ejected a law that would have made psychedelics decriminalized. So are you surprised? Governor Newsom of California, very progressive place, and he turned down a new law that would have decriminalized psychedelics.

Now, I did not see his reason for why, but I'm going to speculate it was probably just the details. There was probably something in the law that's not obvious that was unacceptable. So I don't think he turned it down because he has a problem. I'm just guessing. This is just speculating. I doubt he has a problem with the risk and benefits of psychedelics, because I'm sure he's pretty well informed. And I believe that the support for it is something like 60 percent, and in California it's probably higher.

So it's weird that he would do that while we imagine he might want to be president, because the public likes that one. They like it to be decriminalized. So I'm going to say it could be Big Pharma. It's possible Big Pharma got to him. But I think it's slightly more likely there was something wrong with the law. There might have been a poison pill in there, something else that they wanted that he didn't think was cool. So keep an open mind on that.

I just don't believe that Newsom would have said no to psychedelics given what we all know about them at this point. There had to be a trick.

All right. China's Communist Party expelled the former chairman of the state-owned Bank of China for being a big old criminal scumbag and doing lots of illegal things. So that was the state-owned Bank of China. They had a vote. He was a crook. And so they just kicked him out of the Communist Party.

How bad are things in China? I feel like China is so corrupt that I don't know how they can possibly go forward. I feel like corruption alone would just kill them. I just don't know how they could compete with us. Not that we don't have any corruption, but it seems more rampant there.

Now I've got a prediction, and this is also a test. It's a prediction-slash-public test. As you know, there were some prominent deaths recently in the United States of people who had criticized me on the X platform not long before they died. One was murdered with guns, another murdered with knives. Now, of course I don't think there's any causality there. Just a weird coincidence. But you never know. So let's test it.

So I'm predicting that President Xi of China is going to have a major health issue in the next six months. Major health issue, President Xi, in the next six months. Because I think the level of stress that President Xi is experiencing is probably unlike anything he's ever experienced. And that's pretty predictive of bad health. So we'll see. Am I psychic? Am I causing things to happen by my mental telekinesis? Well, let's find out.

If President Xi goes down in the next six months — I'm not predicting his death. I'm only predicting a major health problem. So we'll see.

All right. So you know our borders are basically open at the southern border. Well, everywhere, I guess, the borders are basically open. And guess how many people that are categorized as special interest aliens — no, not the kind from other planets, but the people illegally coming into the country — how many are called special interest aliens, meaning they came from some place that has such a high terrorism rate that we would not normally let them in the country at all. People would be too dangerous to be let in the country.

Eighty-six thousand of them in the last two years. Eighty-six thousand in the last two years. How many fighters have attacked Israel in the last day or so? About a thousand. About 1,000. So about 1,000 people is throwing Israel into chaos. About 86,000 people, any one of them who could have been terrorists, have come across our border in the last two years.

Do you think they're organized? Do you think that there's any large group of people who came here specifically to be sleepers until it was time to go? How could they not? Really, it's really hard for me to imagine a scenario in which there are not at least a few thousand people who are here to destroy the country. There's no way to know. But wouldn't it be weird if out of 86,000 people who all came from countries who are high likelihood of wanting to destroy the United States, and you think that none of them are terrorists? I would think it's thousands.

We may have thousands of people who are just waiting for the signal. Now, how much damage could thousands of people do if they were among the public and they just wanted to go out and do whatever the worst terrorist thing an individual could do? Pretty bad. Pretty bad if they're smart and organized.

All right. Mike Solana pointed out in a tweet — he just said it today, I think — that no other social media platform is relevant. Only X. You know, that's exactly what my experience was. I looked at the news, but the news appears to be behind the social media platforms. And so I could just stay on the social media, and if it pointed into a news thing I wanted to see, I could just go see it. But you don't really get a sense of what's going on by looking at the news sites today. You really would have to get the whole lay of the land from social media.

So this is a really, let's say, clarifying day for our media enterprises, because we no longer have regular reporting like we used to. The citizen reporting and the citizen videos are most of the story. So basically if you have what the government is telling you, press releases, and then you have video on the ground, you're 80 percent of the news right there. The other 20 percent I'm not even sure we'll see. Any other 20 percent it's going to be what the governments tell you and then what the video shows you of the people who are actually there. And that's about all we'll know.

Well, anyway, the big shocking part of the Israel situation now being attacked directly by Hamas is that it's a pretty good preview of America. So if you were to say what's the root cause of why Israel is at war, the root cause is that one group has been trained that another group has their stuff and they need to give it back at any cost. Right? One part of the population in that part of the world has been trained that the other part has their stuff and that the other part are not as worthy as you are because they're oppressors.

Now let me say, because I know there are going to be people on both sides of things, there are going to be people on both sides of things. Of course there's a story in the other direction, right? We're not going to do — I'm not going to do who's equivalent and who's worse than who. All right, I'm not going to do that. I do that. Let's just say there are some things that have happened in the Middle East in the last few thousand years. They're not exactly what you wish would have happened, and maybe you wouldn't have done it that way, but it is what it is at this point. You know, we're starting from this point.

So there are two groups that have stories about each other. But the more alarming story is that one has a story that they must go get their stuff back. And specifically their stuff is their land and whatever wealth they would have had if they stayed on their land. That would be their version. But of course Israel has its own versions.

To me this looks exactly like what we're heading toward, because CRT and ESG and DEI are teaching Americans that one group of Americans has the stuff that they stole from the other group of Americans. What's the logical outcome of that? It's Israel. It's where one group gets militarized and tries to destroy the other group. I don't know how it could go any other way, could it?

If one group is continually propagandized that there's a group nearby, like walking distance, there's another group that's within walking distance and they have all your stuff and they're bad and they're oppressors and they stole it. Right? So you're going to watch Israel do probably the only thing you can do in that situation that makes sense. You have to get away from those people who want bad things to happen to you.

Now that doesn't mean that every person who's not an Israeli citizen, it doesn't mean that most or even any of them are bad. It just means that it's a population you can't live next to because there's a very predictable outcome. So my guess is that Gaza will have to be at least dominated and occupied forever and maybe even eliminated. Not in terms of the people but eliminated in terms of a real estate destination, place that people live. So they might be expelled.

I think the whole thing will be turned into more of a prison camp than it already is. You know, some have said there are only two exits from Gaza. One of them is heavily guarded by Israel — apparently not as heavily guarded as it could be — and the other is heavily guarded by Egypt. And neither of them are friendly in a complete way. So some have said that Gaza is already a prison camp. I think it'll become more of one.

So that would be the obvious way that Israel is going to go. It will degrade the leadership there and their military assets and then will just take complete control. And it will live with that, whatever that looks like, because there's no other choice.

I've heard some people who are angry today say that Israel should just basically wipe out all the people in Gaza. But let me remind you there is one country on Earth that can't really do a holocaust on somebody else, right? Israel is not going to perpetuate an actual holocaust on other people. They can't. Right now maybe physically they could, but there's no way Israel would ever survive as a viable country if they invalidated the primary software upon which Israel was founded, which is never again. You can't have another holocaust.

Now obviously they're trying to prevent a holocaust on themselves. That's the number one thing that they're fighting to prevent right now. But they can't defend themselves by creating a holocaust on somebody else. There's no way that's a survivable situation for anybody. So they don't have that option. And maybe that's good. You know, some of you are going to argue with me, but it's not really an option.

But they do have an option of closing up Gaza forever and just saying, hey, we can't make this our problem. Yeah, good luck. So I think that's what's going to happen.

Here's the update. I've heard some estimates of 600 dead in Israel. Can we be perfectly matter-of-fact about the real world? All right, without the — let me give you some real world truth. If all 600 of those people were adult males, it would look like a Tuesday, right? Six hundred adult males dying for anything, whether it's war or anything else, we just don't get that worked up about because we're used to it. And men are seemingly more expendable. Like just psychologically we're used to sending young men to war and them not coming back.

However, that's not what's happening in this situation. By now have you all seen the video of the Israeli woman who is either unconscious or dead and nearly naked in the back of a truck with the Hamas fighters? Have you all seen that video? Some say she's German. Some say she's a German Jew. I'm not sure. Well, regardless, that video is going to have an effect.

And we've seen other videos that appear to show hostages being taken which include women. There might be some children, but I haven't seen any confirmed reports. Now first thing is don't believe any videos you see coming out of this situation. Don't believe any videos you see, right? So you know we're definitely going to get pranked and hoaxed by a number of videos. Some of them will be older ones. Right now there's an older video of Iran chanting death to America which yesterday I heard was them doing it right now. And then today I find out, oh no, that's old video. It's three years ago. So just be careful. There's going to be a video of other wars that people try to tell you is this one. And there will be videos of very old stuff that they try to tell you was happening now.

But here's the point. If the way that people come to think of this is that Hamas came over and kidnapped and raped women and took them back as hostages, all the rules are gone. So let me say it as clearly as possible. I'm not telling you my preference. This is not my preference. I'm just telling you as a basic matter of human nature that when you — if you were killing a whole bunch of adult men, both sides might be able to work that out later. They could maybe potentially — maybe not these two sides, but as a general statement, if two sides have killed a bunch of men on each side, mostly men, you can get over it.

But if Hamas came in and took women, whether they were citizens or soldiers or not, we're not going to look at that the same. That is now a whole different thing. And when you reach that level of risk and that level of evil and self-defense is involved for Israel, here's what you need to know. There are no rules in self-defense.

And what these latest videos and the actions of Hamas have done have removed any reason for Israel to act morally or ethically based on somebody else's opinion of what is moral or ethical. They have complete freedom now, except for a holocaust, right? They can't do something that definitely looks like a holocaust. There's no way they could do that. But they can do what they need to do, whatever that is, short of a holocaust. And it's not going to be pretty.

So I would say that, you know, of course international law is a big factor. And if you violate it you might have to pay. But they're not going to have to worry about their moral or ethical standing anymore. That question's been answered. If your women and children could be dragged away to be raped if you act in this way — and maybe less likely if you act in this way — you don't have to wonder which way it's going to go, right? You don't have to wonder which way it's going to go.

Once Hamas brought women into the equation, there's only one way it goes, which is Israel is going to solve this whatever it takes, short of a holocaust. They won't do that. But I do think they'll turn Gaza into a permanent prison camp basically. You know, they won't present it that way, but that's basically what it's going to be and has to be. I don't see any option. Do you? Does anybody see any alternative? It's not like you can make peace.

So if making peace isn't one of the options and a holocaust isn't one of the options, there is only one thing that can and will happen. Am I wrong? If you're wondering where this will end up, why are you even wondering that? It's not going to end up as a holocaust. They're not going to be able to really bulldoze it because there's no place for the people to go. They might prefer to do that but they're not going to do it.

So my guess is that Israel just got a lot bigger. And that's not a bad strategy for Israel. Every time Israel is attacked and, you know, let's say a big serious attack, they simply take the land of the attackers. It's a pretty good national strategy for growth. So there's that.

All right. I did see that video from the leader of Iran saying that death to America really only applies to the leaders. It doesn't apply to the people. They don't have a beef with the people, only the leaders. Which is actually not that different than what we say here about the Iranian people. Iranian people are awesome. I don't know if you know any, but if you ever want to meet some awesome people, the Persians slash Iranians, great people. You'll be very happy if you make the acquaintance of any. I recommend it.

So it's actually not about the people. The people in America don't have any beef with the people in Iran. And maybe it's the same way back. That's a very interesting situation.

All right. But it does make me wonder if Israel has now a free shot at the president of Iran, whose name I'm trying to avoid saying because I can never keep straight my kh's and my commies and K's. And how do you say his name? The Ayatollah. Well, they do have a president but they also have an Ayatollah. That's correct. The Ayatollah is in charge. What's his name? Death conversion for infidels. Yeah, that's only Ali Khamenei. Thank you. Is that the pronunciation or is it Khamenei? All right. Well, I'll have to learn that the next few days.

But would you say that Israel has a free pass to take out the leadership of Iran? I think so. Now the only reason not to do it would be strategic. Yeah, it would be strategic. But let me be very clear. If this were America and we knew that there was an individual who was primarily involved in funding it, we would kill him. You think we would care that he's the head of another country? No, we'd kill him right away.

If there were boots on the ground on our homeland, like actually armed people running around gunning down our citizens, and we knew where the person with the wallet was, no, we would kill him right away. I hope so. Don't you? Do you think we would hesitate to kill him if we knew that he was a cause of boots on the ground?

Now it's different if there's not boots on the ground, right? If stuff is blowing up, you're like, we'd sure like to kill this guy but it's going to cause more trouble than it's worth. But at the moment, what would be more trouble than a war on your territory, which is what Israel experienced? It can't get worse, can it?

So I've got a feeling that Israel is going to first get rid of the immediate threat. They're going to chase down the people in their country. Then they're going to lock down Hamas after killing as many of them in place as they can. They're going to put a wall around it. And then I think they're going to take a run at Iran's leadership. Because if they don't, I don't understand why not. Because they have moral and complete — it's pronounced K. Okay, I'll go with that.

All right. And again, don't assume you're seeing my opinions, okay? I'm telling you what seems likely and I'm just describing it. All right. Basically everything that's happening there is bad. And I'm not sure that there are a lot of good guys right there. There's a lot of stuff I could criticize everywhere. So I'm just telling you what's going to happen. You know that taking sides is kind of sketchy at this point. Although obviously we're taking sides with Israel. But that doesn't mean we would necessarily agree with 100 percent of what they do.

So let me make a distinction. While I might not agree with 100 percent of what Israel is about to do, I do agree that they have the ethical and moral free pass. I might not agree with it but I'm not going to say it's immoral or unethical. They got to do what they got to do when it comes to self-defense. You do what you got to do. And that's the situation they're in.

The chat, you see a lot of crazy chat people. Well, here's the first thing I would ask everybody to do. Try to dial down your bloodlust a little bit. Because I feel like the bloodlust isn't helping anybody. So even if you think it's the only solution, just remember that word solution. It has two meanings. So don't do the bad one.

All right. Let's talk about the conspiracy theories. Number one, do you think any of this was a diversion from Ukraine or a recognition that Ukraine wasn't going to be the big old wallet that it used to be for the military industrial complex? Do you think they're connected? I'm going to say no, they're connected because all the news is connected. But I don't think they're connected strategically or that anybody had a plan. I'm not seeing enough to suggest that these are connected except that they're big events. So one will distract from the other, etc.

But think about what happened since a week ago. A week ago Ukraine had this unlimited money flow from the United States, which is now at least temporarily stopped because they don't have any ability. Congress doesn't have the ability to do anything because they don't have a speaker. So they don't have access to money. And they were just pushed completely off the headlines in terms of attention. So they just lost all of their attention and all of their money.

Now who would have been able to predict that attention would be taken away? Russia could predict it. Do you think Russia is helping to start trouble in other places because it would help them in Ukraine? Well, it seems like they should be doing that. That would be an obvious play if they can get America's money and attention to go somewhere else. That'd be a good play.

But to me it really looks like maybe it was just the time that they were going to do this thing anyway. So I'm not sure that Russia was behind it. But I wouldn't be surprised if they had some encouragement about it. I don't know. But I need a fact check. Isn't Israel good with Russia? I thought Russia tried to play both sides in the Middle East. Hey, we don't hate you Palestinians. We don't hate you Israelis. So I don't see Russia as being an enemy to Israel. I don't see Putin being an enemy to Israel.

So I don't know that Putin would want to start trouble in Israel because doesn't Putin have his own Jewish population he has to worry about? That's the thing, right? My understanding is that Putin has always said the right things when it comes to Jews and Israel because he needs to not make any more enemies. So I'm going to say that it probably wasn't Putin. I don't think he was behind it.

Now let's talk about the $6 billion. Now the smart people will tell you that even though the six billion was earmarked for something specific, money is fungible, as we like to say. So if they got six billion that they didn't know they were going to get, then that would free up six billion they were planning to spend on those same things. So in theory it creates six billion even if they don't spend that six billion.

But do you think that six billion is the reason it happened now or that it really made any difference at all? My bet is it didn't make any difference at all. Unless the point of it was to embarrass Biden. If the point of it was to just stick a finger in Biden, say, la la la, you're such a bad leader. You negotiated a terrible deal. Your own people should get rid of you. But why would they do that? He's going to end up with Trump. So you wouldn't expect Iran to want to embarrass Biden because they can get what they want from him and Trump would probably be worse or whoever is a Republican.

So I'm going to say that the six billion did in fact give them more money for anything they wanted. But probably it didn't make a difference. The GDP of Iran is around 360 billion. They got six billion that they weren't expecting. Yeah, it's around 360 billion. Now that's the GDP. It's not how much cash they have to spend. But it gives you a sense of scale. The six billion is real money but they could have done this without the extra six billion.

So now how about the two-state solution? You know, the two-state idea was that someday, should peace ever be agreed, that Israelis and Palestinians could live side by side having divided up the land that was in dispute. I would say that's done. So I think Israel comes out ahead because their best situation is to not have a two-state deal if one of the states is trying to kill them actively. You know, if they had a real peace then a two-state solution would be ideal. But there are too many people within the state who want their demise and are willing to kill themselves to get it. You can't really live next to them.

So I think the idea of living next to them is over. Would you agree? I think that forever the two-state solution of living side by side with any group that would support what is happening, which is the attack, it's just not going to happen anymore. So there will be plenty of Palestinians living in that area but they just won't have their own country. There's no way that can happen now.

And so some would say that Israel's new approach to this, because it's self-defense, it's not anything else, is sort of get the away from them. Something like that. Because it's a group of people who have been brainwashed into thinking that they must kill the Israelis. So if you can't defeat them and you can't kill them all and you can't brainwash them and those options do not exist, your best option is to get the away from them as far as you can.

So I mean there's not much they can do but they can certainly make sure that they don't have their own country on their border. So they will definitely make sure there's never a Palestinian country that shares a border with them. I think they'll make sure that's happening.

Now do you think Hezbollah will get involved? I think they may have fired some missiles or something. But is Hezbollah going to start storming across the border? So if you're not familiar with the situation, Gaza's this little band of land that has Hamas in charge. But Hezbollah is up in Lebanon. So they're kind of surrounding Israel. And Hezbollah apparently is way more armed than Hamas. And you know they always act like they're just building up their army for some eventual big wave.

What happens if it's now? If Hamas is streaming over — allegedly a thousand fighters have gotten in. A thousand. That's a lot. And if Hezbollah comes across — and then I saw some videos that have low credibility but maybe that there were people in Jordan. The men who were lining up to march and to help the Hamas attack.

So could it be that what will really happen is that it will inspire the others who wanted to attack but didn't quite have a plan to do it? Would it inspire a three-pronged attack? And could Israel be overrun? Are there enough people all around them that even weapons won't help? Is it going to turn into a zombie apocalypse? Yeah, I don't think many Jordanians would do it but you could always find some little group of people willing to do just about anything.

And then the next question is, is all of this just to make it harder for Israel to have the Abraham Accords and to make peace with Saudi Arabia? Is all of this to keep Saudi Arabia from making peace, you know, formal peace with Israel? Could be. Could be. Possibly. It would make sense.

So of all the conspiracy theories, that one makes the most sense because the timing is suspicious. It's like, oh really, why now? Well this would be the perfect time to do it if you wanted Israel and Saudi Arabia to have a reason not to make peace.

But I feel like the Palestinians have not read the room correctly, or Hamas at least. Because here's how I read the room from a distance. And obviously I have no expertise in the Middle East. But from a distance it looks like Saudi Arabia is just done with the Palestinian problem. I think they're just like, you're on your own, guys. I don't think Saudi Arabia is going to blink.

Because the Crown Prince, for whatever flaws you would like to attribute to him — for murdering his critic, that's a big one — but he seems completely rational. And he seems dedicated to making Saudi Arabia a place of peace with their neighbors. I think he's the real deal in terms of a leader who's trying to do what makes sense and is rational and is not crazy for Saudi Arabia.

So having a leader that rational at the same time as a Netanyahu is probably the best case scenario. Because Netanyahu is a very rational guy. You could make a deal with Netanyahu. And I think the Crown Prince is likewise a very rational person who just wants what's good for his country. And what's good for the country is they're not at war. It's just obvious.

So I think they are two people who can make peace. Yeah, Egypt, I don't know enough about Egypt to have an opinion. But I don't think the Abraham Accords are going to fall apart because I think that this attack on Israel is so far above the line or it's just all over the red line that nobody's going to be confused or not understand. If Israel goes hard at it, everybody's going to understand that. Like how could Saudi Arabia ever have peace while the Palestinians are making problems left and right?

We could bribe Egypt maybe. Well this is also part of my larger point that Trump looks better every day he's not in office. How many of you have had the thought — and I know this is racist. I know this is racist. But how many of you have had the thought that Trump was right to ban all Muslims until he could, quote, figure out what the problem was?

Now it's racist. It's definitely racist. But do you remember my rule about self-defense? If you're doing it for self-defense you could be as racist as you want. Can I say that directly without being canceled? I am completely opposed to racism. I oppose it certainly at an individual level. I oppose it maximally. You shouldn't be treating people by their race or their religion or their gender, all those things, religion, etc. I said religion twice.

However that would apply to normal times and that would apply to following the law, right? So generally if you break the law you're going to have to pay for it. That does not conflict with the fact that when it comes to self-defense there are no rules. If it's self-defense you do what you have to do and then you deal with the fallout because of it. Now the fallout might be you broke the law. That's a pretty big fallout. But there's no moral or ethical problem with being completely racist to protect yourself.

Now you're going to say to me, Scott, what about the Japanese internment camps? Totally evil. Would you agree? I do. Yeah. I actually know people who were in the camps. Like I know them personally. Spent a lot of time with them. Totally evil. And in retrospect, was there any real risk? Probably not. There was probably, yeah, maybe some, but trivial.

So the reason it looks so extra evil, the Japanese internment camps, is not just because it was racist, super racist, but because it wasn't necessary. There was no indication it made anybody safer. Now that's just a gigantic oops, right? That's wrong on every level. It did not make you safer. It was super racist and it broke the law, broke the Constitution, broke everything.

Now suppose it had kept us safer. It didn't. But suppose it had. Well that's where it gets complicated, doesn't it? As far as I know there was nobody in the American Japanese population who were trained to want to take stuff from the white people or the Americans, let's say, of all races. They were not educated to be our enemies. They were never propagandized to be our enemies. They wanted to be here. They wanted to be American. They were actually propagandized to be our friends. And so they acted that way, right? They wanted to be part of the melting pot.

Now that group of people who wants to be part of the melting pot and have not been propagandized to be your enemy, putting them in an internment camp is the height of evil. It's the height of evil because you can't even imagine there's a positive element to it. There's no argument for it at all. They've been trained to be part of the melting pot. You can't get worse than that in terms of national behavior.

However, in the Middle East there are countries in which there are big pockets of people who have been propagandized, brainwashed into thinking that Americans among others are the enemy. Under that situation, with no regard to people's religion or their genetic makeup because that's not part of the question, are they part of a class of people who have been propagandized, meaning that the only thing that's wrong with them is the lessons they've learned? Nothing wrong with their skin color. Nothing wrong with their DNA. Nothing wrong with their chromosomes, right? There's nothing wrong with their culture per se except for this specific part.

Under those conditions can you be completely racist? The answer is yes, absolutely you can be completely racist if at the same time that's not the thing you're going after. Let me say that more clearly. You can be completely racist if that's not your intention. If your intention is just self-defense and it could be demonstrated that there's some large percentage of the population that has been trained, actually propagandized and trained to be your mortal enemy, yeah, you can block all of them. You can block the whole country even if they're all the same whatever ethnic group. No problem with that at all.

Now if there's no law against it in the United States, let's say, then you wouldn't be breaking the law. You would be protecting the country. You don't know how much but some. And it would be self-defense, completely morally and ethically defensible.

Where it goes wrong is if you say it's all Muslim countries because then you've got a problem. Because I don't believe that all Muslim countries are so similar that they would have large populations of people trained to be our mortal enemies. I mean if I go to any one of X, N countries, am I going to find that everywhere? Now you might have to say well there's always one or two. But yeah, well you know I know what the Quran says but we also know that there are a zillion perfectly good American Muslim people who are not looking to kill anybody, right?

So it doesn't matter what the Quran says. Imagine it matters what the people believe. And if they believe that the Quran is a book of peace, fine. That's all good.

So here's what Israel is going to teach us. Israel is going to teach us that you should never discriminate against people for their race or ethnicity or religion. And in fact Israel does a real good job of being an open society in which if you're a low-risk person they're not going to care about your religion or your ethnicity. You just have to be a low-risk situation.

And they're going to teach you that if it's a high-risk situation that your ethnicity and your religion are going to be irrelevant. And it might look like discrimination but that's not the intention. The intention would be just self-defense. Now would a lot of innocent people get killed? Yeah. Yeah. In every war lots of innocent people get killed. Nobody likes that but there's also not much you can do about it.

All right. So I would say that Trump's view that in the early days after — certainly when there was a lot of terrorism going on — his view that we should at least close the border for everybody who might be in the category of a problem until we can figure out who really is a problem was perfectly good commander-in-chiefing. As commander-in-chief that was exactly the right decision. It was racist but it was also allowable under that specific condition.

And by the way, just to clarify, I was completely against the rounding up of the Japanese Americans. These are not comparable, right? One group was not trained to be our enemies. So that was pure racism and that's 100 percent unacceptable.

All right. Nikki Haley won the news cycle by being the toughest. I think one of the things that Nikki Haley gets right is that if you're running as a woman for a job that's never had a woman and it's commander-in-chief is the big part of the job, that you've got to make it look like you're the toughest person in the room. So I think she cranks it up to 110 when maybe 95 was the right level. But in terms of getting attention during the election cycle she said this, among other things. This is not just an attack on Israel. This was an attack on America.

So that's pretty extreme. But then she says to Netanyahu directly, finish them. Finish them. She says it twice. Finish them. Finish them. Now what does that sound like? It sounds like kill them all. But that's presumably not what she means. I think she means finish them as a political and military power. But the way she delivered the line, she delivered the line like she was Arnold Schwarzenegger saying I'll be back. It was chilling.

And I said to myself, okay, you just sold me that you're not going to be soft. Completely sold. Because these are strong, strong words. Finish them. Because finish them is unambiguous, isn't it? That doesn't mean give them a black eye. That means we're now going to change the situation forever. And by the way Israel says that they're going to change the reality for 50 years, which means probably longer.

All right. So I would say she won on being the toughest there. I think Vivek has a problem because although his opinion on Israel was reasonable and defensible, which is at some point we should wean them off of American aid, I think that's more complicated because our aid is to help them buy our own military assets. So it's not exactly like direct aid. It's more like fascism on the American side. It's more like fascism because the government is acting like a marketer for the military contractors.

But anyway, just because he said we should figure out a way to let Israel pay its own way because they're a big successful country economically, he's going to look like he is weak on this. He's not. But when you compare it to finish them to, well you know maybe they should be on their own, you know that they don't sound the same.

So regardless of what is the reality of their opinions, that never matters for politics. The reality is how are we going to shortcut them, right? If every time you talk about Nikki Haley from now on you remind people she said finish them, she's the tough one, well then she wins. And if every time they talk about Vivek it's like, oh but he wanted to reduce support to Israel, which is not exactly what he's saying. He's saying they don't need it, which is different than reduce. So it's going to be harder to defend.

But all that's going to matter is what Trump says probably. And Biden just said the standard stuff presidents say. Has Trump said something that's not obvious like Israel has to hit back, blah blah blah? Has Trump done anything that wasn't just you knew he was going to say exactly that? I don't think so. I think everybody's acting on model right now.

Sam Harris, there's an audio of him I think he did it a while ago in which he was comparing the morality of what Israel does with its power to the morality of what their enemies do with their power. And I started to wonder after listening to it if Sam Harris has always been dumb and I just didn't realize it. Maybe I just didn't realize it. Because here was his argument.

He argues that you can tell how evil somebody is — I'm paraphrasing now — by if they had the power, if they had all the power, what would they do with it? Now he suggests that if the Palestinians had all the power, at least the militant ones, if they had all the power they would literally just kill everybody in Israel, all the Jews. Now I don't know that that's true but they do talk like that. So I'm going to say he's not wrong about that because that's the way they talk.

But he points out it's not the same on the other side. That Israel has the military dominance but they are not wiping out the Palestinians. So therefore you cannot make a moral equivalent. Because if the Palestinians had the power they would kill all the Israelis. They say it kind of directly. Israel does have that kind of power that if they wanted to they could but they don't do it. Therefore that's more moral.

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard in my life. Do I even have to give you an argument for that or are you all just nodding your heads like that's pretty stupid? It's just stupid. Israel can't wipe out a civilization. That's not one of the options. You can't look at them and say well they haven't done a holocaust themselves. Of course it's not an option.

So to act as if Israel has the option and so because they didn't use that option you can tell something about them, it's not an option. Now I will say that if they had the option I don't think they would use it. But that's a separate argument, right? I don't think they would. But it is not true that one of them has the power and one does not. They neither of them have the power to completely kill all the other people in a realistic sense. They have the military power but not realistically.

I decided to call MSNBC the anti-white news because that's all I see when I watch NBC, MSNBC. MSNBC is just a hundred different reasons to say white people suck. It's just anti-white people news. I feel like that's just what I'm going to call it from now on. Yeah, I did call it MSNPC but it's funnier to just call it the anti-white news because that's what it is anyway.

Did you know that in Sweden there are 61 no-go zones because of the Islamic extremists who live there? There are 61 places that unless you're Islamist you can't go there. 61. And apparently there are a number of people in the city of Malmo in Sweden shooting off fireworks celebrating the Hamas terror attack. So that's Sweden. So Sweden went the opposite direction of Trump and said, hey we're not a bunch of racists, come on in. And now they have 61 no-go zones.

So they got what they wanted there. Minneapolis and Detroit are no-go. Yeah, we have our own no-go zones for different reasons I guess.

RFK Jr. looks like he's set to announce on Monday a third-party run. And it's going to change everything where for a while you're not going to know who's the likely winner. Now that all the smart people are saying he's going to take votes away from Trump, which makes me think that's not true. Do you know why? Because all the smart people say it's true. Am I the only one who as soon as all the smart people say it's true immediately my brain says well I can eliminate that possibility. Whatever it is is not that. It's going to be something else besides that because all the smart people think it.

Here's what I think. They haven't factored in people's real life choices. I think people are saying if you're a Democrat, let's just work through this. If you're a Democrat you want to win first because you don't want Trump. So you want to win, win, win. Winning is all you care about. All right. And you think that if RFK Jr. gets in the race you couldn't directly vote for him and win. It would just let Trump win, right?

But what happens when it becomes obvious that Trump would beat Biden and that Biden