narrative that has been so useful up to now.

Now if you're going to give away your biggest asset the Holocaust narrative you want to make sure you got your money's worth and so far I don't think they have. If the only thing they've done is get aggressive, super aggressive with Gaza then they spent their chip and I don't know if they got anything back. And if they rebuild Gaza the way it was then they gave it away for nothing. They got nothing. They'll just recreate the problem. So you don't spend your greatest asset and get nothing. The only thing that would be worth that expense would be to take Iran out as a risk in the future. Yeah I don't mean destroy the country. That would be very, very bad. But a leadership decapitation strike maybe.

Or if they don't do that here would be the other way to go if you wanted to go psychological rather than kinetic. I think Israel should say look the reason we have this problem is Iran. If Iran were not funding all these entities none of this would be happening. So Iran owns the people who have been displaced, the Gaza residents. Just say here's the deal Iran. You can feed them all you want and we'll open up the corridor. So Iran if you want to feed them you broke Gaza. We didn't break it. We just did what we had to do but you did things that were optional. Israel did what it had to do because everybody knows self-defense is legitimate right? But Iran didn't have to do what they did which is funding the militants etc. So Iran is the one that broke it. They're the one that broke Gaza.

So I think they should take all of the residents into Iran proper. They should open the door and say all right we ruined your country Gaza so now you can live here and we'll keep you alive until you get settled. So I think that's what Israel should do. They should demand that Iran take their proxies and all the families and everybody whose life they destroyed by funding Hamas. So the trouble is Israel is allowing this situation to be reframed as Israel destroyed Gaza. That's not exactly what's happening. Iran destroyed Gaza by funding a situation which guaranteed Gaza would be destroyed. Israel is just doing their part. They're doing the automatic part. Well if you do this to us it's kind of automatic that this is going to happen.

So I think they can make the case that Iran should be feeding and clothing and doing the health care for everybody who's displaced and they should be the permanent settlement for all of them and that that would be the fair and only thing that could work. The only thing that wouldn't work is rebuilding Gaza and repopulating it like it used to be. That's the only you can't do. And by the way everybody's pretending like that's the only thing that will happen. Like the international community is still pretending this like this is like fantasy politics again.

I saw Bill Maher this was a while ago a few weeks ago. He said you know maybe Gaza could become the real model city that's rebuilt and the Gaza residents are put back in and not only do they go back but it's a better situation. It's like a model amazing city you built with modern wonders and stuff. To which I say that's fantasy. Israel's never going to let their enemies repopulate. Who thinks that's going to happen? So there's this whole fantasy belief about this two-state situation. None of that's going to happen. That's like Michelle Obama being president and RFK Jr. being selected to be vice president for Trump. This is pure fantasy. Yeah they're not going to rebuild Gaza the way it was. So you got to find something else.

There's a story that says that Larry Fink the CEO of BlackRock quote melted down on some kind of earnings call and it was over ESG and I guess BlackRock's losing money because people are pulling their funds because of ESG specifically. Let's see who did it specifically. There was the Texas permanent school fund pulled 8 and a half billion from their management. That kind of hurts. Imagine having one entity pull over 8 billion out of your fund over ESG.

So now the report was that Larry Fink quote melted down but I heard an audio of it and it didn't sound all that melty down to me. He did sound stressed but I wouldn't go all the way to melted down. He was just being quite let's say assertive in his opinion. He wasn't too happy about it but melted down is a whole different standard. I wouldn't say he melted down.

RFK Jr. explains to us why NATO is so hell-bent on expansion. Now you remember follow the money explains everything. And do you remember when you were confused about why do we need NATO to be every country when Russia it's like the main thing they don't want. Like Russia says there's just one thing we definitely don't want. Just don't grow NATO okay and we can make everything else work. Just that one thing. Just one thing don't increase NATO. So of course we're increasing NATO like crazy.

And it turns out that there's a financial reason for that. Are you surprised? Here's the financial reason as described by RFK Jr. which immediately made sense to me. Like all the everything fell in place when you hear this for the first time you're going to say to yourself are you kidding me if you've never heard this yet. Or I'm going to tell you in a moment if you've never heard this before and I never had. It's the first time I heard it was this morning. Your head is going to explode. You ready for this?

RFK Jr. tells us that if a country goes NATO the first thing that country has to do is buy only NATO-type weapons because NATO needs to be interoperable. Do you see it yet? Do you know who sells all the NATO-approved weapons? The United States. This is all about building a weapons building entity and having a good reason for lots of weapons. Well it's right on the border there with Russia so of course they need lots of weapons but they don't need our weapons. Well if we make them NATO they need our weapons. It was always about selling them weapons. That's all it is.

You know and then the arguments about Putin wanting to roll over Europe probably all complete probably. And then BlackRock of course and others will get the big contracts to rebuild. So Ukraine is not just one thing obviously. The CIA wanted it to help them conquer Russia and the energy people wanted the fight so they could take Russia's energy business and the weapons people wanted them to be NATO so they could sell NATO weapons.

Let me say something with no ambiguity whatsoever. America is the bad guy. Are you all aware of that? You know we are the bad guy right? Like we're really bad. Like we're so bad it's almost incalculable. We might be the worst country that ever lived. Well Hitler and Stalin and Mao did pretty bad. Maybe not worse than them or I'll give you Pol Pot too but we're in the top 10. I mean the we do to other countries just for money is completely morally and ethically bankrupt. We're probably the most morally and ethically bankrupt country in the history of all countries. But does it work? Kind of. You know kind of. As long as we have the biggest military we can get rid of all we can do all kinds of stuff.

So anyway remember I predicted right after Trump lost in 2020 I predicted that Trump would look better every day he was out of office and I saw Fox News was reporting on a poll that people who remember the years in office of Trump versus Biden 42% remember Trump's years in office as basically good, mostly good but only 25% think Biden is mostly good. 25%. I think all 25% are on MSNBC.

Did you see Morning Joe go full mental illness about Trump today? Oh my God that guy's got some mental problems that he's trying to sell us his professional job anyway.

Meanwhile Axios has a scoop that Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is preparing fresh sanctions on Iran. Huh. Sanctions on Iran. Who does that remind me of? What leader wanted to build a wall and have sanctions on Iran? Well it seems that Trump was right about everything and now sanctions on Iran looks like a good idea suddenly doesn't it? How about those sanctions on Iran and maybe we should build a wall. Trump right on everything.

Then as you know the Republicans are talking about how they have to have more observers during election night. So the Republicans think that they need more lawyers and observers to make sure that you have full transparency for the election. It's a good idea don't you think? What kind of complaint could anybody have about that? Could you even imagine what the complaint would be like? Why would you why would anybody complain about having extra observers so that way you don't have to wonder if the election was rigged right? What wasn't it terrible that all the Republicans said hey I think that election was rigged? Well you could do away with most of that by making sure that everywhere there's a Democrat there's also a Republican.

I'll tell you if you told me there was a Republican watching every step of the process at the same time as a Democrat I would say you know what a lot of people say this system is rigged but if you just tell me there's a Republican and a Democrat watching every vote I'm going to think maybe that system worked. But apparently that was not the case. Apparently there's quite a bit of pressure to make sure that there are no Republicans watching. Who would say such a crazy thing? That would obviously out you as a scoundrel and obviously out you as somebody who had every intention of rigging an election. Who in the world would be against transparency and having both a Democrat and a Republican looking at every step of the way? Who could possibly be against that?

Mark Elias, lawyer for the Democrats, said for those who can't believe it yes the right-wing groups are suing for the right to harass election workers and voters. That's right. Mark Elias the guy famous for getting all the rules changes that probably got Biden elected in the first place is saying that transparency is really just Republicans wanting to hassle and harass the election workers.

Now could we have a show of hands because I know there are a lot of Republicans watching the stream. How many of you wake up in the morning and say to yourselves you know there's one thing I like even more than fair elections with great transparency. I'd love to go down to an election and just harass a Democrat on Election Day because I can. I'm going to sue somebody. In fact I want to harass somebody so badly that I'm going to sue for the right to harass people.

Now is that the weakest lawyer argument you've ever heard? That transparency is the same thing as harass