t know if I believe this, but one in six survivors of the Maui fires had to trade sexual favors for basic supplies to survive. Do you believe that one in six? Now I assume that we're not counting men in that. So if you eliminate men, there might have been some gay men or whatever who were offering sex for food. But it feels like it'd be more like one in three. If one in six survivors, but let's say half of them are women, half of them are men, wouldn't that suggest since mostly the women would be offering the sex for supplies? I don't know. I'm not buying it. One in three. Does that sound right to you? You know it's a horrible world, but one in three and we're just hearing about it. I don't know.

The article says one in six women. I'm seeing in the comments. What I saw is one in six survivors. So that's the quote I got from the news. One in six survivors. So I don't know. I'm going to say I don't believe that one. If it happened to even one person, it's horrible. So let me make sure that I'm not minimizing the potential of how bad that was, but it seems a little exaggerated.

Marjorie Taylor Greene is wondering about Ghislaine Maxwell's little black book that has over 2,000 names in it, we believe, and that would include the rich and the powerful. And I guess that her little black book was sealed by the court as part of her legal defense there. But this would be a perfect example of if there are 2,000 names in her book and she was known to be a big networker, how many of the 2,000 names committed any kind of a crime?

How would you like to be somebody that she met at a party and you traded phone numbers and you didn't know anything about any bad behavior and next thing you know you're being outed in the news for being in her little black book? That would be pretty bad. So I guess I would disagree with Marjorie Taylor Greene that Ghislaine Maxwell's little black book should be made public. Because people would just draw conclusions and all it would be would be a name and a phone number or an email address and we would go nuts saying, "Well, look who's in that book. Look what people did." We're just seeing the flight information to the island. I assume that there were people who went to the island and committed no crimes whatsoever. I assume so. But don't we treat it like they all did? Like everybody who was on his flight log, anybody who was ever on his plane, anybody who ever whispered in his ear at a party like Trump did, don't we use that to say, well you know there you go, they must have been involved in that bad behavior.

So yeah, that'd be a little dicey to release those names.

Here is something interesting. Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat, he would be the minority leader I guess. He says he trusts Democrats to run the next election legally and appropriately in the Democrat-managed states. But he believes that the Republican-managed states, the states where the Republicans were handling the election in those states, he doesn't trust them.

So do you realize what a big deal that is? The whole January 6 thing depends entirely on the question of whether our elections are unriggable because if they're unriggable then the people involved in storming the Capitol that day should have known that the election was pristine because they're unriggable and therefore it would look a lot like an insurrection. Because hey, there's nothing to complain about the election. It's unriggable.

And the Democrats on the news who have all been telling us with a straight face that there is no way that the election was anything but factually good in 2020. And now the same are telling us that they think the Republicans can rig an election in their states. Really? So you think the Republicans can do that but that the Democrats can't or wouldn't? That is a complete surrender on the question of whether we know for sure our elections are riggable or unriggable.

If everybody from Rosie O'Donnell to I think Hillary Clinton said it at one point and now Hakeem Jeffries is saying it, they're saying out loud that they believe the elections could be rigged by Republicans and it sort of implies they could do it without getting caught. Now they don't say that. They don't say the part about they could do it without getting caught. But why would Republicans or Democrats or anybody attempt to rig something if they didn't have a really good way to get away with it? It's not going to be like if you knew enough about the system to have a way to rig it, wouldn't you know enough about the system to know whether they could easily catch you or not? You know, wouldn't you say, "Well here's all the ways they could catch us, so if we can't get around this we won't do it."

So of course the Democrats have now admitted that it was possible that any election was rigged and we don't know it.

Well Tom Cotton has introduced a bill to make it easier to mine rare earth minerals in the US, which as you know for whatever reason that I don't understand mining for rare earth minerals is way more ecologically damaging and dangerous than a lot of different things. So Tom Cotton's bill would make it easier for a number of these environmental laws to be looked at individually and if it makes sense to do a workaround to those.

Now why did it take so long for this? Is there something I don't know about this story? I feel like we should have had this bill a long time ago. It's not even passed. It's just introduced. So again, I can't give Congress full credit for doing what makes sense because they haven't voted on it yet. Who knows if they will. And why did it take so long? Haven't we been talking about China and their rare earth mineral monopoly for years now? It's been years, right? And just now they're coming around. Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't we make it easier to do it in the US? Yes. Yeah. Why don't you do that?

Trump had the leaders of five African nations over at the White House and he declared that it's time to benefit Africa by trading wi