rtunity for the people who put money into it. It might be, but it also would suggest that the prior owners, the Palestinian well the Gaza residents presumably they would be losing everything to these investors or almost everything.

I saw an article by Red State saying that the Democrats are losing credibility because they cried wolf too often. In other words, they deny the obvious too often, like Biden especially. Oh, Biden's fine. And now the Democrats have to look at their own party and say, "Uh, did my own party lie to the whole country, including me, about how safe we were with Biden as president? And would that influence how much trust they have in their leadership going forward?" Well, common sense tells you that Democrats would notice that they've been lied to by their own team. And not a small lie, not a little one, a really really big one, like a historically big lie. That matters.

Well, I guess Charlamagne tha God is making that case that they're not to be trusted at this point. He said quote but here's the thing if you shout apocalypse every day and the constitution is still standing nine years later people tune out that's what I think is happening with all the Hitler stuff we had years of people calling Trump Hitler and he hasn't done any Hitler stuff the only thing they've done is the part that they're also lying about, which is that January 6 was an insurrection when obviously it was not. And you would have to be deeply hypnotized to imagine that the most armed population in the world held an insurrection and left their guns home. That's the first thing. But also, there's not a single person who's ever been interviewed from the thousands and thousands of people on January 6, not a single person, not one has ever said, you know, I really thought we could overthrow the country because nobody had that plan. They were literally protesting. They weren't overthrowing anything. They didn't have any mechanism to overthrow anything. No plan, no secret meetings. Not a single person said, "Yeah, you know, I thought we could trespass our way to taking over the country." There's nothing you can even say that wouldn't sound ridiculous. You know, I really thought it'd work. Not once.

How hard would it be to get one of the attendees who protested on January 6? How hard would it be to get them on camera and say, "All right, we just have to understand. Did you think you were overthrowing the country?" And they wouldn't even understand the question. It's like, "What? How in the world could I overthrow the country wandering around taking selfies?" Like, what was the mechanism that connects those two things?

All right. So yeah, Charlamagne, you're right.

I saw an article in Science by Kai Kupferschmidt. There's a new study that looked at US and Brazil and they're looking at ways to counter what they call election misinformation. Red flag red flag. When anyone writes an article about countering election misinformation, what should your brain immediately lead you to believe? That's an intelligence operation by somebody. Yeah. That the article treats it as an objective fact that we know that the US and Brazil do not have rigged elections and that the real problem is that people believe they might be. You can't get past like the first sentence without knowing, oh, this isn't real science, is it? This is more like people want you to believe that the system is secure. So here we are.

Apparently in January 2023, thousands of people stormed Brazil's national congress, and this is from the article in Science, convinced that the country's presidential election had been stolen. Now, why didn't they call it an insurrection? What's the difference between a whole bunch of Brazilians, thousands of them, quote, storming the National Congress because they thought the election was rigged? That's exactly January 6. But why is one an insurrection and the other is a protest? This is all just made-up facts, you know? These are all narratives.

But t