really need to do a study. I've been saying this for years. It's obviously bullshit. So they could have just asked me.

Nobody wants to talk about anything except Trump today, so I'll just zip through this.

Trump's final messages, his closing argument, I would summarize this way: We don't have to live this way. And if you vote for him, the golden age will be unlocked. And that's a pretty darn good message. Pretty darn good. I like that he's going to bring us to the golden age. I like that he's going to make America healthy again. I like that he's going to make America great again.

Now, I know a lot of you are filled with trepidation. And the one thing I like to tell you is that it's, you know, you've heard the saying, it's always darkest before the dawn. We can't tell the difference between the beginning of great news and the beginning of bad news. We just don't have that ability. But we are on the verge of both.

If Harris wins, I consider that very bad news for me personally as well as the country. If Trump wins, I think the potential is almost unlimited. Mars. We're literally looking at Mars.

But how do you feel? If it makes you feel any better, I feel Trump's going to win. I do feel that the cheat is in. I do feel that there will be attempted cheats in individual places and I think they'll get caught. And it might be that it's too big to cheat anyway. So we could get everything we want, which is Trump as president, Harris off of the stage, and maybe a very good argument that 2020 was also corrupt. Because if we catch some big ones this time, it's going to be really hard to argue that last time it was clean. You know what I mean?

Now, I don't know where the line is. If they find a few hundred fake votes, that doesn't say anything about the last election. If they find a few thousand, it doesn't really say anything about the last election. If they find 20,000, then the last election was rigged, especially if they find it in a place they wouldn't have looked in 2020. Then the story gets a little clearer.

But today will be a serious mental illness day in the country. And certainly whoever loses is going to be in distress. We hope that you're on the winning team and that what you see is nothing but fun.

But here's a quote from Zuby. You all know Zuby, right? Do I have to explain who Zuby is or is he now officially famous enough that I can just use him by one name and everybody goes, oh, Zuby? I think he's famous enough, right?

If you don't know, he's one of my favorite talent stack people because he's good at just a whole bunch of things. But one of them is social media, one is music, one is interviews, physical fitness. He's just got a whole bunch of skills that he puts together.

And here's what he said this morning: Imagine still having Trump derangement syndrome after nine years. Lol. Especially as a man. Pathetic.

Pathetic is a persuasion term for men. I don't know if it works for a woman. It might. I just don't know one way or the other. But when a man hears the word pathetic used against him, it's really powerful. Because you'd rather be a mass murderer than be pathetic because at least you did something, right? You know? So the male wiring is that being pathetic is the only thing you can't be. You could be a Mongol horde. You could be a criminal. You could do all kinds of bad things. But you don't want to be pathetic. Yeah, it's as bad as it gets.

Well, Naval Ravikant has weighed in in a way that I think is the most clear endorsement. And let me read it to you. He says, I think he said this this morning or last night: Leaders come and leaders go but don't change the rules of the game. Censorship is changing the rules of the game. Lawfare is changing the rules of the game. Importing voters is changing the rules of the game. Time to change the people who are changing the rules of the game.

Now, is that just the best summary you've ever heard? Yes. The country can stay unified if we play by the same rules and somebody wins by those rules and somebody loses by those rules. Under those conditions, we are a healthy enough country that we can say, damn it, I'll get you next time. And then we just do the best we can.

We're in a whole different world now. The Democrats have done the Kobayashi Maru. They're just cheating. They're just changing the rules. Whoever wins this time might be the result of whoever changed the rules the best because that's probably what happened last time.

And this warning from Naval comes as close as you can get to an endorsement for Trump, which is phenomenal in and of itself. I mean, if you don't know who Naval is, he's not political. And for him to become political at tremendous personal risk is a big deal. It's a big deal. There is bravery popping up all over the place. This is one example.

Next, Joe Rogan has officially endorsed Trump today. It's official. Joe Rogan, biggest podcaster, most successful, probably has a lot to lose, just said it. Not in Naval's. In Joe Rogan's. And Megyn Kelly. Megyn Kelly attended the Trump rally on the final day. She's fully in, fully endorsing him. There's a beautiful picture of the two of them just hugging for a selfie. It's just beautiful.

And the reason it's important is that she was famous for the first debate where she asked the question about his interaction with women. And he did the only Rosie O'Donnell move, which ultimately ended up affecting her career in a big way negatively. And she's still on this side. I mean, it probably took a little while to circle back, but that's a big deal.

But who's on Harris's side? Well, Oprah decided to do a big show and she said, quote, last night she said it is entirely possible that we will not have the opportunity to ever cast a ballot again. I think she was also talking about Trump winning and rounding up the hosts of MSNBC and some other really batshit crazy stuff.

Now, when I see Oprah, who I consider to be an unusually intelligent person, so if you're going to do an IQ test and Oprah was on the other side of the table, good luck. She's very smart. I mean, she's proved it for years. But when she talks like this, does she sound like she's Oprah? This doesn't even sound like Oprah. This sounds like some imitation Oprah or somebody who's being brainwashed or blackmailed or something.

And so I don't know what the situation is that would make Oprah go from one of the smarter, more useful people in all of America to be whatever this is. But my best guess is that she's got a duress problem. She's probably being blackmailed. It's just a guess. It's not based on any data or information. But to see her act so far out of character when Trump was actually like her friend at one point suggests she's under duress. Because she had nothing to lose by a Trump win. In fact, she would have made money probably because she's one of the rich people. She would have done better on taxes, I suppose.

So for her to be this strong and this irrationally crazy, it's almost like she's trying to signal that she's under duress. You know, when the people who are kidnapped are trying to send signals when they're sending the videotape. It's like she's going so far into crazy land that it's to tell you that she has no choice. That's what it feels like.

Now, can I read her mind? No, I cannot. Is it possible that her thoughts are just compatible with lots of other women in the country? Yes, it is. But it doesn't look like it. What it looks like is she's under duress.

Now, I don't say that about everybody because there are lots of people who are just team players. People have always been Democrats. People are dumb. There are lots of reasons to support somebody I don't support. But when somebody who's smart and productive and successful does this, that just looks like crazy. I say it's either brainwashing or duress. It's one of those two things.

So Obama decided to support Harris, I think it was yesterday. He went out and went strong on the fine people hoax. The fine people hoax has been the most debunked hoax in all of the United States. The most famous lie in the United States. It's the big lie. And he went out and said it in public like it was true.

Now, I would like to publicly do a face plant. I supported Obama at one point. And I've only been registered as a Democrat, I think, for most of my life. And when he ran for president, I thought, ah, wouldn't it be good to have some cool, calm, obviously very smart guy who is also black so we could just get past that? And then forever more we could say, see, it's not about color. You just have to be good like Obama was and you can be president.

But when I see him go out and do the most destructive hoax in the history of America with no qualms at all, apparently just says it like it's true and knows it isn't, I've got to say he's a piece of shit. Everything I thought about him being maybe a good person who not always had the plans that I like the most, but I thought he was a good person who meant well. He's not a good person. He doesn't mean well. He's a piece of shit.

So he is forever dead to me as an American president that I'll ever refer to with any respect whatsoever. So I have no respect for the man whatsoever. And I think that he just destroyed all the goodwill of being the first black president.

So I wanted the first black president to be successful. Kind of matters, you know? It matters because it's one of the big things that divides the country. Wouldn't it be great if your first black president, even if you didn't agree with his policies, you could say, but at least he was an honorable, respected man? Nope. He's not honorable. I don't respect him. And I think this is a disgrace to the country and an embarrassment. Frankly, just frankly an embarrassment.

And as I've said jokingly but not, every day that he doesn't correct himself on the fine people hoax, I'm going to say his wife has a penis. I don't think she does, but it's as easy to believe as the fine people hoax. So we're just going to call it the same thing. Your wife has a penis, Obama. And maybe you should clean up your act.

Joe Rogan had Elon Musk on yesterday on the show. I think that was a surprise. But Musk says if Kamala wins, the boycotts against X will get stronger and maybe X would go out of business. And then if you turn over to MSNBC, Rachel Maddow is saying that if Harris wins, that Musk should expect to lose all of his government contracts and be put in a prison because he's too dangerous.

This is real. This is real. That the most successful person in the world, certainly in the country, is actually going to be taken out. He's actually be taken out. They're going to destroy his businesses. They will destroy the number one free speech, well, really the only free speech platform. And even our dominance of space.

Yeah, so this is the scariest thing you've ever seen. So Elon is saying to vote like your life depends on it because it does. And Elon's encouraging men to get out there because women are apparently outpacing them. And he says you're not done yet. If you haven't driven your friends to vote, if you have voted and you know somebody who hasn't voted, you're not done. Your work is not done. You got to make sure those people vote. Drive them. Don't bribe them. That's illegal. But push them, poke them, drive them. Do what you got to do. Got to get it done today.

So here, let's look at the, let's see if we can pick up any tea leaves, see if we can see if there's anything in the wind that's telling us what's coming.

So the Google CEO, this would be Sundar Pichai, he sent a company-wide email. I read this on Mario Nawfal's X post. Company-wide email yesterday telling employees that Google must remain, quote, a trusted source of information regardless of election outcome.

Well, first of all, that's hilarious. They can't remain a trusted source of information. Are you telling me that the CEO of Google doesn't know that they're no longer a source of trusted information? Does he really not know that? Or is he just saying this but he does know that certainly half of the country believes that they're liars, that they're just hiding information for some benefit for themselves. So no, not only do we not trust the information on Google, we think many of your employees are just liars. See if you can fix that.

But there's more to this story. So that warning that the Google CEO gives to its own people, that warning comes after a phone call with Trump in which the CEO of Google personally called him to discuss the search popularity. And yeah, I guess he wanted to make Trump feel comfortable that Google was not playing any games.

Now, nobody believes they're not playing any games. I don't personally know if they are or they're not, but everything I see suggests that they're still playing exactly the same games as always.

However, so after he talked to Trump, allegedly Trump threatened to prosecute Google for alleged election interference. Did that really happen? Did the CEO of Google call Trump to say everything's fine, we're not biasing it, and did Trump say if you do, you're going to jail? Did he do that? God, I hope he did. I mean, I want that to be true. It sounds like this sounds a little too on the nose necessarily to be true, but I so want that to be true.

But the source is the Washington Post. The Washington Post is the least dependable source outside of Google, I guess. So you can't believe that that's true, but I'd love to believe it.

And allegedly some of the platforms are pulling back on their finger on the scale. We'll see. We'll see. I don't believe that the platforms have backed off. I think they may have just gotten more clever about it.

The Georgia Supreme Court ruled, I think it was yesterday, that ballots submitted after election day will not be counted. The Daily Caller was reporting. So that seems like a big deal, doesn't it? That they won't count ballots that are after the deadline.

Now, there are more rules changes lately. You've all heard them, right? There have been a bunch of court rulings and decisions about who does what and who can count what votes where and who's observing and all that stuff. But doesn't it seem to you that we're already past the point where voters decide? We're at the point where the only thing that makes the decision is the rules.

So the rules are changing right up to the day of the election, literally the day of. I mean, this was yesterday's decision. And the rule changing will completely determine who wins. So if Georgia had not changed this rule the day before the election, could this have been the difference between who was president? Yes. Yes. And a bunch of other states are making changes too. And so everything that's changing sort of gets back to Naval's point. They're changing the rules. They're changing the game.

Now, in this case, it's a change that I like because it's changing back to where it should have been. But we don't really have a system where the voters are deciding.

Let me explain the system. How was it that I could predict one year in advance that no matter who the candidates were, that the polls would be tied today? How did I do that? How did I pull off that miracle? It was easy. You just observe. The system is designed to make sure that the polls converge at the last minute to make you feel that there's something like a real election going on. But the polling is to manipulate and also to cover up any bad behavior, I assume.

Now, if your elections are always going to be razor thin close, then what determines them is the rules. So if somebody's allowed to count some late votes, if somebody's allowed to include some people who may not be citizens, if somebody's not taking ID, if somebody's not allowing some observers in one place, those are the things that will determine who's the president. Because everything else is tied.

So the effect of all the rules changes are now this big and the effect of the voters is now this big because we're tied. So it's only the rules changes that are determining who the president is. It's just the lawyers. So the lawyers are basically battling it out. So you hope that the Republican lawyers had a better year than they did in 2020, right?

All right. Here are some more hints that things might be rigged in advance. And by the way, apparently the platforms all allow people to speculate about rigging now. And that used to be you couldn't do it because if you speculated that something was rigged with or without information, with or without facts, you would get demonetized and disappeared. But apparently they're allowing it now, which is a benefit to free speech.

But so I'm going to do that. I'm going to give you several things you should look for if a rig has been planned. Right? So if there's going to be rigging, it's already planned. And if it's already planned, you might be seeing some signals early. What would those signals look like?

Now, I can't guarantee that there's rigging. How would I know? But we can look to see if there are any signals that you would expect if there was going to be rigging.

So here's what I'd expect. I would expect that on Election Day or right about election day there would be at least one major poll showing that Harris will win. You need that, right? Because you can't have every poll and every betting market go one way and then the election go the other way. So if a rig is in the mix, there has to be some illegitimate player, somebody that you already know is illegitimate.

So this is key. It has to be somebody that you already know is illegitimate and/or at least not credible. And they come up with a big, oh, Harris is going to win.

And sure enough, The Economist, which is a publication which is not credible when it comes to politics, let's say, did a model which they did some kind of iterative model to see under what conditions who would win. And they found out that Harris wins most of the time.

Now, do you think that the model that they built would pass any kind of analysis by independent people? No, I doubt it. It would be about as dependable as the climate models. Anytime anybody tells you they have a secret model that's predicting the future, you should hold your wallet because somebody's playing a scam on you, right?

So right on time, exactly as you would expect if the election were rigged, you would see a major publication, something you've heard of that sounds important like The Economist, say, oh, we've got a new model and our new model shows that really surprisingly Harris wins. Okay, right on time.

Now, that's not proof that anything is rigged. I'm just saying that you all agree if they were planning to rig it, they would have to have at least one illegitimate but legitimate-sounding publication say that Harris is supposed to win. And they didn't use a poll. They used a model.

All right. What are we looking at here? Here's a quote from Joe Rogan the Great and Powerful: Elon Musk, if it wasn't for him, we'd be effed. He makes what I think is the most compelling case for Trump you'll hear. And yes, for the record, that's an endorsement of Trump.

So Joe Rogan is doing his endorsement today. Good for you, Joe. I appreciate that.

Yes, the Economist is the Atlantic of the Washington Post. That is right, Yanks Yanks 28.

So what else? You would also want to see a contrarian prediction that Harris would sweep all of the swing states. Because you know the swing states look like they're going to Trump. So you also need something that doesn't just say the popular vote. You need somebody to come out and say I think she's going to win all seven swing states.

And today on CNN, David Plouffe, the head of the Harris campaign, said she could win all swing states. That's an interesting thing to say, isn't it? She could win all the swing states when Trump is ahead on all the swing states. Huh? How can they come up with something like she's going to win all the states where she's behind? Is that possible?

I think Trump did because there were the shy Trump voters. But how would they explain it? Well, there's this new thing that I haven't heard before called late deciders. Have you heard of the late deciders? You know, all the data coming in about the late deciders. Yeah, it turns out that the late deciders are overwhelmingly in favor of Kamala Harris.

But why? Why would the people who made up their mind at the end be overwhelmingly in favor of one person when they were sort of on the fence the whole time? That's the whole point. They went from on the fence to overwhelming. Well, no, we have a reason. People, if there were no reason for it, then it wouldn't make sense at all, would it? But thank God there's a reason. Do you know what the reason is? It's because Kamala Harris's closing argument was so strong compared to Trump's.

Oh, come on. Literally nobody made their vote depend on the closing argument. Literally nobody. But you have to have that argument for why things changed magically at the last minute. So we've got the magical bullet argument that her magical excellent close, which was no more capable than all of her blabbering idiocy for the entire campaign. But boy, did she close strong. And her close was so strong that persuasion alone, persuasion alone made all these late deciders go, oh, well, you got me now. You got me now.

Now, that's exactly what you'd expect to hear if the rig was planned. They would have to have a narrative that explains it. And there it is. The narrative is she closed strong. She was a better campaigner. I guess those celebrity endorsements really do work despite all evidence to the contrary. Oprah probably made the difference. Oh, it's probably the Oprah effect. Yeah, when Oprah endorsed, that may have taken all those people on the edge, pushed them right over.

No. Anybody who hadn't made up their mind the day before election day isn't going to be influenced by Oprah. Whatever it is that caused them to be undecided, it wasn't the lack of Oprah. Yeah, yeah.

And then there was the Iowa fake poll. I think I can call that fake because it's just so obviously fake. So the Iowa fake poll gives them cover that there was at least one poll that showed she really had come from behind at that last minute. Late deciders.

And then you'd expect David Axelrod and people like him, the luminaries and the smart people on the Democrat side, to say stuff like this. David Axelrod said that Donald Trump is quote not closing well. See, so that's the narrative. Harris had this beautiful closing argument with Oprah, but Trump, he was just dancing on stage with his customers.

Anyway, then if I thought I was looking for indications that would be rigging, I'd look for this in the news. This sentence: Quote, we don't know how long it will take to have a final result. After hundreds of years of elections, we can't figure out how to get a result on election day. As the technology improves, we get worse.

Now, do you think that they would be telling us we wouldn't have a, you know, they'd be warning us, oh, you're not going to have a result on election day if it was a fair election? Maybe. Maybe. But it's exactly what you'd expect if it were rigged.

Now, remember, all of these are just circumstantial. The evidence I'm giving is just circumstantial. None of these prove anything's rigged. They're all exactly what you'd expect to see if it was rigged. And they're not things that you've seen often. For example, the late deciders. I literally never heard of that before. Maybe that has been even mentioned in other campaigns that there are late deciders. So that one really sticks out to me.

Then what we'll look for is also for the classics. You know what the classics are, right? So these are the things that have happened before and they're going to happen again because nothing happened the last time they happened. So the classics: Some machines are going to malfunction. Do you want to bet against that? Does anybody want to place a bet that says all the machines will work? Or do you think that there'll be some important precincts where the machines malfunction? Do you think that's going to happen? Yes, there will be important places where the machines malfunction.

Now, there's one report of someplace that happened that didn't seem that important, but look for a swing state. Look for at least one swing state to have some kind of emergency, something with the building. Maybe there's a bomb threat. You know, maybe a fire or a water leak. And they just got to shut down that system and kick out the observers. The classics.

How about this one? Now, this hasn't happened, but I'm expecting it. Do you think that anybody will report any suspicious delivery vehicles in which the drivers refuse to say who they work for or what's in the truck? Do you think that's going to happen? Look for suspicious delivery vehicles. These are the classics. The classics.

Now, I'm not saying that the suspicious vehicles will even necessarily have anything to do with the election, but you can guarantee that there'll be reports of suspicious vehicles that may or may not have suspicious ballots in them. We'll never know. But that's coming.

And then how about the capper, the one that tells it all. Sometime today you're going to hear a story about Republican observers being physically barred from watching something. You know that's happening, right? There will be some report. Now, again, the report might be fake and it might be an unimportant thing that's being discussed that sounds important. But there will be reports today of Republicans being barred.

Now, I saw in the comments somebody's worried that I'm blackpilling you so you don't vote. No, you need to vote so that any cheating is more obvious. The more votes Trump gets, the more obvious any cheating will become. And if it's too little, it won't be enough. So yes, the more I tell you that it might be rigged, the more you have to vote. So just to be clear on that, this is an argument to vote. Vote as hard as you can.

Pennsylvania county gives an update according to Just the News. And you heard there were these 2,500 suspicious voter registration forms that got flagged in Lancaster County. And so far they've confirmed that 17.7% of the forms are fraudulent. Well, that's exactly what you'd expect to hear if an election upcoming were rigged.

But Rob Schmidt of Newsmax tells us that 44 years ago the polls had Carter and Reagan neck and neck and Reagan won 44 states. So the polls haven't been accurate since at least then.

But I would point out that when Reagan beat Carter unexpectedly and the poll said otherwise, that was a case where the guy who was going to build up the most military got elected over the guy who wanted the least military. Now, if you believe that the real power behind the thrones are always the money people and the military-industrial complex, then I would say 44 years ago we have pretty strong indication that the election was rigged by the CIA. Because what would give you all the polls saying it's close and then Reagan winning in the landslide? Cheating. Yeah, I think there's a pretty good chance that Reagan was a rigged election if you look.

But I've done this before. But if you look at the presidents who have won, it's been in different parties, sometimes Republican, sometimes not. But the thing they have in common is the ones who want to spend the most on the military-industrial complex seem to win unexpectedly.

So since I assume that our own spooks who rig elections in other countries would be perfectly capable of doing it in America if they were so inclined, I would say that the Reagan landslide over Carter might have been a rigged election. What do you think? Do you think the election was rigged or do you think the polling, all the polling was wrong? I don't know. It depends if there was any polling that was right, I suppose. If there were a few polls that people knew to be accurate and they showed that Carter was going to win, then I'd suspect that it was rigged.

So look at the people who have won. So you got Reagan who wins. In my opinion, it was a suspicious victory. It's kind of suspicious, right? Anytime the poll doesn't match the outcome is suspicious. Now, in the case of Trump, it was not suspicious because we knew full well that there were secret Trump supporters because they were so vilified that it was obvious they weren't answering the questions to the pollsters. So at least when Trump had the unexpected victory, the reasons were really obvious. People would just tell you, no, I lied to the pollster. Yeah, yeah, I did that. I lied to the pollster.

I don't know that that was the case in Reagan's day. Do you think people lied to the pollster? Maybe. Reagan was, I recall, under a lot of criticism from the mainstream media. But yeah.

So then we had George Bush Senior was the head of the CIA under Reagan. And then, oh, surprise, the head of the CIA gets elected as the next president. Oh, how about that?

And then the only reason Clinton won is because he had that weird Ross Perot situation that sucked some votes off otherwise would have gone the other way.

And then you get Bush who suspiciously wins over Gore again. It's a little bit suspicious. But the son of the CIA head wins and then he starts up some big wars. I mean, it's kind of hard to ignore, right?

And then Biden wins and the next thing you know we're funding wars. Do you see any correlation there? It looks like whoever is running our elections, hypothetically, is just making sure that the person who's going to spend the most on the military wins. And it doesn't matter what you know about them. That's probably the whole decision. That's what it feels like. I don't have proof of that.

Apparently there's going to be heavy rain in some of the swing states that might stop things. But I have a hypothesis that the rain will stop Democrats more than it will stop Republicans. What do you think? Maybe. Probably the Democrats say the same thing but in reverse. I say no Republican stops because of rain. That's what I say. Like none. Zero. Democrats, I don't know. Maybe women like rain. Often. So I don't think it'll necessarily stop anybody. We'll see. This might be the kind of election where the weather doesn't stop anybody because everybody's so incentivized.

Well, the most fun TV watching will be MSNBC. I watched some clips this morning and oh my God, are they crazy. Rachel Maddow talking about putting Musk on a bus or in a prison if Harris wins is so dangerous. Crazy.

And let me be honest, I don't say this just to be a partisan. Rachel Maddow looks to have a major mental illness. And I don't think she should be talking on television. Whatever that is that she has that needs to be just treated with some kind of compassion. But she should not be talking in public.

And Joy Reid is in the same situation. Like I feel like she so obviously has a mental illness and it's not being made better by her job. That there's something terribly evil going on there.

Now, there's some of the people on the show that don't look crazy. It looks like they just bought into some evil with their employers. You know, Chris Hayes, he doesn't look crazy. He doesn't look like he has mental illness. So they have plenty of people who have opinions I don't like who don't look like they have a mental illness. But some of their biggest names just seem so obviously mentally ill. How do you not see it? You all see it, right?

Yeah. Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Joy Reid. Are you telling me that you think they're mentally okay? And like I said, there are a whole bunch of other hosts who I don't agree with one bit. I don't think they're crazy. But wow.

Vance in his closing argument said something like, you know, Republicans aren't garbage but we're going to take out the trash. So then the MSNBC people groaned, oh, that's too far. Can you believe that he's referring to Kamala Harris as trash?

To which I say she's been calling Trump Hitler for years and the supporters white supremacists for years. No, calling Kamala Harris trash is just sort of ordinary political talk. If Vance had said that all of her supporters are trash, I would have a problem with Vance as well because that's not cool. I happen to know some people that are quite fine people, so to speak, who might vote the other way. But calling a politician trash when that politician has called you Hitler, no, that's fair. That's totally fair.

But to watch the MSNBC people groan like, oh, he's gone too far, it's just like weird mental illness theater. I just can't stop watching it. It's like a car accident.

So tonight I'll be doing some live streaming tonight later in the evening. And I will definitely be checking in on MSNBC because watching their reactions is just fascinating. Like that place, I can't believe it exists.

Then CNN was, Jake Tapper was trying to make RFK Jr. look dumb because RFK Jr. says he wants to remove fluoride from water. So who did Jake have on? Somebody who wanted to say that fluoride's perfectly safe. Do you think it was somebody who maybe gets paid for that opinion? I don't know. Probably.

I'll tell you what I'm not going to believe is CNN talking to somebody about my health. Never again. I'm never going to believe some reporters who are not scientists talking to some managers, some managers not scientists, some managers about how everything's safe. Come on.

And by the way, I don't know about fluoride. I have a curiosity about it in which I'm kind of curious. I wonder. But I don't necessarily think there's something wrong with it. I also don't think there's any chance that RFK Jr. would ban fluoride from all water without a very detailed scientific look and a public conversation about it, right? He's not, you know, he says he's going to do it on day one, but there would be a conversation.

Well, if that's not good enough for you, while you're distracted, according to the Independent, Chinese scientists have claimed a breakthrough in designing a real life Death Star energy weapon. So China has a Death Star. Apparently the Death Star weapon focuses multiple microwave beams on a single target so they can take out missiles and they can take out GPS satellites. And I guess it's not yet on a satellite, but in theory you could put it on one so it could just go up there and start shooting down everything.

So maybe who gets elected doesn't matter because the Death Star is coming.

There's a story in the New York Post about the FBI thwarted some guy's planned attack on a Nashville power grid. He was going to use a drone. So just some crazy extremist guy. And so he apparently had a drone and he had an explosive device and he had a plan. And they stopped him.

So what did they say? They say he's a white supremacist. He has white supremacist ideology. But yeah, I read the entire story about him and I saw nothing about that. So was he a white supremacist or is it just the day before the election and there has to be a white supremacist somewhere because otherwise it means that Biden has been warning us about white supremacists for four years and they don't exist. But isn't that convenient? Wow. Right before election day, there it is. A violent white supremacist that I can't see any evidence of him being a white supremacist. Now, obviously he's not a good guy. But so yeah, that's right on point.

Did you hear the story Fox News is reporting about apparently Kamala Harris did an interview with a Muslim influencer, an American guy. So he's a Muslim guy who interviewed her. And I guess they had a deal that if he didn't like how it went, he wouldn't release it. And he didn't like how it went, so he didn't release it.

One of the things was she was not, the interviewer was not allowed to ask her about, I think it was Gaza. You know what the most important question. So and he didn't ask about Gaza. But apparently they had guided him to talk about the question of people taking their shoes off on flights because then she would do a funny story about taking their shoes off on flights and then we would all relate to it and love her.

And so and she wouldn't even do that apparently. She started talking about seasonings. And while she's talking to the Muslim guy, I'm not making this up, she started into a rant about how bacon is a great seasoner.

Now, the Muslims, they're