obstruction of justice, making false statements, etc. It makes me wonder given that the problem with local government is that the way it's designed, it guarantees that the leaders will be corrupt. It guarantees it. It doesn't guarantee any specific leader and it doesn't guarantee that it will happen on day one, but it guarantees that people who know that they can exploit that office for financial gain are going to find ways to win that office and then exploit it for financial gain. So it makes me wonder if there's any way that the feds could have a regular audit function to audit local governments just for their spending, just to make sure that they're not paying their boyfriend bodyguards to go on vacations with them, that sort of thing. Is there any reason we couldn't do that? Now, I know that the states have all the power that the federal government doesn't have, but maybe you need a constitutional change? Or how about this? How about the federal government funds people in cities that are a problem, the ones that have a lot of crime and probably a lot of corruption. If funds a, what would it be, a referendum. The federal government could fund somebody to just see if they can gather enough signatures to put something on the ballot and that thing that could be put on the ballot is would you say yes to a no-cost referendum. A referendum. Would you say yes to a no-cost because the federal government will pay for it, occasional auditing of your elected officials. Now, how many people would say no to that? It will cost you nothing at the local level. Federally, your taxes will pay for it, but we'll be checking your politicians to make sure they're not wasting your money. Would you vote for that? I'd vote for that in a heartbeat. So there might be some way that the Trump administration could get involved in getting rid of the criminals in the cities because to me that's the biggest problem. Too many criminals. And I'm not talking about the ones in the streets. I'm talking about the elected criminals.

All right. I've got an observation that you're not going to like at all. And I believe I've been a hypocrite on this topic and you're welcome to call me out on it when you see it happen because I'm sure it'll happen again. And the topic is this. How do you know that the new experts got it right and the old experts got it wrong? Take for example anything in the health domain. A lot of people send me, hey this cancer doctor has this solution that the rest of the world doesn't know about and this will fix you up and it will cure your cancer. And then I look at it and it's somebody very qualified, definitely qualified. And their argument sounds good to me, but I'm not any kind of a medical doctor or anything. But my question is this, why would you believe the new guy? If you don't believe the old guys and gals, if you don't believe the old experts, the 98% of them, why would you believe the one who says no, they're wrong?

So there are several people in this category and they're all persuasive. It's because of the documentary effect. If you take any one of these doctors, these rogue doctors who make claims that are different from what the mainstream doctors are claiming, if you put them on a podcast, let's say Joe Rogan, and Joe Rogan knows what questions to ask an interested viewer would ask, but it's going to give that rogue doctor sort of a documentary level of time to make a one-sided presentation that there would be nobody in the room who would have any way to doubt it. So unfortunately, the rogue doctors are super persuasive because they often get invited on podcasts. But how would you know they're right? I mean, I could watch three hours of some expert on Joe Rogan, but I wouldn't know if they're right. I would only know they're saying something different than other people are saying.

So here's my caution. If you believe that the new rogue expert has figured out how to cure cancer and the rest of the world hasn't, I would say you have no reason to believe that just because you watch somebody say stuff you don't understand on a show that didn't have a way to check them in real time. So be careful of the rogue experts. Likewise I would say the same thing about climate change. So Steve Milloy of Junk Science is pointing to a new study where is it coming out of the National Technical University of Athens department of water resources and environmental engineering blah blah blah. So they did a study in which they're claiming that the CO2 as a greenhouse gas is not really having much of any effect on weather. Now if you believe that 98% of the climate scientists are lying or it's really not 98% but why would you believe this? What do you know about the National Technical University of Athens? Just because there's a study that came out of there that says, "Oh, climate change is not real, at least the man-made part is not real." Why would you believe it?

Now I believe it kind of. I don't believe this specific study but with my own powers of experience and logic I'm pretty sure that the models are wrong and that's because nobody can do that kind of thing. It's just not a thing anybody can do. So it doesn't take much of an expert to say I don't think somebody's doing the thing that's impossible to do. It's just not possible. That's a lower level of expertise. But I wouldn't believe any one study that debunked climate change. If there's lots of them, then it starts to get a little bit more believable. But remember there are lots of them on both sides.

I guess there's a rumor that RFK Jr. is trying to squelch that he's really preparing himself to run for president in 2028 and he says absolutely no way that people are just trying to drive a wedge between him and Trump and there's nothing to it. I believe him. I believe him. I feel like RFK Jr. has earned trust on stuff like that that if it were someone else, if it were Adam Schiff, I'd say, "Ah, it's probably a lie because he lies all the time." But I don't think RFK Jr. lies. He might be wrong sometimes, but I don't think he lies about stuff. So I believe him.

A no federal judge Obama appointee is again blocking Trump's plan to end DEI in colleges. Big surprise. And part of the reason was people didn't want to sacrifice their personal values to get rid of racists and sexists in their college. What exactly would their personal values be that they wanted to maintain racism in their college? Why would you want to maintain it? That's a weird argument.

Well, Klaus Schwab, you remember Schwab? Klaus Schwab. He was accused of some financial misconduct after he left the World Economic Forum. Well, he's been cleared. So he's been cleared of all wrongdoing. And since I was one of the people who talked about that story, I feel an obligation to say he's cleared.

All right. The runaway Texas Democrats who are trying to avoid a vote that would redistrict are hinting that they're coming back. They pretended that they're waiting to see what California would do with redistricting, but that sounds like a fake reason. I think they just knew that eventually they had to return to their jobs. So to me, what's happening is the inevitable. So it's not like it was going to go some other way. Of course, they were going to come back to their jobs eventually.

Apparently according to Newsmax, the White House is trying to get the Indiana Republicans to do some redistricting so they would get a little bit more advantage in case California does it too. And then in other news, Reuters reports that the US government could shed as many as 300,000 workers under the Trump adminis