rets, you are allowed to lie, right? You're allowed to lie. You're not just allowed. It's your job description. You better lie because you're protecting the country or some big national interest.

So obviously I think it's obvious that the Epstein situation must have touched at least one electrified rail and that somebody got to the people who were investigating and said, "Nope, nope. I know you mean well, but this is not going to happen." And it could be that they were threatened with death. You wouldn't rule that out. It could be that the people investigating it, including the management, found out that no, you're going to be assassinated if you continue pushing this. So they may have reasons, but I was pretty sure we'd never find out.

And then in related news, the Daily Caller is reporting that Trump says he's satisfied with the FBI probe into the Butler attempted assassination of him. Let me say that again. The same day we're finding out that it looks like our government's going to lie to us about Epstein forever, Trump says that of this very sketchy kind of weird assassination attempt where none of us believe that he did it alone and he had some apps and all that and none of it kind of made sense. Do you believe that Trump is legitimately convinced that there's nothing there to see? It was just a crazy guy acting independently. Do you believe that? I don't.

I think that probably it was the same phenomena. Don't know. I mean this is just a gut feeling, but probably there's plenty dirty in that story and somebody got to Trump or Trump figured it out on his own and he realized that pushing that button would get somebody killed and he decided not to get somebody killed, especially him or his family. So no, I don't believe that he's satisfied with the FBI probe on the Butler assassination attempt. I don't believe it at all. I believe he said it and I believe he wants you to believe it, but I don't believe it.

Now I'm going to summarize what I've just been talking about this way. When I started talking about politics back in 2016 and I got a little bit of traction and people started listening to me and reading my blog posts and stuff, that caused a series of events where I got to meet people who knew the real story behind a variety of things. You know, not the Epstein thing necessarily, but just the real story behind a variety of things. How often was the real story the same as the one that was in the news? And the answer is never, not once. Every story that is sort of a big story certainly has elements that are true. I mean I believe the president really did take a bullet in the ear, etc. So there are parts of it that are definitely true. I do believe that airplanes hit the World Trade Towers. I mean that part's true. But generally speaking, the interpretation or the real story behind everything is fake. Let me say that again. The real story behind everything, just everything is fake.

So no, you're never going to know about Epstein. You're never going to know about JFK. You'll probably never know about Martin Luther King. You'll probably never know about Bobby Kennedy senior. You're never going to know for sure about the Warren report. And I don't think we'll even know for sure if we landed on the moon. So I've now gone full Joe Rogan. Full Joe Rogan, which is I used to think it was obvious we had landed on the moon. I did not question that for one second. And when I saw people saying, "Oh, I'm not so sure," I would say to myself, "Wow, well, people who will believe anything, they actually think we didn't really go to the moon." You know what I believe now? Same thing that Joe Rogan believes. I think I don't like to characterize other people's opinions, but I think I got this one right that he doesn't know that we didn't go to the moon and I would agree with that. I don't know that. But if tomorrow I learned that we had not gone to the moon and it was somehow confirmed, would I act surprised or would I say, "Damn it, you can see the signs. I should have known that." It would be the latter. It would be me saying, "Ah, I should have been more forceful in saying that that was probably fake."

So let me be really clear. I don't have any evidence that I personally find convincing that it was faked. But everything's in play. Everything from the food pyramid to the vaccinations to everything. It all looks fake to me. It just all looks fake. I don't know if we know why the Ukraine war is happening. I don't know if we really know what was happening in Gaza. I don't think we really know what was the full situation with Iran and its nuclear weapons. I feel like it's all fake. And when we're talking about the news, we're just doing some kind of parlor game where people who don't know anything about anything act like we do just so we have something to talk about. That's what it feels like.

But I want to be clear. While I don't believe the official version of any big story, just none of them, I also don't automatically believe the conspiracy theory. So if I tell you I don't believe one of the big stories like the moon landing, it doesn't mean that I believe that Stanley Kubrick filmed it. He might have maybe, but it doesn't mean I automatically believe that.

Trump is meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White House, and I think they're going to be taking a victory lap for their good work with Iran. But again, just so I'm consistent with what I said, the official story is that we destroyed all of their nuclear programs. Do you believe that? How would we know? It's the same as saying that the 2020 election was not rigged because nobody found any conclusive evidence that a court has ruled means it was rigged. How would you know if there was something that you couldn't find? It's unknowable. You could determine if something was rigged if you found the evidence and it tested out. But if you don't find evidence and you know that things like elections have been rigged in the past and probably the United States has rigged elections in other countries. If you didn't find any sign of election rigging, it doesn't mean a thing. It doesn't mean a thing. It just means you didn't find it. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

So likewise with the nuclear program, I do believe that it's very likely that all the things they tried to bomb were completely destroyed. But does that mean they didn't have anything left? Nothing hidden? Nothing in the warehouse? A different warehouse? No way to know.

There's talk that the Hamas leadership in Gaza is completely decimated. No, wrong word. Decimated means reduced by 10%. The real number was 95%. So the leadership of Hamas is down 95%, most of them dead, but they don't have good communication or command and control at this point. So maybe there's a way to make a deal now. Don't know.

And then there's some indication that Iran wants to talk about its nuclear program, but it wants to do it on its terms. I believe its terms are that we can talk about it all day long, but we're definitely going to have a nuclear program, and you're not going to inspect it. So I don't think there's any place to go on that, but they will talk.

So I mentioned this the other day, but I feel like I understand a little bit better. There's an idea that instead of having a two-state solution where the Palestinians have their own one state and Israel has the state next to it and they live in peace next to each other since nobody thinks that that's going to work. There's these sheikhs who came up with the idea of having an emirate at least in one place and presumably you could have other emirates in other parts of the West Bank but one of them would be in Hebron and there's a specific sheikh who they're proposing would be in charge and he would be the emir. But here's the part I maybe didn't mention or didn't know yesterday that a big part of their pitch is that they would instantly recognize Israel's right to exist. The emirate would and they would look to join the Abraham Accords. So I guess you wouldn't have to be a nation state necessarily to say hey we want to accept Israel and we want to be part of this trading block that gets extra advantages of trading with each other I guess and we'll do it as an emirate.

Now I don't know if that has any legs because I would have to know a lot more about that area to know if that idea could go. I feel like Israel probably would resist that idea. On the other hand, if you got two or three emirates who consolidated power and said, "Well, we don't want to rule the entire West Bank where the Palestinian Authority is, but this little area will be our own little emirate and we'll also accept Israel and we'll also be part of the Abraham Accords." If you did that, you might accomplish Israel's goal of not having a two-state solution because they would probably be happier if there were a bunch of smaller emirates that were unlikely to attack them because the emirates apparently don't want any war. So that's a step in the right direction. So maybe it's a divide and conquer situation. So maybe Israel might consider it. I don't know. On the other hand, they might not want the emirates to get too powerful and maybe they're lying about their ambitions. So lots of variables.

There's some fact-checking going on on the claim that mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani for New York City, some say he's a communist and some say he isn't. And a lot of it rests on the fact that he once said in 2019 I think that the real goal was to seize the means of production and the fact checker which fact checker PolitiFact. Do you think PolitiFact is a reliable fact-checking entity or is it a Democrat tool? Well, did I just tell you that every single story in the news is fake? This is not an exception. So yeah, it's a fact-checking organization that if you asked any Republicans, they would say, "No, it's the opposite. It's a lying organization. They're there to certify lies that make Democrats happy." So this would be one of those situations if that's what you believe.

So they said that the manifesto, the communist manifesto, Karl Marx's work, they say that that's not in there. Do you believe that? Do you believe that? Nowhere in the communist manifesto does it say that they want to seize the means of production. So therefore it's fake and it does not represent a desire to be a communist because that's not even in the communist manifesto. Do you believe that?

Well here's what is in the manifesto according to Grok. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest by degree all capital from the bourgeois to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state. That's chapter two. That's what it does say. Was it do I have the wrong author? I'm looking at the comments. I think you're fact-checking me. I'm just working from memory, so I probably got some of the facts wrong anyway. So there's your fact check. Your fact check is nowhere does it say seize the means of production. No, no, it doesn't say that. It only says the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest by degree all capital from the bourgeois to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state. Oh well, I feel a lot better now. I'm glad they didn't want to seize the means of production. Thank goodness.

So there you go. What about that no tax on tips? How many of you believe that no tax on tips, which is what got approved in the big beautiful bill, meant no tax on tips? Well here again, the real story behind the curtain is different from the one you've been told. First of all, it only goes up to the first $25,000 in tips. If you were a waiter in a restaurant that had a lot of tips, how fast would you get to 25,000? Well if you were a full-time waiter, you could make $150,000 a year from mostly tips. So maybe 50 would be your base pay and 100 would be your tips. Now this would be unusual. That'd be a high-end restaurant with just tons of tipping, but it would be in that range. So does that sound like no tax on tips to you? I mean it's better than nothing. And a lot of people who are working part-time especially will enjoy it. But they're still going to have to pay the payroll tax and their Social Security and Medicare. So even though there's no tax on tips, there's an 8% tax on tips because a little under 8% is your payroll taxes and Social Security and Medicare. So there's still a tax on tips and there's lots of tax on tips, but it's better than it was. It's just not what you thought it was.

All right, here's something that I know I've done wrong. When the Democrats say that the big beautiful bill is going to cut healthcare, sometimes I would see Medicaid and sometimes I would say Medicare and they're different. And I would read the story and it would say, "But the mean old Republicans and Trump are going to cut your Medicaid." And then I would see another story that says Leader Jeff says they're going to cut your Medicare. And I actually started to think maybe there were typos in the stories because some of it would be on social media and I'd like oh it's just a typo. And I thought it was one or the other. I didn't realize it was both. So apparently the big beautiful bill cuts both. But what Democrats call cutting, the Republicans call making sure that only the people who deserve it and are qualified for it are getting it. But they've added the work requirement. So if you're able-bodied, you've got a certain amount of time to either sign up for classes or do some volunteer work or get a job. So you've got some options. And if you're an undocumented citizen of this country you would lose in that case I think in both cases.

So how many of you knew, how many of you thought the same thing I did that it was one of them but not the other and then you found out it was both of them. Now I'm not saying that that's a mistake. It probably needed to be both of them, but they're treated very differently. A