ng ready to raise their prices substantially because of tariffs. So if you're not well versed in economics, how can it be true that Walmart's going to raise its prices at the same time, which would be the signal for everybody else to do it really? At the same time that we've seen the biggest drop in five years. And the answer is there's a timing difference. So the tariff stuff hasn't really hit the economy yet and we don't know how big it will be. But nothing that has happened so far is predictive of what will happen over the summer. And the news is pretending it is. The news is pretending that because there's some kind of weird disconnect between the Trump tariff action and the fact that prices are actually going down. I think the news is trying to convince you that there won't be a connection because there hasn't been a connection so far. That is not true. There is a timing difference. We might see some further decreases in prices, but when the tariffs start kicking in over the summer, it's only going to go in one direction. Now, it could be that the Walmarts are the ones where the prices happen. Maybe we won't see it in some bigger areas like tech and stuff like that. Maybe. But don't be confused. If Walmart's getting ready to raise prices and they've announced it, prices are going up.

According to Politico, Joe Biden probably cost the Democrats the White House in 2024 through his feebleness and his insistence of being in the race anyway, but now they're thinking that he's going to completely hobble them in 2028. I'm going to push back on a little of this. So Politico's writing is from Adam Wren and Holly Otterbein. And I guess they're talking about the fact that the Democrats are still not coming clean about the fact that they were running a candidate who was mentally incompetent. And if they don't come clean on that and find some way to deal with it productively, it might hang over them all the way to 2028. I'm not so sure because 2028 is so far away that we're going to have a whole bunch of other things to think about. And I was watching the news yesterday and have you had this experience yet? It'll be a podcast or a news show and they're just saying the same thing about Biden over and over. Well, they should have known. Well, the Tapper book is really just trying to give the press some kind of out. Well, certainly the insiders knew. Why didn't the insiders tell us? And it's all the same. Now, I don't believe that the political right and their podcasters slash news people, I don't think they can keep telling that same freaking story for four more years, can they? Three more years. So even as powerful as that story is, I only kind of see it from the Republican side and then the Democrats are like, "Okay, you know, you got a pretty good point there." But I don't think it's got three years of legs. I think it'll be based on how Trump did for the next three years and based on how the economy does. I just don't know that that's got the legs to make a difference in 2028, but we'll see. At the moment, the books coming out are driving the headlines. And there will probably be some more books, and they will sort of all be the same. Oh, here's another insider who says that he noticed something was wrong with Biden. We know that. There's nothing new.

But Governor Whitmer was on CNN. So here's another example. So even CNN is trying to get people to admit that they knew. But CNN is doing the trick where if they can get you to think that the problem was the Biden insiders were lying, then you won't notice that CNN didn't somehow pick up on the fact that you could tell just by looking at Biden in public. Fox News knew it. How did Fox News know that Biden was mentally incompetent? And probably 70 million Republicans could tell every time they saw him in public and CNN's trying to paper over that essentially change history. They're trying to rewrite history. So the problem was not their observational skills, which was the real problem. Well, it wasn't even their observational skills. It was their willingness to say they noticed. So Whitmer was asked, you know, since she was very involved in the campaign, if she didn't notice Biden's decline, and she said, "I was busy working. I didn't see the president directly." Are they going to really get away with that? That all these people who are working on behalf of the president didn't really spend much time with him. Yeah, I didn't really see him much. I can't blame me. But again, they're trying to make it look like you couldn't tell every time he was in public. So yeah.

Anyway, there's a story about a Soros Foundation director. So this is somebody who's literally the director of the Soros Foundation, like I just said, who is sort of admitting according to the National Pulse that the NGOs were using lawfare to protect illegals against public wishes. And so this fellow Greg Maniatis the director at the George Soros Foundation was saying that the activities of his organization created chaos at the border. Now the reason I found this story interesting is that he's using the word chaos to describe what they had created. He said, quote, "Chaos is the defining story of failure among progressives." Maniatis said, pinpointing the refusal of Democratic leaders to address a chaotic border system, particularly over the last decade. Is it possible that the Democrats' use of chaos as their one big word against Trump, is it possible now that the word has just become normalized to the point where they're using it against themselves? You know, it seems like the Democrats are now competing to see who can say the worst thing about Democrats, right? Because there's a little bit of competition of who could be the most honest about knowing that Biden was mentally incompetent. But now there's further competition to say, "Oh god, we were bad about that border." Yeah, you got I got to admit, we sure were bad about the border. And they're even using their own code word chaos. I don't know. It struck me that that was fun.

I saw a story that at first I thought was terrible, but maybe it isn't. Governor Newsom of California in his new budget is calling for closing yet another prison in California, which would be the fifth one that would have been closed during the Newsom administration. Now, when you hear that he's going to close five prisons or close the fifth one, four have already been closed. Doesn't that suggest to you that he's letting criminals out or that somehow they'll just let the criminals run free and not put them in prison? Well, maybe. But his argument is that crime is down and they just don't need it. Is that possible? Do you think crime is actually down and falling and that it's falling at a predictable enough rate that he can close another prison? That would be kind of awesome. Do you think it would have anything to do with closing the border? Yes. So it might be that closing the border, although I doubt that had anything to do with the first four that he closed. It could be that closing the border has a predictable effect on crime that the governor of California is saying, you know what, we might have too many prisons. I don't know if they're connected yet, so I'm just speculating.

Well, because Democrats seem to be unable to do anything right in terms of messaging. Now some Democratic lawmakers are pushing hard again for reparations. So Representative Summer Lee, Democrat Pennsylvania, she's going to reintroduce and this had been first introduced in 2023 by Sheila Jackson Lee, but they're going to reintroduce some reparations ideas and trying to make up for all those bad things in the past. What do you think about that? Do you think that the thing that will help the Democrats in the midterms and in 2028 will be their push for reparations? I'd love to see James Carville's opinion about that. Paging James Carville. Do you think this is the time to talk about reparations? Do you think they seized the moment just right?

I