p the Russian asset. I think Hillary's calling card is she always tries to get a twofer. So Hillary hates Russia and Putin, and often she'll hate somebody else. So if she hates somebody else, she'll just say that they're a Putin puppet so that you can take out the person that you hate but also keep the pressure on Putin.

So apparently she did that trick, the same trick that she did on Trump. She tried it on Tulsi Gabbard. And that's part of the Matrix. So if you're a Democrat and you think that the news is real and somebody like Hillary Clinton says honest things, then you think, oh, I guess I know what's going on now. Look at all these Russian puppets. But if you know you're in the Matrix and you know that nothing that public figures say should be taken as true, then you go, oh, that's just Hillary Clinton doing what Hillary Clinton always does. Oh, Hillary Clinton always says somebody's a Putin puppet. So no, I wouldn't worry about Tulsi Gabbard.

I saw a conversation on X in which people were saying, were disagreeing with somebody who said we should vet people and make sure that we're letting in immigrants who are not criminals and can add something. It turns out there are a number of people who in the comments said very clearly that all immigration is bad. And the reason is that they're coming in from other countries and other races and cultures, and they're going to outnumber the people who are here eventually and then put pressure on the people who are here, who will become, I think it's mostly white people who are worried about being minorities.

And I was saying that economists should decide who comes in and what kind of people come in and what numbers. And I still believe that. But a number of people disagreed with me and said that all of the immigration is bad. And then somebody said, oh look at how much I'm being dunked on in the comments. So I looked at the comments and I thought, how would anybody dunk on that? To the best of my knowledge, 100% of economists from both sides are on the same page, which is that there is some number of immigrants that's good for the country and there's some number that would be too much. Am I wrong about that? That 100% of economists would agree. They might disagree on the number and even the type, but they would all agree with the concept that there's something that would be called too few, especially since we're not reproducing at the rate of replacement, and there is something that would be too much. I don't think that's even controversial.

But other people were saying no, it's basically just race. They just don't want to be outnumbered by high qualified people or low qualified people. And there was a disagreement because I said everybody's better off if the economy is good because we brought in people who could do good things. Now I'm going to double down on my comment. If we didn't have immigration, you wouldn't have Elon Musk. You wouldn't have, I mean I think maybe his parents. You wouldn't have most of Silicon Valley. Do you know how many unicorns were made by people who were not born in the United States? Maybe it's more obvious when you live where I live because I'm sort of Silicon Valley adjacent, so I'm mired in that population. But immigration is really, really important to America keeping its economic lead.

And if you think that you could take a hit on the economy and you'd still be okay, I don't think you're thinking this through. There's a reason that every economist thinks that some amount of immigration is good. Everyone. So I think some people think that they specifically would have some negative outcome. But again, that has to do with the rate. If you suddenly said let's bring in 100 million people from India without checking them out, that would be too much. Too much. If you said can we skim the smartest, brightest people from their best institutions who want to work in America? Yes please. Let's see if we can get as many of those as we can. Let's see if we can get as many German scientists after World War II as we can. We really do need the best. We need that pretty badly.

So I'll agree with you that there's some amount of anything that's too much. But no, you can't not have immigration and expect the country to remain prosperous.

Well, Elon Musk also making news because he said that even mayors will be arrested for stopping mass deportations. Because he said that anybody who's trying to aid and abet the illegal immigrants is going to have some questions to answer. And he says that even mayors could be arrested. And I think the mayor of Denver who almost immediately said well I probably wouldn't try to stop it. I didn't see that story too closely, but there's some mayor who did a little backtracking. But I agree with this. I agree that mayors should be put in jail if they try to stop the federal government from doing what is legally authorized and I would argue is mandated by the election. So yes, I think a mayor should go to jail if they get in the way. Now I don't know if they should stay in jail, but you know, maybe you need to put them in there overnight while you do your deportations or something. But I'm not in favor of lawfare. No lawfare. But we have to get the job done anyway.

Patrick Bet-David was having a good time mocking CNN and MSNBC. Apparently the Hallmark Channel beat them both in viewership recently. And Patrick Bet-David says, quote, imagine you wake up one day and your producer comes to you and says, guys, Hallmark just beat us. To which I say, well, being the third best at fiction isn't that bad, is it? See, because Hallmark is fiction and CNN and MSNBC are fake news. So they really are direct competition. What would happen if they had real news and then Hallmark continued doing fiction? Although Hallmark does some real stories sometimes, don't they? Well, I think it's pretty funny.

Now I do think that their viewership will rise again when Trump takes power, because they'll have something to attack and people who want to hear it. At the moment I think everybody's weepy because they found out they were on the losing side and their team all lied to them. But they'll get over it, and I think they'll get back at least half of what they lost in audience in the last few months. It'll be after the holidays. Maybe everything's slower over the holidays anyway.

So Glenn Greenwald is always good at reminding us which networks are associated with the CIA. And he says how corporate media like CNN is nothing but a blind mouthpiece for the CIA. And he gives this example that CNN's Kaitlan Collins, she was going after Tulsi Gabbard because Tulsi had once supported limits on NSA domestic spying and about something about Edward Snowden. And then Greenwald points out that Kaitlan Collins repeatedly slips in, quote, intelligence sources tell us, to maintain the facade of neutrality. If you hear intelligence sources tell us, what should you do with that story? Not believe it. Intelligence sources are the professional liars. If you're an intelligence source, you're allowed to lie. It's actually ri