ublicans from Democrats. It's the ability to take some pain to get to a better place. That's it. So I would not have been surprised. Frank Luntz.

According to the new Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney, he says, quote, we all recognize climate change as an existential threat. Which makes me wonder who is he talking to? I mean, he wasn't addressing America, but is that true? Is it true that everyone in Canada thinks that climate change is an existential threat? Everybody. I mean, even if it is, it's hard to get everybody on the same side about anything. But then he says he's going to punish companies who don't work to end climate change. All right. So which side of the border would you like to be on if you're a company? Would you like to be on the Canada side of the border where you're going to get punished if you don't do enough to change climate change or would you like to be on the American side of the border where people are just going to be operating in whatever way you know doesn't violate any laws but is making the most money and in theory if the Canadians are right about CO2 and climate change it doesn't matter what they do because the United States isn't doing it as long as they're our closest neighbor and we're ignoring all of that. It doesn't matter what they do. Sort of like what we say about India and China that the atmosphere doesn't know where a border is. So if India, China and the United States are ignoring the climate change risk, do you think it makes any difference to anything if Canada goes balls to the wall and starts punishing companies? They start punishing their own companies for not doing enough to end climate change. It would be so different if the other big countries were on the same page. And then I could say, well, okay, at least everybody's on the same page. But if the biggest countries are not even doing anything about it, it's just the biggest waste of time I've ever seen. Anyway, good luck, Canada.

Trump had another cabinet meeting that he opened up to the cameras, which was kind of awesome. And Marco Rubio said that the State Department that he runs now, the old State Department had a dossier on a current Trump official that he wouldn't name as a purveyor of disinformation. And he said we had an office in the Department of State whose job it was to censor Americans. And he was referring to the Global Engagement Center which I think has been closed down now. But in the process of looking into all that stuff, they found a dossier of somebody who I think is a cabinet head who the Biden administration had identified as a source of disinformation. So I see some guesses that it could have been Kennedy or Tulsi Gabbard. But Kennedy is a pretty good guess but he's not going to tell us who it is. So but just imagine that. I mean just imagine that Biden literally had a well-funded gigantic agency as part of a network of other censors both domestic and international whose job it was to remove your free speech if you said anything that wasn't part of the mainstream of opinion. It's kind of hard to believe, isn't it? Like there are things that you and I have lived through that the next generation is just going to shake their head and say, "Oh my god, I'm so glad I wasn't alive then." When they thought they had a little bit of free speech, but really they didn't because they were being punished and surveilled and blocked and throttled down if they said the wrong thing. Unbelievable.

Let's look at the Democrats' attack on Trump and the Trump administration. See how they're doing. Now, as you know, they've taken what I'll call the Hitler Nazi approach to politics. So the Democrats are doing the classic Nazi thing where you just make up this gigantic lie and then you get the media to report it endlessly until at least their people believe it. So let's check in on some of the insane lies that are being told as part of their Nazi strategy.

Kamala Harris called Trump's tariffs reckless and his agenda self-serving. You know, in other words, that the point of it was to go get some tax breaks for billionaires. Do you think that the big beautiful bill that Trump is talking about that's being now modified by the House, do you think that that's going to have a tax break for billionaires? How many think that that's actually going to happen? Because the Democrats have a little bit of a trap going on that they set for themselves because they've got James Carville saying that Trump's going to cut health care for ordinary people. Do you think Trump's going to cut health care for ordinary people? Now, there is some kind of a request that 880 billion is removed from the Medicaid budget. But it doesn't look possible. And first of all, that number would be over 10 years. So it would be something like 10% somewhere in that neighborhood. 10% of the budget. Do you think there's a way to cut the Medicaid budget by 10%? No, there isn't. It turns out that health care has a much smaller margin than maybe you knew or I knew. A lot of the big money for health care comes from hospital stuff. You know, things that happen in hospitals. And apparently hospitals have a really thin margin. It's like 2 to 4% according to Grok. Now, if your margins are only 2 to 4% on the part of health care that's the most expensive part, do you think you could cut 10% of it on any given year? There's nothing to cut. It's basically already operating at just barely break even. So no. And of course, Trump has said he's not going to touch Social Security and he's not going to touch healthcare for ordinary people.

And then there's Swalwell. He's one of the designated liars. So if you see Jamie Raskin or Swalwell, and Carville, Carville's sort of joining too. They're all part of the Nazi strategy of telling the big lie and then just repeating it endlessly until people believe it. So Swalwell saying, "All we wanted was cheap eggs but not deporting kids with cancer." Now, is the kids with cancer being deported a true story? Well, it's technically true, but we're not really deporting them. The mother wanted to take them with her because she was deported. So no, it's not exactly true the way they're telling it.

But here's the interesting part. Steve Bannon believes that Trump will raise taxes on the highest earners. That would be the billionaires. What do you think? I feel like he might be right about that. I feel like Trump in order to get all the other stuff he wants and to just shut people up, he might need to raise taxes on the highest earners. Now, I don't know what that would be if the people make over 5 million a year or over 1 million a year, but wouldn't that just totally shut up the Democrats if the Republican bill just unambiguously raises taxes for the richest people? Or do you think that they would just act like it didn't happen and just keep saying that he doesn't mean it and he's going to really lower taxes on the rich people? It's the main thing they say when Kamala Harris says it's sel