some categories of course. Yeah. And then Charles Payne after dunking on Ian Bremmer finishes with, I'm just going to leave it here.

So let me say this. If you don't follow Ian Bremmer you should because on geopolitical stuff, very good. Very good on geopolitical stuff. A good follow. However, and this is not an insult, this is not an insult. Charles Payne is a business guy, right? So his background, his models, his frame of thinking is business. So when he looked at this he immediately could identify the problem with it because he has that frame. If you're not a business guy all day long you could be forgiven for not noticing something was missing, right? But you know I'm a business guy, business school background. I could see it immediately. Charles Payne, business guy, could see it immediately. So it does make a difference if you have those backgrounds.

All right. So I guess the University of Penn president, one of the three who refused to as clearly as she might have denounce, well you know the whole Hamas situation. But now the University of Pennsylvania, they've got some kind of a board, they're asking her to resign. Should she resign? What do you think based on her inadequate public statements? Well this is what Bill Ackman said that I thought was a really clever reframe, right? Here's a reframe. Think of the three college presidents, MIT, Harvard and UPenn. And think about their answers in public to Congress and how they were smirky and it's kind of disgusting. And Ackman asked this question. If those three positions were open, if there were available positions, does anybody think that any of those three current presidents would have even been considered based on what we know today? No. No they wouldn't. No. So why are they presidents today? This is Bill Ackman's frame. It's kind of brilliant. Why are they presidents if everybody would agree that if the job were open they would never be hired? That seems like an easy decision, doesn't it? But we'll see. I think the donors are going to put too much pressure on the universities. I think that they probably will be forced to resign but we'll see.

So Alex Jones was on Tucker Carlson and of course he makes a lot of news. Let's talk about that. Some of the things that we heard from Alex Jones are that, now first of all you should know that he's considered by many on the right to be practically psychic for his predictions that have been right on. And the one that stands out is that before 9/11, I think only months before, he was saying that Bin Laden might be framed for something that dark shadowy people do and it might involve flying a jetliner into the World Trade Center. He actually said that months before 9/11. Is that crazy?

Now here's the question. Is he psychic? Is he lucky? Does he look at different source materials than you do and therefore he can piece things together? I don't know. But I'll tell you my best guess. I think he might be brilliant at pattern recognition and that the patterns often are subtle. Which is, I don't know if it's exactly prediction but I guess it would be. Yeah I guess it would be prediction. And he talks about the materials he looked at before he came up with that prediction. So apparently here's things we knew. I'd never heard of Bin Laden but if you read certain materials about potential terrorism you would have heard that name. So he knew who Bin Laden was and he calls him an ex-CIA asset. All right now I didn't know that or I don't know about t