B (9:21)

Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. Now I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills, but it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first 3 months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of networks busy. Taxes and fees extra.

A (9:50)

See mintmobile.com I saw a post from an X user, Ryan Lundquist, who showed a picture where he turned his. His garage into a pub. Kind of a pub hangout place for the neighbors with a pool table in the middle and all kinds of cool bar, like decorations in the wall and stuff. And he said, I had some people over last night to play pool in my garage. One of the best things I ever did was create a space that's easy to invite people to, and it looks like it's working. And I thought to myself, that feels like the most comfortable way you could ever get together. What would be more comfortable than being on your own neighborhood? And the garage is open, so you don't have to wonder what it looks like in there. You know, I'm always a little hesitant to go into a house behind a closed door because you can't see what's in there until you're in there. And then you might be stuck. You might be stuck with people you don't want to be with or something. But if the garage is open, if the weather's good and you can say your friends are in there, you would just be drawn in. I mean, the door is open. Why wouldn't you? So I love that idea. I'd love to see that become a thing. You know, it would ruin your garage, and then there'd be cars parked where you don't want them. But I like the man cave idea. That's open to the street kind of cool. Well, the Wall Street Journal tells us that the reason our government data is so bad is that people are not responding to surveys as much as they did. So whenever the government says, did you get a job or not get a job or whatever, they're surveying, they get the wrong answer because the people are. They're just not answering. And so that doesn't give you a representative sample if people don't respond. So that's why all your government data looks a little extra hanky lately. It might not be entirely because people are, you know, lying weasels and they're trying to manipulate the numbers. It might be that they're lying weasels who don't know how to get the right number. They just don't have a mechanism. And they don't want you to think they're useless because they would get fired if somebody said to their boss, all right, here's the deal. We can't get the numbers you need, and there's no way to fix it, because people don't respond to surveys, and there's not any other way to do it. So what would your boss say? All right, I think I'll keep paying you and putting out these bad numbers. Well, not in the long run. In the long run, you don't pay somebody to produce numbers you know, are wildly wrong. So it's hard for the employee to ever say, yeah, you know, maybe. Maybe you shouldn't be using this, sketching these sketchy numbers. They're always wrong. Remember what I say, all data is fake. Now, is that literally true? No, not for. Let's say some engineer is measuring something before making a decision. That's probably true. You know, they probably got the right data if it's, you know, just some engineer measuring something. But for anything that's big and complicated and national and important in scope, that's all fake. It's all fake all the time, every time. And that's. That's probably the single hardest thing that I could ever convince somebody is reality, that all data that matters, you know, the big stuff, is all fake. And there are reasons for that. I mean, you could go through the reasons. There's always somebody who can make money from it. In this case, the data wasn't even available. There's always a reason, but all data of anything important is fake. Did you know RFK Jr. I guess, said that. I believe he was at Charlie Kirk's vigil. There were lots of them around the country. And he was at the one at the Kennedy center, and he revealed that Charlie Kirk was what he called the primary architect of putting RFK Jr together with President Trump. Are you having the same reaction that I'm having when you hear that? Wait a minute. If Charlie Kirk had never done any. Anything else in his life, if he'd never done a single thing in his life but that one thing, he was the architect, and I think that's the right word, an architect to put RFK Jr. Into a productive, super important role and have President Trump be comfortable with it, if that's the only thing he ever did. Now, of course, it's early. RFK Jr. Has to come through and, you know, produce the goods, but I think he will. I think he will. That's one of the biggest accomplishments in the world. Let me say that again. Putting RFK Jr. And Trump together and making it work. If Charlie did that, that's one of the biggest accomplishments in the world. And he got there honestly by being the person who would talk to everybody, so everybody would talk to Charlie. Didn't matter what side you were on because he was friendly and great networker, etc. It wasn't an accident that he was in a position to make that happen. That was all just the accumulation of skill until he was in a position to do that. Now I think we're finding out all kinds of things that he advised behind the scenes that were really, really, really important to the country. So I think we're all just being wowed by his legacy as it emerges, and we're, we're learning new stuff about it. Wow. I mean, all you can say about that is wow. That's all from one person. I don't, I don't know if this is new, but I saw a clip of Bill Maher praising the right's willingness to engage in dialogue. Actually, it is new. It's after Charlie Crook's assassination. I should tell you that there are two accounts that I enjoy especially following because they summarize the news, and that's really useful. So Jason Cohen is a great follow on X if you want to get summaries of all the good news stuff. Makes it easy. And Mario Novel I've mentioned before, but Jason Cohen, you probably want to follow him if you, if you want to know the latest. Anyway, so he write. So he had that clip. Jason did. So Bill Maher was right. And here's what he said. So Bill Maher said Charlie Kirk was a guy who was always talking, and I talked to him here. The right wingers say what you want about them, but they talk to you. Now, this is one of Bill Maher's best contributions to political discourse. He has gone into the belly of the beast, so to speak, because he talked to Trump. And although they don't agree on everything, of course, he just found out, oh, wait, he's not Hiller. He said he's actually really, really just fun to be with. And then he, then he hangs out with Charlie Kirk on his, on his other show, and he comes away saying, huh, he's totally open to talking about anything. And so the fact that he's had that experience and he's willing to take some chance with his audience to just say that that's, that's his observed truth. Really useful, really useful. It's one of the best things he's ever done. But he says the left really has much more of a I don't talk to you, I don't want to deal with you, you're deplorable, I can't break bread with you attitude. All the right wingers, they don't have that Attitude. Can you believe that? He said all the right wingers. He said all the right wingers will talk to you. As far as I can tell, that's true. Can you think of any exception? Can you think of anybody who would say, I won't talk to you? I've never seen that. Never seen it. My experience with the left is the same as yours. They don't want to talk to you, they want to talk over you and they want to make sure you don't talk. Why do they do that? I believe, and this might sound like hyperbole or I'm exaggerating to make a point or something like that. I'm not. So the following is dead serious. I believe that they know that their opinions can't be supported. I believe they know their arguments don't hold together. I believe they know that. And probably the reason they know that is most people rehearse their arguments in their head. So at least you know what you would have said. If somebody asks you. And I think that they know on some level they can't support their views and so they go the other way. They make sure that you can talk and that you're canceled if you do. And once I think people understand that the Democrats are an anti talking, it's easier to kill you than it is to change your mind. Kind of a group. That will be probably about the time that the entire Democrat party dissolves. Now it'll come back, and I'm sure it'll come back. We need two parties, but the Democrat party is teetering on the edge of something like a total collapse because the moral bankrupt element of it is kind of hard for anybody to ignore at this point. Yeah, the left doesn't talk. It talks over. Now, by the way, that's a really good frame to put out there. The left doesn't talk. They talk over you. The reason is that if you say that and then you get into a debate with a leftist and they start talking over you, which they will, with the exception, by the way, of Cenk. But one of the reasons I like Cenk was Weger. I think it's pronounced. I never know how to pronounce his last name. But Jenk is fabulous in letting you talk and doesn't like to be interrupted if. If you interrupt him. And I appreciate that as well. But even though I quite often disagree with Jank, I've had two, you know, online conversations with him. He does not interrupt. He does not. And when you see that, it automatically infers some credibility to his point of view. And I think he's a sensational in the showing you how to do this. All right. I know you have your problems with Cenk, but he's good on free speech. Really good. Well, you're not surprised at 23andMe, the company that was taking your DNA and telling you all about yourself. They're going out of business. But they sold your DNA. Oh, my God. They sold it or gave it to a nonprofit that the founder of the company apparently is involved with. So how many of you use 23andMe with the assumption that, well, there's no way they're going to sell my DNA to somebody without permission? Well, whatever was your worst case assumption about your privacy of your DNA? Well, here it is. Your worst case scenario. It's apparently just available for anybody who wants it. Now, that's too far. It's not available for anybody who wants it, but it's definitely not protected. Definitely not protected. Now, I will confess that I used 23andMe, and like anybody who's paying attention, I was completely aware that my DNA would not be private ever again. I didn't care. I suspect it's unlikely that that will ever matter to me. I don't prefer it. It's not my first choice. I'd rather that they that nobody had access to my DNA unless I let them. But I don't really expect a problem. I mean, what would it be? Somebody makes a special poison that only works on me or something like that. I mean, what are the odds? So we can agree that if we had a choice, we would not have this happen. But probably not the biggest problem in the world.

B (23:34)

Olivia loves a challenge. It's why she lifts heavy weights and likes complicated recipes. But for booking her trip to Paris, Olivia chose the easy way. With Expedia, she bundled her flight with a hotel to save more. Of course, she still climbed all 674 steps to the top of the Eiffel Tower. You were made to take the easy route. We were made to easily package your trip. Expedia made to travel flight inclusive packages are at all protected.

A (24:04)

All right. I continue to be amazed and baffled by the following. How many of you say that since the pandemic, there's an obvious uptick in turbo cancers? How many think that's a true statement? Since the pandemic, there is a obvious, confirmed major uptick in cancers. True. True or false? What do you say? The answer is true. Ish. So here's how you get two movies on one screen. How can it be both true and false? It is it's both true and false. I remember the way I worded the question was, is there a major uptick in cancer since the pandemic that is confirmed mostly in the young, apparently. So the young are having an especially tough time, and oncologists are seeing lots of the young come in with cancers that sometimes they've never seen. So the young have a big uptick in cancer. So therefore it's true that there's a big uptick in cancer since the pandemic. And therefore, logically, it's either from the vaccinations or it's from the COVID itself. But you believe it's from the vaccinations. All right, how can it be true that there's a big uptick in children getting rare cancers? That part is true, but also not true that it had anything to do with the pandemic. How could both of those be true? There's a big uptick since the pandemic, but the pandemic is not blamed for the uptick. Do you believe that? Here's how you could believe it. I don't know what's true here. I really don't know what's true. But the claim is that the uptick is a continuing trend from well before the pandemic. So in other words, if you graphed it, you would indeed see a super alarming increase in young people with cancer. But it started so far before the pandemic, like years before that. It's just a continuation of a straight line. So given that the trend was already well established and all we're seeing is the continuation of the trend, it does not give you any confirmation that the pandemic itself was much of a cause of it. Now, there was a decrease because there was fewer people going to the doctor, so decrease in just spotting the cancer. And then there was increase in cancer because the people had not been treated because of the pandemic. But that was a brief effect. If you look at the long term trend, apparently there's a lot more of it, cancer, but it doesn't seem to have a, you know, confirmed, confirmed, you know, connection to the pandemic. Now, I'm not going to ask you to believe me. You know why? All data is fake. All data is fake. Do you think you can rely on that data to know what's going on? I don't, I don't, I don't know. But there are some things that at one point you may have thought was true, and I wonder if you still do. How many of you believe that during the pandemic, healthy young athletes were dropping dead on the field. How many of you thought that was true? I'm pretty sure that's debunked. There's no evidence that anything like that ever happened. But for a while, I think almost everybody I knew thought it was happening. I doubted it from the beginning under the theory that if that were happening, these sports teams would not be able to stop talking about it. I mean, they would know, but they weren't. They were acting like nothing was happening. So I thought, how could all these healthy athletes be dropping dead? And yet the people who own the sports teams, they're acting like nothing's happening. So that's when I suspected that that was maybe not true. And so far no evidence that that was ever true. What about the stories about the autopsies that showed that people had all this coagulated blood? That's totally unnatural. How many of you thought that was true? Probably still do, right? How many think that the. I'm sorry, the morticians, when they're preparing the body, how many of you think they're seeing unnatural blood? That's not true. That's not happening. Apparently the reality beyond that is that it's normal and well understood that sometimes dead people have that coagulated blood and there's nothing really that changed. Now. That's what I believe to be true. So it's always useful to look at how many things you once thought were true, that now there's no evidence they were ever true. Now could I be wrong about one of those things? Absolutely. Could I be wrong about everything in terms of the risks? Absolutely. Because there's no data that I would trust to set me straight or to confirm that I was right. There's no data I trust about the pandemic. But it is fascinating that such obvious questions we don't really know. Don't really know even now. All right, let's see. So there was a New Jersey nurse that got suspended for calling out a doctor who had been cheering after Charlie Crook's death. Fox News is reporting on that. So instead of the doctor being released for bad behavior, of cheering, the death of a human being seems very undoctorly. Seems like the worst thing a doctor could do is spare time. They're apparently going to suspend the nurse without pay. Terrific. Terrific there. Great job, guys. Well, I think somebody besides me has probably mentioned this. Maybe you haven't heard it yet, but do you really believe that only the left cheers about bad things happening to people? Because I don't live in that world. Do you remember Paul Pelosi and the hammer attack? Did anybody on the right make fun of that? What was really a terrible thing. I mean, just terrible. Imagine Paul Pelosi. Now he's got to live with probably some permanent parts of the injury. I believe he had to. He has to think about that. He has to be in the house where that happened, so he'll think about it every day. He. I mean, that was terrible. But did any people on the right laugh about it? Yeah, even Trump did. Trump did a joke about Pelosi, is what she call him. She called that guy the homeless hammer guy. Homeless hammer guy, yeah, even Trump did. So I'm going to say two things that sound like they're contradictory, but I'll tell you they're not. One is, I don't think either side has the monopoly on, you know, cheering for people that they think are monsters having a bad day, even if they're not a monster. I mean, I don't have a particular problem with Paul Pelosi, so I don't. I don't think there's any moral superiority going on. But what there is is a lot of payback and a lot of what I call mutually assured destruction. So the right is having a good old time canceling, as many of the Charlie Kirk haters who made the mistake of going public with their cheering. And I'm all for that. I'm all for it. Not because the right is morally superior, but because, you know, once canceling becomes a thing, you gotta. You gotta cancel back. I just don't think there's anything else you could do. Could it make things worse? Might it escalate the canceling? Maybe. But I'll tell you, what you can't do is nothing. What you can't do is nothing. And if it, you know, if it changes the balance of power, I'd like to see people getting canceled for calling the right Nazis or fascists. You know, if we could take it to the next level, that'd really be fun. Really be fun. So I'm 100% in favor of the canceling, as cruel and tough as they are, because it needs to work both ways. You can't have the canceling work in one direction. Absolutely not. Bad analogy. Well, let me explain analogies. Since 75% of the public doesn't know how an analogy works, an analogy does not try to make every element of the analogy the same as the subject you're talking about, because if it were the same in all the ways, it wouldn't be an Analogy, it would just be the same thing, and that wouldn't tell you anything. So if you can find the part about the Paul Pelosi that's the same, then you'll know what I'm saying. But if you say, Scott, you fool, there was no hammer involved in the Charlie Kirk thing, so your stupid analogy is terrible. No, an analogy is only focusing on one part. In both cases, something had happened to somebody on one side of the political aisle and other people had fun with it. That is a valid point. Don't. Don't give me. But he was married to a politician. That's different. No, no, you don't understand how analogies work. Stop focusing on the part that are not the point. All right, enough of that. So, Washington, D.C. the mayor says that the police will no longer cooperate with ICE to get rid of illegal people in the city, illegal migrants. And I believe I saw the. The mayor of Memphis acting a little bit like he wasn't so into having help. He seems like he's playing it both ways. It's like he's against it because he's on the left, but he's sort of in favor of it a little bit. He's a little bit confusing. I can't. I can't get a read on the Memphis mayor. But Trump says that he'll. He'll maybe declare national. The hell was that? Cat will declare a national emergency and federalized DC if he has to. And I believe he would. I believe he would actually carry through that. All right, and now Trump is threatening on a true social. He threatened the governor of New York State, who has now endorsed the Communist Zoran Mamdami for New York City mayor. And so Trump says that he doesn't like that she is endorsing the communists, as he would say. And they said there's no reason. We'll be. What? We'll be watching the situation closely. No reason to be sending good money after bad. So he's actually threatening that he would withhold federal money from New York State because the governor is backing communists for mayor. To which I ask, is that legal? Can the federal government withhold federal money that's been approved because he doesn't like the politics of one of the politicians or one or more of them. That doesn't seem like something that would pass through the courts, but I know we'll see if it makes any difference. So the updates on the Tyler Robinson, the shooter, you all know who that is, the guy who assassinated Charlie Kirk. He has not confessed, and he's not cooperating. All right, well, it's weird. I guess it doesn't matter if he confesses or not. I mean, you might have a slightly non 0 chance of, I don't know, saying he was innocent and maybe somehow getting off. I don't. It seems unlikely. But anyway, one of the sub stories that is coming out of this is that the governor of Utah, that's Governor Cox, is becoming very high profile. It's getting a lot of attention, people having positive and negative thoughts about them. But. So it's a story about a guy who may or may not have been a little bit trans sometime, who was dating a trans. And it's being handled by Governor Cox. So all I notice is there are a lot of cocks in that one story. Okay. I saw a post by coddled affluent professional who noted, as I have noted as well, that it seems like the climate change hysteria has sort of magically gone away. Have you all noticed that? Remember, we used to be just inundated with, oh, the climate's going to kill you. You don't have much time left, you better spend all your billions of dollars, blah, blah, blah. And coddled affluent professional said he had two theories for why we're not hearing so much about climate change hysteria. One is that the climate hysteria was astroturfed. In other words, maybe billionaires were funding it and they had some, they had their own reasons, but it wasn't because it was real and funding got pulled with Biden out. So it could be that the people who were looking to make gigantic amounts of money by convincing you that the green stuff, well, not the green stuff, but more, the climate hysteria was real. They don't have any money to make because the. The money's been getting dried up. So instead of saying, oh, it's worse than it was before because now we still have the climate emergency, but can you believe it? The money to address it has been taken away. So now it's way worse. Right? So if the funding had been taken away, shouldn't there be more complaining about the emergency, not less? Unless the degree of complaining was directly related to how much important people thought they could make in terms of getting funding from the government. That's a pretty good theory. I don't know if it's true, but another one is there's so much money to be made in AI that no one wants to criticize the energy industry anymore. Because if you go hard on climate change and clamp down on, let's say, fossil fuels, we would kill our AI industry. But is the AI industry the same as Whoever might be funding and talking about and worrying about and astroturfing the climate change. I feel like those worlds overlap, but not in an important enough way. So I don't know about that. The other possibility I think Mike Surovich mentioned this is that now that Greta Thunberg is a. I guess she's a Palestinian supporter or Hamas supporter, whichever way you want to go on that. So she's off the board, as if it never mattered. You have to wonder, why would Greta go from this is the biggest problem in the world to, to another problem that of course, you know, is, is dire and, and drastic and it's a huge tragedy, but it's also just a tiny little part of the world. How do you go from climate change will kill us all, billions of people, to, well, now I'm only going to pay attention to this little, tiny, little, tiny piece of the world. So it kind of makes it look like she's just sort of into causes and not so much into worrying about climate change. It makes it look like she didn't mean it. I can't read her mind. But when you change from the biggest problem in the whole globe to a little, tiny problem in one part of the world, it's hard to take you seriously. What you said about the big problem, you'd still be working on it. Somebody else said in the comments that climate change was always a luxury belief in Europe, but Europe is having financial problems. So is it really the biggest problem in the world if the first thing you do when you have financial problems is you stop paying? Paying for doesn't really match the biggest problem in the world, does it? It kind of puts the lie to it. It's like, wait a minute. As soon as money gets tight, that's the first thing that gets unfunded. The biggest problem in the world. Now, I realize there's a timing difference, but even so, it feels like not being taken seriously. And then I'm going to give you the Scott take on this. My take is that the reason it's no longer a hysteria, climate change, is that the data has been so not cooperating now for several years and we don't have. We just don't have the signs that they promise us. Has it not been how many years have we been told that the water level is going up and it didn't this year, again, the number of named storms is down instead of up. The number of lives lost to climate disasters down. So pretty much everything from the coral has recovered. The ice, it's a little unknown, but it doesn't look like it's melting as fast as they said. And let me. Let me summarize that for you. All data is fake. The entire climate change thing was based on data, right? Do you think any of that data was real? I didn't. I never believed that they could measure the temperature of the Earth well enough to know how it's changing from year to year. No, no, in the real world, that's not something humans can do. It's just too hard. No, we don't have, like, a new technology. We've got a bunch of thermometers that we put in different places around the Earth. Yeah, they're in structures, but of course there are heat islands, and, you know, they replace them and sometimes they guess what it would have been if it used to be there, but it isn't. I mean, it's just a mess. So climate change. I'm not expecting to make a big comeback, but I could be wrong. According to bank of America, 26% of U.S. workers sought financial help in 2025, which would be up from 13% in 2023. I don't know what that means exactly. To seek financial help, does that mean they couldn't pay their bills? Does that mean that they applied for a credit card? Would that be seeking financial help? So I don't know what that means, but if it were true that 25% of workers didn't have a way to meet their bills, which I hate to say it, but that feels like that might be about right. Based on my lived experience, I don't see many people who can pay their bills. Do you? By that, I mean, you know, obviously I know some rich people who can pay their bills, but the people who are not legitimately rich, they don't really have any plan to ever be able to pay their bills. You know, in the long run, their expenses are way more than their earning potential. It seems like there's a lot of them. And if you told me that it's up to 25%, I would say I'm not that surprised. But I would tell you again, I don't know if I mentioned this, but all data is fake. And that might be fake data, meaning that whatever they mean by seeking financial help, who knows what that means? Well, there have been a bunch of China negotiations. I think Rubio was doing it, and Trump is happy about the outcome. So I guess those talks are over. Trump is planning to speak to President Xi of China on Friday, and Trump is teasing that they have a TikTok deal now. Do you believe that China agreed to a TikTok deal that Trump would be happy with without agreeing to the overall trade deal. Why would they do that? Why would they give that up unless they had gotten everything they could get from the larger trade deal? Does it sound to you likely that he's got a TikTok deal? To me, it feels like President Xi is, is playing, you know, Lucy with the football. I feel like she's setting him up. I don't think there's going to be a deal. I don't think there's going to be a deal. And I think it will just embarrass Trump because he'll get a little over his skis and he'll brag that he got a deal and then something will come up, as in China will say, well, we did think we had a deal, but then, then you did that thing we didn't like and well, I guess the deal's off. So I feel like it's a trick. I don't trust it at all. I would love to be wrong, but I'm going to, I'm going to put a stake in the ground that says I don't believe that China would give that up unless they had already gotten everything they wanted in a trade deal and the trade deal is not done. So I don't know. But Trump must think that he's pretty close on the larger trade deal issues or he probably wouldn't be planning a phone call. I don't know. We'll see. Recently we asked some people about sharing their New York Times accounts. My name is Dana. I am a subscriber to the New York Times, but my husband isn't and it would be really nice to be able to share a recipe or an article or compete with him in wordle or connections. Thank you. Dana, we heard you introducing the New York Times family subscription. One subscription, up to four separate logins for anyone in your life. Find out more@nytimes.com family well, the White House has asked for $58 million more for security that I think would include for Congress. And I think we'd all agree that we're in a world where we need more security. But it's terrible that we need a tragedy to get funding for things that we need. But it's not so world. Apparently the FBI is investigating some far left groups in Utah that might have been involved, they think might have been, don't know, with planning or at least knowledge of the Charlie Kirk assassination. And apparently there's a Utah based trans militia group called Armed queers of Salt Lake City. And they train people to use weapons to defend trans rights. But apparently they deleted their account the day Charlie Kirk was killed. The day he was killed. So do I have this wrong? That the day that Charlie was killed we had no idea that trans was involved in any way? Right. On day one we didn't know anything about trans. So if the Utah based group thought they needed to get rid of their account because they didn't want maybe to be dragged into it, why would they think they would be dragged into it? Or why would they think that that was a good day to delete it unless they thought the trans thing would come out? And they already knew more than the FBI knew. So I would say that's pretty suspicious. So we'll find out. Like most of you, I think it's nearly impossible to imagine that at least the, the, what do you call it, the romantic partner trans of the shooter. At least the romantic partner knew the plan. Don't you think it's hard for me to imagine that they operated alone and, you know, nobody knew. So I guess we'll find out. So the UK and the US are going to do some big nuclear energy deal with each other and BBC is reporting on this and it's supposed to generate thousands of jobs in Britain and I guess we would be providing some expertise. I don't know what else we provide some technology and expertise. But my question is how does the United States have extra anything for the nuclear world? Now if we did have extras, anything, then probably makes perfect sense that Great Britain gets the benefit of some of that good ally. But my understanding of the nuclear energy expertise in the United States is that it's way, way under populated because there have been so many years where we're sort of out of that business or if you're talking about, you know, maybe startups or new ways of doing things, maybe it doesn't matter how many there used to be because they wouldn't have the right training anyway. So are we, are we training these great engineers and stuff from scratch and getting enough for our internal use? So many. We have so many now that it makes sense for us to share those people. I have questions. I'm not sure this is a good idea for the United States, but might be. Well, also in Utah, a man named Adib Nasser has been arrested and charged with weapons of mass destruction. So apparently he was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Now, since I assume he did not build a nuclear bomb, what would be the weapon of mass destruction? Poison. Right. Some Kind of chemical. So there's some bastard in Utah that had probably the chemicals to take out a city. Well, they got him. My question is, when I see a story like this, how many things does the FBI stop? The only thing I can understand why there haven't been a gigantic wave of terrorist attacks like, once a week in the United States. The only thing I can figure, the only way that makes sense, given that we know how many people have the capability and the desire to blow things up in the US the fact that it doesn't happen almost every day suggests that the FBI or some intelligence agency has so much control over communication in this country that they catch every one of them. Is that possible? Are we catching every one of them? Because if they talk about these things, we've got some kind of program that sniffs every single communication and says, whoop, that's a little sketchy. Let me tell the FBI about that. I can't think of any other reason that we would have relatively so little terrorism on the homeland because we're stopping it before it happens. How are we doing that? Like, how do you get them all? There's no other crime in which we catch everybody, you know, so it's got to be some kind of, you know, massive surveillance that catches every mention of explosives or weapons of mass destruction. So the other possibility, the only other way I can explain it, is that it's fake to imagine that there's a terrorist risk and that they're so rare that if you did absolutely nothing to try to stop them, you'd have about the same number. Is that possible? You know, you'd only have a big one every 20, 40 years or something. Maybe that's just the rate. That would be the most and the least. It just. It could be that there's nothing that really changes that. I don't know. Well, here's some math to blow your mind. Owen Gregorian did a little math, and did you know that Turning Point USA, so that was Charlie Kirk's organization, had around 21 chapters. 2100 chapters, and that represented about a quarter million students that were associated with Turning Point USA. That's a lot. Quarter million. 2100 chapters. Does that seem like a lot? 2100 chapters? Well, it's not a lot, because apparently, since the assassination, there have been 32,000 requests for new chapters. From 2100 to 32,000 requests for information about becoming a chapter. 2100 to 32,000. Now, that's the Kirking that we're all feeling. There is an amount of energy being released that we don't fully appreciate yet. And so Owen does some math. He says based on the previous numbers, if 2100 gets you quarter million students, then if you went to 32,000, you'd end up with something like 4 million members. What if that happens? What if Turning Point USA ends up with 4 million young people? That changes just about everything. So again, if you, if you think you understand the impact of Charlie Kirk, you, you have to give him some amount of credit for Make America healthy again. Right? And you'd have to give him credit for the Turning Point organization both before and after his, his death. These are enormous, just enormous contributions to the body politic. Trump is, according to Newsmax, is adjusting his stance on what kind of workers to let in the country. And you remember the story about the South Korean battery factory in Georgia that it was discovered that most of the employees were from South Korea. So the whole reason that we ask other countries to build things in our country is so that the jobs go to Americans. But they beat the system by building it in the US to get all the benefits of doing that. And then they shipped in employees from South Korea because there really weren't that many people who would know how to work in a battery factory in the US So they probably didn't have the option of hiring locally anyway. So they just had to do what they had to do. But so I believe that they decided to pack up their factory and go back to South Korea. I heard that. I'm not positive. But Trump is now saying that, well, maybe we should let skilled people come in for a situation like this, but they would have to do it temporarily until they had trained up enough Americans to do the jobs that, you know, maybe the trained people from another country started out in, to which I don't know how practical that is, would if you were a trained person from another country and they said, hey, we want you to relocate to the United States, but only for three years because your job is to train Americans to take your job. I don't know. Is anybody going to take that job? Maybe if you pay him enough. This post by Joel Pollock that Netanyahu did a joint presser with Rubio and this is an interesting quote from Nanyahu. He said, weak governments are putting pressure on US Israel because they are collapsing under the pressure of Islamist minorities. That European countries are collapsing under the pressure of Islamist minorities. Well, it sounds like we're naming the problem now. But on the plus side, if you want to, you know, I like to look on the, the positive Side. On the positive side, there's no real risk that Russia will want to conquer Europe if Europe becomes Islamic, because there's no way that Putin wants more of that business. So at some point, there's gonna have to be some reckoning with the fact that we can't combine. Let's see if I get canceled forever for saying this. I like Islamic people. I like Muslims as long as they're, you know, peaceful and they're part of the program. But there's no way that the system that comes necessarily with large Islamic populations, there's no way that the system and the beliefs and the preferences can be assimilated into the United States. Kind of a, you know, constitutional, free, free everything. You can't really combine them. And we're not taking that seriously because we're locked into the model that, hey, people are people. Yeah, people are people, but systems are not systems. So if the only thing that was happening is, hey, just some different people, you know, why would you discriminate against Muslims when, you know, everybody else is coming in? You got your Hispanics, you got your Africans, you got your Asians coming in. You know, why would you discriminate against one group? And the answer is, you're not discriminating against the people. That would be not really the American way. But we could absolutely discriminate against the system if the system would destroy our system and our system we like. So, yeah, maybe. Maybe that's the reframe. The reframe is we can't bring in anybody who's part of a system. Now, would that be wild? Well, we're already denying people entry into the country because of their opinion about Charlie Kirk. That's happening, right? We're looking for people who wanted to be in this country, have visas, but may have said something in social media celebrating the demise of Charlie Kirk. Those people are going to be shipped home and nobody's going to miss them. But that's even individuals. Well, I'm not even talking about individuals. I'm just saying, are you part of this system? You know, do you prefer that we would be Sharia law instead of our regular constitution? That's got to be a hard no for immigration. If somebody says, you know, all things being equal, if I can get it, I'd rather Sharia law. If you say those words, and I believe, weirdly, I believe most people would answer honestly, and they say, yeah, I prefer Sharia. There's no way you should be allowed in the country. That. That would be ridiculous, because I would just be asking for our own doom. I think Europe is stupid enough to not recognize the danger until it's too late. I think we still have time. Well, if you're on social media at all, you know that there's a sub conspiracy theory that Israel is somehow part of the Charlie Kirk assassination. Now, I won't name names, but there are some prominent podcasters who are kind of putting that out there not as a conclusion, but as a. Well, you know, it really looks like it. Kind of feels like it. Here's my take. There's no way in the world that Netanyahu seems to be a master of risk management. Whatever else you want to say about him, you know, you, you could be all mad at him for any number of things, but you can't deny that Netanyahu is brilliant, and specifically brilliant in knowing when to take a risk and when to set it out for a while. That's his, seemingly his special skill. And, you know, it's impressive. The more you watch it, the more you think, wow, he took some risks and somehow he's making that work. That's amazing. Do you believe that Netanyahu would take the risk of being caught? Because we're good at catching murderers. You know, we're pretty good at catching stuff. You know, if we put all of our resources into it, we're pretty good at it. Do you think he would take a chance no matter what he thought was the benefit of taking Charlie off the field? Because there, you know, some cases, I think, I think Charlie Kirk was not so much in favor of attacking Iran, but I don't know what else they might have some disagreement with. And Israel did say recently that they're probably not done with Iran. So I don't know what that means, but I see no way, no way, no way, no way, no way that somebody as smart as Netanyahu would take a.0001% chance of getting caught assassinating a beloved character in the United States. So even if you say to yourself, I think they're evil enough, or even if you say, oh, I think there's an upside for them to do it, it doesn't make sense on a risk reward basis. The right amount of risk to risk losing the United States forever, because that's what would happen. They would lose the United States forever. Do you think he's going to take that chance? Well, the only way it would make sense is if. Is if he. No, even, even Mossad wouldn't take that chance. There's nobody who would take that chance. So I'm going to say hard no. On the possibility that Israel was in any way involved. And on top of that, the worst plan I could ever imagine is to try to control some crazy trans guy and, or trans loving guy in Utah. You wouldn't have, you just wouldn't have the control over the situation that you needed, you know, and yeah, there's none of that. That sounds convincing to me. All right. Conor McGregor announced he's going to withdraw from his plans to run for Irish president. I think that has more to do with the fact that he can't get through the nomination process. Ireland has some kind of nomination process that does not involve voters. So I guess it's the, I don't know the details, but it doesn't involve voting. So he would have to get other people who were already in the government to nominate him. It looks like that's not going to happen. So he's out. Too bad. That would have been fun to watch to see if he could make it all the way. I, I think this is new news, but the AP is saying that Ukraine drones, they created a fire at one of Russia's top refineries. They've attacked that one before, but did minor damage before. They might have done more now. Now, part of the story by the AP is that there are in fact gas shortage in Russia and that Russia has paused gasoline exports. I don't know how much gas they exported versus, you know, oil, but they've paused gasoline exports with officials declaring a full ban until September 30th. Now, do you think that Ukraine has a workable strategy at least, you know, not to win the war and conquer Russia, but do they have a workable strategy to create cripple Russia to the point where Russia will make a peace deal that could last? I would, I wouldn't bet on it. So if you said, you know, gun to head, would you bet that the Ukrainian strategy will work? I wouldn't. I probably bet against it, but it's not impossible. I feel like if they're already experiencing gas shortages, it feels like they may be getting very close to turning Russia into not the economy that they thought they used to be. And I don't think you have to destroy the whole economy to get them to talk peace. If you took 20%, I'll just pick a number. If you could knock down their energy production by 20% and it looks like you could keep doing it, like, like you could never go above that. You just keep bombing stuff. You wouldn't have to get 80%. 20% would probably get you a peace deal. Can they get there, do you think they can degrade? And again, I'm just picking a number that feels about right. Do you think that Ukraine could take out 20% of Russia's because they can reach anything now. They're. They're going a thousand miles into. Into Russia. I feel like that's doable. 20%, and that would be enough to get them to the table. Now, would Russia ramp up the destruction that they're giving Ukraine? Probably. But I also wonder if maybe Ukraine, having been battered so badly and having so many friends around them, I wonder if Ukraine would be in a better position to weather the destruction of their energy platforms. You know, would Europe and the US Just step up and say, all right, well, you. You took out all of their domestic oil, but we got oil, so make sure they have oil. I don't know. But if it's true, the Ukraine could handle destruction of their energy resources better, or maybe they're willing to just take a bigger hit. You know, maybe Ukraine could handle losing half of their energy. I'm just picking numbers for arguing here. Maybe they could handle half, which would be really, really hard. But they have lots of friends. You know, maybe the friends could make up the difference. Would Russia have enough friends? China, North Korea, Iran. Would they have enough friends that if they lost 20% of their energy, they could find a way to make it up? I don't know. So I think there's some chance. Obviously, I'm no military or energy expert, but just watching from the sidelines, I would say there's some chance that this will get Russia to the table. We'll see. All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is my prepared show for today. I'm going to talk to the local subscribers, the beloved, beloved, beloved local subscribers. And that'll be private. So in 30 seconds, I'll disappear. But for the rest of you, thanks for coming. I hope you come again tomorrow. You learn so much to, don't you? Yeah. Bye for now, Sam.