science, which is never wrong.

And this is kind of interesting. You know how for your entire life you've complained about how, yeah, they can't even predict the weather tomorrow. You know, how are they going to do this or that when they can't even predict tomorrow's weather? Well, apparently there's an AI-driven method, according to The Guardian, that will be able to predict the weather with very little resources. Something like a single researcher with a desktop computer will be able to have more accurate forecasts than all the computers that they're using now to do forecasts, with way less energy, thousands of times less computing power. So you'll be able to sit at your desk and predict what your weather will be tomorrow. How about that?

So I guess the job of news weather person might be at risk when you could just go to your computer and it will have a better idea than all the experts.

Well, as you know, Trump signed an executive order to get rid of the Department of Education, and probably had one of the best presentations. He was surrounded by school-aged kids who were all at their own little desks, and they all had their own little executive orders. So he signs his executive order while the kids are signing their executive orders. It was impossibly cute.

But the funny thing is, you know that the reason to get rid of the Department of Education, the critics say it's bad for the children. So he surrounds himself with all these happy children, and then Trump says that giving the power back to the states might be better for the teachers than what they were getting before. So it's good news for the teachers.

But the executive order can't actually get rid of it. You still need Congress to vote on it. I guess he thinks he has the votes. If only the Republicans agree, they can vote it out. But the executive order can kind of gut it. It can stop it from functioning even though it still exists. So that's happening.

But yeah, Trump says teachers will be quote better rewarded with the education in the hands of the states.

Now let me give you how the news has treated this. Don't you think the most important question about the Department of Education is what will be different if it doesn't exist? How many of you can answer that question? Most of you, if you're a Republican, your answer to the question would be, well, I guess they didn't do anything because scores on tests never went up, so I guess it never did anything. But that's a little oversimplified, don't you think? A little oversimplified.

And then the Democrats are being told it would be the end of education or something. They think it will cut funding for the disabled and cut funding for low-income people. But it hasn't even been decided if the funding that was once in the Department of Education will be distributed to the states. So we don't even know if it will cut anything. It might just be less administrative costs because you just get rid of an entire department. But maybe the disabled will get the same amount of money. It'll just be distributed to the states instead. Maybe. So nobody really even knows what this is.

This is one of the biggest stories in the country, and how many of you even knew what would be cut or what would be different? I would say almost none of us. I had to actually do a little research even to get as far as I got, and I don't think I quite understand it. So it's kind of a funny one.

I think Trump's doing a good job of just acting like no scores went up, and so I guess we're in good shape anyway. So if it can't be defended better than it has been defended, I think that's a pretty good reason to get rid of it, because the arguments for it only make sense if the states don't pick up that slack. And we don't know yet that they won't, because there might be funding given to the states. We'll see.

Well, meanwhile, Bernie Sanders and AOC are doing their anti-oligarch tour together. So they're in Las Vegas, I guess yesterday. It must be just so hard for them to go to Las Vegas and do an anti-oligarch tour.

So the funny thing is, according to a journalist on Fox Business, she says that there are twice as many billionaires who backed Kamala Harris compared to Trump, twice as many, and that 65% of the rich vote Democrat. So rich people are two-thirds voting Democrat, and 75% of hedge fund managers also vote Democrat. And so there you have it.

So once again, the Democrats are the living embodiment of the thing that they're accusing Republicans of. Do you remember when they accused Republicans of being domestic terrorists, or at least the white supremacists, which they conflate with being a Republican? And then we're watching all kinds of domestic terrorism that's 100% Democrat. So it's a very consistent pattern. Whatever they're accusing you of, that's probably what they're doing. It's like a confession.

I was reading the Amuse account on X that had that take.

Now to me, the best filter on Democrats is the theater kids, because they seem to pick things that can work well in a theatrical setting. So they send theatrical AOC and theatrical Bernie Sanders, and then they make them sort of like Lewis and Martin. So they turn them into an entertainment duo. What would be better than Lewis and Martin? That's an old reference. Is there any newer couple?

Anyway, so it seems to me this anti-oligarch thing is just like a play they took on the road. It's just completely unmoored from reality in any way. So Trump's got a few billionaires backing him, and obviously Musk is the biggest one. But it seems completely artificial, as do the Tesla things, as do a lot of things. So the theater kids put on a play, take it on the road.

All right, let's check in with the other theater kids. We've got Gavin Newsom, who apparently claimed on his podcast that no one in his office ever used the word Latinx. Remember, for a while we were told that the Latin or the Hispanic community liked to be called Latinx with an X on the end, and you never heard anybody ever use it in the real world. And it turns out the Hispanic community wasn't really crazy about it at all.

Well, here's the fun part. So poor Gavin is trying to become more of a common-sense, middle-ground guy so he has some chance of national office. We assume. Can't read his mind, but it looks like he's trying to position himself for running for president. But on CNN, they ran a compilation of Newsom actually saying Latinx, without joking about it. So apparently he's the person in his own office that was using it in public a number of times, and he wasn't using it ironically or as a criticism.

So now he's trying to sell us that no one in his office ever used the word, while we have a video compilation of him using the word. Typical.

So I'd like to give the Democrats another pro tip. I'm good at the pro tips. If you're trying to be the next Joe Rogan, the thing you can't leave out is the authentic part. But the thing that the Democrats get wrong every time is they literally think that authentic means pretending to be authentic. That's what Newsom's doing. He's pretending to be authentic to try to become the next Joe Rogan without quite understanding that the public can see through inauthentic so easily. It's what we can pick up just so easily.

And then think about Joe Rogan. So how long has he been in the public eye? Is there anything he's ever done that ever struck you as inauthentic? Nothing, right? Probably literally nothing. Yeah, he likes to hunt animals and cook them up. Yeah, he likes to do hard workouts. Yeah, he likes the MMA. What part of anything he's ever done strikes you as even a little bit inauthentic? Nothing. And that's the part that they don't get. And it feels like they can't get it. It's completely unavailable, because their world, and I mean this literally, this is not hyperbole, Democrat world is completely artificial. So they don't live in a world where connecting to anything in the real part of the world has ever made sense. It's a complete artificial, theatrical, imaginary world. We can read minds. We see domestic terrorists under every chair. We can read Trump's mind and we know he's going to steal your democracy. And it's completely artificial.

So I think they've actually lost the ability to even police themselves with authenticity. They just don't have it. And I'm not even sure they know what it feels like or what it looks like or how you would act authentic. I guess that's the problem. They can't act authentic anyway. The authentic part is not optional if you want to be the next Joe Rogan.

Here's another pattern I think I'm detecting. See if you detect any pattern. So I think former Democrat Representative Cori Bush, so I guess she was defeated recently, but she's the, remember Cori Bush? She was one of the Squad kind of people. Her husband was charged with two counts of wire fraud, something about accepting payments during COVID, I think, and allegedly lied to get those payments.

Now, does anybody see a pattern? Has anybody noticed that prominent Democrats are so often married to criminals? Is that my imagination? How many times have we seen a prominent Democrat's husband in trouble? And I think it could go the other way. Prominent Democrat wife is collecting money from USAID NGOs for doing just about nothing. All their spouses seem like criminals.

Now, I suppose the politicians themselves have some questions to answer too, but it does seem like a pattern. The Democrats either marry criminals or are spies. If you see a Democrat that's not married to a criminal, I would suspect that spouse of being a spy, because they only have two kinds of spouses: criminals and spies.

Anyway, Greta Van Susteren, who has worked for a number of different news outlets, revealed on a podcast that MSNBC is the only one who told her what she could and could not say. Are you surprised that MSNBC didn't let her have her own opinions, that she had to agree with the company opinion on stuff? And Greta said that's why I got fired at MSNBC. When MSNBC tried to tell me what to do, I thought they were joking. I thought they were joking.

Imagine working for a company that's so corrupt that when they tell you honestly what they want from you, you think, well, that can't be true. You actually think it must be a joke, because your brain can't wrap itself around the fact that they were never a real news organization, that they were a propaganda outfit by design. And that's why I got fired, because they said I needed to play ball, and that didn't work.

Now, what else do you need to know about MSNBC? The main takeaway from that is if you know somebody who's getting their news primarily from MSNBC, they're not really getting news, are they? Obviously most of our news sources are biased left or biased right, so bias is no big deal. But there's a really big difference between having some bias and being told what you can and cannot say on the air. That's a big difference. So MSNBC, propaganda.

All right, here's a story I've been waiting for. So JD Vance, Vice President Vance, was talking to a podcast, I guess it was a Daily Caller podcast with Vince Coglianese. Vance was asked how he's a different vice president than Kamala Harris was, and Vance said, I swear he said this, this is real, I'm not making this up. Vance said, well, I don't have four shots of vodka before every meeting. And then he laughed.

But here's the thing. The New York Post is reporting it as he joked that. He joked. Was he joking? Does anybody remember 2019, and there were a number of pro-Trump people who joked? We joked about Biden and his mental incapacity. Do you remember that? And everybody said, ah, you're joking. And people like me would say, no, I mean I might be saying it in a funny way, but I'm not joking. He quite obviously has some mental decline, and it quite obviously is going to get worse in the next few years if he gets selected. Yeah, we think it's funny on some level. It's funny that they would even run for office. But we weren't joking. Joking in quotes. It was more like that's an actual observation that everybody could see, and the funny part is that people weren't admitting they could see it. Now that's funny.

And to me this feels like 2019 all over again. Oh yeah, Kamala Harris. That guy joked about her drinking before she goes in public. Yeah, well it was a joke in quotes, but do you think he didn't mean it? Do you think that the people who really know what's going on, the most insider people, whether they're Republicans or Democrats, you think they don't know that Kamala has a substance problem? Do you think they really don't know? Is it just us jokers?

Well, the jokers keep joking about it. It is a joke, but it's only funny because it's obviously true. If it were not obviously true, do you think I would have brought it up more than once? I mean, maybe I would have floated it once to see if it was funny, but I wouldn't be hammering on it like a million times like I am, unless I literally thought the joke is that so many people are pretending they can't see it. Now that's funny, because it's just 2019 all over again.

You know, you think to yourself, well, the news will learn from their mistakes. And if so many people could clearly see that Biden was mentally declining at a fast rate in 2019, if so many of us could see it, well obviously we'll make an adjustment so the next time something like that happens we won't be caught off guard and we'll say, oh yeah, we could see it early too. But we're right back in the same situation, pretending that they can't see it. Oh, it's just a joke. JD Vance was just telling a joke.

And then how many outlets on the left carried that story? I didn't see it anywhere. I saw it in the New York Post, which leans right. Did the entire news enterprise that is mostly left-leaning, did all of them ignore that the vice president of the United States joked that his predecessor was drunk during meetings? Did they think that wasn't newsworthy? No, it's obvious that they can see it. They just can't say it. They would rather back somebody who couldn't possibly win, as long as it makes other people unhappy, I guess. They seem to be more about destruction and making people unhappy. It doesn't seem to have any kind of overall strategy to it.

Anyway, let's talk about tariffs. You know, I keep hearing that the stock market is in turmoil because all the smart people can't forecast what's going to happen with tariffs, and it creates great uncertainty. To which I say, really? I think it only creates great uncertainty to people who are really, really bad at risk management. Let me explain.

The risk of tariffs: one thing that might happen is that we'll have a little bump in products coming through. Some things will be more expensive, a little bit of bump inflation. But I guarantee you that when the dust settles, America will have better trade agreements than we had before. Now, does anybody doubt that the tariff stuff is the closest thing to a guaranteed outcome that you'll ever see? And I think Lutnick does the best example of basically making that case. Well, actually Mr. Wonderful probably does the best case to make it.

There's only one way this can go. The other countries will say, okay, we can't take this heat because our economy won't last as long as America's, so we're g