d to act like somehow this isn't new. This isn't new. This is like a 35-year problem or 40 years or whatever the hell it is. The fact that people are just finding out about it tells you how bad it was that nobody could say it out loud in any public forum and if you did if you said it out loud in any public way people would think you're lying they would actually accuse you of lying I've been accused of lying about that so many times do you think I was lying when I say that I was told by my bosses directly with no indirection whatsoever we can't promote a white guy. No, they said it directly. And it was usually white guys who told me, right? In one case, a white woman. But to imagine this is something new. Wow.

Well, let's check in on JB Pritzker and his hate speech. So he's got a lot to say about Republicans, but here he is once again doing the Nazi comparison. Quote, "My family immigrated to this country from Ukraine when the Russians were killing Jews during the pogroms," the governor continued. "And so what I feel anyway is that the dangers that my family experienced in Ukraine, the dangers that we saw in Nazi Germany, especially in the earliest days of Nazi Germany, are the dangers that we need to react to now. If we don't, things will get much worse." So Pritzker is directly saying that Trump and Trump supporters are essentially Nazis. And if you don't react to them now, it'll be a full-blown Hitler situation. Now, would you consider that hate speech? Because hate speech is narrowly defined as something that would incite violence somewhat immediately. Do you think that this is technically legal because it doesn't incite specific violence specifically right away? But it kind of does do it right away because if you really believe that Hitler was rising, you wouldn't delay, right? You'd start putting swastikas on Teslas, etc., which is what people are doing. So I would say that yeah, to me that looks like hate speech, but that's just me.

I guess Kamala Harris is scheduled to give a speech, which will I'm sure will also be full of hate. And she's going to do it for $25 per viewer. I guess you got to pay to watch the stream. How many people would pay $25 to watch a Kamala Harris speech? And I wonder is that all you have to pay? Is it just $25 per stream or is there also a two drink minimum? Oh wait. The two drink minimum only applies to Harris. So she'll have at least two drinks before she does her speech that you would have to pay $25 to see. I can't even imagine paying $25 to hear Kamala Harris speak. Now it's for some group that's probably raising money for it. I don't think it goes to her. But really, so I expect some hate speech to come out of that.

Chuck Schumer, he's doing the projection thing that for some reason Democrats never recognize, so it works. He started out by saying recently that the Republican agenda is billionaires win, American families lose. Does that sound like projection? Because immediately as soon as he said it, the X platform had pictures of him posing repeatedly with Alex Soros. It's not like the Republicans have some kind of monopoly on billionaires. I mean, how long have we been talking about billionaires distorting our system by their contributions primarily to Democrat things? So that's projection number one, that Republicans are the ones with the billionaires, completely ignoring the fact that Democrats are almost defined by their billionaires. Then the Western Lensman account on X points out that in 2025 Chuck Schumer is saying that Trump wants to intimidate and threaten judges. This is Chuck Schumer saying that Trump is trying to intimidate and threaten judges. Does that sound familiar? It should because in 2020 Chuck Schumer was threatening and intimidating the Supreme Court telling them that they would reap the whirlwind or something. So that was projection. So he's like the OG of threatening the courts and now he's saying that that's a Republican thing. And then he was asked if he's goi