need a license for, from manicurist to doctor. You need a license. And the idea is that the licensing requirements are racist because it's preventing Black people from getting these jobs.

So I don't know if you've noticed, but my state is totally racist against me. Are you aware that California is the most racist state? Meaning that DEI is everything and reparations and equity are the thing. So but I still have good weather, right? I don't have a lot of electricity in the state. I'm not so sure the forest fires won't kill me. The crime is encroaching on my neighborhood. But at least I can go outside and not die. I got to use the right pronoun or I'll go to jail, I think. And being white is almost criminal in my state. But again, the weather: extraordinary.

Let's compare that to Idaho. In Idaho, according to The Hill, the Idaho schools will be unable to require staff and students to use a transgender student's name and pronouns. So you can't force the school or any of the students to use somebody's preferred pronouns in Idaho.

So let's compare California to Idaho. If I go to Idaho, I can use any pronouns I want, but just in schools. I don't know about the rest of the state, but in schools I can use any pronoun I want. But if I go outdoors in the winter, I could die because of the weather. So good pronouns, but I will die if I go outside. Versus, all right, here's my solution: California is a much better deal if you can avoid contact with all the other people. So the only thing wrong with California is the other people. The weather: spectacular. So if I go to Idaho, I can at least associate with humans, but if I go outdoors I could die if I don't bring a jacket, depending on the season. In California I won't die if I go outdoors, but boy you don't want to run into people.

Let's look at Seattle. There's a Seattle dance squad that had the American flags on their outfits, and they were told the audience members felt triggered and unsafe by the American flag.

Ladies and gentlemen, there was a time when I would have seen this story completely differently, and I would have said to myself, my God, there are a lot of provocative left-leaning people. How are they rejecting my country? But today I'm going to join them in saying that the flag is no longer a symbol that I respect. I'm going to say it right. I don't respect the flag as of really today. I just decided when I was looking at that story, you know what? I'm going to read you the rest of the stories about our country. I'm going to tell you everything from the DOJ to the State Department to every government entity is corrupt and racist, and I don't support any of that. I don't support them transferring my money to Ukraine or any other place. I am absolutely not in favor of what my country is doing to me or its other citizens.

So let me say unequivocally, I'm on your side if you're American, and I don't dislike you if you're Canadian. But let me tell you where my allegiances are. My allegiance is to the American people and not to the flag. The flag has lost its ability to attract my respect. So I've lost my respect for the American flag because it no longer symbolizes something that in total I can support. So I don't support the leaders, but I absolutely support the people.

So let me be as clear as possible. I'm on your side, people, human beings. And I'm not on the side of a stupid flag or the brainwashing or the propaganda or the lies or the racism that's coming behind the color of that flag. So you might not like it because I know it's painful to hear if you spent your whole life saluting the flag. I'm not even sure I could salute it at this point. You remember I agreed with Colin Kaepernick when I said, you know what, if you've got your issue, I don't like it. It's offensive if you don't stand for the flag and all that. And I really meant that. But when I see how racist my country is against me, well, suddenly Colin's approach looks a little bit more reasonable, doesn't it? A little bit more reasonable.

Let's talk about what else is wrong. How about the Department of Justice? Well, they're completely crooked, it appears, if you look at the Trump lawfare stuff. So Trump's run out of options trying to delay the Stormy Daniels hush money payment thing. But do you think there's any update on that? Yes, there is. Trump just posted a letter that apparently Stormy Daniels wrote and signed in 2018 and has said the following. Now, I think it's real. You know, it's new news, so we'll wait to see if somebody says it's fake. But apparently on January 2018, Stormy Daniels wrote: To whom it may concern, over the past few weeks I've been asked countless times to comment on reports of an alleged sexual relationship I had with Donald Trump many, many, many years ago. The fact of the matter is that each party to this alleged affair denied its existence in 2006, 2011, 2016, 2017, and now again in 2018. I am not denying this affair because I was paid, quote, hush money, as has been reported in overseas tabloids. I'm denying this affair because it never happened.

It is not new. Now, I assume that the defense is that she wrote it under duress or she wrote it because of the hush money or something. Is that what the prosecution will say? But here's my question. Whether or not the intention behind this letter was honesty or actually to earn the hush money, I feel like this should make this whole thing go away if we had anything like a justice system. The mere existence of this letter, you should make everybody involved say, you know what, I don't know if he did it or didn't do it, but we can't go forward when this letter exists. This is a pretty obvious case of corruption.

Can you imagine if this were anyone else but Trump and this letter existed? Do you think this would be a case? There's no way anybody would go forward with this case when you could show that letter to the jury. What would it take to convince you and a jury to convict this guy if you knew that the so-called victim had said unequivocally and as clearly as you can and signed it that it didn't happen? And there's no physical evidence that it happened. Is there? Like nobody has a video. Nobody has a blue dress. It's just two people's word. And well, there you go. So I'd say the Department of Justice: completely corrupt.

Let's check in with the State Department. The State Department has a DEI chief who says, quote, for promotion at the Department of State, you must be able to document what you're doing to support diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, and that's how you'll be judged for promotion.

Okay, so the State Department apparently is an overly racist organization who is not going to be too happy about promoting white people based on all evidence. And so I have some advice for the white men who are still working at the State Department. Can you guess what my advice is? So you're working, you're a white man at the State Department, and you've been told publicly — so nobody's hiding it — that it's all about the diversity, equity, inclusion, and you're not even going to get promoted unless you've done a good job on that. So if you're a white man working at the State Department, what's your best strategy? Get the fuck out of there. You should leave as soon as possible. They can't tell you any more directly than that. Get the fuck out of there.

Jesus Christ, what is the lag time between me being canceled and me being right about everything? One year.

All right, let's check in with the other federal agencies. Let's see. Rand Paul says that 15 federal agencies knew in 2018 that the Wuhan lab was trying to create COVID-19. What? And not one person came forward. And what, 15 federal agencies knew in 2018 that the Wuhan lab was trying to create COVID-19, and not one person came forward and told the American people the truth.

So that's 15 federal agencies that are absolute corrupt garbage filled with cowards. So let me ask you a question. Do you think you can know that there's no conspiracy because nobody came forward and no whistleblowers? I actually used to think that was a thing, and boy am I embarrassed. I used to actually argue that if thousands of people were involved, somebody would speak up. So you couldn't possibly have any kind of a secret that thousands of people would keep secret. Turns out you can do it quite easily and quite routinely, and it's one of the most common things happening in the world.

Do you remember when I tell my story in the 80s and 90s of being denied promotion for being a white man, and when I tell it to Black guys they say that never happened? Do you know why I didn't tell you? Do you know why 80 million people didn't tell you? 80 million people kept the secret, basically. I mean that's not completely true, but around 80 million people thought it would be better to just shut the fuck up and not talk about it because you get in more trouble than it's worth. It's easier just to change jobs or start a company yourself and escape the thing. You know, you're not going to fight every fight. So it's just easier to solve your own problem and let everybody else work it out.

So yes, 15 federal agencies, the State Department, and the Department of Justice: all corrupt garbage pieces of shit. And you're going to ask me to salute that? You're going to ask me to stand for that? Like stand up, cover my heart, and pray to that flag? Not a chance. Not a chance. I'm never standing up for the flag again.

All right. Well, I mean, if things got fixed, I might. Meanwhile, Joe Biden's looking to do anything he can to game the system to give away my money to student loan people. And he's trying everything. I mean, he's working hard on this. He's looking for every possible bureaucratic legal way that he can take my money and give it to people who made bad decisions. But yet he finds that he can't figure out any way to close the border. If only there was some way to close the border. He just doesn't have the power. Well, maybe it's because you're putting all your time in giving away my money to not only the people who you let in through the border you couldn't figure out how to close. Which literally, how many people in America now? 360 million? Something like that. The 360 million know how to do it. Is there anybody here who doesn't know how to do that? Do you think there's anybody here, if you were president, you think you couldn't close the border? Really? Is there anybody who thinks they couldn't do it? I mean, personally, you could do it. I could do it. You could do it. Every one of us could close the border tomorrow. But Joe Biden can't do it.

But I'll tell you what he can do. He can dig so deeply in my pockets that he can find some money that I still got to give to some people who did some things that should have been their own problem.

So the federal government is led by a brain-dead piece of shit thief who's clearly incompetent. But at least the Fed is pretty good. At least the Federal Reserve is — wait, is there a story today about the Fed? Oh yes. James O'Keefe had sent somebody, I guess it was a hetero guy who got a date with one of his female confederates. And this guy who works at the Fed, he said among other things that Trump is a crazy person and conservatives are dumb. And he said that the Reserve Board where Powell is head has promoted ESG issues like climate change, and he wants to be remembered in history as a savior. And that he's putting a big push on DEI and racial equity and wealth inequality. Is that exactly what we asked the Fed to do? I don't remember that being part of their job. I feel like this is a complete corruption, and the Fed is finding a way to be racist and trying really hard, trying really, really hard to be racist and figure out how to take my money and give it to other people. So the Fed is corrupted garbage.

But let's see how they're doing. So I saw a post by Jesse Cohen who said inflation is going up. The Fed has been trying to keep interest rates high to keep the economy from heating up and raising inflation, but it's not working. So inflation's still going up. So it looks like the Fed won't be cutting their rates anytime soon because what they've done so far hasn't worked.

Well, at least the FDA is good. At least we can trust the FDA, am I right? I wonder if there are any stories about the FDA today. Well, NBC News has a story that said the FDA is accelerating their approval program. So they've got a program so they can speed access to promising drugs. Now that sounds good. If it isn't too dangerous looking, they'll speed the approval of them. That sounds good, doesn't it? That's sort of what you want. What, in the comments you're acting like speeding your drug approval is some kind of bad thing or something? What's wrong with you? You don't like speedy drug approvals like the vaccines? They were so speedy it made you feel good, didn't it?

Well, it turns out that a new study finds that many cancer drugs approved under that program — you know, the speedy one — remain unproven after five years. So apparently they approved a whole bunch of cancer drugs that don't do anything, or at least hasn't been proven they do anything. Surprise.

Well, let's talk about the FISA extension bill. So the thing I learned today is that the FISA bill was either killed or totally not killed. So sort of a Schrödinger's cat FISA situation. It's either killed or totally not killed. And I read the news today, so I know it's one of those, but I don't know which one. So I'm going to try to explain to you what is a confusing topic, but I'm going to summarize it in a way that really only I can. I don't like to brag, I don't like to brag, but I'm really good at summarizing and it's really complicated. So if you stick with me, watch how I just take all that complication and just put it into one easily understood concept. You ready?

All right, so FISA, of course you know, is that thing where the government can spy on foreigners like ISIS terrorists. But if you were an American and you placed a phone call to any of these foreign bad people, then the government would be able to check you out too and all of your communications because that would make you connected to the bad people. Does that make sense? Makes total sense, right? What could go wrong? Oh, what could go wrong is it could be misused just to spy on people for political reasons, exactly as it was with Trump and Tucker Carlson and probably me. Yeah, probably me. You don't think they're into all of my communications already? Of course, because I've shared messages with people from other countries who in my own opinion I don't know too much about. You know, just social media back and forth on topics and stuff. But would that be enough for them to check out everything about me if they didn't like one of the people that I message? I think so. I think they could make any excuse to go after anybody for anything if they've talked to anybody from another country.

So we don't really trust this thing. So now that you've heard what it is and that it exists, you're probably saying to yourself, huh, I'd like to have less of that. Well, some say that this thing that they were going to vote on was going to tighten that up so that the government couldn't do what I just said, which is bend the rules to just illegally spy on Americans.

But let me read this to you exactly what's going on. So as The Hill explained, there are 19 Republicans who broke with their party and voted against advancing a procedural move to begin the debate on a bill that authorizes warrantless surveillance powers. Right? Was that a little confusing because there was a lot in that sentence? So I'm going to break it down. Let me read it again and then I'll break it down. So The Hill says there are 19 Republicans who broke with their party — so that's opposite of the party — and voted against — so opposite of the party but opposite the bill — and against advancing a procedural move to begin debate on a bill to reauthorize the warrantless — which is don't need a warrant, the opposite of a warrant — of surveillance powers. So really the vote was against advancing procedural move to begin a debate about reauthorizing not using a warrant.

Okay, I don't know what's going on, but something about FISA. Tucker is not too happy. Tucker Carlson, he says that Republican Mike Turner, who's in the intelligence committee, lied about everything about what FISA is. Now I listen to the video clip and I would say yes, that is an accurate characterization. It looks like some Republican lied about everything that that bill does. Why would they do that? I mean it's an opinion, but it looked like all lies to me. And yeah, and I guess Mike Turner was acting like the only way that FISA would backfire is if you happen to be talking to ISIS. But they should be talking to you if you had a phone call with ISIS. Well, I don't think it's all about that. I don't think it's just if you had a phone call with ISIS. Who believes that?

And then there's questions about why Mike Johnson's for it and for Ukrainian funding too. And Tucker says there's this trick that the intelligence people use, which is they take you to the SCIF and they show you secret stuff that you're not allowed to talk about, but you also don't know if it's real. Now remember I told you that in my mind when you get into power, whether you're president or you become the speaker, that somebody from the intelligence groups talks to you for the first time and says, all right, now that you're in power, we're going to tell you the things that nobody else knows, and you can't tell anybody either. So come into this SCIF, which is this secure room where you can't take a copy of anything, you can't bring your phone, but you could look at a document and then walk away from it. But you can never talk about it.

And Tucker says that's how they control you because you don't know if that's real or not. So if they show you a document that says if we don't fund Ukraine we will be nuked, and here's the proof. Here's the secret message from — I'm just making this up, by the way — here's a secret message from Putin saying he's going to nuke us the day something. And then you're like, oh my God, I'm the only person who knows except the intelligence people, and I can't tell people. I can't tell the public. I can't even tell my colleagues. So I guess it's up to me, Mike Johnson, to save the world and be a martyr because the world will never know what I know, and they'll never know I saved them. I saved the whole world. But man, I'm glad those intelligence people got to me.

But if you don't know if the intelligence is real, it simply gives the intelligence people a way to control everything important, you know, that's geopolitical or big. Now I don't know if that's the case, that that's really happening in the real world. I will tell you that if I were in the intelligence community, I'd probably do that if I wanted to control things. So I can't say it's not happening.

Anyway, there's some kind of FISA thing that might reappear as a quote clean bill. But I'm glad that 19 Republicans pushed back. So that's the only good thing happening today.

Vivek did a really interesting bit of persuasion in which he was talking about climate change. And 400 years from now or a thousand years from now we would look back and laugh that we thought the world would fall apart if the temperature went up one degree. Now I said to myself I need to look into that a little bit because the persuasion part was excellent. That this is a good persuasion lesson. So Vivek is taking something we're familiar with, which is that we laugh at the thought that the sun was going around the earth, and in modern times we would laugh about that. But back then it seemed like a fact. So he says, could the same thing be happening with climate change? You know, when you're in the moment it looks real and an existential threat. But in a thousand years are we just going to laugh at it, say why did we ever think that we're going to die because the temperature went up a little?

Well, so I asked myself, how do we know the temperature stuff is accurate? Because when you're talking about one degree, doesn't that feel like that would be less than we could actually accurately measure? Does your common sense tell you that one degree over decades by 2050 — I think is the one degree — if it goes up one degree by 2050, do you think we could ever measure that to within one degree and really know that it went up or why?

So I thought I'd go to Google and find out. Is it really just one degree? It's not exactly that. So there's a little bit of hyperbole there. But the projection is that we go up 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050. So that's the official prediction. And that we might go up from anywhere from 4 to 7 degrees by 2100. So I would say it's pretty important that we can measure accurately.

So I went to Google and I asked the question, are measurements of temperature accurate? Now Google, as you know, is the keeper of the Republic, so it's definitely going to tell me that it's accurate, right? Don't you think? I mean if you go to Google it's going to be nothing but non-stop confirming things about climate change. And so I went to ask about the NOAA. You know, that's NASA, blah blah blah, Oceanic group. So they're the official keepers of the temperature data.

And here's what Google says in its highlighted answer. You know it likes to highlight and summarize some answers, so that means that's sort of the official Google answer. So how accurate is NOAA's temperature data according to Google? It says, quote, NOAA uses data of known quality or from sources acceptable to the relevant scientific and technical communities in order to ensure the synthesized products are valid, credible, and useful.

Wait a minute. Did I read that right? This is an exact quote off of Google. They use data of known quality. Well, that's an interesting choice of words. Known quality. Why wouldn't they say highly accurate? Why wouldn't they say demonstrated to be super accurate data? But instead they use the word known quality. What if the known quality is less than perfect? Oh, we'll get to synthesized. Oh, we'll get there. Don't worry. I'm building up to it. We'll get to synthesized.

So they won't say it's high quality. They'll say it's known quality. Now if you've ever lived in the real world for more than five minutes and you ask a question, are you sure that you have accurate data, and somebody responds by saying our data is of known quality, that's telling you that they don't know how accurate it is. Is there any other way to interpret that? We know the quality, but why don't they say we know the quality is high? They just know the quality. That's a surprising phrase.

What else do they say? Is from sources that are acceptable to the relevant communities, technical and scientific. Acceptable. Wait a minute. Acceptable is subjective, isn't it? Oh, that's acceptable. Is it acceptable based on criteria or is it acceptable because they just all agreed and somebody told them this is good enough and they said yeah, that's good enough? What kind of scientific data standard is acceptable? That's not a standard for data. It just means people agreed to accept it.

You know what else people agreed to? Well, apparently there are 17 federal agencies agreed to keep th