e wars. Quote, "The only way you make money in the UN is if you go to war. You get paid more." Who gets paid more if they go to war? What job gets paid more if you're at war? I mean, I could see if the actual military people are deployed they might get military pay or something, but do the managers get paid more? How's that work? I don't know. I'm not sure I believe that.

And then this manager said 90% of the United Nations employees are squatting. "I could point to people every single day in the building who don't work." What is the UN? It's an amorphous body of nothingness. Now this is coming from a manager at the UN. Now I don't think that this one manager is necessarily expressing a universally accurate view, but certainly I would look at this whole UN situation to see if it's doing anything for us that we want done. I'm not entirely sure it's doing what we want done all the time. So it may, I'm sure it has benefits. I just don't know the pluses and minuses.

All right, this is funny. James Carville is actually going on the, he actually said in an interview, quote, "Our side won't tolerate lies." So James Carville, who's the smartest guy the Democrats have apparently, he believes, or at least he's willing to say in public, I don't know what he really believes, that because the corporate news on the left is more corporate and professional that they won't let the Democrats get away with lies. So the lies are mostly on the right because the media on the right lets them get away with lies. Joe Biden ran on the fine people hoax and didn't get fact-checked once by the entire media on the left. Not once. Not a single time. Not one time during the entire 2020 election. Not once did the left media fact-check him on the fine people hoax, the primary reason he ran for office. And Carville said no, we're all the honest ones.

So Carville thinks that Fox and Newsmax and One America, that they're just out there allowing all these lies. He goes, quote, "But our side won't tolerate lies." Okay, if a Democrat goes on TV and says some lie, The New Republic is going to say that's not right, or The New York Times is going to say that's not right. So how, and I'm serious when I say this, one side is constrained by the truth. Yeah, I sure feel sorry for those Democrats who are constrained by the truth. Does he believe any of this? What do you think? I think he couldn't possibly believe it. But on the other hand, he talks like he does because he's sort of a straight shooter. So you don't know when the straight shooter has decided that maybe a lie is what gets him what he needs. I don't know. It's hard to believe. If you believe this is true, you're kind of starting in a bad place.

All right, well, Nancy Pelosi, who's 84 years old, has filed for reelection. So we might get her into, she's like a thousand. Now, do you think the Democrats have learned anything if Nancy Pelosi gets reelected at age 84 or 85? Well, that's, she's going to run in 2026. Don't you think that that would be kind of evidence that they didn't learn a damn thing? Do you think the country is looking for maybe a little younger leadership on the left? On the right, Trump is getting up there in age, but he's surrounded by younger people who are pretty dynamic. So it looks different, and he doesn't act that old. He's got tons of energy still. But Nancy Pelosi, good luck, Democrats.

Meanwhile, California still has 1.7 million uncounted ballots. How long ago did we have that election, or alleged election? And California hasn't counted 1.7 million, and they're apparently taking pride in not being rushed. See, here's what I think was the problem where California went off the rails. They never should have decided to use the weed dispensaries as ballot counting centers. You should have just kept those separate the whole time. No, I made that up. They did not use weed dispensaries as ballot counting centers, because if they had, they'd be done by now.

Meanwhile, there are allegations of voting irregularities in Wisconsin. You've probably heard of them. Gateway Pundit is reporting more on it. But apparently there was reportedly a 4 a.m. dump of ballots that went 90% to one candidate. Which one do you think it was? Let's see. There was a late drop of ballots. 90% of them went to one candidate. Let's see how many of you could guess. Was it the Democrat or the Republican who do you think got the 90%? Just take a guess. See how close you can get. It's a 50/50, right? It's a toss-up. So did 90% of the votes go to the Democrat or the Republican? And anybody want to take a wild guess on this one? Oh yes, it was the Democrat. Yeah, quite surprisingly, 90% of the late-night dump went to the Democrat.

There is a widespread concern. They're trying to, let's see what else is, and now the Republican candidates are talking about it because it's, I guess it's, it seems to be according to them grossly obvious that there's cheating. Grossly obvious. What do you think? Maybe. I don't know. All I know for sure is there's a report. But there's suddenly 108,000 absentee ballots came in, and one person got 90% of the votes. Do you think you could ever have 90% of the 180,000? It's not really a thing, is it? Okay, if that's true. So you have to worry about any parts of the report being true. But if it's true that 90% of the votes were for one candidate out of 180,000 ballots, I would call that proof of rigging. Well, I don't even need to look into it really. If it came in at 4:00 a.m. and it was 90% for one person and it was 180,000 votes, you don't have to look into it too carefully. You can just throw the whole thing out. I mean, that's just obviously rigged. But the part you don't know is if the claim of 90% of the votes being one way is true, right? So if that's not true, then nothing was found. So I would look to get that validated with a couple of sources to make sure that you're not claiming a kraken when there is none.

Meanwhile over in Pennsylvania, the Republican who declared the winner by a number of sources, but there's still a recount. I think there's going to be a recount. And it looks like the Mark Elias and the Democrats might have a play here. So they might try to eliminate some votes or add some votes and see if they can get a changed election. So I didn't realize that Mark Elias was part of getting Al Franken elected in that election that was so close they had to do the recount. I think. And then Mark Elias managed to either include votes, new votes, or exclude some votes that had been counted until they changed the outcome. So that's a real thing that could happen.

So we've got two states that on the surface appear to be rigged. Do you think that's fair, on the surface? So I don't know if the claims are correct, but there are claims coming from credible people. So that doesn't mean they're right, but the people seem credible and the claims seem specific. Pretty specific claims. And I would think maybe there's a way to check on at least some of that. But the stuff that happens legally would be all transparent, and we just wouldn't like it if it goes the way you don't like.

Meanwhile, apparently some of the Democrat blue cities are trying to get rid of their migrant shelters before Trump is inaugurated because they think Trump will start deporting people. You know, if you were going to deport migrants, what would be more convenient than having them all in one migrant shelter? The easiest way to round them up is if they're in a sanctuary city in a big shelter. Yeah, are you telling me that entire hotel is filled with migrants? Yeah, we put them in the hotel. Okay, let's take everybody in the hotel and send them back. Now I don't think that works if they're asylum people, because the asylum people are here legally, at least temporarily legally. But I can see why they would be racing to get rid of their sanctuary cities now. Some of it is because I think there was a marked drop in people coming in. So I think that they're already trying to change their game because whoever comes in in the next few months is definitely going to get sent back. You know, anybody who comes in today has a pretty high chance of being sent back if they get caught.

So New York City had a migrant shelter on Randall's Island. It had up to 3,000 people in it. They're going to shut that down by February. And apparently the wave of new migrants arriving in New York has significantly slowed, and 170,000 are already in the shelter or have already moved on. So those were 170,000 migrants who were in shelters but have somehow moved on to something closer to a permanent situation.

But there is a conspiracy theory by the Democrats that Elon Musk stole the election somehow using Starlink. Now I don't know if there's any evidence that Starlink was used for any part of any of the election, but the Democrats need something. So according to Wired, there's a rumor going around on the Democrat side. I haven't seen it on social media, but they say it's going around that the election was stolen. Good luck with that.

The Daily Wire is reporting that Antony Blinken says that Biden's going to funnel as much money as possible to Ukraine before Trump takes over. Man, what does that sound like? I'd love to think that they're doing that for all the right reasons. But if they know that Trump's going to take over and just end the war, shouldn't they just end the war now? You know, wouldn't it be smarter for them to say, "Hey, Mr. Trump, you can end this anyway. Why don't we start? We'll get the end of the war going. We'll get them talking, set up a meeting, you know, get you all set up to end this war when you come in." No, instead they're going to send them as much money as possible. As much as possible. I'll tell you, everybody who voted for Trump is feeling happy about it at this moment. Yep, send our money to another country as fast as possible. Antony Blinken to achieve nothing, apparently.

Let's see. Then there's a report by Kristina Wong at Breitbart that the Pentagon is trying to get rid of its DEI records because Trump said he was going to fire the generals that were big on DEI. Now I've got a problem with that hypothesis or that strategy, I guess. I've never been in the military, but correct me if I'm wrong. Don't you think almost everybody who implemented DEI was just taking orders? Even the generals, were there generals who were just sort of doing their own thing and they decided that DEI was going to be what they were going to pursue? Or was it just a general military order to do more DEI, and then generals were maybe competing to see who could do more of it or do it better? But I don't quite understand firing people in the military for DEI w