the top one percent with the user interface for controlling brains. No problem. Just let that issue go.

Amazon has announced that its Prime members are going to have some kind of amazing deal on generics. So for five dollars a month for generics. So it's going to be like super cheap generics through Amazon and it's most of the big stuff. And I got all excited about this. I thought, wow, oh this could be good. It's not active in my state, California or Texas. Why would something not be legal in California and Texas? What do those two even have in common that they would have the same opinion on this? I'm missing the reason. Why? Just money? But why would it be different for a red and a blue state? I don't even just population. I don't know. I don't understand this story. So maybe somebody could work that out.

But if you're on Medicare or Medicaid you can't use it, and if you're in California or Texas you can't use it. Does any of that make sense to you? No. This would be a good case of our government. It looks like they're not really serving us in this case. But I'm available to hear a better argument. Maybe I'm missing something. But just to me it just looks like the government's just getting in the way of a good thing. Am I wrong?

No, it wasn't accidental, to answer your question on Locals. But sometimes I don't give reasons. Sometimes it's just personal for blocking.

All right, so here's my take on that. Just the day before I heard this I saw a tweet by I believe it was Doc Anarchy on Twitter warning against taking generic drugs. Now the argument is that the generics have less quality control. Would you agree? I don't know if that's the case often or usually or always. I've heard this is something I've heard but I've you know I don't know how I would validate it and I think it depends, right? And but would you know in advance which meds it depended? Yeah, I don't know.

I would say that I suppose if you take the generics first and you don't get a good result, maybe try the name brand. Is that the way to play it? You know, depending if it's life and death. I suppose if it's life and death I might take the name brand first. But let's say it's something like blood pressure. In the short run it's not really life or death. So if in the short run it didn't work, maybe you try the other thing.

All right. Matt Gaetz continues to say the most interesting things and do the most interesting things in Congress. Here's a little — I'm just gonna read to you several things that Matt Gaetz has said recently. All right, so not in the same day but just different tweets just recently. I want you to pick up the pattern here. And the pattern I'm looking for — well I guess I'm priming you for the pattern so you don't have to look for it. The pattern is he seems to say exactly what you want him to say and he seems to be focusing on the priorities that are apparently exactly the ones you would want him to focus on. And what's weird about it is that it stands out. Isn't that weird that he's simply doing his job and it stands out? Like why does that stand out?

Let me just read the things he said recently and you see if you can see it. Maybe in case it's my imagination, right? So just in no order these are things he said either on a podcast or in his own tweets. Quote: "Our FBI is corrupted by political interest domestically and compromised by foreign interests financially." How important is that? Like right at the top, right? That's really, really important to us. And he just says it directly. There's no hedging here like the part you don't want to hear is all the weird hedging. No, this is just a fact now and he just puts it right out there directly.

Here's another one: "I'm not here for the document drama. I think having people in the national security apparatus trying to shape the presidential field is not a good thing regardless of your political persuasion." So he doesn't care about the documents. Okay, I'm totally on board. I think we enjoy the documents as a political conversation but I don't think anybody thinks they're important. So I agree with him. And then he says that by having the national security apparatus shape our presidential field. Yes. Yeah. What's more important than that? Yes, that's like right at the top of things you should be caring about. Who else is talking about it? That's the question.

Then Matt Gaetz asked: "We are now funding Ukraine's government and our own. Why should Ukraine get less oversight because the money that goes to Ukraine just goes into a black box of corruption and the money that we spend in America we at least try to figure out where it went?" Is that a good point? Yes. It's probably the only good point about Ukraine. It's the only point we should all agree on. You know, you could disagree whether you should be there or not or how you're handling it but should there be any disagreement on we should know exactly where our money goes? Now how important is it? Well it's trillions — well not trillions yet but there's billions and billions of dollars. Yeah, really, really important. Thank you Matt Gaetz for pointing that out.

Another one: "Those who perpetrated the Russia collusion hoax on American people were in fact taking corrupt cash from Russia." So that's the new story about the FBI agent who was doing that. How important is that? Really, really, really important. Really important.

So I get — so do you see it? I'm not imagining, right, that Matt Gaetz is accurately picking up the most important things, mostly to his base, but I would argue they should be important to everybody. I don't know. He's continuing to impress with what I guess you could call a comeback. But since the charges were dropped in that whole case there's really nothing to come back from. So he's doing great. And somehow he's managed to continue to be a full-throated supporter of Trump and it doesn't seem to be hurting him somehow. He's pulling this all off. You're gonna have to keep an eye on that because when you see that much skill it usually predicts.

He also said that's why Jim Jordan and I will hold hearings, bring whistleblowers forward and demand answers to determine how deep the rot goes, talking about the intelligence agencies and FBI of course.

And then here's also — Bill Gates? I think he said this on Timcast. We had bills that broke up big tech. We were waiting for them to come to the floor. Then on the dip, you know, because the big tech stocks went down because Congress was going to scrutinize. And then he says that when they went down Paul Pelosi bought a bunch of those stocks and then those bills never went to the floor. Nancy Pelosi. Now how important is that? Really, really important. Like really, really, really important.

So again he's just all the right things. Now apparently Senator Hawley has introduced the Pelosi Act which would disallow members of Congress from trading individual stocks. Now they could still invest, they would just buy mutual funds and stuff like that. There are a few ways they can do it. They just wouldn't be making their own decisions on individual stocks. So who knows if that will get passed. It would be embarrassing to vote against it. How could you vote against that really? Could you? You're a member of Congress and you would vote for allowing yourself to have special information and buy stocks? Who could vote for that? I'm sure the Democrats will find some reason to object but it's going to be hilarious to hear that reason.

All right, here's what the Pelosi Act stands for. So you know they always make the act. It's not just because it's about Pelosi. It's a generic thing. So the Pelosi stands for Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments. PELOSI. I can't give them a compliment for how they're governing the country. Can't do it. But their ability to make up clever names for legislation? Unparalleled. Unparalleled. Yeah, so good job there.

Here's something that I need a fact