sn't it?

Now I would also add that the anti-Semitic stuff that's happening on the campuses, there's something different about the anti-Jewish speech versus the anti-Albanian speech. You know, I can say bad things all day long about the British, but nobody would even imagine that that would cause any violence. And I could say pretty tough things about the British. But if I said tough things about the Jewish population, the next thing you know, somebody's pushing, next thing you know, there's violence. So to imagine that free speech about the Jewish population anywhere is the same as free speech about every other group which I think is close to Greenwald's point of view but I don't want to characterize his point of view because he does it so much better. It seems to me that you can't treat everybody the same because the Jews have a situation where there's an identifiable group who wants to wipe them out, but the British don't have that. Well, you might argue that they do, but since there's nobody trying to wipe out the British except maybe by population change, it's not going to lead to anything. There's no way that that becomes anything dangerous. But it wouldn't take much anti-Semitism before Jewish students don't feel safe walking to classes. Likewise, Governor Pritzker, it doesn't take much speech before you wouldn't want to wear a Trump 2028 hat and go in public. It's already too dangerous.

So if the speech that Democrats are using against Republicans make it unsafe to walk down the street and it does, isn't that hate speech because it directly leads to violence and I would say the same about the Jewish students that it doesn't seem to me that it's just turning into words like oh I have a preference. It looks like it pretty directly turns into something more than words.

So and I would say the same is true of DEI and CRT. So that's the reason I got cancelled, right? So I got cancelled because I consider CRT and DEI to be hate speech. The whole point of CRT and DEI is that white males like me have stolen stuff from other Americans and we damn well better give it back. That's dangerous. That gets you killed. So to me, CRT and DEI and ESG even are hate speech because it does activate people to say, you know what, I could slap this guy around in public and nobody would care because we're all mad at them and they stole all of our stuff and made us create the country and then stole everything. That's completely different from saying the French are rude, right? If I say the French are rude, nobody's going to go punch a Frenchman. Completely different.

So I would throw the anti-Semitism into the same category as DEI and the same category as Governor Pritzker saying that Republicans must not know a moment of peace. To me, those are all three hate speech and worthy of being at least discouraged if not made outright illegal. I think they are illegal.

But so Smerconish on CNN, I've told you before this Smerconish is his own man. And even though he's on CNN, he's notably been commonsensical, which seems notable. But he was slamming the Trump-Hitler comparison and he was saying that if you keep comparing Trump to Hitler and you keep comparing his followers to Nazis that it's going to lead to assassination attempts and he points out that if you look at assassination attempts in the past it was almost always in the context of this kind of speech. So when a president, whenever there was ever an attempt on a president there was always somebody saying that president was Hitler like Reagan. I think JFK, I don't know the details but probably somebody was saying that we're all going to die or something if Kennedy gets elected. So good for him.

And he quoted, this is Smerconish, he said anyone with the slightest understanding of history knows the comparison is dumb, you know comparing to Hitler, and it's ugly and it's potentially dangerous. Now if it's potentially dangerous and it's speech it's hate speech that's what it is. So even Smerconish is agreeing that the Trump is Hitler, Musk gave a Nazi salute, this is hate speech. You should go right to jail. No, probably not right to jail, but we should certainly figure out a way to stop it.

So the Daily Caller was reporting on that. According to a number of people who looked at CNN's latest ratings, apparently they're in full collapse. So the Kaitlan Collins show in the evening and Abby Phillips show got fewer than 500,000 viewers in prime time and they're well below 100,000 for viewers under 55. Now that sounds bad, doesn't it? That CNN's ratings continue to plunge and they're down below a lot of podcasts. Sounds bad, but here's what you're forgetting. Their DEI scores are excellent. Their DEI is excellent. So it's not all bad, right?

So the Wall Street Journal is reporting that Gaza is running out of food and water and medicine. So of course there's a move to try to get more food and water into the affected areas, but it's kind of complicated in ways that I wasn't aware of. So you would think that this would be easy, right? Why don't we feed the people who are starving? We have food. It's not for lack of food. It's for lack of distribution. So if you have the food and the people want the food and you know where the people are, how do you solve that?

Well, turns out that if the Israeli government directly distributed the food, then they would be considered occupiers because that would mean they control the food for the local population, which would be an argument that they're occupiers. But if international units provide the food and all Israel does is maybe add a little security for the international people, then it looks like somebody else is feeding them. So it's not under the total control of Israel, even though it sort of is. So there's a problem there because the Israelis don't want Hamas to get fed and they don't want it to go on forever, but they don't want to be the ones who are bringing the food in.

So they're talking about a pilot plan in which there'd be private American companies would be involved in the aid and they would have a humanitarian zone so that anybody who wanted more food and water could leave wherever they are and go to the safe zone where there's food and water. Now I don't know if they have to stay there or they can just get it and take it back with them. That's a little unclear, but this is the idea that it always had to be. We always had to get to the point where obviously the long-term plan is to depopulate Gaza, obviously. And the best way to do it and again best does not include any moral or ethical dimensions just what works and what doesn't work is to say if you want food and water you got to leave and you got to go over here and then from here we might ship you to another country. So I think what you're seeing is something that's suggesting the endgame. And the endgame is the only way you're going to survive is if you get out of Gaza and we filter you so there's not too many Hamas people sneaking out. So I think that's where it's going to end up. Some kind of a safe zone where you got to leave to get the food. And again I'm not judging it in terms of moral or ethical or anything else. I'm just describing it. It just seems likely that's where it's going.

Apparently Putin has suggested a ceasefire in Ukraine. Now this came soon after a Ukrainian commander, there's a video of a Ukrainian military commander saying that if Zelensky gave up Crimea and all that other land in a peace deal, that he will quote regret any negotiations or territorial concessions. Now when a military guy who has