June 5, 2025 • 40 mins
Continued conversation about President Donald Trump's U.S. travel ban that bars citizens of 12 countries from entering the U.S. Trump says the move was necessary to protect the country against “foreign terrorists” and other security threats. The countries included in this ban are Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. The ban will take effect starting next Monday at 12AM.
Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
I'm telling you easy Boston's video.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
We comeback to the pacers. We're talking about all of
the battles that the Trump administration is involved in, including
including the very personal fight now between Donald Trump and
his former bff Elon Musk. As I talked about last night.
(00:28):
This bromance seems to have ended rather abruptly. We'll talk
about that. We'll also talk about Donald Trump's reimposition of
his travel band, which I think will likely be upheld,
in my opinion, by this Supreme Court. But we're also
talking with our friend Will from Long Island, and Will,
(00:51):
you're making the point that there could come a time
where Donald Trump defies a court all in an effort
to reassert the primacy of the executive branch over the
judicial branch. Is that the theory that that you're basically espousing.
(01:15):
Let me get Will bumped up here, Guys, I'm miss
bringing them up. My mistake. Will. I hope you heard
my question.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
Yeah, I did. I think that a lot of legal
scholars have argued that the idea of the of judicial
review and that the judicial branch has the power to
invalidate laws is an overreach of.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
The Okay, I understand the argument. I understand the argument. Again,
I'm not looking for a presentation here, but I have
a couple of questions today. For the first time, the
Trump administ administration has returned a wrongfully deported migrant back
(01:56):
to the US. You familiar with that case.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
I did see some of that case, yes, okay.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
So my point is that I want you address that case.
My point is that the Trump administration I do not
believe is going to bring the guy back from Maryland
because I feel to Maryland, because I think they feel
he is actually somebody who was involved in trafficking. However,
in this particular case, it's a more sympathetic case. The
Trump administration apparently complied with the court order. So I
(02:28):
think that the Trump administration, when faced with a court
order for which they do not have a successful ground
for appeal, or they do not believe they have a
successful ground for appeal, I think that they're inclined to comply.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
I think they're inclined to comply when they seem to
be wrong. Right, So, in Maryland, if there's a court
order to return this guy, and there was kind of
when he was on his way down, and then they
covered it up with well, he was already on the plane,
within't know and blah blah blah. In that case, even
a court order, I think they would say boom.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
We'll say, well, we will see. In this case they
admit they made a mistake. All I'm just saying is
that let's not get ahead of ourselves here. I think
the concept of judicial review is soundly grounded in precedent.
And I don't want to get wonky here. Okay, soundly
grounded in precedent. The case Marmie versus Madison that you mentioned,
(03:31):
the result of the case is not what most people believe.
It's a complicated case dealing with something that went on
in the early nineteenth century. No sense of us going
into it in a detail or I'll totally loose my
audience here. But I think the point you're making is
an interesting one, and that is, could we come to
a real crisis where the President of the United States
(03:53):
defies a court order from the US Supreme Court. I
think that's really high stakes poker.
Speaker 3 (04:00):
I think over the course of the next three and
a half years, you can see a situation where the
president may defy not just any court order, but possibly
all the way up to a Supreme Court order. I
just believe that the Supreme Court or the President usually
they find a graceful way to get out of each
(04:21):
other's way because they're not looking to create a constitutional say.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
I understand that. And what I'm saying is if Donald Trump, I.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
Don't think that this case would be the one that
when you're enough, I don't.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Want to get into the weeds. I'm trying to stay
out of the weeds. Will Okay, what I'm trying to say,
I'm trying to get to the bottom line. If Donald
Trump were to defy a US Supreme Court order from
this Supreme Court, the John Roberts Supreme Court, which has
six Republican appointees only three Democratic appointees, I think he
(04:55):
would be digging himself, Yes, precisely, but six of them
are Republican. I think he would be digging himself an
impeachment hole from which he might not escape. That's all
I'm saying. I don't want to argue the theory any
longer than that because I don't want to get there.
Maybe we will, and when we will, we will sort
(05:17):
it out.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
Okay, But right I'm just saying, if I've ever seen
an opportunity that it could arise in my lifetime with
a president or a scenario meaning immigration and all the
especially with the lower courts in their rulings. We're at
the precipice of a possible of a situation like that
that I've never seen. I've been alive for fifty years.
(05:37):
That's the only point I'm trying to right.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
I don't think here. I don't think we're close to
a precipice. I think we have a president who would
be inclined to roll that dice. But it would. But
I think when when push comes to shove, there's a lot.
Speaker 3 (05:56):
I think Maryland a Braya Garcia, if you got a
quart order on that, I think he'd be willing to
stake his presidency on that one. That guy's never coming back.
I don't think.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
I don't think he's coming back. Either. But but if
if all of a sudden, John Thune took a walk
up to the to the White House and said, on
this one, you don't have thirty four votes. If you
want to defy it, good luck, that's all.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
It would be a third impeachment. I guess it would
be a third impeachment, right, Well, they.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Would be that they would be that that would be
a removal if you don't have thirty four votes, you
need you have to have thirty four votes to avoid
a removement. Okay, that's the that's the math. That's the math.
We will talk about this again, my friend. Okay, thanks, Thanks,
will talk soon. All right, thanks, All right, let me
go to Will. Will. I don't rather Warren. As soon
as we're gonna leave, Will, you're gonna go to Warren. Warren.
(06:44):
I don't want you to wait any longer. You've been
very patient. Your thoughts on what's going on, go right ahead.
Speaker 4 (06:49):
Oh yeah, yeah, I was listening to all this, and
I just think that what Trump is doing, you know,
using the court, going everything through the courts, is just
the wrong way to lead. I mean, he should be
he should be focusing on things that would unite the
country rather than dividing, you know, like he's you know,
(07:12):
I mean, yeah, it's you know, closing the border. Most
people agree with that, yep, you know, getting rid of
the bad guys. Most people agree with that. But all
this other side stuff with like Harvard and you know,
this fight with Bruce Springsteen and all this other stuff,
(07:33):
and you know, all these other things that he's went
to the court constantly with. It is just a bad
work for the United States.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
Yeah, and it's also a dangerous game he's playing. You know,
the last president who really fought the Supreme Court and
successfully was Franklin Roosevelt. But Roosevelt had built up a
well of support, public support. He had been elected in
thirty two, re elected in thirty six overwhelmingly, and he
(08:03):
took the court on at a time when we were
coming out of the depression heading to World War two.
And uh, he tried to pack the court. He was
so upset with the Supreme Court. He tried to pack
the court.
Speaker 4 (08:15):
But yeah, but he has a six three advantage in
in the court. And it's sort of like, you know, like,
you know, like what he did with Canada is like
Canada is a like a best friend in the world,
and he's basically you know kind of you know, you know,
kind of punching them.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
It's like, yeah, I mean, it's it's it's it's unnecessary
and it's not as.
Speaker 4 (08:40):
If he doesn't have And I would rather, I would
rather him focus on the things that you know, that
would help the country then rather than you know, pick
these topics I would rather.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Have him focused on. I would rather have him focus
on the things that are important, because if he takes
a position on well, let's say immigration, I think he
has won that argument. And I think that people realize
that the Biden administration was the disaster in terms of
immigration and we need we need strong borders. I think
(09:19):
he's one that hard And.
Speaker 4 (09:20):
I mean, I mean, I mean it just I mean,
I'm just gonna make this this statement, and it just
amazes me that government is supposed that is supposed to
have the smartest people in the world.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
Who ever told you that?
Speaker 4 (09:39):
But they couldn't. But they but they couldn't find their
their way out of the trash bag.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Whoever told you that that government has the smartest people
in the world.
Speaker 4 (09:48):
They were they're supposed to supposed to me, you know,
the like they're like, they're supposed to have like these
economists that you know that have went to Harvard and
went to all these prestigious schools, and you know, and
the best of the best of the best of the
best is supposed to be in government. And but yeah,
(10:10):
they can't. But they but they couldn't run a lemonade
stand without without messing it up.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
All I'm just saying is, don't buy into that there
are there are people in government who are great, and
there are people in government who shouldn't be in government.
Speaker 4 (10:26):
And it's the reason why people, you know, more and
more don't trust anything that government does.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
All right, sure on that point of agreement. Let you go,
all right, thanks, thanks six thirty. Well, we got a
whole bunch of open lines. The lines have been just
burning up tonight, which is what I'd like to see.
So the question, let me reset here and rephrase. We're
talking about, amongst other things, this this breakup, and despite
(10:57):
Tom from Dorchester's analysis, I think it's a real breakup
between Donald Trump and Elon Musk, and I think it
may get nastier before it gets better. That's number one.
Number two. We're talking about this travel ban, and this
travel ban, which I think is in many cases, many cases,
(11:19):
a justifiable travel ban, and I think that there are
countries from around the world that want to do us harm,
and I think whether we like it or not, and
if you want to talk about the countries on the list,
we can do that as well. And then also what
I consider to be President Trump's don quixote sort of
(11:40):
battle against Harvard University. I think it's not the role
of the president to dictate to Harvard, or to any
school who they will admit or not admit. I think
that they can get involved in a number of issues
dealing with what goes on on campus. But I would
leave it to my Education secretary, and I would leave
(12:02):
it to my attorney general. I don't think Donald Trump
helps himself by finding himself battling with Harvard over whether
or not they should allow any international students or foreign
students to be admitted. That's a decision for Harvard, not
for there, not for the White House. That's my position.
(12:24):
You can agree with any or all of those positions.
All you got to do is dial the phone. I'm
going to ask you to light it up right now.
Six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty, six one seven, nine,
three thirty. We've got a very quick break coming back
with Joe and Revere and hopefully your call. If you
have never called the show before, let to know what
you think. This is a This is what we call
North America's back porch. Now it's hot enough out there
(12:47):
tonight to be on the back porch. It's not always
hot enough for the winter, be in the back porch.
But you're just walking down the street. You're hearing some
neighbors and friends discuss, and you want to get up
and you want to say what you want to say.
That's what this show is all about. We've done it
do this way for almost eighteen years. We'll do it
until the day the show ends that way. All points
of view are welcome. All I'm looking for is a
(13:09):
conversation coming back on night Side.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
It's night Side with Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
Back we go. I got Joe in revered Joe, Welcome,
You're next on Nightside.
Speaker 5 (13:23):
Great hits her, Jane, thank you so little concerns here?
Uh you know obviously COVID everybody can pretty much say.
Now was sent to us by China.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Joe, Joe, do me a favor, will you? I know
you're on a cell phone. Would you talk into the
into the mouthpiece of the cell phone so everybody can
hear you a little more clearly?
Speaker 5 (13:47):
Can you hear me a little better?
Speaker 2 (13:49):
Much better? What what type of phone are you on?
Speaker 4 (13:52):
Oh?
Speaker 5 (13:52):
Oh god, Dan, I got to get rid of it.
Don't buy them anyways.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
But again, do me a favorite if you take the
mouth okay on your phone and you move it away,
you don't hear me that. Well, if you speak into
the mouthpiece whatever your phone is, we will hear you
the best. So just try to do that. So I
can't understand what you say.
Speaker 5 (14:11):
Go ahead, yes, yes, sir. So I'm a little concerned.
Now top top doch ba whoever caught these people trying
to bring up fungus in to kill our agriculture? I
know we need to trade with China, But at the
same point, at what time between COVID this going on,
(14:32):
then we're gonna try to mass produce this inn. I mean,
at what point are we gonna just shut this country off?
Speaker 6 (14:39):
Right?
Speaker 5 (14:39):
We're gonna lose prescriptions, we're gonna lose auto parts, we're
gonna lose electronics. But like it seems to me like
they just keep trying and trying to kill our economy.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Well, well, the first of all, let me say this one.
There's nothing that China manufactures now that we cannot overtime
manufacture here. Okay, that's number one. Okay, So everything that
China does, we know what they do. Everything that we
do we know they we know what they do. They
(15:11):
know what we do. So it's not as if they're
going to be producing medicine that we can't replicate. As
a matter of fact, in all likelihood many cases, they
have stolen the medical formulas which allow them to produce
the products at a cheaper price. Same way with automotive prods. Okay,
we've given up. We've got to bring all this stuff
(15:34):
back to America. Going to take time, might cost us
a little bit more money in the long run. But
when you look at this story out of Michigan where
people were trying from China to import to smuggle into
the country.
Speaker 5 (15:47):
Right, thank god, so many condoms?
Speaker 6 (15:49):
Did I mean?
Speaker 2 (15:51):
It's true?
Speaker 5 (15:51):
And don't they buy grain from us?
Speaker 2 (15:55):
Well, yeah, I assume they do. I don't know. I'm
not I'm an expert. I assume they did.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
I know.
Speaker 5 (16:03):
But is that are they trying to kill our agriculture
so they have another boggaining chip with trading with us?
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Well, here's the here's the point. I would like to
sit here and tell you that I know the answer
every question. You just answered, some really good questions that
I don't know the answer to. But I'll tell you
who should know the answer. The CIA should know that answer,
and the CIA should know what they're working on right now.
We spend billions of dollars UH for the FBI, for
(16:34):
the CIA and all of that, and I think that
we have to we have to rely you and I
can't figure this stuff out. It's as simple as that.
Speaker 5 (16:42):
But like Trump put a group call on it today
for you when he talked to him.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
Yet, yeah, I don't know what. I don't know what
what group call you're talking about there.
Speaker 5 (16:53):
Well, when he was talking about trade and everything, you
think you would have brought this situation up.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
Well again, he may have had a conversation and I
don't know. But all I'm just saying is we know
the story. We know that there were some people who
were who were from the Chinese government who apparently were
allowed to travel back and forth here. They were willing
to wipe out our agriculture. Scary stuff. We gotta we
(17:19):
have to we have to double, we gotta triple our
efforts or whatever. There's a big world out there that
doesn't like us, and we have to accept that. And
if that means some Porschemark from the Sudan or from
Somalia kan't get in here, I'm sorry. I really feel
badly about that. However, However, I don't want a suitcase
(17:39):
nuke being detonated in New York City. I don't want
an electric electro magnetic pulse being immigrant being detonated and
taking taking out our grid system. Yil, we we let
our guard down for four years. Okay, let's bring our
(18:02):
guard back up. It's as simple as that. If you,
you know, if you got a bully on your block,
when you walk by the bully, you're aware of who
the bully is. I'm not saying you want to punch
the bully, you know, just because he's a bully, But
you don't want to get sucker punched by the bully either.
And that's what our CIA and our FEI are supposed
to prevent.
Speaker 5 (18:20):
That's all right, right, I'm just a little concerned. Thank god,
we've caught these people with that from this.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
You know, couldn't agree with you more, couldn't agree with
you more, Joe. And I'm assuming that there are people
in positions in government who know a heck of a
lot more about this than you and I, Oh, that's
what excuse me. And I want to I want investigative
reporters who are going to spend some of their time
for the major networks looking into what did we know
and when did we know it? How did we come
(18:49):
so close? Did maybe maybe we track this thing all
the way? I come back to that spy balloon that
was it came across the country. Remember a year and
a half ago, uh balloon it was the government did
nothing about it. Yeah, so I'm hoping that Trump has
put in place people I don't want Trump putt in place.
(19:09):
We're going to just aggravate Harvard College and ignore what's
going on. What's coming at this this country out of China.
Get is mister president, gets your priorities straight.
Speaker 5 (19:19):
Yeah, we got sites to deal with the night.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
All right, man, talk soon, Okay, thanks you again. Appreciate
your call. Good call, Joe. We need more good calls.
Six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty six one seven, nine,
three one ten thirty and six to one and triple eight,
triple eight, nine two, nine, ten thirty. A couple of
questions one the travel band, Are you bothered by it?
(19:43):
Seems like nobody's bothered by it. I'm going to read
the the countries here very quickly that that are being banned.
Afghanistan I don't have a problem with that. Chad, Republic
of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea used to be part of Ethiopia, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Miamar, Somalia, Sudan,
(20:04):
and Yemen. I got a problem with Haiti, to be
honest with you, I mean that's in our hemisphere. I
think we have a pretty good idea who the Haitian
people are. I get a problem with that. And then
partial restrictions will apply to citizens of other countries, meaning
they cannot come to the country permanently or apply for
certain visas Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra le Leone and Togo.
(20:28):
I don't have a problem with that. Oh, there's a
couple more here, Turkmenistan, I know where that is. And Venezuela.
It's okay, that's fine. The one problem I got a
problem with is Haiti. Now, Haiti is a horrific country
right now. It's it's the wild, wild West. They have
no government down there. But there's a lot of people
(20:51):
from Haiti in this country who I know and who
I respect. Six one, seven, two, five four ten thirty
six one seven nine three it's eleven thirty. I'd love
to hear from you. We've talked about this. I think
it's important. If you want to defend Donald Trump, have it.
If you want to criticize him, have it. This is
a show. All points of view are welcome. This is
(21:12):
North America's back porch on a very warm early June
New England night. Coming back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
It's night Side with Dan Ray on w Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
Brokay, let's back to the phones. Jump on board, folks,
don't be shy, John and Boston John next on Nightside.
Speaker 6 (21:35):
Thanks Dan, you know call it before you had mentioned
Pearl Harbor and there was a relation to nine to
eleven a few callers back. And it's interesting because now
Harbor is allowing students to come in their training some
of our ston as be a trained by our best
and brightest and areas of science, biological math, computer science,
(21:58):
you know, potentially Ian pea bombs. And it's is because
back in nineteen nineteen, Yamamoto was the architect of pro
Hobbit and he went to Hobbard and he learned the
American culture and the ways, you know, the philosophy of
the American people on American side, and he developed the
plan for prohibits. So my concern is that these students
(22:20):
are come in here are enemies. Why are we training
students from the countries that are our enemies and techniques
and training them techniques of the intellect, of philosophy, of
weapons of science, and they can be used against us.
That's the danger there. And I was just looking up
one point four percent at one point four to six
(22:42):
percent of this base on Hobbard Crimson July thirteenth, twenty
twenty two. Won't only one point four percent four to
six percent.
Speaker 4 (22:51):
Of the professors there.
Speaker 6 (22:52):
Identify as conservatives. Eighty percent are identify as liberal. So
our government is funding money to this college and it's
basically sporting a liberal ideology. That's the concern.
Speaker 2 (23:05):
Okay, well, okay, let me try to let me try
to unpack a little bit of that. Okay. First of all,
I'm in agreement with you, Okay, Harvard and a lot
of the academic institutions in this country have a proliferation
of professors who have one point of view politically. Okay, fine,
(23:28):
I think it is very reasonable not only for you
and me to talk about that, but also for alumni
of Harvard and these other schools to make their thoughts felt. So,
if you happen to be a graduate of Harvard, an
alumnus of Harvard, and they're looking for money from you,
(23:49):
you have to make a decision, in my opinion, as
to whether or not you want to support them financially.
And it's only in that way that I think pressure
can be brought to beer on Harvard to have a
more diversified, philosophically inclined faculty. I don't think it's the
role of the government to say you got to be
(24:11):
fifty to fifty conservative or liberal, or you got to
have twenty five percent progressives and twenty percent liberals and
forty three point two percent conservatives. I just don't think
it's the role of government to do that. John.
Speaker 6 (24:25):
But I'm just saying, Dan, the government's spinning sitting billions
is off the Harvard and they're training Communist Chinese. Are
students that are from COMMISCE China. You have to assume
a certain set of them are working for the Communists
CUP mostly possibly all of them.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
I think I think you can make that assumption. And
if you want to focus down on that and you
want to call that out, I'm with you. One thousand percent.
But to say to Harvard University you no longer can
accept foreign students or international students, or students who are
non US born or whatever. I don't think that's the
(25:02):
role of government. Maybe there are people out there who
agree with me. Maybe there are people who disagree with me.
That's my thought. I think that, Look, you have some
very bright people in government who should be on the
phone with the president of Harvard. I read the letter,
I read the correspondence from Harvard. They have admitted to
(25:24):
this bias. They have said they were going to address it.
I'd like to give them a chance to do the
right thing. That's all. I'm not happy that it's government
that's forcing them to do this. But I think there
comes a point in time where the American public are
going to say to Donald Trump, you got bigger fish
to fry than who Harvard accepts and doesn't accepts as
(25:48):
graduate students. That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 6 (25:51):
Oh did I just I just think in terms of imagine,
if they did stop yamamotos so kind of it pro
Hobbit may not have. Imagine if they stopped bust the
marathon bomb who went to do Imagine if they thought
that Boston.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
The Boston Barnment went to the University of Massachusetts at Dotmouth.
That's not Dartmouth. Dartmouth is up.
Speaker 6 (26:13):
I mean, you massive do. I'm sorry, but that's my
point is the point is then the point is then
that I don't think we should be educating students that
are coming from countries that are potential enemies, especially in
terms of AI technology where.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
Okay, that's right, Okay, John, I'm not disinclined to what
you're saying, Okay, but I think you have to have
a more specific approach. If if if President Trump wanted
to say to Harvard, we have information through our c
i A and through our FBI that there are active
(26:53):
agents of the Communist Party of China who are being
admitted to your university, and we are going to you know,
ask you uh and if if it doesn't work, we're
going to go to court and try to prevent you,
or we're going to file an executive order. I'm okay
with that, But what he's saying is to Harvard, We're
going to tell you that twenty seven percent of your
(27:15):
students who you currently have admitted, you cannot you cannot
readmit those students. You have to you know, you kind
of you can't. I don't know how else to say it, John,
I'm just saying, if it's a question of overreach, if
YO momentto didn't go to Harvard, there still would have
been at Pearl Harbor, John, trust me.
Speaker 6 (27:34):
Well, all I know is Hobbard restricts a certain amount
of Asian students stamp because and their merit merit base,
they restrict a certain amount. So Hobard puts up its
own restrictions. So what can I say. I mean, I'm
just concerned for that right.
Speaker 2 (27:51):
Now's position on that, and I have talked with the
Harvard mentions people about that, is that simply they could
admit amongst they get about forty thousand people that apply
every year and they have a class of sixteen hundred. Okay,
so they have told me, in no uncertain terms that
(28:12):
they could admit five freshman classes, all of which would
be totally qualified. But what Harvard has talked about, and
the other selective IVY League schools they've talked about, is
that they want to have some ballet dancers, they want
to have some football players, they want to have soccer players,
they want to have musicians, and they put they put
(28:35):
together this class that again is representative. It's not going
to be precisely representative of every population group within America.
That's impossible to do that. You can't say, okay, Asian
American population in America is thirteen point four percent, therefore
(28:58):
we will only accept thirteen point four percent of Asian students.
You know, at the same time, if all of a sudden,
they have more Asian students than they can handle, and
there's there's so many Asian students with double eight hundreds,
but they don't bring anything else to the to the experience.
(29:18):
They don't play sports, they're not involved in music. They
just study, study, study, Harvard says. At some point, you know,
they they could fill the class with with sixteen hundred
brainy acts, get rid of the football team, get rid
of the basketball team, get rid of the hockey team.
And they don't want to do that, and they have
a right not to do that. Do you know what
I'm saying?
Speaker 6 (29:38):
Or no, oh, that's that's understandable. Then I'm not being unreasonable.
It's just a matter of I'm concerned for the safety
of the country.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
I am. And if you want to say keep keep
the Communist Party member members from from being accepted at Harvard,
assuming that the the CIA and the FBI can identify
that this kid is a CCP member or his family
is high up in the UH, in the UH, the
the government administration. I'm okay with that.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
Jay.
Speaker 6 (30:09):
Let me ask you why is Harvard as a petri
dish right now of support for hamas you see the
students wearing the kadiva hats, Kadiva hats at yasa arafat
war and he was trained by Autoskoos opened opened.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
Up, John, You've opened up at the nine minute mark
here of a conversation. Let's save that conversation for the
next one. We could go another ten minutes on this.
I got other course I gotta get to. I think
I think that that a lot of college kids are idealistic.
I don't think that all of those kids worrying that
kadifa u scarfs are virulent antisemitis. Some of them are,
(30:43):
but I think some of them are just kind of
going along with it. Uh. And you know, again, let's
let's let's not lose our heads on this. And I'm
afraid that Donald Trump is going to lose his political
capital That's my whole premise tonight that the more he
hammers Harvard and the more he focuses on Harvard and
the Ukraine situation is not resolved, Iran gets a nuke,
(31:04):
Middle East piece falls apart, uh, the border becomes porous again.
Those are the things he's got to focus on. That's
all I'm saying, nothing more, nothing less.
Speaker 6 (31:14):
Well, anyway, thank you, Dan. I just think Havi has
become a petri dish of Hamas and socialism, and the
records speak for themselves.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
Okay, fair enough, Thanks John, John, We've done ten minutes. John,
You've gotten ten minutes tonight. Okay. I really appreciate your calls.
It was a thoughtful call, but I got a break
for a commercial, and I got a couple of more
callers who want to get to Thanks John, I have
a great night. Okay. You know, I wish more of
you had the guts as John does to call and
(31:43):
express yourself. And if you're sitting back there tonight saying whoa,
you know, John's on too long and John's on too
long because I got a couple of open lines, and
I know what's gonna happen. These lines are going to
full gonna fill at like at eleven fifty four, not
gonna do me much good six one seved in two,
five four, ten thirty six, seven, nine, three thirty. We'll
(32:03):
be back right after this.
Speaker 1 (32:05):
You're on Night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (32:11):
Let's keep rolling here. You're going to go to Christine
and debt andim Christine, your thoughts go right ahead.
Speaker 7 (32:16):
It's nerve wracking, what's going on. It's scary, Yes, it is,
it is.
Speaker 6 (32:23):
It is.
Speaker 7 (32:23):
I mean, what about like the works like you said, hey,
like Haiti and everything you like. They come out here,
they want to work, like the nurses and everybody. And
what about the economy and and I'm afraid, like what's coming?
That could something could happen?
Speaker 2 (32:39):
Oh oh, I think we're in the cross heres again
and I think that that something bad can happen. But
again we have we have two strains of thought in
this country. We have people like you and me who
were fearful, uh, and then you have people who I
think are fairly idealistic, and their attitude is what what
it's there to worry about? And and when when it
(33:01):
comes and something bad happens, they're the same people will
be saying, well, the United States has been very difficult
for people to deal with. We drop the atomic bomb,
what do we expect. Yeah, they'll make excuses.
Speaker 7 (33:16):
And that Juan holiday is coming to that's another nerve wrocking.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
I wouldn't worry about that. That's that's a that's an
American holiday. It's new on the calendar, but it celebrates
the end of slavery. Yeah, I wouldn't worry about that.
I would be more worried about the fourth of July
because if someone wants to.
Speaker 7 (33:32):
Make a statement right exactly.
Speaker 2 (33:36):
The other thing is, I don't know how how President
Trump can negotiate with j Z Ping over tariffs and
think that they'll be honest with us as tariffs if
they have members of the CCP trying to bring you know,
fungus into the country which would spread through our agriculture
and kill Americans.
Speaker 7 (33:56):
Oh god, thank god that they they shut that down.
Speaker 2 (34:02):
I'm with you totally. Okay, thank you much, say you too, Okay,
all right, all K, good night, thanks for coming. Let
me go to my friend GEO in Boston. Geo next
on nights, I.
Speaker 8 (34:19):
Go ahead, John is neurotically delusional, and we don't attack.
Speaker 2 (34:26):
Other other calls. I'm going to protect you if anybody attached.
Speaker 8 (34:29):
You, I'm not I'm discussing a behavior, not the person.
Speaker 6 (34:33):
John.
Speaker 2 (34:34):
Don't use his name. Don't use his name, is all
I would say, go ahead.
Speaker 8 (34:37):
He's misinformed. So in nineteen seventy eight I had met
Bennie Netanyahu, who went by the name Benjamin Netti, and
he was at the Sloan School at MIT, MIT and
Harvard with my clients. Doctor Corey was in the chemistry
department down the hall working for the CIA, was the
guy who invented LSD. Across the street was the office
(35:00):
Henry Kissinger. Benjamin Netanyahu and I went in to see
Henry Kissinger, who knew Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney was recruiting
Benjamin Netanyahu. Kissinger went to China with Nixon. Kissinger advocated
for bringing all the sons of the oligarchs in nineteen
(35:22):
seventy eight to Harvard so he could teach them political science, economics, history,
and capitalism. China is on the verge of becoming They
have a capitalist banking system. Now there's an American bank
in the special economic zones, which have a government shared
between our oligarchs. Secretly and the sons of the oligarchs.
(35:45):
Secretly on the shore side of Hong Kong is Shenzhen.
It used to be called Kowloon. I went there in
nineteen eighty for a week, and we are in with
China in order to get them as part of our
capitalist system. The bad things, Okay, let me slow you down, George.
Speaker 3 (36:10):
Let me.
Speaker 8 (36:12):
The bad things coming from China are coming from people
who work outside of the special economic zones. They tell
the Chinese government they're running a dry cleaner, but they're
making sentinel. Those people are Americans. Americans are sending the
stuff to us in container.
Speaker 2 (36:33):
Well, George, George, you're going off on me here, and
my question is this. Okay, you're telling me that what
you just said. If I'm incorrect that I misheard you,
tell me. You're telling me that the fentanyl that is
being produced in China is being produced by Americans who
are running dry cleaning plants in China.
Speaker 8 (36:55):
Uh, the fentanyl is made out of annal and.
Speaker 2 (36:58):
That's exactly what you told me. So if I've misheard you,
please correct me. You're telling me, George, George, let me
let me understand what you're saying. George. You're just going on.
Speaker 8 (37:09):
Hold on, I'll explain it if you stop talking over me.
Speaker 2 (37:13):
Do you know what, George, We're getting real close here,
and I don't want to do this to you. You
made a statement that I believe I heard, and that
statement stunned me. And that statement that I believe I
heard was that fental is not being produced by China
or by Chinese people, but it's being produced by Americans
(37:34):
who are running dry cleaning operations in China. Is that
not what you said?
Speaker 8 (37:39):
Last three years? A great number of Americans in the
last three years have closed their businesses in China, walked away,
and are buying houses McMansions along the Massachusetts coast.
Speaker 2 (37:53):
These Americans, you're telling.
Speaker 8 (37:55):
Me, they went there as Americans twenty years.
Speaker 2 (37:59):
So well, if you go there, who is it an
American and you come back, you're in America. Okay. So
you're telling me that the Chinese government, you know, China's
China is a is a dictatorship. Nothing goes on in
China that the government of China doesn't want to go on.
I know a lot about China too, by the way, Okay.
Speaker 8 (38:18):
China is very repressed, with far more morality. We don't
have any morality, anything goes so the Chinese government that
you describe is actually a hampering. What happens is.
Speaker 2 (38:32):
Who wha wha wha. We'll finish the sentence. What are
they hampering? Jill?
Speaker 8 (38:38):
The Chinese government goes to the dry cleaner and they say,
we've noticed you. What do you do with dry cleaning? Well,
you're going to have to move upstairs because we want
the first floor in this building for commercial space and
you're leasing it from an entity which does business with
the government. So the guide decides, okay, I'll move up stairs.
(39:00):
Two weeks later, the government comes back and says, you're
going to have to find another place. This is a
story told okay an American returning in a hotel bar.
Speaker 2 (39:10):
Yeah, okay, Geo Gio, you have taken me off and
to Never Never Land, as you often do. But I'm
glad you called. And I just think that if you
think that anything goes on in China without the approval
or indeed the participation of the government of China, tell
me what you're saying.
Speaker 8 (39:31):
I believe that exactly. I agree with you one hundred
Well now.
Speaker 2 (39:35):
That's good, No, that's good, And so all the fentanyl
that's coming into this country, which is being produced in China,
being shipped to Mexico and being put into pillform in Mexico.
And by the way, you're going to see fentanyl deaths
drop in the next year because we have secured the
southern border. Trump has secured the southern border, so I'm
flat up against him before we go. Well, no, here's
(39:58):
the problem, GEO. Look at your clock. I have twenty
seconds left in my show. I have no more time.
Call earlier and I can give you more time, but
I've a run out of time tonight, and we'll talk again.
Thanks Gill. I'm done for the night. Everybody. I want
to thank Shane, want to thank Rob. Want to remind
you all dogs all cout so pets go to heaven.
(40:18):
That's why Pal Charlie Rays who passed fifteen years ago,
that's where all your pets are our past. They loved
you and you loved them. I do believe you'll see
them again. It was a crazy night, folks. I'm not
happy about the quality of the callers tonight. I'm not
sure if I'm going to do a post game. That's
my comment for the night. I'll see Tom Moore
I'm telling you easy Boston's video.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
We comeback to the pacers. We're talking about all of
the battles that the Trump administration is involved in, including
including the very personal fight now between Donald Trump and
his former bff Elon Musk. As I talked about last night.
(00:28):
This bromance seems to have ended rather abruptly. We'll talk
about that. We'll also talk about Donald Trump's reimposition of
his travel band, which I think will likely be upheld,
in my opinion, by this Supreme Court. But we're also
talking with our friend Will from Long Island, and Will,
(00:51):
you're making the point that there could come a time
where Donald Trump defies a court all in an effort
to reassert the primacy of the executive branch over the
judicial branch. Is that the theory that that you're basically espousing.
(01:15):
Let me get Will bumped up here, Guys, I'm miss
bringing them up. My mistake. Will. I hope you heard
my question.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
Yeah, I did. I think that a lot of legal
scholars have argued that the idea of the of judicial
review and that the judicial branch has the power to
invalidate laws is an overreach of.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
The Okay, I understand the argument. I understand the argument. Again,
I'm not looking for a presentation here, but I have
a couple of questions today. For the first time, the
Trump administ administration has returned a wrongfully deported migrant back
(01:56):
to the US. You familiar with that case.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
I did see some of that case, yes, okay.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
So my point is that I want you address that case.
My point is that the Trump administration I do not
believe is going to bring the guy back from Maryland
because I feel to Maryland, because I think they feel
he is actually somebody who was involved in trafficking. However,
in this particular case, it's a more sympathetic case. The
Trump administration apparently complied with the court order. So I
(02:28):
think that the Trump administration, when faced with a court
order for which they do not have a successful ground
for appeal, or they do not believe they have a
successful ground for appeal, I think that they're inclined to comply.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
I think they're inclined to comply when they seem to
be wrong. Right, So, in Maryland, if there's a court
order to return this guy, and there was kind of
when he was on his way down, and then they
covered it up with well, he was already on the plane,
within't know and blah blah blah. In that case, even
a court order, I think they would say boom.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
We'll say, well, we will see. In this case they
admit they made a mistake. All I'm just saying is
that let's not get ahead of ourselves here. I think
the concept of judicial review is soundly grounded in precedent.
And I don't want to get wonky here. Okay, soundly
grounded in precedent. The case Marmie versus Madison that you mentioned,
(03:31):
the result of the case is not what most people believe.
It's a complicated case dealing with something that went on
in the early nineteenth century. No sense of us going
into it in a detail or I'll totally loose my
audience here. But I think the point you're making is
an interesting one, and that is, could we come to
a real crisis where the President of the United States
(03:53):
defies a court order from the US Supreme Court. I
think that's really high stakes poker.
Speaker 3 (04:00):
I think over the course of the next three and
a half years, you can see a situation where the
president may defy not just any court order, but possibly
all the way up to a Supreme Court order. I
just believe that the Supreme Court or the President usually
they find a graceful way to get out of each
(04:21):
other's way because they're not looking to create a constitutional say.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
I understand that. And what I'm saying is if Donald Trump, I.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
Don't think that this case would be the one that
when you're enough, I don't.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Want to get into the weeds. I'm trying to stay
out of the weeds. Will Okay, what I'm trying to say,
I'm trying to get to the bottom line. If Donald
Trump were to defy a US Supreme Court order from
this Supreme Court, the John Roberts Supreme Court, which has
six Republican appointees only three Democratic appointees, I think he
(04:55):
would be digging himself, Yes, precisely, but six of them
are Republican. I think he would be digging himself an
impeachment hole from which he might not escape. That's all
I'm saying. I don't want to argue the theory any
longer than that because I don't want to get there.
Maybe we will, and when we will, we will sort
(05:17):
it out.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
Okay, But right I'm just saying, if I've ever seen
an opportunity that it could arise in my lifetime with
a president or a scenario meaning immigration and all the
especially with the lower courts in their rulings. We're at
the precipice of a possible of a situation like that
that I've never seen. I've been alive for fifty years.
(05:37):
That's the only point I'm trying to right.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
I don't think here. I don't think we're close to
a precipice. I think we have a president who would
be inclined to roll that dice. But it would. But
I think when when push comes to shove, there's a lot.
Speaker 3 (05:56):
I think Maryland a Braya Garcia, if you got a
quart order on that, I think he'd be willing to
stake his presidency on that one. That guy's never coming back.
I don't think.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
I don't think he's coming back. Either. But but if
if all of a sudden, John Thune took a walk
up to the to the White House and said, on
this one, you don't have thirty four votes. If you
want to defy it, good luck, that's all.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
It would be a third impeachment. I guess it would
be a third impeachment, right, Well, they.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Would be that they would be that that would be
a removal if you don't have thirty four votes, you
need you have to have thirty four votes to avoid
a removement. Okay, that's the that's the math. That's the math.
We will talk about this again, my friend. Okay, thanks, Thanks,
will talk soon. All right, thanks, All right, let me
go to Will. Will. I don't rather Warren. As soon
as we're gonna leave, Will, you're gonna go to Warren. Warren.
(06:44):
I don't want you to wait any longer. You've been
very patient. Your thoughts on what's going on, go right ahead.
Speaker 4 (06:49):
Oh yeah, yeah, I was listening to all this, and
I just think that what Trump is doing, you know,
using the court, going everything through the courts, is just
the wrong way to lead. I mean, he should be
he should be focusing on things that would unite the
country rather than dividing, you know, like he's you know,
(07:12):
I mean, yeah, it's you know, closing the border. Most
people agree with that, yep, you know, getting rid of
the bad guys. Most people agree with that. But all
this other side stuff with like Harvard and you know,
this fight with Bruce Springsteen and all this other stuff,
(07:33):
and you know, all these other things that he's went
to the court constantly with. It is just a bad
work for the United States.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
Yeah, and it's also a dangerous game he's playing. You know,
the last president who really fought the Supreme Court and
successfully was Franklin Roosevelt. But Roosevelt had built up a
well of support, public support. He had been elected in
thirty two, re elected in thirty six overwhelmingly, and he
(08:03):
took the court on at a time when we were
coming out of the depression heading to World War two.
And uh, he tried to pack the court. He was
so upset with the Supreme Court. He tried to pack
the court.
Speaker 4 (08:15):
But yeah, but he has a six three advantage in
in the court. And it's sort of like, you know, like,
you know, like what he did with Canada is like
Canada is a like a best friend in the world,
and he's basically you know kind of you know, you know,
kind of punching them.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
It's like, yeah, I mean, it's it's it's it's unnecessary
and it's not as.
Speaker 4 (08:40):
If he doesn't have And I would rather, I would
rather him focus on the things that you know, that
would help the country then rather than you know, pick
these topics I would rather.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Have him focused on. I would rather have him focus
on the things that are important, because if he takes
a position on well, let's say immigration, I think he
has won that argument. And I think that people realize
that the Biden administration was the disaster in terms of
immigration and we need we need strong borders. I think
(09:19):
he's one that hard And.
Speaker 4 (09:20):
I mean, I mean, I mean it just I mean,
I'm just gonna make this this statement, and it just
amazes me that government is supposed that is supposed to
have the smartest people in the world.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
Who ever told you that?
Speaker 4 (09:39):
But they couldn't. But they but they couldn't find their
their way out of the trash bag.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Whoever told you that that government has the smartest people
in the world.
Speaker 4 (09:48):
They were they're supposed to supposed to me, you know,
the like they're like, they're supposed to have like these
economists that you know that have went to Harvard and
went to all these prestigious schools, and you know, and
the best of the best of the best of the
best is supposed to be in government. And but yeah,
(10:10):
they can't. But they but they couldn't run a lemonade
stand without without messing it up.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
All I'm just saying is, don't buy into that there
are there are people in government who are great, and
there are people in government who shouldn't be in government.
Speaker 4 (10:26):
And it's the reason why people, you know, more and
more don't trust anything that government does.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
All right, sure on that point of agreement. Let you go,
all right, thanks, thanks six thirty. Well, we got a
whole bunch of open lines. The lines have been just
burning up tonight, which is what I'd like to see.
So the question, let me reset here and rephrase. We're
talking about, amongst other things, this this breakup, and despite
(10:57):
Tom from Dorchester's analysis, I think it's a real breakup
between Donald Trump and Elon Musk, and I think it
may get nastier before it gets better. That's number one.
Number two. We're talking about this travel ban, and this
travel ban, which I think is in many cases, many cases,
(11:19):
a justifiable travel ban, and I think that there are
countries from around the world that want to do us harm,
and I think whether we like it or not, and
if you want to talk about the countries on the list,
we can do that as well. And then also what
I consider to be President Trump's don quixote sort of
(11:40):
battle against Harvard University. I think it's not the role
of the president to dictate to Harvard, or to any
school who they will admit or not admit. I think
that they can get involved in a number of issues
dealing with what goes on on campus. But I would
leave it to my Education secretary, and I would leave
(12:02):
it to my attorney general. I don't think Donald Trump
helps himself by finding himself battling with Harvard over whether
or not they should allow any international students or foreign
students to be admitted. That's a decision for Harvard, not
for there, not for the White House. That's my position.
(12:24):
You can agree with any or all of those positions.
All you got to do is dial the phone. I'm
going to ask you to light it up right now.
Six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty, six one seven, nine,
three thirty. We've got a very quick break coming back
with Joe and Revere and hopefully your call. If you
have never called the show before, let to know what
you think. This is a This is what we call
North America's back porch. Now it's hot enough out there
(12:47):
tonight to be on the back porch. It's not always
hot enough for the winter, be in the back porch.
But you're just walking down the street. You're hearing some
neighbors and friends discuss, and you want to get up
and you want to say what you want to say.
That's what this show is all about. We've done it
do this way for almost eighteen years. We'll do it
until the day the show ends that way. All points
of view are welcome. All I'm looking for is a
(13:09):
conversation coming back on night Side.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
It's night Side with Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
Back we go. I got Joe in revered Joe, Welcome,
You're next on Nightside.
Speaker 5 (13:23):
Great hits her, Jane, thank you so little concerns here?
Uh you know obviously COVID everybody can pretty much say.
Now was sent to us by China.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Joe, Joe, do me a favor, will you? I know
you're on a cell phone. Would you talk into the
into the mouthpiece of the cell phone so everybody can
hear you a little more clearly?
Speaker 5 (13:47):
Can you hear me a little better?
Speaker 2 (13:49):
Much better? What what type of phone are you on?
Speaker 4 (13:52):
Oh?
Speaker 5 (13:52):
Oh god, Dan, I got to get rid of it.
Don't buy them anyways.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
But again, do me a favorite if you take the
mouth okay on your phone and you move it away,
you don't hear me that. Well, if you speak into
the mouthpiece whatever your phone is, we will hear you
the best. So just try to do that. So I
can't understand what you say.
Speaker 5 (14:11):
Go ahead, yes, yes, sir. So I'm a little concerned.
Now top top doch ba whoever caught these people trying
to bring up fungus in to kill our agriculture? I
know we need to trade with China, But at the
same point, at what time between COVID this going on,
(14:32):
then we're gonna try to mass produce this inn. I mean,
at what point are we gonna just shut this country off?
Speaker 6 (14:39):
Right?
Speaker 5 (14:39):
We're gonna lose prescriptions, we're gonna lose auto parts, we're
gonna lose electronics. But like it seems to me like
they just keep trying and trying to kill our economy.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Well, well, the first of all, let me say this one.
There's nothing that China manufactures now that we cannot overtime
manufacture here. Okay, that's number one. Okay, So everything that
China does, we know what they do. Everything that we
do we know they we know what they do. They
(15:11):
know what we do. So it's not as if they're
going to be producing medicine that we can't replicate. As
a matter of fact, in all likelihood many cases, they
have stolen the medical formulas which allow them to produce
the products at a cheaper price. Same way with automotive prods. Okay,
we've given up. We've got to bring all this stuff
(15:34):
back to America. Going to take time, might cost us
a little bit more money in the long run. But
when you look at this story out of Michigan where
people were trying from China to import to smuggle into
the country.
Speaker 5 (15:47):
Right, thank god, so many condoms?
Speaker 6 (15:49):
Did I mean?
Speaker 2 (15:51):
It's true?
Speaker 5 (15:51):
And don't they buy grain from us?
Speaker 2 (15:55):
Well, yeah, I assume they do. I don't know. I'm
not I'm an expert. I assume they did.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
I know.
Speaker 5 (16:03):
But is that are they trying to kill our agriculture
so they have another boggaining chip with trading with us?
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Well, here's the here's the point. I would like to
sit here and tell you that I know the answer
every question. You just answered, some really good questions that
I don't know the answer to. But I'll tell you
who should know the answer. The CIA should know that answer,
and the CIA should know what they're working on right now.
We spend billions of dollars UH for the FBI, for
(16:34):
the CIA and all of that, and I think that
we have to we have to rely you and I
can't figure this stuff out. It's as simple as that.
Speaker 5 (16:42):
But like Trump put a group call on it today
for you when he talked to him.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
Yet, yeah, I don't know what. I don't know what
what group call you're talking about there.
Speaker 5 (16:53):
Well, when he was talking about trade and everything, you
think you would have brought this situation up.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
Well again, he may have had a conversation and I
don't know. But all I'm just saying is we know
the story. We know that there were some people who
were who were from the Chinese government who apparently were
allowed to travel back and forth here. They were willing
to wipe out our agriculture. Scary stuff. We gotta we
(17:19):
have to we have to double, we gotta triple our
efforts or whatever. There's a big world out there that
doesn't like us, and we have to accept that. And
if that means some Porschemark from the Sudan or from
Somalia kan't get in here, I'm sorry. I really feel
badly about that. However, However, I don't want a suitcase
(17:39):
nuke being detonated in New York City. I don't want
an electric electro magnetic pulse being immigrant being detonated and
taking taking out our grid system. Yil, we we let
our guard down for four years. Okay, let's bring our
(18:02):
guard back up. It's as simple as that. If you,
you know, if you got a bully on your block,
when you walk by the bully, you're aware of who
the bully is. I'm not saying you want to punch
the bully, you know, just because he's a bully, But
you don't want to get sucker punched by the bully either.
And that's what our CIA and our FEI are supposed
to prevent.
Speaker 5 (18:20):
That's all right, right, I'm just a little concerned. Thank god,
we've caught these people with that from this.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
You know, couldn't agree with you more, couldn't agree with
you more, Joe. And I'm assuming that there are people
in positions in government who know a heck of a
lot more about this than you and I, Oh, that's
what excuse me. And I want to I want investigative
reporters who are going to spend some of their time
for the major networks looking into what did we know
and when did we know it? How did we come
(18:49):
so close? Did maybe maybe we track this thing all
the way? I come back to that spy balloon that
was it came across the country. Remember a year and
a half ago, uh balloon it was the government did
nothing about it. Yeah, so I'm hoping that Trump has
put in place people I don't want Trump putt in place.
(19:09):
We're going to just aggravate Harvard College and ignore what's
going on. What's coming at this this country out of China.
Get is mister president, gets your priorities straight.
Speaker 5 (19:19):
Yeah, we got sites to deal with the night.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
All right, man, talk soon, Okay, thanks you again. Appreciate
your call. Good call, Joe. We need more good calls.
Six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty six one seven, nine,
three one ten thirty and six to one and triple eight,
triple eight, nine two, nine, ten thirty. A couple of
questions one the travel band, Are you bothered by it?
(19:43):
Seems like nobody's bothered by it. I'm going to read
the the countries here very quickly that that are being banned.
Afghanistan I don't have a problem with that. Chad, Republic
of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea used to be part of Ethiopia, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Miamar, Somalia, Sudan,
(20:04):
and Yemen. I got a problem with Haiti, to be
honest with you, I mean that's in our hemisphere. I
think we have a pretty good idea who the Haitian
people are. I get a problem with that. And then
partial restrictions will apply to citizens of other countries, meaning
they cannot come to the country permanently or apply for
certain visas Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra le Leone and Togo.
(20:28):
I don't have a problem with that. Oh, there's a
couple more here, Turkmenistan, I know where that is. And Venezuela.
It's okay, that's fine. The one problem I got a
problem with is Haiti. Now, Haiti is a horrific country
right now. It's it's the wild, wild West. They have
no government down there. But there's a lot of people
(20:51):
from Haiti in this country who I know and who
I respect. Six one, seven, two, five four ten thirty
six one seven nine three it's eleven thirty. I'd love
to hear from you. We've talked about this. I think
it's important. If you want to defend Donald Trump, have it.
If you want to criticize him, have it. This is
a show. All points of view are welcome. This is
(21:12):
North America's back porch on a very warm early June
New England night. Coming back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
It's night Side with Dan Ray on w Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
Brokay, let's back to the phones. Jump on board, folks,
don't be shy, John and Boston John next on Nightside.
Speaker 6 (21:35):
Thanks Dan, you know call it before you had mentioned
Pearl Harbor and there was a relation to nine to
eleven a few callers back. And it's interesting because now
Harbor is allowing students to come in their training some
of our ston as be a trained by our best
and brightest and areas of science, biological math, computer science,
(21:58):
you know, potentially Ian pea bombs. And it's is because
back in nineteen nineteen, Yamamoto was the architect of pro
Hobbit and he went to Hobbard and he learned the
American culture and the ways, you know, the philosophy of
the American people on American side, and he developed the
plan for prohibits. So my concern is that these students
(22:20):
are come in here are enemies. Why are we training
students from the countries that are our enemies and techniques
and training them techniques of the intellect, of philosophy, of
weapons of science, and they can be used against us.
That's the danger there. And I was just looking up
one point four percent at one point four to six
(22:42):
percent of this base on Hobbard Crimson July thirteenth, twenty
twenty two. Won't only one point four percent four to
six percent.
Speaker 4 (22:51):
Of the professors there.
Speaker 6 (22:52):
Identify as conservatives. Eighty percent are identify as liberal. So
our government is funding money to this college and it's
basically sporting a liberal ideology. That's the concern.
Speaker 2 (23:05):
Okay, well, okay, let me try to let me try
to unpack a little bit of that. Okay. First of all,
I'm in agreement with you, Okay, Harvard and a lot
of the academic institutions in this country have a proliferation
of professors who have one point of view politically. Okay, fine,
(23:28):
I think it is very reasonable not only for you
and me to talk about that, but also for alumni
of Harvard and these other schools to make their thoughts felt. So,
if you happen to be a graduate of Harvard, an
alumnus of Harvard, and they're looking for money from you,
(23:49):
you have to make a decision, in my opinion, as
to whether or not you want to support them financially.
And it's only in that way that I think pressure
can be brought to beer on Harvard to have a
more diversified, philosophically inclined faculty. I don't think it's the
role of the government to say you got to be
(24:11):
fifty to fifty conservative or liberal, or you got to
have twenty five percent progressives and twenty percent liberals and
forty three point two percent conservatives. I just don't think
it's the role of government to do that. John.
Speaker 6 (24:25):
But I'm just saying, Dan, the government's spinning sitting billions
is off the Harvard and they're training Communist Chinese. Are
students that are from COMMISCE China. You have to assume
a certain set of them are working for the Communists
CUP mostly possibly all of them.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
I think I think you can make that assumption. And
if you want to focus down on that and you
want to call that out, I'm with you. One thousand percent.
But to say to Harvard University you no longer can
accept foreign students or international students, or students who are
non US born or whatever. I don't think that's the
(25:02):
role of government. Maybe there are people out there who
agree with me. Maybe there are people who disagree with me.
That's my thought. I think that, Look, you have some
very bright people in government who should be on the
phone with the president of Harvard. I read the letter,
I read the correspondence from Harvard. They have admitted to
(25:24):
this bias. They have said they were going to address it.
I'd like to give them a chance to do the
right thing. That's all. I'm not happy that it's government
that's forcing them to do this. But I think there
comes a point in time where the American public are
going to say to Donald Trump, you got bigger fish
to fry than who Harvard accepts and doesn't accepts as
(25:48):
graduate students. That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 6 (25:51):
Oh did I just I just think in terms of imagine,
if they did stop yamamotos so kind of it pro
Hobbit may not have. Imagine if they stopped bust the
marathon bomb who went to do Imagine if they thought
that Boston.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
The Boston Barnment went to the University of Massachusetts at Dotmouth.
That's not Dartmouth. Dartmouth is up.
Speaker 6 (26:13):
I mean, you massive do. I'm sorry, but that's my
point is the point is then the point is then
that I don't think we should be educating students that
are coming from countries that are potential enemies, especially in
terms of AI technology where.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
Okay, that's right, Okay, John, I'm not disinclined to what
you're saying, Okay, but I think you have to have
a more specific approach. If if if President Trump wanted
to say to Harvard, we have information through our c
i A and through our FBI that there are active
(26:53):
agents of the Communist Party of China who are being
admitted to your university, and we are going to you know,
ask you uh and if if it doesn't work, we're
going to go to court and try to prevent you,
or we're going to file an executive order. I'm okay
with that, But what he's saying is to Harvard, We're
going to tell you that twenty seven percent of your
(27:15):
students who you currently have admitted, you cannot you cannot
readmit those students. You have to you know, you kind
of you can't. I don't know how else to say it, John,
I'm just saying, if it's a question of overreach, if
YO momentto didn't go to Harvard, there still would have
been at Pearl Harbor, John, trust me.
Speaker 6 (27:34):
Well, all I know is Hobbard restricts a certain amount
of Asian students stamp because and their merit merit base,
they restrict a certain amount. So Hobard puts up its
own restrictions. So what can I say. I mean, I'm
just concerned for that right.
Speaker 2 (27:51):
Now's position on that, and I have talked with the
Harvard mentions people about that, is that simply they could
admit amongst they get about forty thousand people that apply
every year and they have a class of sixteen hundred. Okay,
so they have told me, in no uncertain terms that
(28:12):
they could admit five freshman classes, all of which would
be totally qualified. But what Harvard has talked about, and
the other selective IVY League schools they've talked about, is
that they want to have some ballet dancers, they want
to have some football players, they want to have soccer players,
they want to have musicians, and they put they put
(28:35):
together this class that again is representative. It's not going
to be precisely representative of every population group within America.
That's impossible to do that. You can't say, okay, Asian
American population in America is thirteen point four percent, therefore
(28:58):
we will only accept thirteen point four percent of Asian students.
You know, at the same time, if all of a sudden,
they have more Asian students than they can handle, and
there's there's so many Asian students with double eight hundreds,
but they don't bring anything else to the to the experience.
(29:18):
They don't play sports, they're not involved in music. They
just study, study, study, Harvard says. At some point, you know,
they they could fill the class with with sixteen hundred
brainy acts, get rid of the football team, get rid
of the basketball team, get rid of the hockey team.
And they don't want to do that, and they have
a right not to do that. Do you know what
I'm saying?
Speaker 6 (29:38):
Or no, oh, that's that's understandable. Then I'm not being unreasonable.
It's just a matter of I'm concerned for the safety
of the country.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
I am. And if you want to say keep keep
the Communist Party member members from from being accepted at Harvard,
assuming that the the CIA and the FBI can identify
that this kid is a CCP member or his family
is high up in the UH, in the UH, the
the government administration. I'm okay with that.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
Jay.
Speaker 6 (30:09):
Let me ask you why is Harvard as a petri
dish right now of support for hamas you see the
students wearing the kadiva hats, Kadiva hats at yasa arafat
war and he was trained by Autoskoos opened opened.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
Up, John, You've opened up at the nine minute mark
here of a conversation. Let's save that conversation for the
next one. We could go another ten minutes on this.
I got other course I gotta get to. I think
I think that that a lot of college kids are idealistic.
I don't think that all of those kids worrying that
kadifa u scarfs are virulent antisemitis. Some of them are,
(30:43):
but I think some of them are just kind of
going along with it. Uh. And you know, again, let's
let's let's not lose our heads on this. And I'm
afraid that Donald Trump is going to lose his political
capital That's my whole premise tonight that the more he
hammers Harvard and the more he focuses on Harvard and
the Ukraine situation is not resolved, Iran gets a nuke,
(31:04):
Middle East piece falls apart, uh, the border becomes porous again.
Those are the things he's got to focus on. That's
all I'm saying, nothing more, nothing less.
Speaker 6 (31:14):
Well, anyway, thank you, Dan. I just think Havi has
become a petri dish of Hamas and socialism, and the
records speak for themselves.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
Okay, fair enough, Thanks John, John, We've done ten minutes. John,
You've gotten ten minutes tonight. Okay. I really appreciate your calls.
It was a thoughtful call, but I got a break
for a commercial, and I got a couple of more
callers who want to get to Thanks John, I have
a great night. Okay. You know, I wish more of
you had the guts as John does to call and
(31:43):
express yourself. And if you're sitting back there tonight saying whoa,
you know, John's on too long and John's on too
long because I got a couple of open lines, and
I know what's gonna happen. These lines are going to
full gonna fill at like at eleven fifty four, not
gonna do me much good six one seved in two,
five four, ten thirty six, seven, nine, three thirty. We'll
(32:03):
be back right after this.
Speaker 1 (32:05):
You're on Night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (32:11):
Let's keep rolling here. You're going to go to Christine
and debt andim Christine, your thoughts go right ahead.
Speaker 7 (32:16):
It's nerve wracking, what's going on. It's scary, Yes, it is,
it is.
Speaker 6 (32:23):
It is.
Speaker 7 (32:23):
I mean, what about like the works like you said, hey,
like Haiti and everything you like. They come out here,
they want to work, like the nurses and everybody. And
what about the economy and and I'm afraid, like what's coming?
That could something could happen?
Speaker 2 (32:39):
Oh oh, I think we're in the cross heres again
and I think that that something bad can happen. But
again we have we have two strains of thought in
this country. We have people like you and me who
were fearful, uh, and then you have people who I
think are fairly idealistic, and their attitude is what what
it's there to worry about? And and when when it
(33:01):
comes and something bad happens, they're the same people will
be saying, well, the United States has been very difficult
for people to deal with. We drop the atomic bomb,
what do we expect. Yeah, they'll make excuses.
Speaker 7 (33:16):
And that Juan holiday is coming to that's another nerve wrocking.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
I wouldn't worry about that. That's that's a that's an
American holiday. It's new on the calendar, but it celebrates
the end of slavery. Yeah, I wouldn't worry about that.
I would be more worried about the fourth of July
because if someone wants to.
Speaker 7 (33:32):
Make a statement right exactly.
Speaker 2 (33:36):
The other thing is, I don't know how how President
Trump can negotiate with j Z Ping over tariffs and
think that they'll be honest with us as tariffs if
they have members of the CCP trying to bring you know,
fungus into the country which would spread through our agriculture
and kill Americans.
Speaker 7 (33:56):
Oh god, thank god that they they shut that down.
Speaker 2 (34:02):
I'm with you totally. Okay, thank you much, say you too, Okay,
all right, all K, good night, thanks for coming. Let
me go to my friend GEO in Boston. Geo next
on nights, I.
Speaker 8 (34:19):
Go ahead, John is neurotically delusional, and we don't attack.
Speaker 2 (34:26):
Other other calls. I'm going to protect you if anybody attached.
Speaker 8 (34:29):
You, I'm not I'm discussing a behavior, not the person.
Speaker 6 (34:33):
John.
Speaker 2 (34:34):
Don't use his name. Don't use his name, is all
I would say, go ahead.
Speaker 8 (34:37):
He's misinformed. So in nineteen seventy eight I had met
Bennie Netanyahu, who went by the name Benjamin Netti, and
he was at the Sloan School at MIT, MIT and
Harvard with my clients. Doctor Corey was in the chemistry
department down the hall working for the CIA, was the
guy who invented LSD. Across the street was the office
(35:00):
Henry Kissinger. Benjamin Netanyahu and I went in to see
Henry Kissinger, who knew Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney was recruiting
Benjamin Netanyahu. Kissinger went to China with Nixon. Kissinger advocated
for bringing all the sons of the oligarchs in nineteen
(35:22):
seventy eight to Harvard so he could teach them political science, economics, history,
and capitalism. China is on the verge of becoming They
have a capitalist banking system. Now there's an American bank
in the special economic zones, which have a government shared
between our oligarchs. Secretly and the sons of the oligarchs.
(35:45):
Secretly on the shore side of Hong Kong is Shenzhen.
It used to be called Kowloon. I went there in
nineteen eighty for a week, and we are in with
China in order to get them as part of our
capitalist system. The bad things, Okay, let me slow you down, George.
Speaker 3 (36:10):
Let me.
Speaker 8 (36:12):
The bad things coming from China are coming from people
who work outside of the special economic zones. They tell
the Chinese government they're running a dry cleaner, but they're
making sentinel. Those people are Americans. Americans are sending the
stuff to us in container.
Speaker 2 (36:33):
Well, George, George, you're going off on me here, and
my question is this. Okay, you're telling me that what
you just said. If I'm incorrect that I misheard you,
tell me. You're telling me that the fentanyl that is
being produced in China is being produced by Americans who
are running dry cleaning plants in China.
Speaker 8 (36:55):
Uh, the fentanyl is made out of annal and.
Speaker 2 (36:58):
That's exactly what you told me. So if I've misheard you,
please correct me. You're telling me, George, George, let me
let me understand what you're saying. George. You're just going on.
Speaker 8 (37:09):
Hold on, I'll explain it if you stop talking over me.
Speaker 2 (37:13):
Do you know what, George, We're getting real close here,
and I don't want to do this to you. You
made a statement that I believe I heard, and that
statement stunned me. And that statement that I believe I
heard was that fental is not being produced by China
or by Chinese people, but it's being produced by Americans
(37:34):
who are running dry cleaning operations in China. Is that
not what you said?
Speaker 8 (37:39):
Last three years? A great number of Americans in the
last three years have closed their businesses in China, walked away,
and are buying houses McMansions along the Massachusetts coast.
Speaker 2 (37:53):
These Americans, you're telling.
Speaker 8 (37:55):
Me, they went there as Americans twenty years.
Speaker 2 (37:59):
So well, if you go there, who is it an
American and you come back, you're in America. Okay. So
you're telling me that the Chinese government, you know, China's
China is a is a dictatorship. Nothing goes on in
China that the government of China doesn't want to go on.
I know a lot about China too, by the way, Okay.
Speaker 8 (38:18):
China is very repressed, with far more morality. We don't
have any morality, anything goes so the Chinese government that
you describe is actually a hampering. What happens is.
Speaker 2 (38:32):
Who wha wha wha. We'll finish the sentence. What are
they hampering? Jill?
Speaker 8 (38:38):
The Chinese government goes to the dry cleaner and they say,
we've noticed you. What do you do with dry cleaning? Well,
you're going to have to move upstairs because we want
the first floor in this building for commercial space and
you're leasing it from an entity which does business with
the government. So the guide decides, okay, I'll move up stairs.
(39:00):
Two weeks later, the government comes back and says, you're
going to have to find another place. This is a
story told okay an American returning in a hotel bar.
Speaker 2 (39:10):
Yeah, okay, Geo Gio, you have taken me off and
to Never Never Land, as you often do. But I'm
glad you called. And I just think that if you
think that anything goes on in China without the approval
or indeed the participation of the government of China, tell
me what you're saying.
Speaker 8 (39:31):
I believe that exactly. I agree with you one hundred
Well now.
Speaker 2 (39:35):
That's good, No, that's good, And so all the fentanyl
that's coming into this country, which is being produced in China,
being shipped to Mexico and being put into pillform in Mexico.
And by the way, you're going to see fentanyl deaths
drop in the next year because we have secured the
southern border. Trump has secured the southern border, so I'm
flat up against him before we go. Well, no, here's
(39:58):
the problem, GEO. Look at your clock. I have twenty
seconds left in my show. I have no more time.
Call earlier and I can give you more time, but
I've a run out of time tonight, and we'll talk again.
Thanks Gill. I'm done for the night. Everybody. I want
to thank Shane, want to thank Rob. Want to remind
you all dogs all cout so pets go to heaven.
(40:18):
That's why Pal Charlie Rays who passed fifteen years ago,
that's where all your pets are our past. They loved
you and you loved them. I do believe you'll see
them again. It was a crazy night, folks. I'm not
happy about the quality of the callers tonight. I'm not
sure if I'm going to do a post game. That's
my comment for the night. I'll see Tom Moore
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.