s and frogs are gay and stuff something like that. But so yeah that's another example of the problems coming from inside the house.

Meanwhile in the city of Pittsburgh they're cutting back on the police responses. So between 3:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. no police will show up if you report certain kinds of things like theft, harassment, criminal mischief and burglary alarms. Well I'm not so sure you need the police in all those situations so that might actually make sense. We'll see.

Let's talk about TikTok. As you know Trump was against it but now he's for it because his biggest donor has like I don't know $30 billion invested in ByteDance. So the biggest donor looks like he bought off at least Trump and Vivek and maybe Rand Paul and maybe Thomas Massie maybe others.

And there are reports one lawmaker told the publication Semafor they had been personally threatened by a that a yes vote to ban TikTok could result in political retaliation. They said it would be bad for your future and you'll get millions of dollars dropped in your head meaning you know for your opponent. So that's what's happening.

So if you thought that the risk of TikTok was coming from China it was not. It was coming from an American investor who has so much money that he can essentially buy the loyalty of Trump and Vivek and Rand Paul and Thomas Massie apparently. Now I'll just say allegedly because you can't read anybody's minds but that's what it looks like.

And if you want to make sure that's not the case what you would do is you'd listen to Vivek and you'd make sure that he knew what the critical problem was which is the persuasion threat. So you could find out if he's bought off or he's lying by whether or not he says he understands the greatest threat.

So here's an update. So if Vivek says yes yes I understand the threat of TikTok is a persuasion threat then maybe he's got an honest opinion but if he ignores the persuasion threat and talks about things like data and children spending too much time on it then you'd know he's bought off in my opinion. Right can't read his mind but that would be the indication.

So let's see what he says. Listen for what reasons does he give why TikTok is bad. President Trump just came out against a legislative measure that would require the owner of TikTok to divest. It's currently a Chinese owner a company called ByteDance or else that it would be banned in the United States. President Trump just came out opposing that. I think that's the right decision actually of President Trump to oppose that legislation because it doesn't make any sense and I've long said this even late in the campaign took a lot of heat from fellow Republicans.

Give reasons. I think we have to ask ourselves the why and this is the problem with professional politicians. Trump is not a professional politician and neither am I but many people in professional politics they look at what they're supposed to say and they act like billiard balls on a pool table they go in whatever direction they're hit without thinking about the actual. Don't really need the analogy just Republican party give us a reason.

Let's take a step back and ask about the why of what's going on here. What you get to it concern that people have with TikTok? What problem? It kids not just TikTok that applies to a bunch of other social media platforms. Can you tell us? And that is an issue we need to tackle. Why don't you get to it? I do think there should be age-based restrictions on using addictive social media. Okay that's not the point. Specific point yeah this point about relates to a different concern. Oh here it comes. The use and provision of data, US user data potentially to the Chinese Communist Party and I think that is a major concern. It's not the major concern it's a major. Isn't limited to just TikTok or even Chinese-owned companies in the US. Here it comes it expands to include even so-called US companies that are still beholding to the CCP because they do business in China.

Here's an example. A couple of years ago there was good Wall Street Journal reporting this is all by the way Airbnb not the issue. US company supposedly US company at least was dat the CCP not the issue for doing business. Yeah it's also bad but it's not the big issue. Jal Sean Joyce the chief privacy officer of Airbnb resigned over that because it wasn't properly disclosed to the public and one of Airbnb's co-founders reported. Come on let's talk about persuasion. To promote American values and the big problem is what's the big problem? Put a little black square on their Instagram the problem. Matter that virtue signaling aside this is what they say behind closed doors. It's not just Airbnb though it applies to countless other US companies. We have to ask ourselves the why the why. Why are you getting to the point? Real concern we ought to have is the provision of US consumer and user data to the Chinese Communist. Not the point. Get the point. Against come on ban US companies from providing US user data. Tell us. Persuasions me of the say it but it is beyond silly to just pick one randomly and go after them because that is temporarily a politically popular divers actually failing to solve the actual problem the companies and US companies alike including the US companies that do business in China.

Now here's the real problem with the Republican Party is when it has its head stuck in the sand. This oh now we're going to talk politics without actually talking about the problem. Democrats are all over reaching the next generation of Americans while Republicans are virtue signaling amongst themselves failing to actually bring those new voters along by meeting them at least on the platform that is operating in the United States. Now it's about politics. I became one of the rare Republicans when I was running for president one of the rare Republican candidates who did open a TikTok account. Any questions?

Yeah it's exactly what it looks like. So yeah apparently they were just bought bought off.

Now what Trump says is that he thinks TikTok is a national security threat but he couldn't support Congress banning it because it would boost support for Facebook which he says is the enemy of the people. Now first of all would it boost say Instagram that it's owned by Facebook? Do you think it would boost Instagram because Instagram's a competing service you know they have Reels that are like TikToks I think so probably. But would that make any difference? I don't think it would make enough difference. Is the reason that Facebook is the enemy of the people do they have only barely enough money to be the enemy of the people? Right he's not wrong he's just diverting.

Did you hear me say he was wrong? No I didn't say he's wrong. I said that they were bought off and that they're markedly so. The people who are not bought off are Crawford and well I'll give you some other names but the people who mention persuasion specifically they're not bought off because they know the big problem. If they say persuasion first as the big problem then you could say they're not bought off.

So Facebook has all the money it needs to be the enemy of the people. It wouldn't make any difference if they had a little extra money from some TikTok people coming over. That is obviously not a real reason. Trump is giving you the best reason he can. It's a lie. It's because their big donor owns a big piece of it. So the problem on TikTok is coming from inside the house. Your government apparently will not be there to help you whatsoever on the question of TikTok so it's up to the parents.

Let me check in. You think that Crenshaw said persuasion is the big problem but that he's bought off? Who who's going to pay for that? Who would buy who would buy him off? You have to figure out who would pay for that. Nobody would pay for that.

All right Adam Schiff who still hasn't passed the uncanny valley problem where you don't look like a human. You look at him and you go I don't even know if I'm looking at a human. Is that a human being anyway? Schiff and John Brennan are saying the same message. What's that tell you? If Adam Schiff and John Brennan both go on TV and say the same thing about Trump what do you know about the thing they said? They are literally the hoax team. The hoax team is Clapper Brennan Schiff Swalwell Raskin right and others. But if you see them working together on any Trump related thing it's a hoax. It's what they do. They don't send these guys out for the true stuff because the stuff you don't need hoaxers. They save the hoaxers for just hoaxes.

So as soon as you see that Brennan and Schiff said the same thing which is that the intel people probably won't give President Trump as a candidate or maybe even in office the good stuff on the intelligence briefings because they don't trust him with all of his boxes at Mar-a-Lago. They don't explain why it was okay that Biden had a bunch of boxes but they say that they'll probably leave out quote the sources and methods because they're afraid that Trump would give the sources and methods away to somebody.

Now here's my question. Why would you ever tell a president the sources and methods whether it's Trump or somebody else? Isn't that exactly what you shouldn't tell somebody who's not deep into the secret part of the government? I think the secret part of the government should say here's what we know and then when they say how do you know it you know you can say something general but should you be giving sources and methods? Should you? It seems like it should never be written down but if the president asks for it don't you think they should answer as in how do we know this is true? And they could say something like well we have human intelligence sources that we trust and they've been right before. Is that something that's going to give away the store? Most of these are kind of obvious how we get you know it's either a human or intelligence or something.

But anyway so I have a question whether any president ever got something that secret the sources and methods except for the generic stuff. So I don't even think the issue is real but when you see Brennan and Schiff on it it means that they're part of a hoax to make it seem that Trump is uniquely untrustworthy with information. It's just part of a narrative.

There's a video that I saw in the Maz account Maz on X shows President Obama in 2009 talking about immigration and saying we can't have a million people pouring over the border half a million pouring over the border which is what we have per year or more and seven years later Obama's position is considered racist and xenophobic by Democrats.

Now do you see that none of our national opinions are real? Can you see that opinions are just assigned? I always tell you that and I think you say to yourself well not to me. I mean some other people might get their opinions assigned to them but you know that doesn't apply to a thinking person like myself. But no the Democrats were told in 2009 that you can't have a half a million people pouring over the border that'd be bad and Obama said it and the news said it so Democrats said it too. And then when everything changed for no good reason and suddenly those people are pouring over the border suddenly it would be racist and xenophobic to point out that that was ever a bad idea and that was immediately adopted by Democrats.

Is there any question in your mind that our opinions on politics are just assigned to us? There's nobody who thought this through. Do you think there a bunch of Democrats who got new information since 2009? It's like you know in 2009 with the information we were working with we did think it was bad for half a million people to come across the border but now that we're seeing it happen all the information suggests it's a great idea. Do you think that happened? No no the news told them what to think and then they thought it. That's all that happened.

Well let's talk about Israel going into Rafah. As you know Biden said that was going to be a red line. Now a red line let me define what a red line means. A red line is something you say but then you ignore because it doesn't really mean anything in the real world apparently unless you're Putin. Putin actually acts on red lines that's why you have Ukraine. But again I guess we just use it as a word it doesn't mean anything.

So Biden said it would be a red line if Israel