d definitely discriminate against the group of people just based on your belief, even if it's wrong, just based on your belief that there might be some people who want to kill you in that group, even if it's only one or 1%. You get to avoid that one. If you have an option you should do whatever you can to make sure there are fewer people around you who want to kill you. Completely reasonable even if 99% don't.

Rasmussen asked people what they thought about bringing Palestinian refugees into America. How many US voters, approximately, just approximately, how many US voters do you think thought it would be a good idea to welcome the Gaza refugees? Oh that's a pretty good guess. Yeah, 28%. A little higher than normal, 28%. But your guesses were extraordinary once again. Your ability to guess what pollsters have to check on is in. But 52% say no and another 20% are not so sure. I feel like the not so sure should be eliminated from all polls. No, if somebody says well I don't know, just mark them down as an NPC and just go on.

And during his visit to Israel Biden said the vast majority of Palestinians are not Hamas. Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people. True or false? Actually I think Hamas literally represents them though, don't they? As in they're actually the leader of the Palestinians in Gaza. Am I wrong about that? That like literally they represent them. Now to be clear that's not to say that the Hamas views are shared by the people that they represent but it is kind of their job. They're in charge. Now I don't know if you know they haven't had elections in a while so it's not fair to say that they elected them.

But where Biden is wrong is that he's using an individual standard to judge a group. That doesn't work for self-defense because he's saying should we bring a group over. He's not saying should we very carefully check each individual. You know I mean they would do some checking but how much could you do? No, he's using a standard which makes you less safe so that he can feel more woke. I feel that's what it is. So he's saying we want to create a situation that would be more dangerous for Jewish Americans for sure. But you don't know if it's like slightly, slightly more dangerous, in which case it might be morally acceptable because if you were saving the lives of thousands of refugees and the downside from that was well in some like hard to define slight way it might be worse for some other people who are still here, Jewish Americans in particular, you'd probably still do it because you know the world is always a balance of interests. So there's always somebody who's a little worse off if you make somebody better off and even if it's an indirect way.

But in the context of the Palestinians in Gaza literally being bombed by the state of Israel you wouldn't really accept, you wouldn't expect the average Palestinian coming out of that hot war to have a good attitude about Jewish Americans. Why? Even though the Jewish Americans are not Israel. Well they may support them and that would feel like supporting the people bombing you. So under this situation it's actually insane to allow refugees from the war area. There are lots of situations where I might say maybe yes but not if they've been infected with a mental virus that's not their making, not their fault, has nothing to do with their genes or their culture. They specifically have been infected with a brain virus that would make them dangerous to other citizens of the United States. So why I say too much risk? No, no immigration for just that. Now later if 10 years go by and everybody's peaceful in the Middle East for some reason, sure. I mean if things change. So it's not about the people. It's about the situation plus the people. That's too dangerous.

BBC reported that there are already 5,000 deaths in Gaza, mostly of the Gaza residents and fighters. Two questions you must ask about that number. One, where does the BBC get that kind of information? How in the world would they know how many people died in Gaza? Who would tell them that? Well probably Hamas, right? Don't you think they got it from Hamas? Not exactly dependable. And then also how many of the 5,000 do you think were civilians? Kind of important because the people have a different opinion about killing the Hamas fighters than they do with civilians.

So I would warn you that 100% of the news that comes out of there about death is unreliable. But if we were to talk about it from just the PR perspective, whatever gets reported by the BBC is going to be somebody's truth. So at the end of this the BBC is going to report a number of casualties and deaths and there may be other sources. Let's say Israel is reporting a much lower number, which I think. Fact, which one do you believe? And the answer is neither. And the answer is people will choose the one that agrees with their opinion. So if you think it was a brutal genocide you're going to pick the big number that Hamas comes up with. If you think it was a reasonable self-defense act you're going to pick Israel's smaller number. But you'll never know. Don't think you'll ever know. Don't know if it'll even be between those numbers in any kind of way. You could pick the midpoint or anything. So you probably just won't know.

The only thing you'll know is that I have a hard time even visualizing 5,000 dead people. Like my brain maxes out around that point. 5,000 dead people in like a week all in one place. That's an insane amount of dead people. Like if you try to imagine them piled up like cordwood it's a big pile of dead people. So when you get to 20,000 you're already beyond, way beyond what I can sort of imagine. So at some point it becomes irrelevant because you know it hits a 10. And a 10 in our brain no matter what the actual number is I think we'll be at 10 out of 10.

There's been a climate change adjustment to some Chinese hotspot model. I guess they had a model that predicted where the hotspots would be for climate change and they did a complicated tweaking and adjustment to make it a better model and fit the past better. And there's no way I can read that being an experienced individual in the world and think that anybody can measure the temperature of Earth. How many of you think that the temperature of the planet can be measured and that you can look at the average over time and learn something? That is so obviously not something that humans can do, right?

We've been told oh scientists can do things that you can't do. No they can't do this. This isn't science. The measurements are not science. If anybody thinks they're science you're lost. No, the measurements are something that engineers might do or people who are just paid to put something in a field that looks like a thermometer. Now I don't even have to tell you all the ways that could go wrong but let me give you the Dilbert version of measuring the temperature of the Earth.

All right guys let's take a measurement of the Earth and compare it to the one we took last year. All right, a number of our measuring devices seem to be offline or out so I guess we'll just put in a number that's like the average of the other ones to compensate for these broken ones. All right but we also have big areas in which there's no measurements at all so we're going to make some assumptions about those that they're similar to how they've always been or they're the average between the things that we can measure. By the time you're done it's all just a human being making a bunch of assumptions that can't be tested. That's it. You wouldn't know if your measurements are right because there's nothing to compare them to, right?

The measurements the satellites take of the upper atmosphere are different than what you're getting on the ground. Now if one moves in one direction and the other moves in the other direction what do you know? Maybe nothing. Anybody who's ever had let's say business corporate experience and you've watched what happens behind the curtain, you've watched actual real people try to figure out how to measure anything or to get data on anything, if you've seen real people try to measure or get data on anything in the real world it's always the same. You can't. It's not doable. So you end up making assumptions and trying to sell it to people as though you did it. It's not doable at all.

Now I'm not saying that the planet is or is not warming. I don't know. And I'm not saying it is or is not a problem. I don't know. I think that if it is a problem we'll figure it out and if it is not a problem well I wouldn't be surprised. I mean it would perfectly fit the evidence as I see it that people don't really know how to measure stuff.

So someday that will be the funniest thing we look back at and imagine we believed. You know from today's perspective you look back and you think oh isn't it funny that we used to think that smoking was good for you, like it was good for your health. People actually believe that. Now we look back and go how stupid we were. Oh my God