e 25th Amendment and replace Biden with Harris. Now why would they do that given that Harris gets no benefit because she already lost the election? Well, I think it might be because of the Wall Street Journal reporting. Now that the Wall Street Journal reported that Biden's brain was toasted from the first day of office, and when the Wall Street Journal reports and everybody believes it, I mean nobody's really doubting the reports at all that he was incompetent from the first day of office and that they've been keeping information from him so he didn't know what the press was saying about him. What if Biden found out what the Wall Street Journal said about his time in office? He might have enough cognitive ability left to know that he needs to make a call and not leave us without a president for three or four weeks. So it's possible that the Wall Street Journal forced his hand because it's just embarrassing to have no president when everything looks so vital.

Now it might be also that it would boost Harris's credentials, say if she runs for governor of California, which people are suggesting she might, that she can say that her resume includes being president of the United States, first woman president of the United States. Maybe. Because I think that the reason that Democrats didn't want to pull the trigger was in part because they didn't trust Kamala Harris to be president. But given that it's a holiday and nothing was going to happen for the next few weeks anyway, at least nothing in the United States, so it could be that they just know that it doesn't matter who's president for the next three weeks because Trump's the de facto president already. So it might be that they're going to make a change. I wouldn't bet on that. I wouldn't bet on that. It seems more likely it's just something came up and they want to make sure that there's a human being looking at it.

Meanwhile, here's the most predictable thing that could have happened. Kamala Harris got a $20 million book deal. Every one of us could have predicted that, right? And Biden will probably get a book deal too. So she gets a $20 million book deal from Chronicle Books. Now what do you think is the second part that was 100% predictable? She got a book deal and she got $20 million for it, allegedly. What's the second part that you could predict? You could predict that Chris Rufo would soon be posting on X that they had discovered massive plagiarism in her book.

Now this one's a tough one because politicians don't write their own books. You know, these are all ghostwritten. And that means that she hired a ghostwriter who plagiarized and probably didn't even read her own book. She probably doesn't even know what's in it. So it's not really a knock on the vice president. It's more of a knock on her hiring of the ghostwriter who apparently is not to be trusted. So they got that going.

All right, so the House shutdown, the government shutdown may or may not happen. The first two budget attempts, the 1,500 page one and the 1,100 page one both got rejected. Now the Republicans are voting against the budget even though it's going down from 1,500 pages to 100 something, just because there's some Republicans who won't vote for any increase in the deficit. I don't hate that. I don't really hate that there are Republicans who won't vote for anything that increases the debt in the short term. It just screws up everything. But if you're going to fall on a principle, that's a pretty good principle, right? So I don't hate the people who voted no again. It didn't give us a result so we can't move forward. But if you're looking at it just politically and practically, they probably should have voted for it. But I agree with them in principle. You just shouldn't vote for anything that's increasing the debt because it's basically just thievery. It's basically just stealing from voters. When you increase the debt, it makes everybody's money worth less because of inflation. So therefore it's basically a tax, and a massive one.

Anyway, so here's what's going on. Trump said in a Truth post that if the government is going to close over this issue about the budget not being approved, Trump says let it happen under Biden, not Trump. Now Caitlyn Collins reposted that and I love the fact that Trump makes news by saying the most obvious things that everybody's thinking. It's just that he's not supposed to say it out loud. He's not supposed to say out loud that you might as well let it happen under Biden than Trump. Right? You're just supposed to think it. You're not supposed to say it out loud. But the fact that he says it out loud just makes me love him because he's not hiding anything. Yeah, I'd like this to happen under Biden, not me. Oh well, that's amazingly honest. Yeah. So he doesn't even hide the fact that there's a political difference and he prefers it just for the political difference. So he just says it and I just appreciate the transparency.

Anyway, it looks like the original budget deal that nobody knew what was in it was put together by Schumer, McConnell, Speaker Johnson, and Jeffries. And they put it together without really talking to much of anybody. Now why would we expect these four people to be experts on budgets? Do we think that any one of those four was looking at the details? Or were they the ones who were most likely to say yes to something that was made entirely by lobbyists and lawyers? No, they are the ones most likely to say yes if the lobbyist wrote the bills, which is presumably what happened.

Now this raises a larger question for me. You know how I always say that you can tell what people are really up to by the design of the system. If the design of a system always gets you one kind of result and it only lasts for a minute, then you could say, oh that wasn't intentional. They changed it as soon as they found out what the design did. But if you have a design of something and it just stays in business the same design for decades, that's intentional. They know what the design is. They know what it produces and they like it. That's why it lasts for decades.

Now here are some of the things that the government has done and it looks to me like the overall theme of the government is to hide corruption. You would hope that the government is designed to create good outcomes for the public, but it appears to be more designed to hide the corruption of the politicians. Let me give you some examples.

Is it true that the Pentagon lost trillions of dollars and that in Ukraine all kinds of money is missing? So when it comes to the military spending, I think you'd agree it's not designed so the public can watch where the money goes. It's designed so we can't watch where the money goes. Am I right? It's designed so that we can't know where the money goes. Yeah.

We also can't tell for sure who won an election because we've got all these complicated machines. I don't know what happens to any vote when it goes into a machine. I don't think anybody does. We have to trust strangers that once the vote goes into machines, the machines don't change the vote. How would I know? It seems like our elections are designed so you can't tell who won.

So we've got a military budget, you know it's our third biggest budget item, designed so you can't tell how they spent the money. Elections designed so you can't tell who won. Really, you know we produce a winner but you don't really know.

We don't know what's in our spending bills. So the omnibus, the purpose of it is to make sure you don't know what's in it. The purpose of waiting until it's just before Christmas and you make it 1,500 pages is so nobody will read it. It's designed so you don't know what they're doing. It's designed to hide corruption.

How about the fact that we couldn't tell who was running the country in the Biden administration? The Biden administration was designed so you couldn't even tell that the president of the United States was totally declined and unelected people were running America. It was designed so you couldn't tell who was in charge. That's not accidental.

And then there was, if I have this right, the omnibus also included something that would block Congress's digital communications from ever being discovered. Why would you need to block any legal discovery of communication in Congress? To hide crime. What else would it be?

Then you've got all the MeToo funding. Apparently Congress has a budget just to pay off MeToo victims and we don't know who that is. It's designed so you don't know.

So it's a little hard to miss the pattern at this point, isn't it? I mean the pattern seems so obviously designed for the very purpose of making corruption really easy.

Now there's a separate story about California and $24 billion that's somehow missing that was supposed to solve homelessness. But it went into some maze of entities and the Cayman Islands and somebody owns this company that owns this company and it just sort of disappeared into the maze of companies. Now do you think that was an accident? No. The funding of these big ticket things in local elections and local government is designed so you don't know who's doing what and who's stealing what. It's designed for corruption.

Now it's really obvious when you look at all the different elements of the government that every part of it is designed to eliminate transparency. And transparency is the only thing that will keep us alive. It's the only thing that will keep us alive. If you don't know what your government is doing, they will steal all your money and then the country will be broke and then we all die. So yea