t our demographic problem perhaps, maybe something about our debt problems that are the same. And the best way to get rid of your debt problems would be to reduce your military spending by half.

So as crazy as it is to imagine that we would negotiate with adversaries about cutting their budget for the military, you know, and you'd expect both sides would cheat and they would hide their budget in secret places so it looked like they cut it but they didn't. You know that's that would be a real problem. But could you get to the point where China, Russia and the United States feel like they're on the same team? Meaning that if China destroyed the United States they would lose their biggest customer but they would also lose their ability to control external risks such as radical Islam. Could you find a way that we just feel like we're the three horsemen of the future and that we do have a responsibility to keep the smaller countries operating and make sure that we all have access to resources as needed, you know, in the free market sense. And maybe the old United States that was very colonizing and we like to control other countries, as Mike Benz says, you know if you don't control the small countries you can't make pencils because we don't make pencils in the United States. Just one example. So you have to sort of control markets so you have access to the raw materials. What if we didn't? What if the world has changed and you don't need to overthrow a country just have access to their minerals? You just make an offer. If China has a better offer they get it. If we have a better offer we get it. But maybe we say if it's in our universe over here maybe you guys can't be part of that. But there should be places where everybody can get everything. You know you can get your raw materials for anything.

So question is can Trump do something that big? And I'll just remind you that things that didn't seem possible before suddenly look a lot possible now.

I'll tell you what the bad guys are saying about Trump talking to Russia. They're already saying oh he's a Russian puppet, you know, sort of the John Bolton thing. If he, they're already saying about Ukraine that if Trump decides that the current borders are what will be the final borders and that NATO doesn't include Ukraine in the future that would look like giving Russia everything they want which would look like Putin winning which would embolden him. You don't want to embolden your adversary. And I say that's the wrong frame. I don't care if Putin thinks he won. I only care what I want. Why do I care what other people want? I care what I want. What I want is the Ukraine war to be over so that you know there's no argument about the border countries. We're not sending you money. Nobody's dying. That's what I want. If we decide that NATO will not include Ukraine that's what I want. I want that. So why are we talking about what Putin wants? Let's just get what we want. Everybody who's talking about Putin winning and getting everything he wants, why are you even care what he wants other than negotiating? But your happiness can be disconnected from his happiness. I just want what I want. I want to be out of this war and not pay for it. I don't care about the rest. Not really.

So yeah, the first reframe is don't care what Putin feels he won or didn't win. You only just get what you want as a taxpayer anyway.

I guess there's some fake news in the Wall Street Journal. Somebody suggesting the advance means that under some conditions the US military would get involved in Ukraine. What Vance did say was that all options are on the table which we always say, right? So I think that was taken out of context. All options on the table is just what we always say because it makes sense. We say it. It doesn't mean we want to put military there. That's not going to happen anyway.

According to the Daily Mail, Health and Human Services spent 22.6 billion giving migrants cars, homes and credit cards from 2020 to 2024. Cars, homes and credit cards. Now I think what that means is it helped them get home loans, made it legal for them to own a car, maybe there's some financial help, stuff like that. But it looks like they were putting America last if you know what I mean.

But here's what I would caution you. I think we've seen already that some of the early claims about who spent money on what have been so easily debunked. For example the condoms to Gaza. Really condoms to Mozambique. Now I agree that we should cut it no matter where it was going but the original report had even the wrong country which is a pretty big deal. And you know it goes from giving condoms to terrorists to helping reduce the spread of AIDS in a country that doesn't have the resources to help itself. I mean that's a pretty big difference to know where it was aimed at. But again you know I would be against that spending either way.

And we saw the Reuters story. There was a story that Reuters was being paid by our government for massive information deception. They use different words but it was something right on the invoice. And people jumped to the assumption that we were paying to have Reuters brainwash people. I think the real story was that Reuters was being paid or some element with the name Reuters. Somebody said it's a different company than Reuters the news agency but it might be the same parent company. I'm not clear on that. But I think the real story was they were being paid to study it. Now studying it's real different than doing it. You would study it to try to reduce it happening. That's the opposite of paying for somebody to do it. Now do I think we should have had huge expense to study that? No. The expense is still wrong and you know not really supportable in my personal opinion. But you've seen enough examples now where the original reporting of how crazy it is about some expense, don't assume these are true. I think you can assume the big picture. They're crazy expenses that we can get rid of. Most of them. That's true. But when you see these really just too on the nose like condoms to Gaza to Hamas that was way too much on the nose. Like you should have spotted that right away. I think I did. I think I called that out as don't believe this one. So just don't believe all the stories but they might be useful for making the case but don't believe them.

DOGE apparently has penetrated the IRS. I don't know how much money they're going to or corruption they're going to find in the IRS but I'm very interested. So I love the fact that the IRS is being audited. We went from the IRS is going to audit you. We've got 85,000 people to track you down all the way to how about we audit the IRS? Yeah, how about that? So that makes me happy.

I saw John Stewart on his podcast talking to Jen Psaki and he had a really interesting question which suggested his own thought process. And he asked her does management at MSNBC tell you what to say? Because she has a show on MSNBC. And she said no, no they don't tell us what to say. No, no we have independence so we just look at the news and decide what to say. Now you might say really? And then every one of you decides on the same take. So you all independently just all by yourselves came up with exactly the same take on every story because they never vary. They all have the same take on every story. And even John Stewart wasn't buying it. So I think he was willing to accept that leadership does not give them a memo every day say cover this this way. And I think that's true. But he pointed out that Roger Ailes also did not tell people what to write but they all kind of agree on Fox News don't they? Yeah, there's not going to be anybody in Fox News who comes out against DOGE or against Trump being president. And as John Stewart pointed out you don't need to tell people what to do. They know what their audience is. They know what the other people are going to say. They know what they can say to fit in where they work. You don't need to tell them specifically. They just sort of work it out with each other. So even John Stewart seemed to be suggesting although he didn't say it directly but his line of questioning suggested that he thinks that MSNBC is part of the problem. Meaning that it's such obviously propaganda that you can't not notice it. Can't not notice it. So he was actually without using the words he was basically accusing them of being worthless propaganda but politely. And I wonder if Jen Psaki believed what she was saying that they have independence and just coincidentally all have the same opinion. I don't know anyway.

Let's check and see how did MSNBC cover the USAID story. Well if t