rson who was definitely in charge of it to come forward and only because she was compelled by congressional testimony today. So some oversight committee was querying her and she admitted that she was in charge of making sure the autopen process worked. Now, in theory, that does not mean that she was making the decisions. In theory, she was just doing whatever the president wanted to do. So in the best case scenario, there's no issue here at all. But do you believe that? Do you believe that she only did what Biden asked her to do? As in, well, I'm at the beach. Use that autopen. Maybe it started that way. But there are some accusations that I would not consider yet credible, but there are accusations that some entities that she was involved with outside of her job got a little extra funding thanks to that autopen. But I think it's too soon to imagine that those accusations are accurate. Maybe. I mean, if she had that power and nobody was watching too closely, maybe. I always tell you that wherever corruption is possible, it always happens. But if there were other people watching her all the time and it wasn't just one person and an autopen, well, maybe enough people were watching.

All right. So we don't know.

Pollster Mark Mitchell was on Batya Ungar's podcast and Mark Mitchell is from Rasmussen and he said that Trump is on base to pass Obama as the most popular president in US history. Now it hasn't happened but the trend line is looking like it might. So according to Mark Mitchell at this point, yeah, 100% Trump is about to outperform him, meaning Obama, that's what's going to happen. Then separately, I saw, but I didn't look into, there's another poll, not Rasmussen, they had Trump at a new low. So the pollsters do not agree. Is Trump gonna be the most popular president or did his popularity just go down? Well, that's the way the world is working right now.

Apparently 128 Democrats decided to vote against the idea of pursuing impeachment over Trump. So Fox News is reporting this. So it was not only the Republicans who killed it. Representative Al Green, he's always looking for a Trump impeachment no matter what. But a whole bunch of Democrats disagreed, so that's good. My guess is that it didn't work last time. The last time they tried the impeachment, and they really have nothing to impeach him over. So I guess they were just being wise.

There's an AI called Claude if you haven't heard of it. It's one of the big ones by Anthropic and Anthropic is apparently Amazon-backed. So Amazon's the money backer, one of them. And they just won a court ruling that they would be allowed to train their AI on books that had been legally purchased as long as they don't reproduce the book. So they can't reproduce it even if you said to them give me the first chapter of that book. Instead it would just be a method of training them. So I don't know how I feel about that. It does feel like I have to admit that feels like fair use because if you're only using it to sort of generically train your AI the same way it would train looking at Reddit or looking at X or something then I'm not too worried about it. But as an author it does make you wonder if your copyright value is shrinking with AI. I think it's shrinking but it's not gone. So that's happening.

Meanwhile, according to the Guardian the US House of Representatives has banned WhatsApp. So it doesn't want any of its members using the WhatsApp app to communicate. And the reasoning is that it doesn't have enough cyber security or at least they're not confident it has enough cyber security. So how many times have I told you that there's no such thing as a protected form of communication? If you ever imagined that you had an app that would encrypt things and nobody could see it because it's all encrypted, I don't think there was ever any chance of that because at the very least the intelligence services of the host company wherever the company resides at the very least they're going to insist on a back door. So I do agree that there's a risk, but what else would they use? I feel like it's all it's going to do is force them to use some other app that's just as unsecure, right? I don't know. Maybe they'll just never talk to each other.

Well, Tucker Carlson mentioned on his podcast that, and I'd never heard this before. I don't know if anybody heard it before, that right after he got fired from Fox News, the owners of Fox News, the Murdochs, offered to back him for president if he ran against Trump and suggested that they would use their media assets to back him. That would include Fox News and the Wall Street Journal among others. Now, apparently, according to Tucker, and I don't think he would lie about it, according to Tucker, even though they had just fired him, they still thought he was a better choice for president than Trump. Now Tucker of course laughs it off as not him not being qualified for that. But what does it tell you that the Murdochs believed they could make him president based on never having held any office? Does it feel like people keep making the President Trump analogy and it just doesn't work? The analogy would be, well, if this one person who was never elected before and is only a popular media star, if this one person can become president of the United States without going through the normal senator, governor channels, then why not do it with another celebrity? And I think that always has the wrong analysis. The problem with that analysis is that there's only one Trump. If Tucker Carlson were also Trump, like exactly Trump, you know, not somebody who reminds you of Trump, but exactly Trump. Well, if he were exactly Trump, that might work. But I don't think you can take some media personality, whether it's a Stephen A. Smith or John what's his name from the Daily Show. I don't think you could take your average TV popular media person and turn them into a president, you know, even if you had the entire Fox News, Wall Street Journal machine behind it. Or am I being naive? Is it possible they could make anyone president if they have name recognition on the one side that they care about and they backed it hard? Maybe they could. What do you think? My instinct is that there's only one Trump. So imagining that you could reproduce that kind of phenomenon would just be folly I think but the fact that the Murdochs thought they could turn a TV talking head opinion guy into a president just by adding their resources. Boy, that is a peek behind the curtain, isn't it? That's some scary stuff.

Well, I keep seeing on social media and the news references to the woke right. How many of you even know what that means? The woke right. I did not know what that meant. So I've tried now twice to figure out what it is to find out if I'm part of it or somebody else thinks I'm part of it. So here's what Grok says. So these are the characteristics of somebody who's in the quote woke right. And there are several of them. They have identity-driven rhetoric. Well, that's sort of everybody, isn't it? Is there anybody who doesn't have identity driven rhetoric? No. If you're woke, as in the left woke, you have identity-driven rhetoric. If you're opposed to it, you also have identity-driven rhetoric. But in this case, you're trying to make the identity not the main thing, but it's still part of your messaging. You would be anti-woke. Okay, a lot of people are anti-woke. Does that make them woke right? You have outrage and moralism. Okay, that's everybody online. There's a victimhood narrative. Again, that's everybody who talks about politics talks about how their own group is being disadvantaged by other groups. That's sort of everything that social media is. You're always talking about how the group you're in or the group you care about or some other group is being disadvantaged by some other group. Isn't that everybody? Is there a way to not talk about that? If you're talking about politics, there's a populist appeal. Really, populism is going to be part of a woke right. There's cancel culture tactics, meaning trying to cancel people for their views. But isn't that just anti-woke? And then there's social media amplification. Again, that's just people online who are doing a good job. And performative activism. Performative. Is Robby Starbuck performative? If he's actually getting real corporations to change their policies, that's not really performative. That's actually real stuff.

And then I asked Grok to give me a list of people that would be considered woke right. Now you tell me what all these people have in common other than being right-leaning. Clay Travis, Charlie Kirk, Jack Posobiec, the libs of TikTok, that's Chaya Raichik, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Ron DeSantis, Candace Owens, and Tucker Carlson. I'm pretty sure they don't even agree with each other. Is that the list of people that have so much in common that they get their own label? I don't see it. So this whole woke right thing, it just seems so artificial and I don't know, it just seems like somebody's trying to find a way to come up with an insult for people who are doing a good job getting attention for their point of view. If the only thing you're doing is a really good job of getting clicks because people really care about your opinion, it's not exactly we don't need a label for that.

Well, Stephen Miller is pointing out that New York City may be on the verge of getting what is called an anarchist socialist mayor and a Muslim and an immigrant who wants to basically freeze housing costs and build a government grocery store. Basically a socialist. And Stephen Miller is pointing out that the only way that he could be ahead in the polls and likely about to be the next mayor is because of massive illegal probably illegal immigration into New York City. I think I saw that 38% of New York City residents were born in other countries. 38%. That's a big number that would be enough to make sure that the undocumented people who come into the country are determining local politics. It looks like that's what's happening. And I think Andrew Cuomo has already dropped out. So that's who was running against him for the primary. And then it looks like he would be the Democrat candidate and in New York City that pretty much means you're going to win. So yeah, get out of the cities. Get out.

Well, you remember the Doge employee, the young man named Big Balls. That was one of his names he used online. He has resigned from working on Doge according to Wired. So there will no longer be any big balls associated with Doge, just in case you wondered.

In other news, Germany has cracked down on hate speech in their own country and the police are knocking down doors and arresting people. And they've raided 170 private homes for saying things online that the government considers hateful or inflammatory. The interior minister calls it digital arsonists. My goodness. And points out that the hate postings are way up compared to prior years. Now, how lucky do you feel if you live in America and free speech is still for the most part legal so far? But can you even imagine your government breaking down doors because of something you said online? How bad was it? I don't know.

There's a report in the New York Post that AI-powered hiring tools, which are more and more being used, are racist and sexist and they favor black and female job applicants over white and male applicants. So if you don't tweak them, the large language models look at the world because that's what they're trained on. They look at everything that's being written and everything that's being allowed to be written. And they decided that black and female candidates were superior to white people and male applicants. But the good news is that they're aware of the problem and the people who run these AIs are working hard to get rid of that discrimination. So I guess they've found some workarounds. But what does it tell you? That if you train a large language model on the allowed things online and the allowed things in books that it discriminates against white males. It tells you that the world discriminates against white males because that's what they're trained on. They don't come up with it on their own.

According to something called Study Finds, nearly one in four Americans want a break from physical intimacy. So I could have asked you what percentage and you would have guessed 25% and you would have been close. But 24% of Americans want a break from sexual activity and half have already taken extended breaks averaging six months. So there's a little experiment that I sometimes do if I'm in public, if I'm in the mall or just somewhere where people are walking down the street and they're coupled up. I look at the couples, well, they don't even need to be couples, could be individuals, and I say to myself, how many people would want to have sex with that person? And you can walk past a lot of Americans before you see one that you can even imagine that someone else would want to have sex with them. Forget about you. So it's not even whether you would have sex with them. You look at them and you go, "Who would? Like who would want to have sex with that?" And so I'm not surprised. And 69% of single Americans are content being single and not actively looking for relationships. It had to be 69%, didn't it?

All right. Argentina's GDP is soaring at 5.8%, the highest in the Western world and even higher than China whose numbers I don't trust anyway. So is Argentina and their leader Milei, is it a miracle everything's working? Maybe. Or maybe he controls the reporting of what their GDP is. Or maybe that the way anybody can make their GDP soar is by removing social services for the poor. Because I do think that the counternarrative to Milei being an economic genius who saved Argentina is that in order to do that I think he had to cut a lot of social services to the poor which might be the only way to do it. It might be the only way out but we tend to leave out what did it cost them to get that 5.8% growth.

Well, Morgan Stanley is expecting the Fed to deliver seven rate cuts in 2026. So remember I told you that 2026 could be lit because you got you can have robotaxis and robots and AI. Well, you might also have a series of interest rate cuts. So things are looking really positive for 2026.

And I thought this already happened, but did Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez already get married? Because the report is that they're throwing a three-day, $55 million wedding in