among immigrant citizens in twenty sixteen,
he got thirty six percent of them. In twenty twenty,
he got thirty nine percent of them. Last year he
(26:33):
got forty seven percent of immigrant citizens' votes.
Speaker 2 (26:38):
He just keeps racking up immigrant votes.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
Now, the net favorable polling again among immigrant citizens immigrants
here illegally. That net favorable went in twenty twenty from
a plus twenty three all the way down to a
negative six and twenty twenty four. Immigrant citizens are fed
(27:02):
up with illegal aliens in this country. So you need
to go tell all your friends about this polling. However,
it's even better than that. And I love the fact
this is coming from CNN. And you've heard this guy before,
Harry Inton. He gets very animated when he gives these
poll numbers. No group has become more hockey on immigration
(27:30):
and shifted to Republicans than legal immigrants, immigrant voters trust
more on immigration, Republicans nave Democrats. The net favorability of
immigrant citizens here illegally has dropped down to a negative six.
Trump's vote, as I said, went from thirty six percent
(27:50):
in twenty sixteen all the way up to forty seven
percent in twenty twenty four. And then CNN, bless their
little hearts, has to report this.
Speaker 5 (28:00):
Start off on the fact that immigrant citizens, immigrant voters,
form 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
(28:20):
forward to twenty twenty four to twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
Look at that.
Speaker 5 (28:22):
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 (28:44):
So that's on the issue.
Speaker 6 (28:45):
How about how they feel about kind of traditionally historically
about Donald Trump.
Speaker 5 (28:50):
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 foughts.
Speaker 2 (28:59):
But look at this.
Speaker 5 (29:00):
Trump's vote share in presidential election among again, immigrant citizens,
those who are registered to vote.
Speaker 2 (29:04):
Look at this.
Speaker 5 (29:04):
In 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
(29:26):
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 truck 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 6 (29:45):
Well, then on that what you're getting at, how how
immigrant citizens voters feel about people in the country legally.
Speaker 5 (29:53):
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 illegally among grant citizens again, those
registered to vote in twenty twenty look at this plus
twenty three points on the net favorable rating.
Speaker 2 (30:06):
But look at where we were in.
Speaker 5 (30:07):
Twenty twenty four minus six points underwater. So immigrant citizens
have become increasingly unfavorable in their views of those immigrants
who are here illegally. So I think it's so 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
(30:27):
those who are voters, because that group of voters has
felt increasingly distant.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
From those immigrants who are here legally. And so again, when.
Speaker 5 (30:34):
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. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (30:51):
Important, And I think there's a very easy explanation for that.
This country is based and what we believe to be
equality and fairness. We're all born equal, and we all
have equal opportunity. We all have different skills, talent abilities,
and how we use those gifts is really much pretty
(31:13):
much up to us. You have there are obstacles to overcome,
but we have the ability to overcome those obstacles. And
then it's the idea of basic fairness. We believe in fairness.
And if you think about if you are a legal immigrant,
you've become you know, you moved here from Mexico, You've
(31:34):
got a green card, you worked hard, you applied for
and passed your citizenship tests, you got sworn as a
US citizen because that was always your dream, and you
did it entirely the right way. And now there are
people who for everything that you worked hard for as
a legal immigrant, someone over here comes in from all
(32:00):
owners of the world illegally, and we hand them a phone,
a healthcare, we put their kids in school, we clothe them,
we feed them, we give them everything, and these legal
immigrants look at it and say that's not fair. Who's
treating us fairly? Oh yeah, it's the Republican. That's pretty
(32:30):
much all I got, Ladies, gentlemen, Elvis, I've loved the
building
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.