ke the fourth one down was it's never been this warm in February. Here's why that's not a good thing. That's the actual title. After all the blizzards and hurricanes and record cold, it's never been this warm in February. Here's why that's not a good thing.

Now I'm not going to say that weather is climate. I get it. I get it. It could be really cold one day and really warm another day and that's not really telling you anything, right? You'd have to look at the average everywhere over time to know anything. So I'm not saying weather is climate. But it's hilarious how CNN has to maintain their narrative. They didn't say anything that was wrong as far as I know. I mean February might be the warmest. It's been very warm where I am. I think this is my warmest February. So I agree with them, you know, at least anecdotally. But it's just so hard because they can't just say it's really cold. You try to cover the news. You're like, well, it's really cold. I'm going to write it's really cold. Before you write it's really cold we better frame this in the narrative. And then you say it's the weather report. It's just cold today. I know, I know, I know it's just the weather but we'd better make sure this is in the narrative. So they did.

All right. CNN continues to claim the Fox executives privately knew that the election was fair but they were allowing their on-air people to act as though it was not or at least act as though there were great questions. And then I think to myself, wow, if that's true that's pretty damning. And then I say to myself I can't wait to see the quote or the text that demonstrates this claim. Still waiting. As far as I can tell this is just made up. Am I wrong? It looks totally made up. I don't believe there's any evidence that the Fox executives knew what the election was because it was unknowable. Do you knew it was fair and then decided, oh we know it was good but we're still going to run programming as if it isn't. That's what CNN is indicating. But there's no evidence of that. There's simply evidence that people disagreed. Is that a crime? Is it a crime that some of the people at Fox thought the election was good enough, you know, fair enough, and some thought it wasn't? Why is that a crime? All they showed is that they're not operating in lockstep. They showed that there was, and here's the part I like best, they're criticizing Tucker Carlson for having said that their viewers are good people and they should respect their preferences for what they'd like to see covered in the news. Is CNN mocking that? Like you know we caught you. Caught them respecting their audience behind closed doors. Behind closed doors Tucker said he respects his audience and wants to give them what they quite reasonably want to see because Tucker does not think it's unreasonable that people have questions about this election. Neither do I.

I believe that nothing's been demonstrated to show it was illegal. I believe that. I was surprised and I certainly wanted to see more transparency and all that. But I'm completely on board with people who had enough questions that they think it's still a news story. I agree with that completely. Even if there's no evidence of anything that went wrong with the voting, the fact that a huge portion of the public believes it, that does make it news. That is news. And respecting your audience and giving them the news coverage that they most want because it's most important to them. If the election had been thrown in an illegal way, I think it was rigged in a legal way. Rigged in the sense that the rule changes because of the pandemic were favorable to the Democrats. But it was legal, right? I just have to give a hand to the Democrats and say good work. You know, if the Republicans could have done something that clever and that effective and also completely legal, I think I would applaud them too because those are the rules. If you follow the rules and you win, you won. You know it looks rigged but legally if it's legal that's something else.

All right. So keep watching the critics of Fox News and demand that they give you an example to represent their opinion because there aren't any. They don't have any examples to represent their opinion that Fox News was lying to their customers. None. At least that I've seen. That I've seen.

CNN talking about Ukraine is now seemingly, I don't know I'd call it confirmed, but they're reporting that even the head of the Wagner group says they don't have enough ammunition and it doesn't look like it's going to get fixed. Now do I need to give you my universal disclaimer? Universal disclaimer. Any information that you hear about Ukraine is unreliable. Even if the news guarantees you that they have no ammunition left, they might have more ammunition than anybody's ever had in the history of war. It's possible. It's possible. Yeah, you can't believe any report on Ukraine.

But I've been following an account for a while, a knowledgeable military veteran who knows a lot about a lot of stuff, who's going through all the circumstantial evidence that suggests that they're running out of barrels for the artillery because they wear out pretty quickly. You just shoot them, I don't know, for a few days and you got to take the barrel off. You can't repair it in the field. It would have to be replaced by a factory precision barrel. And the suggestion is that even though Russia is trying to get ammo from all kinds of different places, if you look at the whole picture of everything they're doing and then you listen to the head of the Wagner group say it directly, it looks like they're out of ammunition. Like actually the war could end because they're out of ammunition.

Now I'm not going to say that that's true yet. Remember it's Ukraine and it's Russia and nothing's believable. But all of the signs are pointing in that direction. They're all pointing that direction. And we'll know. I think we'll know pretty soon. We'll probably know by June I think.

Now Joe says "wrong" in capital letters. Now Joe, did you need to tell me that? One word "wrong" in capital letters. Is it b