? Of course not. Do they say we will give you a contract if you give us a book we can't publish because it's so terrible? No. In every case people have to perform. Performing to a contract is the most basic thing any contract does. So they just said this is what we expect of you. If this thing happens to you it's going to happen to us at the same time. You know we're both not going to get that YouTube money so let's share the risk. If he wanted them to take more of the risk he could have done it. You could have just offered something else.

All right so it's always about the money because the thing he's talking about can be transferred into money. Every time anybody says it's not about the money stop listening to them. Everything they say after it's not about the money when there's 50 million dollars there it's always about the money. Always. You know the fact that he's talking about it in the public what's that about? It's about the money right? You know his nose. So I'm going to be strongly on the side of the Daily Wire on this. They made a good first offer. He didn't counter. He could have. There are lots of ways to counter. He didn't. And he recorded them and I would never even take his phone call. Would you? If Stephen Crowder called you would you even take his call if you know he recorded somebody and then played it? I wouldn't even answer the phone. I don't know how he could ever go forward and do business with anybody at this point. I mean seriously that is an ethical lapse of just monumental size in my opinion. Maybe it's just a pet peeve.

All right here's something interesting. On Fox Business on Charlie Payne's show Making Money this big master of finance Jeffrey Gundlach. He's the DoubleLine CEO so he's one of the masters of the universe in finance and he's talked about fentanyl and he says that the lack of action to shut down fentanyl has to be intentional. He said that right on TV. He goes there's no explanation for the lack of action. It has to be intentional. This is I don't know if he's a billionaire he's probably a billionaire. This is somebody who's high credibility in the business world who's looked at this and says there's no explanation it has to be intentional that we're letting a hundred thousand people die. For what reason we don't know but since you know what the problem is and you know what you would do if you were trying to solve it and we're not doing the things that you do if you're even trying like it would be one thing to try and fail but we're not trying. See that part is unexplained. Failing everybody gets. Failing that's just business as usual but not trying on one of the biggest problems in the country that everyone realizes is the best that has to be corruption. It has to be. It's the process of elimination. If you could give me one other explanation I would take it but it's got to be corruption. Now it might not be all money corruption. It might be somebody doesn't want to raise their head and say something that will get them fewer voters or something but it's still corrupt because they're not doing the people's work. It's just a different kind of corruption.

All right well it was good to know that somebody smart and prominent has exactly the same opinion. The first thing I did was go to his Twitter account and find out if he was following me because I haven't heard anybody else say it. Have you? Have you heard anybody else say that the lack of action process of elimination it's got to be intentional? Who has anybody else said that? No he doesn't follow me on Twitter. So what's, that's even more impressive because it means I'm not the only one noticing but it means that just smart observers are saying the same thing that there's no action and there's no explanation for the direction.

Do you know what was the other time I saw this? When Obama reversed his position when he said he wouldn't touch the dispensaries and the weed business in states and then he did exactly the opposite and he said he would go after the dispensaries and he never said why he changed his view. Never said to which I said if you don't explain why you changed your opinion is corruption is the assumption. It has to be corruption. So I assume that that Obama's a criminal based on that. Yeah just of that alone I assume he's a criminal.

There's a funny story about the Supreme Court leaker. Remember with that Roe versus Wade thing that got overturned and Jonathan Turley says that on Twitter the Supreme Court's report indicates that they cannot isolate the culprit among the over 80 possible suspects. So that's people who had access to the document and it is an admission that is almost as chilling as the leak itself. 80 people. And then Joel Pollak writing in Breitbart notes that it appears that the Supreme Court did not investigate the Supreme Court justices themselves. No I don't know this for sure yeah unless it was done in secret but there's no mention no mention that the Supreme Court justices themselves are obvious suspects.

Now here's the funny part. Well it's funny or tragic you decide. So the Supreme Court should be in our system the most credible entity we have because it's sort of our final defense against other entities being corrupt right? So if your Supreme Court isn't your best people in terms of credibility and honesty you've got a real problem because that's like the cap of the whole business right? So here's what's hilarious. Oh and also some of the people they talked to admitted they talk to their spouses. So some of the 80s said no I didn't leak it to the media but I did tell my spouse. So we now have a situation where we can't trust the justices. We can't trust at least 80 of their staff and I'm not sure we can trust their spouses. So it turns out that the entity that we should trust the most has more suspects to this crime than any group you can imagine. Like if this happened in any retail store that had lots of employees I don't think they would have hundreds of suspects do you? Have you ever seen any crime in which there were hundreds of suspects of the same entity? When a bank gets robbed it's an insider job. Are there hundreds of suspects? The fact that everybody is a suspect is to be as hilarious. Like just everybody. They're all untrustworthy. See that's why transparency is the only solution. You really can't trust anybody in government. You just have to have transparency. It's the only way.

Speaking of transparency Rasmussen is reporting did a very provocative poll and reported that 57 percent of likely U.S. voters believe Congress should investigate the CDC over their vaccine handling. But it gets even more interesting. 41 don't think it's likely the CDC has provided complete information. So 22 percent say it's not likely that they got complete information. So unfortunately I fall into the 22 percent because I famously always say 25 or so get every poll wrong. In other words they have the dumb answer for every poll but here I am in the 22 percent. I'm in the group that says it's not likely at all that the CDC provided complete information about vaccine risks. Do you know why it's not likely they provided complete information? Yeah because they're not psychic. How could they possibly have complete information? Did the CDC know what was going to happen in five years you know when any potential problems might arise? No no all they knew is what the manufacturers told them basically. So how in the world could they have that information? They can't tell you it's safe. They could just tell you what somebody told them. That's all they could do. So anybody who thought that they should know it's safe how would they possibly know that? That was unknowable.

All right but then I guess more interesting Rasmussen asked people how many of them know somebody they think died from vaccines or had vaccine injury. It's like 28 percent. What 28 percent? How about this 68 of the, this is from Rasmussen also, 68 of the 260 million adults and that would be 177 million adults in the United States. So 177 million indicate that received the COVID vaccination and seven percent of those reported major side effects. Now that would translate to 12 million people with major side effects. I guess I would include well I don't know I guess that doesn't include death because they couldn't have answered the poll but that got picked up in the other question.

So how do you interpret this? Let's say and by the way hold your analysis for a moment right because I've got some I'll go deeper. So suppose the I think the polling is probably accurate in the sense that seven percent really did answer that they had in their opinion major side effects. Let's say you knew that was true. We don't know that's true but let's say you know it was a fact the seven percent reported major side effects that they associate with the vaccination. Would you say that is strong evidence there's a problem, evidence of nothing, or strong evidence that the vaccinations work? Go. A strong evidence the vaccinations are killing people, doesn't tell us anything or it's strong evidence that the vaccinations were a good idea on a risk reward basis. What's your interpretation? A lot of people say nothing interesting.

Well remember you know it's a poll of people's opinions so you know by definition that's not a science but wouldn't you be worried as the VAERS report had this? How is it different than the VAERS report? Is it less reliable than the VAERS report which is where the doctors input who they think got injury from the vaccinations?

All right let me give you some context. So seven percent report that they believe the vaccination injured. It doesn't mean they're right. That's just their best view of what it was. But in context 80 percent of the United States believes angels are real. 80 percent. 60 percent believe in ghosts. That goes surreal. 60 percent. Six percent of Americans don't believe it but they are sensitive to gluten. Six percent are sensitive to gluten but 25 percent self-diagnosed as sensitive to gluten. So only six percent are scientifically sensitive to it but 25 believe they are.

Right the placebo effect how big is the placebo effect? If you compare the non-active pill to the real pill in a study the placebo effect is 30 to 60 percent. So 30 to 60 percent of people will report that the pill helped them. 30 to 60 percent when it did nothing or maybe it did because their body just reacted to their belief. How about how many people believe Elvis is alive? Four percent. Four percent of the country thinks Elvis is alive. What percent of the country think Bigfoot is real? 14 percent. According to an NBC poll this was taken some time ago how many believe Hillary Clinton is honest? What percentage of the country believes Hillary Clinton is honest? 11 percent. All right so 11 of the country thinks Hillary is honest but only seven percent think they were injured by vaccinations. I don't know does that context do anything for you?

So the context should be how accurate are people's self-reporting anything? Yeah seven percent actually sounds low to me. It says low. I would have expected more like 20 percent but seven percent is probably exactly the number of people who had a major health problem at around the same time as a vaccination. I don't know about you but at my age I tend to have some major health issue every year. Do you? Now when I say major I mean like I had problems with my blood pressure meds and you know at one point my sinuses were bad. At one point I had some reaction from some other meds and you know I got I thought my fitness declined quite a bit for a while during the pandemic. So I had all these things that I could have said you know I might have said were due to the shot but wha