esn't have that same relationship, etc.

So I just wonder why we're not hearing anything about it. I guess Kim Jong-un would have to do something provocative to make that happen. So we're already seeing that China did some flexing their muscle, did some flyover over Taiwanese airspace. And I think they're really gonna start flexing on Biden. We'll see what he does.

So Biden did sign some kind of a Buy American legislation, but it only applies to government stuff. And when I heard that I said to myself, wait, what? Joe Biden had to pass some kind of a law or it must have been an executive order. He had to, I think it was executive order, he had to change something to make the government of the United States prefer American products. And I thought, we didn't already do that? I mean I get why you wouldn't necessarily do it with the public, but the government, I feel as if the government should be buying from American producers if there's any product that meets the need.

And I also ask myself, Trump didn't do that? Are you telling me that Joe Biden had to do the thing that was Trump's brand, which is Buy American? Why didn't Trump do that? Can we say that that was a plus for Biden? Okay, can we be objective?

Oh, by the way, you're watching me model the very thing I was talking about not doing. One of the reasons that I tell you from the start is that I'm left of Bernie but I liked a lot of what Trump did. Is it confusing you about what my brand is? I do that intentionally. And I do that to make sure I don't get in a brand trap where there are some topics I just can't talk about because nobody would trust me. They're like, ah, you're the guy who always says that.

So part of my brand risk is that people who have not followed me closely, they think that I always agree with Trump no matter what Trump does. Now those of you who follow me know that that's not even close. And here's an example. As far as I can tell, just looking at it from, you never know the details, but it looks to me like this was a Biden success to require that our government only buys American. That looks like a Biden success. And if Trump had done it I would have said that's a Trump success. And it looks like it was something Trump could have done and didn't do.

Now if you dug into this story you might find out that there's nothing there. It might be all smoke and mirrors, which might be why Trump didn't do it. It could be that we'd be better off buying, let's say, a French generator if no American makes that product. It could be that we already buy American whenever it's an option. Don't you think if you're the procurement person for the government, no matter what part of the government you're in, and you have a choice of the Lithuanian product or the American product and they both do the same thing for about the same price, don't you think you were going to buy the American product anyway?

So I don't know if it makes any difference. It may be entirely just for show. But let me be consistent. If Trump had done this and even if it were just for show, I would still say it's the right thing to do because it's part of how you change minds about what is right and smart. So even if it didn't make any practical difference to have the government required to buy American stuff because they probably were pretty close to doing that anyway, it sends a message and it's a good one. You know that this is the direction we're going. Everywhere we can find an opportunity to buy American, we're going to do it, even if it's a small opportunity. So that's a Biden success in my opinion. I'm going to give them that one.

CNN being more entertainingly ridiculous than ever had a chyron, which is the name for the little message that appears at the bottom of the screen. It's called the chyron, C-H-Y-R-O-N in case you wondered. And so on CNN's Reliable Sources, the chyron was below a picture of Biden's spokesperson Jen Psaki. And it said that Psaki promises to share accurate information. And then in parentheses, how refreshing. This is on CNN. Their coverage, their critical coverage of the Biden presidency is that Biden's spokesperson promises to share accurate information. How refreshing. Oh my God.

Glenn Greenwald came in to dunk on them in a tweet. And Greenwald says, I once again humbly submit that this would be a bridge too far even for North Korean state television, which is usually a bit more subtle and discerning than this. And I think he nailed it. CNN obviously wants access to government people because the worst thing would be to be CNN and have no access to interviews because they don't like you. So apparently they're in the business of getting liked by the Biden administration so they have access. But it is actually literally funny to watch.

Now somebody's saying it's like Fox to Trump and you're not wrong. So I'm not going to defend anybody else on this, but this is actually pretty funny.

I told you yesterday that if you saw Vice President Harris getting a portfolio, like a special job for a vice president like Al Gore had a special job fixing the government's processes and Mike Pence had a special job with the coronavirus task force, so if you see a vice president get a special portfolio that would be an indication that that person is going to stay a vice president for a while. But I told you that if you see that Harris does not get a portfolio, it might mean that they're grooming her to step in fairly soon.

And then the news within hours of me saying that, then I saw an article. And I don't know, maybe the article came out even before I said that but I hadn't seen it. According to the New York Times, Harris has not been assigned a specific portfolio. The exact thing I said. She's not been assigned a specific portfolio. As of now she will serve as, and listen to this phrasing from the New York Times, a governing partner to Biden on his top priorities. She's going to be a co-president. She's going to be a governing partner. Now that's not exactly a co-president but it feels like it, doesn't it? Don't you feel that vibe?

Now I don't expect my predictions to usually be that accurate that quickly. And again I don't know if this information was out there before I even made that prediction, which would make it not a prediction. But that's what I was expecting. So I expected that she would not get a portfolio. And I do think that that indicates they're trying to... The problem with giving the vice president a portfolio is that it diminishes them. Does that make sense? If you get a portfolio it's sort of like, oh, Vice President, a little pat on the head. Oh, what a cute vice president. You could never be president but we'll give you a project. Here's a little project. Yeah, yeah, you little vice president. That's what it feels like when you get a portfolio.

But when you don't get one it makes you look like you're a governing partner, right? Yeah. So it clearly is she's being positioned to take over. Now that doesn't mean they have a specific date to do it. I've heard people suggest they would do it after the midterms, which would not surprise me.

Israel is saying that if the United States drops the sanctions with Iran and gets back into some kind of an Iranian nuclear deal, that Israel says it will attack Iran. Now that's not an official pronouncement. I guess this is just reports from people who are part of the government. So it's not an official government statement. But apparently they're saying it fairly directly. Now when they say attack they don't necessarily mean a full war. They mean attack their nuclear facilities. And when Israel says we will attack, that doesn't mean maybe, right? Is there ever been a case where Israel said under these conditions we will attack and then they don't? Has that ever happened in the history of Israel? I don't know. But I would certainly trust them if they said we're going to attack.

So what does Biden do? Biden would guarantee war or at least something that looks a little like a war between Israel and Iran based on the stated policy that he's pursuing. And Israel is saying it's not maybe military action, it's military action. So that's quite a pressure on Joe Biden. How will he manage this, being the statesman that he is? So keep an eye on that.

Here's a little crack in the Democratic front. So there's a reporter for CBS, a White House reporter named Catherine Herridge. Now it's important to the story that she works for CBS because you think CBS is sort of left-leaning. And here's what she says in a tweet. She said, teachers unions, I'm sorry, she said in her tweet, if Biden is really serious about getting kids back to school within 100 days, he's going to have to clash with teachers unions at some point.

So that's CBS saying that if Biden wants to get kids back to school he's going to have to go up against the teachers unions. Interesting, right? Because the teachers unions are really, really powerful. They really support the Democrats. And Biden is completely beholden to them. But if he wants to keep the country intact he has to destroy them or at least push them aside temporarily. Is he the right president to do that? Nope. He's not. He's exactly the wrong president to do that.

I've told you a number of times there's no such thing as a good president or a bad president. Now that's an exaggeration. Of course you could have one that's bad. But in general you have presidents that either fit a situation or don't. I thought that Trump fit the North Korean situation. He fit the peace in the Middle East situation. He fit the ISIS situation. He fit the China situation. There's a whole bunch of stuff that Trump is a perfect fit for. Health care, maybe not so much, right? Not the right fit. Did some good things in terms of reducing regulations and that cannot be ignored. But it's the fit that matters.

Who would have been a better fit to take on the teachers unions? Trump, who did not get support from them, or Biden, who does get support from them and is really, really important? The answer is Trump. Trump for this situation, getting kids back to school, is unambiguously the better president. Unfortunately he's not the president.

So what does Biden do? Does he let the teachers unions continue with their being the source of all systemic racism, which they are? And the argument there is that by preventing school choice they lock every poor community into remaining a poor community because those kids can't go to a better school. There's just no choice. They have one bad school and that's what you got. So that of course makes systemic racism continue on in ways that it should not. If everybody had a good job because of a good education you'd have a lot less discrimination, right?

But now they're actually hurting children bec