The Trish Regan Show - BREAKING: Pam Bondi OBLITERATES 'Radical' Judge

Episode Date: March 27, 2025

DOJ’s Pam Bondi has effectively told Judge James Boasberg to go 'pound sand'. After he extended a deadline to noon on Thursday for his questions regarding deportations of illegal criminals to El Salvador to be answered, the judge was told he didn’t have the jurisdiction to interfere. The judge is now threatening consequences - but what, really, can he do? We discuss amid growing accusations of ‘lawfare’ being put in play.The Department of Education is being discontinued - expect a legal challenge on that one as well. And, The University of PA just lost $175 million in federal grant money due to its athletic policies.Plus, the reviews for Disney’s $270 million extravaganza, Snow White, are in! And, let’s just say, this is not good news for the challenged entertainment company. Rottom Tomatoes is giving the movie a 47%. Yikes. With the Disney stock price trading at just $99 a share, is it time to break up the company? Trish says it’s worth considering!Join Trish Regan LIVE for all those stories and more in today's edition of The Trish Regan Show. SUBSCRIBE TO MY CHANNEL: https://Youtube.com/TrishReganChannel Become a TEAM MEMBER to get special access and perks:▶️ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBlMo25WDUKJNQ7G8sAk4Zw/join🟢For independent views on the market - sign up for my financial newsletter The 76report at:▶️ https://76research.com with CODE: DOLLAR today. Today’s show is sponsored by: 🟢https://TrishLovesGold.com — American Hartford Gold — go to: ▶️ Https://TrishLovesGold.com or TEXT TRISH to 65532 to receive up to $15,000 in free silver with American Hartford Gold or go to https://TrishLovesGold.com. You can also use Trish's name when calling 1-844-495-1115. 🟢 Go to ▶️ https://balanceofnature.com and use CODE: TRISH for 35% off and FREE SHIPPING Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Here we are. The deadline has come and gone, and effectively you get a DOJ that's telling this judge to go pound sand or go to hell, right? Because we're not going to do anything that you want us to do because we do not feel that you have the legal jurisdiction to even be here doing this to begin with, right? This is what we saw out of Pam Bondi as she was effectively saying, yeah, this is not going to happen. You guys just don't have the authority. They said yesterday, you're beating a dead horse. He said, okay, I'll give you till noon on Thursday. Noon has come and gone. We're now 60 minutes past the deadline.

Nothing's happened. And I suspect the Trump, DOJ, the White House is actually gearing up for another sort of layer in all of this as the legal challenges mount. Because what they are saying is that you guys just don't have the jurisdiction. This is not your thing to be involved with. And so he's now James Bowsberg trying to say there's going to be consequences. And they're like consequences, what are you talking about, buddy? You don't have the right. We've got the Aliens Enemy Act of 1798 on our side.

And that's what we're going with. So they deported 261 illegal criminals that were part of a Venezuelan gang that is known to be a threat to the United States. They've deported them to a prison in El Salvador where life is not going to be very good. Let's be very clear, as it should not be, right? These are known criminals. They're bad people. So they put them on a plane. In the dead of the night, the judge got all worked up, wants to know what time the plane left.

When did they get the order that he had said, nope, you've got to stop and turn around, because they just kept flying until they actually landed. So now he's out there. Warning of consequences. And I'm like, what are you going to do, buddy? Possible consequences after DOJ pushback on questions about deportation flights, I asked a friend who's a very liberal attorney this just yesterday and was told, you know, there's not a whole lot that can be done because this is something that eventually gets fought in the court of public opinion.

As I've said all along, you know what, the public, they're not with the judge on this one. They're with the DOJ. They want the criminals off the street. So we saw from the White House, they said just yesterday, the court has now spent more time trying to ferret out information about the government's flight schedules and relations with foreign countries than it did in investigating the facts before certifying the class action. In this case, the observation reflects how upside down this case has become as digressive micromanagement has outweighed consideration of the case's legal issues. This is in the filing that they prefer. The distraction of the specific facts surrounding the movements of an airplane has derailed this case long enough and should end until the circuit court has had enough chance to weigh in. In other words, they're like, you just forget about it, right?

And Pam Bondi, after the judge, said, we're going to extend the deadline to noon on Thursday, which she's blown through, went on to Fox and was like, yeah, you know, you can just kind of go to hell, buddy. my word's not hers, but you'll get her drift. Let's watch. Line to answer questions. Those questions include the following. What time did the plane take off from U.S. soil? Where did it leave from? What time did it leave U.S. airspace? And what time did it land in a foreign country? You have, I don't know, four, five, six questions the judge wants answers to regarding the details of those flights over the weekend. How will you respond at the Department of Justice? Well, Will, our lawyers are working on this? We will answer appropriately, but what I will tell you is this judge has no right to ask those questions.

You have one unelected federal judge trying to control foreign policies, trying to control the Alien Enemies Act, which they have no business presiding over. And there are 261 reasons why Americans are safer now. That's because those people are out of this country. The judge had no business, no power to do what he did. And Will, he came in on an emergency basis on a Saturday with a very, very short notice, if any, to our attorney to run in the courtroom. You know, and this has been a pattern with these liberal judges. You just spoke about that.

It's been a pattern with what they've been doing. This judge had no right to do that. They're meddling in foreign affairs. They're meddling in our government. And the question should be, why is a judge trying to protect terrorists who have invaded our country over American citizens? You know, TDA is a terrorist organization. They are organized, that they have a government structure within them. They are sending money not only throughout this country to each other, but back to Venezuela.

They are a terrorist organization, and we are not going to have that in our country. We are going to deport them, and we're going to continue. to deport them. We will honor what the court says, but we will appeal, and we will continue to fight terrorists within our country, Will. Not going to stop, and we're going to get them out of here. Boom. Okay. Boom. So they're saying, we have every right to be doing this. We're going to keep on doing it, and you can complain all you want, James Bosberg, but you don't have the right to be doing this. You're completely out of line. And again, they've got this, alien's enemies. the act of 1798 that's working for them.

So that's the thing that maybe gets thrown all the way up to the Supreme Court, we'll have to see. The US judge, of course, he temporarily blocked the deportations, he wants to consider the implications of using this act and said that they can't just carry off migrants in the dead of the night. And they're like, oh yeah, we can, we can, right? So they're moving first, asking questions later.

They came out and said initially, the White House response, this came courtesy of, Caroline Levitt said the administration did not refuse to comply with the court order. The order, which has no lawful basis, was issued after terrorist, aliens had already been removed from the U.S. territory. A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier full of foreign alien terrorists who were physically expelled from this country. So now, again, just going back to where we are in all of this, the judge realized that they weren't going to get any answers that he wanted as of yesterday. So then he said, well, I'll extend the deadline

until Thursday. And then that deadline came and went. And they're just like, guys, you have no right. Judge Boisberg, you have no right to be asking these questions. So CNN was debating this last night. And I thought this was interesting because Eli Honing, who is an attorney and a former member of the DOJ himself, actually came out and admitted that he was sort of blown away by the Cajon, shall he say. this administration and the fact that Pam Bondi was like not doing anything and not budging. You've got to see this clip. He's impressed. He says a little dismayed, but also impressed.

This judge has been, if anything, remarkably patient and solicitous with Trump's DOJ. I mean, I've been watching what DOJ has been doing, the way they've been responding to this judge over the last three days with awe and astonishment. I mean, this is now the third consecutive day the judge has said, I want special. specific details from you, Justice Department, and they have responded by saying, we'll give you a little bit, but now, you don't need the rest of that. We're not giving that to you. I'm halfway horrified by this as a DOJ alum. I'm halfway, I guess, impressed. I mean, they're sort of really standing up to him. Today, they said to this judge, you are beating a dead horse. In writing, they said to the judge. I mean, that is unimaginable as a DOJ alum. I guess I've fantasized about saying that to a judge,

but I would never say it out loud. And yet this judge continues to give them more time. The other thing what's the big ruling that the judge has made here that's apparently so contrary to the Trump administration? All he has said is, let's try to pause here so I can take a couple days and work through this complicated legal issue. He hasn't actually even ruled against them yet, yet this response. Yeah, it's just temper. He might actually agree with it. You know what? They're saying you don't have the right to jump in here anyway. So that's that. Edgar Pomer, thank you so much for the compliment and for your generosity. I so appreciate it. I have the best viewers. I really, really do.

It's good to see all of you here today. Reminder, subscribe, share, like, make a comment, all that good stuff. So Pam Bondi is now saying that they will answer the questions within reason, but you know, she's not meaning the deadline. And she doesn't think that these questions are within reason. It's something that we heard from Stephen Miller, the deputy policy chief earlier this morning. Let me go to his sound right now. He said this just moments ago. You cannot have a democracy where single individual district. court judges can assume the full total powers of the commander-in-chief. Even on the Supreme Court, it takes agreement of five Supreme Court justices to change a federal policy. Five. A single district

court judge out of 700 cannot set policy for the entire nation, let alone on national security and public safety issues. The president has been clear that he has tremendous respect for Justice Roberts and believes it's essential to the Supreme Court cracked down. and stop this assault on our democracy from these radical rogue judges that are resurping the powers of the presidency and laying waste to our entire constitutional system. Wow. Okay, so he's saying you're usurping the powers of the presidency. You're basically, you know, stick in a middle finger at the entire constitution. And we're not going to play that game because we're not going to get stuck on defense.

again. You know, this lawfare, lawfare, lawfare was all we went through for four years. So we're just going to move first. We're going to ask questions later. And Judge James Bostberg, I mean, good luck. I really don't know what your penalty is going to be. When you say there can be penalties, what are you going to do? Now lock up Pam Bondi? I don't think they have anything. So they're calling their bluff. They're saying, we're not going to play this game. We're not going to engage in this law fair, and we have every right to be doing what we're doing. You know, there's a former U.S. attorney that just said this recently on another network. I want to cut to him because he's basically making the point that they are trying to engage

in lawfare and that they just don't have the power to do this. And so the Donald Trump administration, the DOJ, is right to say, you know, we're not going to play that game. Here we go. Ultimately, nearly all, I mean, this is lawfare by other means. I think Caroline Levitt sort of alluded to that. There's been 129 lawsuits in Trump's less than 60 days of being in office. To put it in further context, in his first term, there were 64 injunctions against Trump. That's more than the sum of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden's administration all put together. The legality of Donald Trump, President Trump is absolutely right.

It doesn't matter this is a 1798 law. We're using gobs of the First Amendment right now on your air. That's an even older law. And so the Alien Enemies Act, what the president did is he very shrewdly intertwined TDA with the Venezuela government and the, as calling it a hybrid criminal state, because Maduro and TDA have joined together in law enforcement, in military. The Maduro government funds TDA to come to the United States to bring cocaine to sow discord, to engage in violence. And he has enacted the Alien Enemies Act, declared TDA a foreign terrorist organization, and ordered their removal.

That's what the AEA was meant to do. And so the president has acted in his article two authorities. and for a district judge in Washington, D.C., and I hope you'll ask me about all the mistakes this judge has made already, but for a judge to substitute his judgment for the President of the United States or the ACOU's judgment, you might as well substitute the winner of the public clearinghouse's judgment for the president. Wow.

All right. So this is heating up, you guys, and I think that they're getting called out. In other words, people are like, realize there's an establishment very hard at work, whether it be the media, whether it be some of the judicial entities. And we're going to push back against that with the Constitution on our side going back. I know it hasn't been used in a while to a little known Aliens Enemy Act of 1798, but they're going to use what they have, what they can, and they're going to move first and ask questions later. Stephen Miller, obviously furious about this. He spent a lot of time studying this.

Pam Bondi, same story. And then you're seeing former U.S. attorneys saying, you know, this is nothing but a whole bunch of lawfare. I agree with it. It's law fair. But here's the deal. This administration is ready for it. All right? Know that. They're ready, willing, and able, and they have spent the last four years studying the Constitution and studying the law to be prepared to do exactly this. Donald Trump's saying, of course I can use this 1798 law. Even, oh, well, this is for a time of war. It's a time of war.

He's like, what do you think this is? We got a terror organization trying to infiltrate the United States of America. Does that not qualify as a kind of war? Here he is over the weekend on Air Force One. In the United States, it's an invasion. And these are criminals, many, many criminals. murderers, drug dealers at the highest level, drug lords, people from mental institutions. That's an invasion.

They invaded our country. So this isn't, in that sense, and this is war. Yeah, he's not wrong. Okay, we've been invaded. That has to stop. It is stopping. We're going to talk about that because border crossings are down 95%. Amazing.

You know, the Democrats said this could not be done. And what do you know? It sure as heck got done. Anyway, take a look at this right here. This is a conservative congressman just tearing into an anchor on CNN saying, why are you supporting the bad guys? I will say this. They're going to have a hard time in the court of public opinion with the narrative they've got going on. We're going to protect the extraordinarily dangerous, brutal criminals out of a gang from Venezuela.

Well, so no matter what a judge says. And he's taking the side of a bunch of, he's taking the side of a bunch of criminals. He hasn't taken any, he hasn't taken any side yet. Congressman, Congressman, he hasn't taken any side yet. All he's done is put a stay on the White House action here so that he can review their use of their novel use, frankly, of the alien enemies. Oh, come on, these guys, listen, these guys, the difference between God and these judges is, knows he's not one of these judges. They're arrogant. They practice this type

of thing all the time. And if you had a conservative one doing it, you all would be raised in total hell. Again, Congressman, and it's a question, and you all take that side. This is a ridiculous that you all would take the side of a bunch of murders. No one's taking a side here.

Congressman, Congressman, no one's taking a side here. He is not. I'm asking you about the Constitution. How on this is taking it? How on this is asking about the Constitution? taking a side. All I'm asking you is about the Constitution, what you think of it and what you would advise this White House and you're feeling about judicial rulings. And that seems to be upsetting you.

I'm just trying to get your position on this and what you would advise the White House going forward. It's not upset. I guess what's obsessed me is that you all at CNN continuously take the side of the far left. And that's why your ratings continue to plummet. And I do not ever understand why y'all do that every time. I know you've got to take the opposite side on everything. We appreciate. We appreciate your concern here. There's not been a side taken. They're not been a side taken.

They're not criminal. We're trying to understand. Now, you can argue. They are not American citizens. Quit taking their side of CNN. What is wrong with you all? Can you congressmen? You are so out of touch with what's 85% of this country.

Congress does not support what you are spewing out right now. We haven't sued. The only one spewing is the guy who's talking. By the way, that's representative, Tim Burchett out of Tennessee and he's on to something. The majority of the country does not support trying to dilly-dally and think through, you know, whether or not you can deport people of a known criminal gang from a known enemy country coming in here and hanging out, okay? Like, that's not okay. So this is why, I'm telling you, this is why if all the Democrats had showed up, we had a new

study that came out this week showing that guess what Trump would have won by an even larger percentage five points instead of 1.7 points believe it or not this is according to david sure and this is from blue rose research okay he would have won by an even larger margin so what happens you now have this judge saying well there's going to be consequences it's going to be consequences and I'm like what consequences I mean the people have made it really really clear and they're using actual law from the So I'm not really sure where you're going to come out on this one. I guess you can try and escalate this thing up the food chain, but you're getting a middle finger of sorts.

Are you not from the DOJ? Considering that here we are past the deadline and they haven't done a darn thing because they said you don't have the jurisdiction. Meanwhile, hey, we've got some good news, right? Because border crossings plunging 95% under Donald Trump. This is incredible. And, you know, the Democrats said this could not be done. How many times do we have to hear that?

We had to spend more money, of course. Money, money, money, money, money. And then somehow they would find new programs that they could put people into whatever. The Republicans wouldn't go along with that. And they said, well, it's the Republicans' fault then. You've got massive border crossings because we can't get the money to do this. Well, it turns out there's still no money to do it. And yet the border crossings are down 95 percent.

Senator Chuck Schumer, who's on his last leg. I kid you not. I don't know how this guy survives this one. His own party can't stand him right now. He was asked about this. He didn't have a whole lot to say. I don't think he liked the question. I'm in border crossings record number. Is that evidence that Trump's border policies are working? Is he handling the border well you think, sir? Oh, he doesn't like that. No, doesn't like that one at all. But I want to show you the real numbers. Okay, let's go to Axios today. They have a new graphic out on this. This is border patrol. apprehensions on the U.S.-Mexico border, and this chart just blows me away. Can you see the numbers

there? Can you see the years? Look at this. Incredible. Now I know. I remember Lou Dobbs was getting so upset during the Trump administration, during 2018, 2019. He was furious because the border crossings were still going up. Rest in peace, Lou. Well, go down. Look at 2020. That was March 2020, right? So everything stopped. And then as soon as it opened back up again, it was Party Central. I mean, everybody was coming in. So you had 250,000 coming in a month. It was crazy. And look where we are. Ladies and gentlemen, take a peek at that number. 8,326, the latest. I've seen numbers as low as 300, but let's go with this for now because that is one dramatic graph. Okay? So who said it couldn't be done? It can be done. You just need the right people there.

Tom Holman knows that. Our borders are? Another flight. Another flight every day. The teams are going to be out there every day. Every day the men and women of ICE are going to be in the neighborhoods of this nation arresting criminal, illegal alien, public state, the threats, and national security threats. Lawrence are not going to stop us. We made a promise to American people. The President Trump has made a promised American people.

We're going to make this country safe again. I wake up every morning loving my job because I work for the greatest president in the history my life and we're going to make this country safe again. I'm proud to be a part of this administration. We're not stopping. I don't care what the judges think. I don't care of the left thinks. We're coming. I just love seeing you going through these. He's a good guy, by the way. He's a really, really good guy, and he's passionate about what he's doing, and I love that. And he's so happy, and I think Border Patrol is happy to have the president on their side so that they can do their job.

And look, when they're able to do their job, look what happens. You've got border crossings plunging by 95%. It's really just incredible. And yet they're going to keep up this lawfare, lawfare, lawfare thing. I mean, it's not just happening on the border stuff. It's happening with these universities and this Mohammed, you know, Kailil situation at Columbia University. I mean, it's very, very similar.

It's very similar stuff because, again, you've got the State Department saying, this guy is a problem. And then you have an activist judge saying, oh, well, you moved his case to Louisiana, where there's a conservative court, we don't want that. We're going to move it back to New Jersey. Don't forget, this is the kid. He's not a kid. He's 30 years old.

His wife is eight months pregnant. He's a green card holder. He's married to an American. He ignited all these protests where kids were really, Jewish students felt really, really, really uncomfortable. there on campus. Heck, anybody would feel uncomfortable with all those marches and protests. And he kind of like lit up a lot of protests all over Columbia, all over New York, and that movement spread. And so he is considered, therefore, a danger to the nation. Mahmoud, forgive me, I call him Muhammad, Mahmood Kylo. That's his name. And so this is a very

similar kind of thing where you've got these activist judges trying to get in the way. of the actual law. And like people are just using the law for a change. Marco Rubio is saying, hey, you know what? And by the way, Marco's a smart lawyer. He's saying, I can do this. He's Secretary of State, and he's using this little-known law to justify the detention and deportation.

He said it's his right to do so. And he can do this under a 1952 act. Okay, so maybe you haven't seen it used a lot. Maybe you haven't seen it used since 1952, but it's the McMarron. Walter Act of 1952 and this is what gives the federal government the secretary of state it specifically empowers the secretary of state to expel foreign foreign nationals who pose a threat to the united states while the government has not yet explained this is an article in newsweek i believe yet uh precisely how he meets this qualification the president spokesperson caroline levitt has indeed said that

Kailil organized group protests that not only disrupted college campus classes and harassed Jewish American students and made them feel unsafe in their own college campus, but also distributed pro-Hamas propaganda flyers with the logo. So there you go. There you go. He was out there distributing flyers with a Hamas logo. Marco Rubio wants to implement a 1952 law that enables him to expel him and deport him because, you know, you're kind of. of here on our graces, good graces, you're kind of like at the invite of the United States. And if you're considered a threat, and that kid was a threat, kid, again, full-grown adult, 30 years old, he was a threat to students on campus for sure. Heck, you know how big a threat

it was? They had to cancel classes at Columbia, my own alma mater. I don't even recognize the school anymore, for goodness takes. They had to cancel classes at Columbia University. They had to cancel the graduation because one guy wants to stir it up. And now, we're going to have them tell us, no, no, no, you can't use the McMarron Walter Act of 1952 that does give Marco Rubio our Secretary of State the power to detain and deport him. You can't use it. You can't use it because we want to jump in and just make your life difficult. I'll tell you, they are not on the winning side of this issue. Again, court of public opinion. You win that one all day long. It's why Donald Trump won, okay?

So the Democrats are really stupid with all these things that they're playing around with. And you know they're going to play around with it as far as the sports athletic situation goes to. Trans swimmer is a UPenn? Oh, well, $175 million was just lost by University of Pennsylvania. They should lose more, actually, because they also had all these protests that made Jewish students feel incredibly uncomfortable and victimized on campus. Anyway, this trans swimmer, you know the trans swimmer. about all kinds of awards blew through all these records. You pen so proud of it.

Imagine, imagine being Riley Gaines and like being forced to have to change with somebody who has not gone through the operation. Let's just be very, very clear, has a very different set of body parts. I don't mean to be too graphic, but that is so wrong on every level. I can't even believe that we have to talk about this. Take a listen. President Trump has promised to protect female athletes. He has threatened to rip federal funding away from any university that defies his executive order,

banning biological males from infiltrating women's sports, and he is doing it. We are the first to report that President Trump has paused $175 million in federal funding from the University of Pennsylvania over its controversial policies. A senior administration official telling Fox business that this is just a taste of what could be coming down the pipe for Penn, a proactive punishment from the president to pull back discretionary spending going to the school from DOD and HHS. The university is still at risk of losing all its federal funding as a result of the ongoing Title IX investigations looking into Penn for allowing transgender athlete and biological male Leah Thomas to compete on the women's swim team, use women's locker room, while exposing his male genitalia to his fellow female athletes. We're even talking about this. I mean, what kind of surreal upside-down universe are we living in

where somehow it's okay for somebody with a full-on body parts of a man to be changing next to you in the locker room and for the university to say you suck it up, you deal with it. You're just a girl, right? he thinks he's a girl but you're just a girl i'm sorry this is like really really bad for women and the fact that liberal women would stick by this blows me away like i'm like are you guys like really really crazy like what what is your point you feel like maybe this will make you stronger like maybe you'll have to swim even faster no you won't be able to because guess what lea tom's couldn't get to first base

in swimming was ranked like way down, like number 400 and something. And then all of a sudden is winning new records bursting through all these records that had previously been set and collecting all the goals. I'm sorry. That is not in the name of protecting women in any way, shape, or form. You fought so hard for Title IX. And then it gets stripped away from you in the name of DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion? Somebody who, I mean, you know what, Leah, I'd have a little more respect for you

if you actually went through the operation and lost a body part. Then maybe we could at least talk. It still wouldn't matter, though. It still wouldn't matter, and I'll tell you what, without having to be too graphic and taking it back to Bio 101. For all those years, Leah Thomas, when Leah Thomas was a boy, A man, Leah Thomas, was growing muscle with a lot of testosterone in Leah Thomas's body. Therefore, there's a certain amount of muscle mass that was accumulated. You know why they tell women to really make sure that you work out, especially when you get into your 40s and 50s?

It's really important because that muscle mass, that's there and hopefully going to last you the rest of your life, okay? So when you have the hormones, in other words, you hit a certain point in your life and you're not going to, to have the same kind of hormone function and so women need to really make sure that they work out before they get there. Listen, if you're a young man and you're working out and you're building muscle and you have all that testosterone, that's great. You're going to build muscle and you're going to triumph over the naturally born females. Again, I can't believe we even have to talk about it,

but we do, okay, because it keeps happening. I want to go out to Portland, Oregon. This blows me away. All right? I have a daughter who's a runner, so this really, really gets to me when I see stuff like this. This is the Women's 400 in Portland, Oregon, and a male student just left all the female runners in the dust and set a season record. Must be awfully proud of himself there. Take a look at this. Okay, here we are. Coming around the track, you can't see any of the girl runners. Oh, there they are, way, way behind. So, you just. This is courtesy of lives of TikTok, one of our favorite Twitter accounts.

And there we go. In Portland, Oregon, Nail. Runner and the Girls 400 set in the new record, and the poor girls are left. I mean, this is horrifying to me that we're seeing this. It's just horrifying, but this is where we are right now, okay? So, yes, Donald Trump is telling University of Pennsylvania, You're going to lose $175 million in federal funding because you don't seem to have any respect for women's sports.

Don't forget, even the NCAA came out and said, we are now going to make sure that girls compete against girls, boys compete against boys. So everybody's like on board except, you know, a few loan states and colleges. But you'll lose the money. So that's that. Speaking of losing money, the Department of Education is about to lose a whole lot of money. I want to get to that in the second, but first, remember my company, 76 Research. I started this financial research company for you guys because I wanted to make sure that you had a fair even playing field when it came to investing. Go over there, you can get it for a dollar a month, code word dollar, courtesy of me, 76research.com.

We just published actually two new ideas there for you this week. 76 research.com, code word dollar. And of course, my friends at Balance in Nature, you still hear this little darn post-nasal drip thing I got going on. Sorry, too much information. Anyway, I've had a cold, but I only got one this year, which is like a record for me, like a serious record, because I'm normally sick with like four or five different colds

throughout the year. I've been taking my balance in nature. You can to. 35% off use Code Word Trish. We'll put the information in the page in the show description, so you can get the link. Use my code word Trish. It helps the show.

It helps me, it helps you. 1,800, 246, 8751 is their number. Okay, the Department of Education is going, bye-bye. See you later. This is what Linda McMahon was brought in to do, to dismantle the Department of Education, which was started in 1976 by one other, none other than Jimmy Carter,

who, you know, wanted to get bigger and bigger and bigger so you could control what all these kids coming out of school would think. And Donald Trump's saying, no, you know, I want to bring it back to the state. Let's let the states handle it. Let's let the states pay for it. Let's take this one off the federal bureaucracy. And, of course, everybody's going nuts.

I mean, I've seen some accusations of, oh, this is the Jim Crow error all over again. I'm like, what? And then here's one on CNN. The woman's flipping out because, oh, you know, we're going to lose our DEI. Yeah, you're going to lose it. You better believe you're going to lose it. It is interesting. You hear always return power back to the state.

States have the power. Local governments have the power largely over education and control some 90% of the funding. And the polling on this is actually a majority of Americans oppose gutting the Department of Education. But as you said, it's still very popular with the Republican base. Yeah, it's extremely popular with the Republican base. If you ever attended a Trump rally, he would go on stage and say this. And the crowd would really go wild. This is something that the MAGA base and some of the far Republicans have really zeroed in on,

because of this idea that there is, you know, DEI promoting or racial inequality promoting within the school system, putting one group of people over another, really trying to target that. But already, John, I would say that the administration has already moved to change the culture at schools so much. We know just yesterday that they stripped Pennsylvania University $175 million for them continuing to have a transgender, swimmer compete. At that school, we know that today Columbia University has to respond to the White House who has demanded they overall their own culture, overhaul their own culture, or else lose $400 million in federal spending. And of course, we've seen over the couple of days that they have really been increasing their targeting of pro-Palestinian protesters who are here

on student visas. And so already the culture at these schools, both at higher education and lower education are continuing to change. But I think this will be the most full-sale scale that they've done. Of course, it's going to be, you know, susceptible to legal challenges. But I think what we've seen over the last few days with USAID and all these kind of other agencies that the administration has moved to shutter, even if a district judge says, listen, you've got to bring all these people back. It's been shown that it's difficult to claw these things back and get people back hired

when they could be hired in a really unstable environment. because you don't know which court it's going to say what. Oh, yeah, we get a feel for those government employees. They're afraid to go and work for the government now because they don't have a guaranteed job for life. Wow. Okay, Columbia, you're going to lose $400 million because you can't keep Jewish students safe on campus. UPenn, you're losing $175 million because for some reason you're really stuck on having

naturally born men compete against naturally born females. I can't believe we have to talk about that. Anyway, we've got new tape just came in moments ago. I actually haven't seen this, you guys. So this is Caroline Levitt actually speaking outside with reporters talking about the dismantling of the U.S. education department, the Department of EDU. Let's listen in and hear what she has to say again. I want to caution you in that I have not myself heard this just yet. So we're going to be listening to it together for the first time.

You know, they're basically saying that this is going to be a whole lot smaller, a whole lot smaller of a department. And I would just say that, you know, that's good. On the one hand, I will tell you the one caveat, the one thing I worry about is that if you don't have some control over these states financially, I worry that they can really go rogue. And so like in Portland, Oregon, you're going to have challenges. Now, I still think there's going to be some rules. Thank you, Tommy. Appreciate it. I'm going to get your comment in a second.

I still think in places like Portland, Oregon, where you have the boy running the 400 meter and setting the record in the girls' sports, you still have some federal constitutional protection. But anyway, we're going to get out of the business of giving these states money to squander. Here we are with Caroline. Caroline, what do you say to critics of the president's education? Where was their criticism of our nation? failing test scores for the last several decades. The Department of Education was founded in the 1970s, and since then we have spent more than

$3 trillion at this federal bureaucracy. What has been the return on that investment for the American taxpayer? Levels that are less than ideal, less than proficient. Our children's test scores are incredibly concerning when it comes to reading rates, literacy rates, math, and science test scores. the numbers prove that and the president is finally, this president is finally taking much needed action to return education to where it belongs. And that's to educators closest to students in their classrooms and their respective states. We're going to have a great event here later at 4 o'clock.

There will be students here, teachers here, parents here, educators, and of course governors from around the country who are very excited about taking on this responsibility to educate our nation's students. Who's going to run federal student loans? So the Department of Education will be much smaller than it is today. As you know, the President's Executive Order directed Linda McMahon to greatly minimize the agency. So when it comes to student loans and Pell Grants, those will still be run out of the Department of Education. But we don't need to be spending more than $3 trillion over the course of a few decades on a department that's clearly failing in its initial intention to educate our students. So is the federal government going to be spending less? As I said, Pell Grants and student loans will still be run.

will still be run out of the department in Washington, D.C., but the great responsibility of educating our nation students will return to the states. So again, she's taking questions. It's hard to hear the reporter's questions. Any critical functions of the department such as that will remain. But again, we're greatly reducing the scale and the size of this department. What about federal Title I funding and special... So again, Caroline Levitt is coming out and telling everybody about the plans today.

today, they have a big press conference happening later this afternoon with parents and teachers, et cetera. And honestly, like, I consider this a good day because I really don't want federal government managing my kids' education. Do you? I mean, if you can keep it more localized, that's why we like the local towns, local school systems, being run by local school boards, because the localities care a little bit more. Now, yeah, I do kind of worry about places like Portland, Oregon. But you know what? Let Portland, Oregon worry. about itself. Oh my gosh. Anyway, Brian, I'm laughing at your comment there. Thank you for the generosity and someone else I think sent a sticker earlier on in the session. So like I said, I always have the

best viewers. Why did the deep state get so big? I think that's a real question, right? Like what is it? Oh, we have some breaking news on tariffs too that I want to get to. We'll handle that in just a moment. But why is it that we are looking at such a massive deep state right now? Like, how did this come about? And, you know, a lot of people say, well, you can go back to Obama. I mean, it existed certainly before Obama. But what amazes me, what amazes me is that it has just grown and grown and grown and and swelled.

And I think, yes, since Obama, the deep state did get much bigger. So why did deep state – I'm actually putting this in your lower here. why did deep state grow so big? There's an answer to this, okay? There's a really fascinating answer to this. And I kind of touched on it yesterday when we were talking about the Kennedy files, but it has a lot to do with Barack Obama's modernization of what's called the Smith-Munt Act of 2012. That was the modernization.

If you go back, the Smith-Munt Act actually came out in, what, 1945? and forgive me, 1948, it was designed to help us control the flow of information all over the world. That's what our Voice of America and Radio Free Europe was doing. We were pushing out propaganda because we wanted our side to be heard. And I'm a realist, I get it. You want your side to be heard. And we had such the advantage in this because we were way ahead of any of the other countries, right, when it came to radio, when it came to television, when it came to Hollywood.

it. And so this was an effort that was made in 1948 as they were trying to fight the Cold War to basically say, okay, we're going to create all this propaganda and we're going to send it all over the world. But here's the deal. That propaganda doesn't come home. We send it out, but it doesn't come back in. And we developed, thanks to the Smith Month Act in 1948, a Chinese wall preventing any of that propaganda paid for, courtesy of you, the U.S. taxpayer, paid for by us, that was not allowed to come back. In other words, you couldn't turn it on the American people until Obama. All right?

So in 2013, the amendment went through. It's known as the Smith-Munt Modernization Act of 2012. And basically, that domestic ban on propaganda that U.S. taxpayers were paying for, think USAID, think NGOs, all this money that was going to all this stuff, what? To journalists organizations, it was suddenly allowed to come back on shore. And that, ladies and gentlemen, helps to explain the insanity that we've been seeing over the last, however many, 10 years. I mean, it's only been around for like 12 years. Sure enough. Obama, right? Wasn't he the one who talked about the echo chambers? And if you just repeat

something over and over and over again, eventually everybody will believe it. Mike Bens, He used to work at the State Department and has just made this his passion in his career to try and ensure that we have real, real freedom of speech here in the United States of America. He talked about this on Joe Robbins show. I played a bunch of the sound yesterday as it related to the JFK files. I'm not going to do that today. Just a little, little snippet. I want you to just hear him because I think he's great on this.

What was done then under Obama was the effective repeal of it. It was called the Smith Modernization Act. But the modernization got rid of the whole purpose of it, the firewall. Because at the time, the media and media control was seen as the linchpin crux of winning the Cold War, piping in pro-US media influence. Because everything moved after World War II from kinetic warfare and military occupation. We used to militarily occupy the Philippines, for example. after we won the Spanish-American War.

But that was banned under international law, territorial acquisition by military force in 1948. So we had to win elections. And we had to influence the passage of laws in foreign countries by having an apparatus inside those countries that influenced the hearts and minds of people, which influenced who they voted for, which then determined the government.

So you had to move towards political vassalage rather than military occupation. And what the Smithmont Act did is, is simultaneous with the creation of this in 1948, Congress recognized the Frankensteinian monster they were creating by authorizing a covert, permanent Department of Dirty Tricks, and this is their phrase, not mine, to do this cloak and dagger,

to infiltrate and co-op the universities, the unions, the media, the politicians, the judges, the whole swarm army, you know, what I have been calling for a long time, the USA Truman Show, because these people are. people in these foreign countries have no idea, you know, how many, how many the things they interact with that are effectively a movie set being constructed by the U.S. State Department and its sister influence.

I mean, that's freaky. It's just freaky, freaky stuff. Anyway, again, you know, Mike's right. So the State Department's out there pulling all these strings, and they got a ton of money to do it because they want to influence opinion and therefore elections all over the world. And we choose, in the name of democracy, exactly. who we want to influence and how we want to influence them, and we get a lot of power to do so. But what happens when you turn all of that inward? I mean, the whole idea behind the original

Smith-Mund Act was that you never turned it inward. You never turned it on your people. It was always to be used overseas. And not until Obama, did we actually start using it internally? And so now what has come out? Oh, all the USAID money going to the New York Times, going to political, going to Reuters, going to the BBC, and all of the domestic issues that they would take on with American politics, this is all part of one and the same, right? They actually turned it on us as far back as 2013 when it was first enacted by the Department of Defense and said, this is all being done, oh, in the name of preserving democracy, preserving democracy, just like we pull overseas. And now we're doing it here at home. So when you ask, like, how

How did this deep stake get so big? Why is it that there's a chorus that I hear out of Disney, out of Whoopi Goldberg and the View, out of everybody on Morning Joe, out of the New York Times, the Washington Post? Why was it all the same? Well, there was so much money at stake. Okay, I promised only one Mike Ben Soundbite. We're going to have to get them on the show. I don't have a ton of guests on the show, but I really, really am fascinated by this.

So let's go back to him very quickly. We're up against a much actually deeper, darker problem with this USAID scandal, and as people will see increasingly, the scandals that will break open at the Pentagon and the State Department, which is that we have a Smith-Munt problem for funding and operations. It's not just propaganda. The blob, our foreign policy establishment, can fund groups that effectively work with prosecutors domestically or that work at media. You know, dual, sort of dual use. We give them foreign grants to do media propaganda abroad, but they operate here. Or social media censorship to coerce foreign countries to pass foreign censorship laws that explicitly and are intended to attack U.S. social media companies and in U.S. peer-to-peer speech. So we need that protection.

If we're going to keep this function at all, we need a hard firewall and absolute grotesque penalties for any violation. okay and again you know not to be to anti-o-abama but think about the reality that he turned this thing on its head and we don't have the Chinese wall anymore so all the propaganda that we were selling overseas that was designed to influence elections overseas got turned back on us and so you ask now why is there this law fair why do we have these judges doing this that and the other this is why or at least a big part of why. And so now they're kind of up a creek without a paddle. I got to tell you guys, I think they have been exposed massively

and they're going to continue to be exposed and they're on the wrong side of every single issue. Breaking right now, we have the news on tariffs. This is good news. The EU, European Union, is pausing the tariffs that we're about to go right into effect. I'm telling you, He's on to something, right?

Because nobody wants those tariffs. And he's threatening 200% tariffs on European wines. I mean, wow. So the EU has just announced that they are delaying the implementation of those first retaliatory tariffs on US goods. They're delaying it into the middle of April. They're like, okay, you know, we're still going to move forward, but we're going to do it in April. We're not going to do it now. They had like some 232 tariffs on EU steel and aluminum that was already being put into place.

and the idea was they were going to retaliate with this. Donald Trump has already put a 25% tariff there on steel and aluminum. I will say this. How? How is it fair that we export our stuff to Europe? Use the wines, for example, right, since he was putting a 200% tariff on European wines. We'll send a California wine to Europe for example. zero tariff. But they, forgive me, we'll take a French wine for zero tariff. But when we send

our California wines, we don't put any tariffs on it, they slap a massive tariff on it. So all things being equal, like shouldn't we just say, okay, you're going to put a tariff on something? We'll put a tariff on something. Like, let's just, what's fair, you know, it's fair. And if you really want to be fair, everybody just gets rid of their tariffs. Right? But I don't like the idea that I'm selling my widgets to you and you immediately slap a tax on it. But you sell it to me and I'm not allowed to put a tax on it. And somehow this is controversial. He's like, hey, this is a whole new profit opportunity for the USA.

Listen to him here with my former colleague Laura Ingram on Fox just last night. How do interest rates end up going down when we're servicing our debt to the tune of about 1.2? $2 trillion a year, and there's still deficit spending in Congress. How do we do that? We have to pay off our debt. We have to start paying it. Look, we're very under leveraged when you look at the asset value of this country, but we're over leveraged in terms of cash flow.

We're going to have a big cash flow. We're going to take in that. For years, we allowed our country to be raped and pillaged, raped and pillaged, terrible expressions. And that's what happened. Much of it was done by our friends. Look at the European Union. We can't sell cars to them, but they sell millions of cars to us. They don't take our agricultural product, but we take theirs. The days are changing. We're not

going to let this happen. It's Barron's birthday on Thursday. Yes. And we've all as a... Happy birthday, Baron. But you heard what he said there. Like, we're not going to put up with it anymore. We want a little playing field, for goodness sakes. And she made a good point. It was a substantive interview, actually. I credit Laura's very smart. He loves talking about the economy and business and the U.S.'s balance sheet and stuff like that. Fortunately, because, you know, he's the first guy that's come along that has actually understood it. And you're looking already at a scenario, which is amazing to me, and the inflation is coming down. This is a big deal.

I didn't expect this. I actually didn't expect this. The inflation, I've said that the hardest thing for Trump is going to be getting inflation back in check because the Fed printed so much money, and Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi printed so much money. and, you know, they were just, it was like a banana. And so that's something that I do think it's going to take a while to work off. And yet the last two inflation reports have been pretty encouraging. Simultaneously, you've seen some good manufacturing reports.

So all this is positive news for the economy. Jerome Powell spoke on this just yesterday when he announced that they're not going to lower interest rates, which I'm actually kind of fine with. I know that Trump probably doesn't like that because he always likes lower interest rates. But, you know, I like the idea that inflation, is abating and I'd like to see more of it. Here's Jay Powell. So then have we seen the administration,

the new administration's policies in the economic numbers yet? And when do you anticipate that happening? In labor or in other? In labor and inflation just across the economy. Have we started to see the new policies take effect in the numbers? You know, only in a kind of an early way. I mean, it's only been a few months, right?

You know, for example, the layoffs that are happening here are, you know, there's certainly meaningful to the people involved and they may be meaningful to a particular neighborhood or region or area but at the national level they're not they're not significant yet but we don't know we don't know what we're that how far that will go we'll find out much more I mentioned that you you saw we've had two one two very strong goods inflation readings in the last two months which is very unexpected I think hard to trace it to specific tariffs but it must have it

must have so he he admits very unexpected. He also, of course, said that it's not clear that all of these layoffs in D.C. are really going to have an effect on the national economy. They'll have an effect on D.C. of course. And I think sentiment in D.C. is just destroyed. I mean, everybody's freaking out in D.C. But what does it mean for the national economy? Perhaps not much. We'll see how those numbers continue to shake out. As for inflation, it's amazing. It's been coming down. But I consider that, you know, an amazing, great thing. And we're going to hopefully see more and more and more of it take advantage of it. take advantage of the opportunity I'm giving you 76 research my financial research newsletter we publish

this regularly we have model portfolios on there for you as well take a look at that because there's major stuff happening and you want to be able to take advantage of this I really think that we're setting the stage for a whole new economy and it's good it's good stuff that's on the way so 76 research dot com use code word dollar we'll put the link in the show notes anybody going to snow white What do you think? Snow white. George, thank you so much. I'm going to get to your comment.

I'm like, snow white. Ratings are in. And does this surprise you? They're bad. Like really bad. Because the people that get the movie ahead of time are hand-picked by Disney. Meaning Disney thinks they're going to give them a good

review. That's why they get to review it. And then what do you know? Rotten Tomatoes showing 47%. That's a really bad. That's like less than average, right? Like less than half. So there is absolutely not a lot of enthusiasm for this movie that cost Disney what? $270 million. 47% on Rotten Tomatoes. Pretty, pretty devastating score. Again, just remember that Disney goes and gives the movie to the people that they think are going to be generous, but they were not generous. I mean, Breitbart went through and picked out some of the reviews. They're not awful, but they say, near the beginning of Snow White, the forest near the castle is described as a place where magic still abides. It's too bad. The same can't be said about the movie. And then there was another one. After so much pre-hate, Snow White is

decidedly okay. Rachel Zegler is the best thing about it, thanks to her singing, talent, charm, and natural Disney Princess Energy. Galgado is miscast, well, yeah, I mean, how is she the ugly stepmother? I mean, really. It's all miscast. That's a no-brainer. We said that from the beginning. And the dwarfs looked really off.

Yeah, I mean, the whole scandal about the dwarfs, like, they spent like a year researching how they were going to handle the dwarfs because they didn't want to insult anybody. and then they wound up really insulting people that are smaller in stature who wanted to get these roles and thought this was an opportunity. And then they're like, nope, we're going to make it all computer-generated images. I would just say this. Why can't you come up with a new storyline? Disney, you're a big company.

You got lots of money. You got lots of resources. Why do you have to keep going back to the well and do sequel after sequel after sequel after sequel? You got nothing new? A good thing we're getting rid of the Department of Education, because clearly there's no creativity coming out of schools these days. Well, how can there be when everything has to be woke? They just have to wokeify all those ancient fairy tales to make them modern.

And that was the idea behind Snow White, you see, and they spent $270 million on it. Really don't have a lot to show for it. I'll tell you, Disney itself is a mess, and it's a mess, because it's a mess, because you that's a mess, because it's bought into this woke stuff. Heck, for all I know, they were getting USAID money, right? International company selling a message. And because the Smith-Munt Act of 1948 that was modernized by Obama and put into place in 2013, heck, they could have been getting a nice pretty penny for all we know.

It would help explain Whoopi Goldberg, right, on the view. Maybe they had a financial stake in wokeifying everything, but they now have an employee base. have an employee base that's got a certain mindset and clearly doesn't have the creativity to take us into the future. So they keep going back to the well and they keep doing remake after remake after remake and it shows in the stock price. Let's take a look at Disney's stock. You're to date down 10%. Now I realize the S&Ps had a challenging time, but I don't think the S&P's off that much and Disney's off more than 10%. But here's the real start. Okay, and this is today's by the way,

you guys here's here's today's so it is down about six tenths of a percent in today's trading but i would just say this in 2020 it was trading at like two hundred five dollars a share so this hurts especially when you factor in inflation so the market's got to go up your stocks have to go up certainly more than inflation so people have gotten really wax i mean this is painful right You were at 200-something a share, and now you're at 99 there on Disney. Just devastating. I'll tell you, you know what this calls into question, whether or not Bob Eiger can lead the company forward or not? He's been woke-fied.

I mean, heck, he was the first one to pull out of Twitter just as it was turning into X. When Elon Musk bought it, he pulled all his advertising money. Remember that? Elon was not impressed, and he's like, hey, Bob Eager, F you. I mean, he said it. You want to try and intimidate me with money? F you, Bob Iger? So Disney pulled all its money out.

Disney is in a bad spot. I'm telling you, like, I haven't seen anything decent out of Disney. And the only glimmer of hope we've written about this at 76 research was maybe its experiences and cruise line divisions. And the cruise line divisions are not looking good either. And they've been sinking a ton of money into it with new ship after new ship after a new ship that's going to be coming out. And I can tell you, they are not what they were. So if you've got an entertainment division that stinks, you've got a cruise line business that

maybe is hobbling along, sort of, but you're putting so much capital into. You've got a parks experience that is, you know, who wants to pay $110 and sit in long lines all day long for rides that often don't work. I think this business has problem. like serious problems and if I were Bob Eager I'd be selling off the parts as fast as I could I'd keep the theme parks I'd keep the cruise business your entertainment division sorry Bobby it's done you don't have the new life blood there to be able to generate interesting new storylines because everybody is group think and since you can't get away from that you're just going to continue to sink money into projects like the woke snow white that nobody wants to see so the answer for

this company is one split it up keep your parks okay keep your parks keep your cruise line get rid of the entertainment division it's just costing you a fortune and you don't have anything good coming out of it get rid of your ABC news business your ESPN business all of the television businesses sell them as fast as you can. I realize nobody wants to buy them. I did hear that Next Star was interested, but apparently not. Because streaming is the future. Right here where we're at right now, guys, you know it.

I know it. Streaming is the future. Disney knows it. Instead, they're spending all this crazy money to have a big studio audience for Whoopi Goldberg at the View, and they got like hundreds of producers working on that show. You even have to have people employed just to be audience managers to tell everybody who went to clap when she says something really stupid. That is not a good use of capital.

I'm saying that from a business point of view, okay? Like politics aside, as an investor, do I buy Disney? It's low, $99 bucks a share. But the answer's no, because I don't think you guys can figure this out. And you still haven't been able to sell off the assets. In fact, he's come back after he said he wanted to sell his television assets, saying, oh, no, no, we're reexamining that. Why are you reexamining it?

Oh, maybe because you can't get any money for it. because nobody wants it. That would make sense to me. But if I were you, I'd be selling that like a hot potato. In other words, there's no value there. Gene, thank you so much. It's such a nice thing for you to say. And I so appreciate your generosity.

Gene Hunsinger on the chat here. And let me go back to some of the others because I think, Gary, you were up there earlier as well. And like I said, I had the best viewers. But as far as an opportunity for Disney, I see the opportunity here, being what Nelson Peltz saw a while back, Nelson Peltz was like, you guys really got to shape up. He was the activist investor that came in and Bob Iger fought tooth and nail, but he had good

ideas. He was like, would you just stop with the darn sequels? Can you not actually come up with anything new, anything creative? You know, your parks business isn't bad. Maybe you should focus on it so that the rides don't break down and the lines are not as long. Hey, maybe you should focus more on the cruise business and a little bit more customer service because that's gone down the drain. Oh, you know, Don, this is interesting. He's saying $650 million on Snow White. Don, Baca, who's a frequent friend of the show, you're saying it was $650 million on Snow White. I actually hadn't seen that, but if that's the case, Don, then I'm really over this company. I know Don is. Don's a former commodities trader, and he has a, I'm guessing you're shorting Disney at this point, Don,

is he really does not like this company. I don't like this company either because I just think, it doesn't really have a place in society today. Rachel Zegler as an actress, terrible. Maybe if they tweak her voice in the singing, I saw the live production, it wasn't as good, there at the castle in Spain. They had to cancel all the premieres guys because they were worried about the sort of animosity

being directed at them, yeah, because nobody likes this film. If it was $650 million and not $270 million, then that is just outrageous to me. really really really truly outrageous you know George writing I'm going to wait until Bob Iver leaves Disney before I can even think about investing in it again but I'm just going to say this you know the answer is I'm going to put this on the lower third Trish Disney needs to break up sell off the parts they're worth more than the whole keep your parks division

keep the cruises. Entertainment, I'm sorry, you've come and gone. It's just maybe you can work out a deal so that you can preserve the rights to, you know, if they come up with any new characters, you can have a ride at Disney or Epcot with that character, but everything else. It's just, it's so passe. And I think there's going to be newer players coming into all this. I don't know if, you know, they're really going to be able to quite contend with Disney, but it is changing. And given that the medium is changing and streaming is here,

there's going to be a lot more opportunity for a lot of folks that, you know, you don't even know about right now, which is why I keep saying, be prepared for the future, make sure you get a copy of my 76 research, my financial newsletter. I do write it with my very dear longtime friend, Rob Horton, who ran billions of dollars for 20 years on Wall Street. And so the two of us together kind of know what we're doing.

And I've showed you the portfolios before. We don't have to get into all that, but you can know this. We're beating the S&P by long shot, which doesn't surprise me because I think we just kind of, we kind of get what we're doing and we have a lot of experience. So check that out when you can. Use Code Word Dollar to get at least the 76 research report and look at those model portfolios. I am just dismayed by everything that's happening. And this really is history being made.

It's why I refuse to miss a day. I may be really, really caught in traveling, so we'll see. Live might be tough tomorrow. But again, I appreciate all your generosity. Doug Levy, writing that Disney has lost more subscribers for Disney Plus than they will never learn. It's true. Now, Douglas Levy, Levy, why can't they actually get more subs for the streaming? business. I mean, what's happened to the streaming business? Think about that as well, because

streaming is where it's at, and yet they can't seem to transition. You would think people would pay up for Disney Plus if they had any content, but they don't, okay? That's what we keep getting back to. The content sucks. Sorry, I don't usually talk like that, but it's terrible. And so that's why they keep losing, and they up the prices, of course, and it's just a recipe, recipe for disaster. Lisa Lewis, you're not going to go see Snow White this weekend. I hear you. I hear you. Well, the reviewers don't like it, even the ones at Disney picked. So that tells us all we need to know, right? Thank you guys. It's good to see you all. I've seen so many good friends here. Peace in my mind. Leslie as well. Really, some new faces. Please make sure that you subscribe, that you share,

that you like, and I will be back very shortly live again.