think it's true. So it's a wonderful story. Again if you don't think one person can change the world well there's a big example.

Now the other context is that Teddy Roosevelt knew that for America to be the dominant maritime power that we needed to connect our two oceans. Because if you can't get assets from one side of the country to the other without going around South America you're not really the naval power that you need to be. So the Panama Canal had a lot to do with projecting American power and that's why Teddy Roosevelt was okay to play a little fast and loose with that.

Anyway I'm going to make an observation I've made before but I'm going to give you some more details. Have you noticed that Democrats have what I call a rate problem? Let me explain. The general statement is that if something is good at a small scale Democrats will say it must be good at a big scale. And that never makes sense. I mean it might make sense for making money or something but that's about it. So they say for example if a low amount of immigration is good for the country why wouldn't a high rate be good for the country? And then the Republicans say that's batshit crazy. Those are completely different situations. A low rate of immigration is sort of no problem and maybe it's more plus than minus. But a high rate you're literally giving away your country and dying. Those are not just doing more of a good thing. So it's a rate problem.

The Democrats for whatever reason refuse to acknowledge that doing a good thing too much has any kind of negative. Here's another one. You don't want your police to be over-policing do you? Yeah you don't want the police to harm somebody. Maybe be a little too tough on the citizens. Nobody wants that. So it's good if the police are maybe a little softer and more gentle in some situations. But if that's good why not get rid of police entirely? Wouldn't that be even better? It's a rate problem. You don't just take some little good thing and then take it to the extreme and say it must be good.

Nobody really cares if an adult wants to transition. Well if it's good for adults why wouldn't it be good for toddlers say the Democrats. Again good for an adult to have enough freedom to make that kind of a choice in today's world. I like it. I could argue maybe they shouldn't or maybe they won't be happy but it's not up to me. I'm happy that they have the choice as adult citizens in a free country. Yes absolutely. You do what you need to do. I'll do what I need to do. It's the best we can do. But the rate. Can we keep it with just the adults? We're pretty sure. Does it have to extend to children and dogs?

How about it's good to help the unfortunate. Most people would agree it's nice if you get to help somebody needs a little hand up. Yeah that's good. So why don't we give all of our money to everybody else? Oh wait a minute that's a rate problem. It's only good if you keep it within bounds. If you open your doors and let everybody come in and take what they want nothing works. It's a rate problem.

About if diversity is good and I would agree that having a company workforce kind of looks like the public that seems like a plus. Everybody be a little happier. They'd feel a little safer. They'd have a little more visibility about what the customers in general are looking for because you got people who touch every community. Yeah you can see how that would be a plus. But if a little bit of diversity is good why not just get rid of white men entirely which is what it turned into. It turned into let's just get rid of white men because if you do it a little bit it's good wouldn't it be good if we got rid of all of them? It's a rate problem. A little bit's fine. A lot of it is the end of the country.

How about if criticizing a politician such as Trump, one that you might not agree with, if criticizing him pretty severely is good because we got a competitive system so both sides will get criticized and we like it because that's how we settle things. We argue a little bit. So if a little bit of criticism of Trump is good why not organize a coup against him? Again it's a rate problem. A little bit of criticism of Trump is good. I would even argue that he's such a change agent that I would even agree with you that a lot of criticism is good. But can we keep it there? Does it have to be if criticism is good a coup is good? It's a rate problem.

Yeah so here's another one. If a store allows a little bit of shoplifting and the alternative is somebody in desperate need can't get the food or the diaper or something we kind of think oh we don't like, we definitely don't like shoplifting right? Nobody likes it. But a little bit of it you could argue the person who stole it got to stay alive, got to put a diaper on a baby. But if it's good if a little bit of it happens why don't we just open the door and make it legal to steal everything? It's a rate problem again. It's a rate problem. It's the thing that they get wrong every time.

Anyway so John Bolton as you know lost his Secret Service protection under Trump but he was awakened at 12:00 a.m. to be told about it. That part just seems like they were messing with him. Like I suppose they needed to tell him as soon as they knew so I mean there's justification for it to give him the most amount of time to adjust to it but it just feels like they're messing with him. But during the press conference Trump said some bad things about him. He said he tried to blow up the Middle East. And then here's what Trump said. I thought he was a very dumb person but I used him well because every time people saw me coming into a meeting with Bolton standing behind me they thought that he would attack them because he was a warmonger.

Now how many of you remember that when Bolton was first added to Trump's team in the first term? Do you remember what I said? Because of course I didn't want a warmonger on his team. But if you remember what I said, oh this is perfect because when Trump walks into a room wit