I don't know who the five are which is funny.

And to prove his point, the DC mayor has now gone from seemingly helpful and agreeing with Trump about needing a little help all the way to she wants to see residents of DC to fight back against the National Guard takeover. And she's calling it an authoritarian push.

Do you know what the best form of government would be if you could get it? Now I'm not saying you could get it or that we have it, but what would be the best form of government if you could get it? And the answer would be a benevolent authoritarian. A benevolent authoritarian. In other words, somebody who had the strength and power and personality of an authoritarian, but they weren't doing it for their own benefit. They were doing it for your benefit. So they'd be pushing people around, but clearly for the benefit of the greater good, not for personal benefit.

Now Trump of course is not immune to wanting some personal benefit but he's really transparent. And so I'm having this feeling that every time they call him authoritarian, but they match that word authoritarian with something that I'm happy he's doing, they're actually making the word authoritarian turn into a positive. Have you noticed that? Because if you told me, well, the president decided to surge some law enforcement into the high crime area of Washington DC, and I would say, what kind of person does that? And they would say, an authoritarian. And then I would say, so an authoritarian is what does things that make common sense. And I kind of like it. Okay, is there anything else? Yes, he's closing the border and sending back people who are here illegally. Starting with the criminals first. It all kind of makes sense, doesn't it?

Here's a funny story that fits the time perfectly as we're finding out that nobody's credible and everything is fake. All our data is fake and our science is fake and our inflation numbers are fake and everything's fake. But we now know, and you've heard of this before, but there's some new news on it, that there are companies that rent crowds on demand. So if you pay them a certain amount of money, they will organize a bunch of people and pay them to show up. So it makes it look like your protest is genuine when it's actually artificial.

So Adam Swart, who's the CEO of Crowds on Demand, he says that requests for his services are way up in Washington DC since the federalization of the police force. And he said the vast majority of people at political events in the nation's capital are in some way compensated. Right? This is the guy who would know the most because his company actually sells or essentially organizes these fake paid protests and he's the one telling you it's not coming from someone else. It's coming from the person who actually does it for a living. He says that the vast majority of people at political events in the nation's capital are in some way compensated, whether directly paid, that would be his model, or attending as part of their professional duties, including Capitol Hill staffers.

Did you ever wonder why there are so many interns in the capital? Now it might be because it's just a great way to start a career and some of the old senators want to sexually molest them. So it could be a lot of different reasons, but one of them might be that if they have enough of these interns and people, they can say, all right, all you interns and you low paid staffers, if you want a future here, you better attend this protest even though you don't want to. So yeah, protests are almost entirely fake in the United States. How many people know that, do you think? If you were to stop people in the street, you know, if you stopped 100 people randomly and said how many of you know that all the big movements like Black Lives Matter and whatever is happening in Washington DC, how many of you know that those are not organic and that they're mostly paid protesters? Like all the Tesla stuff, it was so obviously paid protesters. So obviously it makes me wonder if most people know it or is it still some kind of a mystery and you and I are looking behind the curtain and wondering why nobody else knows this? I don't know.

Well here's another 80-20 issue. Scott Bessent says he's going to start pushing for single stock trading ban in Congress. So they can't do the insider trading because right now members of Congress can legally do insider trading, meaning buying and selling stocks because they have knowledge that the public doesn't have. And allegedly people like Pelosi and I guess Wyden and some others are being accused of being a little bit too good at investing if you know what I mean. It makes it look like it's fake or corrupt. It's not illegal, but Bessent would like to make it illegal.

Now when he says single stock trading, I assume that means they can still own stocks, but it would have to be in a fund of some kind. So they're not making their own decisions about it. Now of course you're going to say but they could still get away with it because they could just tell a relative to do it or they can find some way to hide the fact they're monetizing their inside knowledge. They probably could. But I would point out that this might be another one of the traps because are they going to make the Democrats support insider tradi