ut all the things. There's some funny things and some other things.

I heard it's International Women's Day. Is that right? Today? Or is it like a month or something? All right, well, we'll talk about that.

So I saw a tweet from John Quakes. He said that as of December 2021, at least according to one source, China is building more nuclear capacity that's already planned than the entire world put together. And apparently the USA is like this little dot. How in the world can the United States compete in the future with inferior energy sources?

I'm not positive that what I'm going to say is 100 percent true, but I'll bet it is. You know, I have a bat. I'll bet it's true. Has any country ever lost a war when they had the most abundant energy sources? In modern times, the one with the most energy sources wins everything, right? I think so. And I would think that nuclear would be a big part of making you a safe country.

Here's the thing. The United States, maybe everybody does it wrong, but maybe China does it right, actually, because they have more of a comprehensive view of war. You know, I've heard, I'm no China expert, but I've heard that China has the concept of total war. That the economy is war, influence is war, all that stuff is war. But in the United States, because of the way we like to lump things and report things, you know, literally the news has somebody who covers the military stuff and then a different person covers the economy. Am I right?

The way our news is organized is that the economy is separate from the military. It just is easier to talk about it. And although it's easier to talk about it, it also gives you a completely misleading idea of what defense is. Military defense is economy. Military defense is energy. Because energy is basically your economy. You know, that's an oversimplification. You could call it hyperbole. I've been known to use it. But nobody would disagree who knows anything about the world that the economy is basically your military. You know what I mean? It's almost a one-to-one correspondence. And that energy is pretty much your economy. So energy is your homeland security.

And that's the thing that Trump got right. Trump was the one who said you've got to get rid of that pipeline from Russia to Germany because that's a military problem, essentially. He is the first one I remember framing it correctly. I might be wrong.

I was listening to Russell Brand talk about the fact that blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline was more about economics than any kind of military security, to which I said, Russell Brand, you can't separate those things. Now, his point that there might be a purely financial reason for it, for sure. I mean, that's completely right. Some people in the larger drama would have a purely financial interest. Surely those people exist in power too. But as soon as you say that you're doing it for one reason, you've really lost. You've sort of lost the bigger picture.

The bigger picture is that taking Europe away from dependence on energy from a potential adversary was the smartest security thing you can do, even if it's really expensive in the long run. You've got to get your energy under control and not under your adversary's control. That's just the dumbest thing you could ever do.

So I just want to add that frame. I guess that would be called a reframe. So instead of thinking that the military and the economy are two separate questions, they're always the same. And then the third thing is that energy equals economy. They end up basically being a proxy for the other.

Well, let's challenge your IQs here. Let's see if you can get the answer before I ask the question. Go. People on the... There you go. That is the correct answer. Very good, very good. This is the only audience that can answer a question accurately before the question is asked. Am I right? Have you ever seen any audience that can get the answer before the question is asked?

And here was the question. According to Rasmussen, what was Congress's pe