re that is primarily useful for Europe and Europeans and you can't have it. It's just not available to you. Now, I assume, but I don't know. Yeah, I don't know. But I would assume that if you were an American and you were traveling to Europe, you could get the app in America and it would work in Europe. I don't know about that, but I'm guessing it might.

And I like that little subtle pushback. You don't want to go too hard at governments because they can pay you back in a bad way, but you want to push back. It's like, ah, well, you know, if you were in America and you had more reasonable digital laws, look what you could have. But sorry.

We've learned more about Tyler Robinson, the murderer of Charlie Kirk. And I think we all had the same kind of experience yesterday. When I saw the news that he lived with a trans partner, I said to myself, "Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, okay. All right. Got it." And I don't know if I told you this. I don't think I said it live, but I thought it really hard. As soon as the news broke about Charlie's murder, I just leapt to the unfair, biased, totally bigoted first impression that, oh no, it was some radicalized trans who shot him. Then I found out that it's Tyler Robinson who's not trans. And I thought, oh my God, I'm a terrible person. I didn't realize how bad a person I was that I made this crazy left-field assumption.

You know, it was just sort of a, I felt I picked up some kind of pattern in the universe. I thought, oh, I am a piece of garbage for assuming this about an entire demographic group, blaming them when there's no evidence whatsoever. No, the shooter was not trans. It was only the boyfriend of a trans and as you know completely different. Is it? Well, we don't know if he was planning to be trans. Some people said, but I don't really understand how that would work because if his trans partner liked him the way he was, would the trans partner still like him if he turned into something like the trans partner? I don't know how that works. That doesn't seem like it would work. So I suspect he was not planning to transition, but I don't know.

The reason I assumed it was trans is that I wasn't aware of anything else that was creating that level of hatred. And then on top of that, there are I think half a dozen notable trans shootings, public shootings. I think there are about half a dozen now just in the past couple years. That's what Mike Benz said. He listed them all out so you can check with him. And Mike Benz was wondering, you know, is there something in the water? What exactly is making this specific demographic be a little bit more murdery than you would expect for their small numbers? And that's a really good question.

Some people are going to say it's the chemicals in their body, even though this guy wasn't trans. It's still an interesting question of why so many of them are involved in one way or the other. The other possibility is that if you're the kind of person who can transition, you probably have a feeling about the rules of society, meaning that maybe you don't respect them as much because you think, you know what, society's rules says I have to be this, but I'm pretty sure I'm this other thing, so I'm going to transition. So it could be that what's happening is that the trans effect is becoming a filter for people who are already inclined not to follow all of society's rules. And one of those rules might be don't shoot people. So that might be the only coordination.

So it's either, I'm guessing it's either something chemical that has to do with the transition or something like SSRIs or something like that. But remember, trans doesn't apply to the shooter. So we're a little off topic talking about that. It's related though.

So I posted, was it this morning? Last night, I guess. I posted the following and it got, as of this morning, I think it had four million views. Now on the size of my account, a pretty good tweet or a pretty good post where people thought, yeah, I agree with that, I might get eighty thousand views. I got four million on this one. So that's sort of a big deal. It's a real indication of where people's minds are.

This was the post. I said, "The Kirking has begun. All that energy has to go somewhere. The great machine is booting up." That's all I said. And people were left to themselves to figure out what the great machine was. Probably some people thought it was God. Some people thought it was the MAGA. Some people thought it was Republicans. I don't know what they thought, but I'll tell you what it is in a moment.

But it did seem to me that Charlie Kirk was controlling and creating a tremendous amount of energy during his life. And I think a lot of us were surprised how much it was. If you weren't paying attention to that domain pretty closely, you wouldn't know that he might be the reason that Trump got elected. And I feel like there are lots of reasons, just not one reason. But I don't think he could have been elected without Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk also probably was advising people and doing things and you know the colleges are all moving to the right. It's really hard to underestimate or overestimate how big his impact was. I was a little bit unaware, but I was catching on right before he went.

Now, believe it or not, I forget if I told you this. Prior to his assassination, I had been preparing a segment for my show here in which I was going to tell you, you know, if you haven't noticed, this Charlie Kirk thing is way bigger than you think. And I was going to talk about his talent stack because his talent stack, you know, his combination of specific talents was really well created by him. So he didn't graduate college, but he is apparently fantastically well read, which I imagine he probably does on all those many plane flights, but he doesn't waste his time. Apparently he didn't. He would read important historical, contextual, sometimes religious things. So he was really, really able to do these debates. So he was super well informed. That's the first talent.

He also had incredible communication skills and he had the religious background on top of it and then he had all the networking skills. I mean amazing networking skills. On top of that, he had charisma. I mean, these are a lot of talents. Some of them natural and some of them he developed. But it's not an accident that he had that much impact. He was a guy who put together his talents really smartly. And that's what I was noticing. I was just noticing it maybe two weeks ago and I thought, man, I'm going to do a whole thing where I tell you he's going to be your next president.

Do you know how many people were having that same thought at around the same time? Not next president, but future president. A lot. It turns out a lot of people are now admitting that they had recently had the same thought. This guy's going to be president someday. And so we felt it before he was assassinated. You could feel his rise and you didn't know what the limit of that was. It didn't look like it was limited at all.

And so I think that much energy has been released. And when I talk about the great machine, this is what I'm talking about. The MAGA, conservative machine. You have probably noticed that the Democrats seem somewhat spookily organized often in ways that we don't know because it's a hidden organizational structure. You know, the billionaires funding things that go into these dark nets that some of it comes back to the politicians and you know, it's hard to see the gears of the machine, but thanks to people like Mike Benz and others, we're now seeing the gears. So we understand the Democrat machine and it is corrupt and vile and broken, but it had a good run. Now its run is probably reaching an end.

The MAGA, conservative, Republican machine, which some would say those are three different things, although you can't put them in the same category. Today you can. Yeah, today you can because there is now a common mission and there are some things that we've all decided, not preferred, decided. And watching the gigantic MAGA, Republican, conservative machine come online, it was like it just booted up and it had everything it needed except fuel. And Charlie just fueled it up.

So you're seeing this tremendous somewhat coordinated machine coming online and we don't know how powerful this is, but I'll say a few things. I do think that the people on the right, let's collectively call all those groups the people on the right, I believe they all had the same feeling when they saw the news about Charlie. What can I do? What can I do? Many of them are going to church today. Apparently a whole bunch of people said, you know, I haven't been to church in a long time. I'm going. That's big. I mean, that's big.

We're finding that people in other countries are weighing in. I didn't realize that his reach was international. How many of you knew that? There are people in all kinds of countries saying that they were affected personally and deeply by it. It's hard for me to imagine somebody being assassinated in another country that I would have a personal feeling about. But people are having this about Charlie and people like me. I've seen a whole bunch of people who I'll say in my category, which is somebody who's involved in politics but didn't know him at all, had never met him. We only know him from his public work. We felt this personally. I haven't quite had that experience before. I mean, certainly there are deaths that make me unhappy and sad and maybe angry and stuff, but it never felt personal before. A lot of people are taking this personally, and I think that's why that's activating.

And one of the things that people are doing is they're trying to figure out who to listen to. Who do you listen to and who do you follow and who is taking leadership? Well, the wonderful and beautiful thing about the political right is that it looks for leaders. I don't know what the Democrats do, but on the right, people look for leaders when they need it. And it might be a different leader, it might be a collection of leaders, it might be a handful, it might be a thousand, but they look for the leaders.

The reason my traffic on X is through the roof, you know, my normal eighty thousand views is now a million, you know, four million, that's because a lot of you said, before I act, I'm going to see what some people I trust say about it first. And so you checked in with me. That's why my views are through the roof. People said, all right, got to figure out what people are saying, not just me. I mean, I'm not in charge of anything, but you know that they looked at probably twenty different people who they knew would have a take that might influence how they see things. Maybe a reframe, maybe some inspiration, maybe something to make you feel better. And you know that I know that you're going to be looking at me as one of the people, not the only person. And so I have an automatic responsibility to lift my game and to fill that role. So it's like leadership, but it's almost, it's sort of not by choice. It's sort of like people put you in that position, then you go, oh, I guess I'm in this position. Let me try to be useful.

You've seen that Elon gets more involved. You've seen that some of your favorite persuaders, I always mention Cernovich for example, have dedicated themselves to all right, we're going to do something about this. This can't stand. We've got to fix a lot and we're no longer just talking. We're past the talking stage.

I do not believe, in case you're worried, that we're anywhere near something like a civil war. I keep hearing people talk about it. No, we're not. No, we're not. We're nowhere near it. There, you know, there's always violence, but no, no, there's no civil war. It's just not going to happen. We're nowhere close.

Did you know I came up with this term Kirking because it's hard to capture all the things that are happening, but there's something about Kirk and the situation and his life and the way he led it that is unleashing a tremendous amount of energy which I'm hoping is positive. It looks like positive energy. But did you know that kirking is Scottish for going to church and that kirk might actually be derived from the word church? Did you know that? Well, now you do.

The Wall Street Journal was writing about the international impact. So it galvanized a bunch of right-wing people in other countries. So other countries are using him as a rallying cry. Sorry, I got to put my thumb down. I can turn that off somehow. There's a menu option I was told. All right, I'll go look for that later.

And apparently a day after Kirk was killed, there was an event in the European Parliament that erupted in shouts and applause after Conservative members were denied a moment of silence to honor him. So this is global. I did not see that coming.

I saw an article by John Nolte in Breitbart that is so well written. I wish I could read you the whole piece but I'll just recommend it. I'll just read a few passages and you'll get the idea. It has to do with when I talk about the great machine coming online. It's because I have a systems view of things. You know, I don't look at what the one person is doing or the one goal or the one objective. I look at the system. I look at all the stuff and see if it's moving in one direction. And that feels to me what Nolte came up with. So let me just read a few pieces from him.

He said about how people are reacting to it, several points. He said we understood what had changed forever and why we mobilized. We've prepared for action. We instinctively knew what that action would be. So this is what I'm talking about. The machine is self-organizing and coming online. We knew we had the power to take that action. Yes. We took that action and are doing so effectively. Yes, we share an unprecedented resolve. I've never seen this before. Looks unprecedented to me. And we're in it for the long term. Forever if needed. Feels like it. That this doesn't feel like today's flavor. That this feels like Charlie's with us forever. He's becoming a part of us.

And this is more from Nolte from Breitbart. He goes, "And here's the healthiest part of what's happening. No one is standing around helplessly complaining about how the regime media aren't fair." Right? No one's crybabying about media bias. No one's wringing their hands that the media aren't doing to the left what they always do to us. Instead, based entirely on group instinct, we instantly understood that it was up to us to hold accountable those who celebrate Charlie Kirk's murder and those on the organized left, Democrats, media, academia, etc., who put a fatwa on Charlie Kirk and the rest of us with their 24/7 Nazi and fascist and white supremacist talk.

I'm going to go on a little. Now, this is not the whole piece. I just picked out the parts that I thought were best. He said, this has never happened on our side before. I agree. The corporate media have lived in our heads forever, but the martyrdom of Charlie Kirk finally evicted those demons. God, this is such good writing. It's just really good writing.

Better still, instead of empowering the media with our complaints, instead of giving the media control of our emotions as we rage against their countless sins, we've transformed those sins into something useful: fuel to make our arguments, bring in converts, and hold evil accountable. All at once, we become impervious to the media's usual tricks with the dual revelation that number one, the media are irredeemable and not worth our time. And two, through alternative and social media, we hold the power in our country.

There's an old joke about a kid who was born and he never talked and he's about eight years old and he's never talked and his parents are worried and everything. And then one day one of the parents drops a frying pan on his foot and the kid suddenly yells, oh, sorry, I've got a six-year-old nephew in South Africa who's listening, so I won't use the words that the joke uses. But he yells, "Oh, God, my effing foot." And the mother says, what? You can talk. He goes, yeah, I can talk. And she goes, why have you never talked until now? And the kid says, didn't have anything to say. And that's the joke.

And it feels that way on the political right. They always had the power. They always had the ability. They just didn't have a big enough reason that we would all act in unison. Now we have it. And everybody sees it, everybody feels it and we are working as one. Now it doesn't mean it's perfectly coordinated. You know that the world's a messy place, but all the energy is moving in the right direction and people are looking for guidance to make sure they're moving in the right place. They're checking in with people. They're talking to people. They're influencing people who need to be influenced.

And more important than any of that, I'm sorry, nephew from South Africa. Can you close your ears for a minute? All right. Thanks. Thanks. We don't give a what people think about us right now. And that is freedom. Now, it's easier for me because I'm canceled. And it's also one of the reasons why I have more responsibility in this than most of you. I get to say what you're not allowed to say. Now, I don't know what it is you'd want to say, but I guarantee there are things you want to say that are over the line, and you don't need that in your life. But I'll do it. I'll do it. In fact, by the end of today, I expect that I'm going to be in a lot of trouble because there's a topic coming up that I don't even know if I can survive. But I can do it and it probably needs to be said, so I'm going to say it. So you might want to wait around for that. That's toward the end.

There is a massive movement toward canceling the people who mocked the death of Charlie Kirk. I did not see that coming. I did not believe that the right would go after them. And if they did, I didn't think that anybody would fire them. I thought their employers would say, oh, it's free speech. We don't do that. But they didn't do that. Apparently the political right, and I'd say Robbie Starbucks is a big part of this, they now know that if they displease the political right that it is organized enough to bring down their stock price pretty much immediately and just leave it there. And so big companies now say, and this is maybe different, we'd better take this really seriously. And are they? Yes.

The scariest thing is how many of these people getting fired are teachers. Have you noticed that there's for some reason a weirdly disproportionate number of teachers who are celebrating the death of an American who is just a good guy. And most of them are getting fired, which is exactly the satisfying thing for us because I think the political left or at least some part of it had gotten to the point where they thought that killing people on the right was justified under a variety of reasons that were up to them subjectively. And now they're learning if you mess with somebody on the right, sorry nephew, there's going to be something to pay. There's a price. And we're going to make sure that you know there's a price. So people getting canceled like crazy.

There's one of my favorite stories was Office Depot denied somebody a printing of a Charlie Kirk poster. The poster was not offensive. It was just celebrating his power in life and his maybe his power after death. But nothing anti-trans or racist, nothing like that. It was just a pro-Charlie Kirk poster. And the weird looking monster creature, barely human thing that worked there said, oh no, we can't do that because it's propaganda. As if they wouldn't do it if it were left propaganda. Of course they would.

So Office Depot got the complaints because the person who got turned down for service took the video of the interaction and they fired the employee who made the decision and then do you know what happened next after Office Depot rapidly, very rapidly to their credit, I'll give them full credit for this, rapidly, they fired the person who looked like maybe the supervisor who was the one who said we can't do this. And then the conservative said, there was another employee standing next to that one. You need to fire that one too. Because that employee was not arguing with the decision and that was enough. And what did Office Depot do? Did they say, no, no, this employee was just standing in the general area, wasn't disagreeing, wasn't agreeing, but really their boss was the one making the decision and was standing right there. So it's not them. Well, that's what they could have done, right? Office Depot could have done that. They fired the second person right away. As soon as it became trouble, boom, gone. So things are changing.

And let's see what else. How many other people are getting, apparently Blue Sky, that's the poor wannabe X platform, you know, the competitor to X that all the Democrats went to because they thought, oh, we must get off of X so that we can find this heavenlike situation on this other platform. Well, Blue Sky turned into a cesspool and apparently there was a guest search feature, meaning you didn't have to be a member, but you could search for things on Blue Sky. And conservatives were using it to search for people who could get fired for their terrible comments about Charlie Kirk. And I guess they were finding quite a few because Blue Sky was just, it just became a cesspool at some point people say. And Blue Sky turned off their guest feature option. They were so concerned about how many of their followers would get banned that they had to make it hard to find them. Ow.

And then I saw that this is a weird day for me because I think Elon reposted my content three times just this morning. And one of them was my video about the hypnotized Hitlerians who were in a bubble. And my observation that the thing that you have to be most amazed at is that there were so many people who were sure that everyone who mattered agreed with them that they would go in public and act happy about the death of another human being, an American who is just trying to make things better. And apparently thousands and thousands of people were in such a deep hypnotized what I call the Hitlerian bubble that they see Hitler everywhere and they can't get out of the bubble. You realize how many there were. There were a lot and as I say they are victims because they are clearly brainwashed and they're under the influence of just horrible influences. But that doesn't take away their responsibility.

So you know, as I often say, I don't believe in free will. Sometimes things just happen. But you still have to punish people and reward people as if they had free will because otherwise the whole system falls apart. And you could argue you don't have any choice but to reward them because you don't have free will. But that's another conversation. My point is there are a whole lot of people who believed that that was appropriate behavior because apparently they had never left their bubble. Okay, try to even imagine that. Try to imagine that they were so insulated in their point of view that they thought enough people would share it that they couldn't get in trouble for their job because of something they said. Now, wow.

The LA mayor, Karen Bass, is I think the only mayor who has given orders, do not fly the LA flags at half mast. The Post Millennial is reporting on this. Now, is there any way to interpret that other than the mayor of LA is a racist? Do you think there's any chance that if the White House ordered flags to be at half mast for a black American, you think she wouldn't lower the flag? You all know the answer. Of course she would. Of course she would. This is racist. It's pure racist. And you never want to go full racist if you're a mayor. What a horrible human being she is in so many ways.

Apparently the New York Times was writing about the current story and made one of the just horrible factual errors to malign him. And I'm going to talk about those some more because a lot of people have this view that Charlie Kirk had said or did things that were super racist or sexist or otherwise objectionable. And I've been asking online, can somebody give me an example that's in the full quote but also the full context? So I asked that directly. I want the quote, but I said directly it's got to be in the context. What do you think happened? I'll tell you what people sent me. Not a single person gave me an example where the quote was shown and the context. Zero. A lot of people tried. They all played the game. But the only way they could make him bad was to change what he said into their own words because his words were not any of those things. And if they could find a quote that if you took it out of context, you know, you could make it look bad. They did. So they either removed the context or they changed the quote into their own paraphrasing which was wrong and that's it. But even the New York Times was doing that.

So the New York Times had a claim that they just printed. The Daily Caller News Foundation is reporting about that. So they issued a correction, but here's what they had falsely accused him of. They had falsely accused him of saying that Jewish communities are quote pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they blah blah blah. Now, it turns out that the real context, which the New York Times clearly should have known, was he was talking about somebody else's quote and he was disagreeing with it. So in other words, they took somebody else's quote that he was publicly disagreeing with and it's the only reason he mentioned it, to publicly disagree with it. And then they attributed it to Charlie and said, wow, look at that terrible guy. Can you even believe that? And that's like your paper of record, your most respected publication. How many people saw the correction? You know how this game goes, right? Not many people would see the correction, but how many people saw the claim that he had said this bad thing? Millions? Maybe millions. Yeah.

So then one of the questions I asked which was being also asked by Amir Odom. So before I saw his post today that I'll tell you about, I was saying to myself, how do Democrats explain the fact that Charlie Kirk had a number of really close black friends and colleagues? How do you explain that? Do Democrats think that once you become a Republican, you can't identify racism or that you're okay with it even if it's against you? And that all you have to do is be a Republican and you'll hang out with Hitler and you'll be friends with him. Hey, we're both on the same team. Maybe you say a few things I don't like, but what? Is that what Democrats think? Don't they understand that the people who are closest to him, spent the most time with him, they don't have the same opinion that is in, let's say, the New York Times? I don't believe there is a single black person who knew him well who has said, oh yeah, the things you say about him are true. Have you seen one? I haven't. I've not seen anybody who knew him well. And that's gazillions of people. And a lot of them are black. Not one of them is saying, well, you know, he did say this thing I didn't like. None of them. Because that thing he didn't like didn't happen. It's all made up.

And I'll give you some more examples on that. So I asked on X, can somebody give me an example, as I said, that's in context and a direct quote, something that you think is horrible. And one gentleman whose name is, oh, did I not put his name down? All right. Well, I forgot to take his name, but it was an anonymous account, but he gave me a list of let's see, seven, eight, nine, nine different offenses. So he really put some work into it. They're all summarized. Nine different offenses. How many of the nine examples were a direct quote and also in context? You know the answer. None. Zero for nine.

Let me give you an example. At some point, Fury Trending X is the person who had this. So this is a claim I saw a few people make. That Charlie said about black pilots, quote, "I'm sorry. If I see a black pilot, I'm going to be like, boy, I hope he's qualified." Is that in context? So they got the quote right, but remember, you have to get the quote right but also in context. Here the quote is probably correct, but the context is wrong. Was Charlie talking about anybody's genes? No. Had nothing to do with anybody's genes. Was Charlie talking about anybody's culture? No. Had nothing to do with culture. Had nothing to do with genes. Indeed, it had nothing to do with being black. The comment would have worked because it was a comment about a system. The system is DEI and the system the way it works in the real world, not the way it would ideally work, but the way it works in the real world is that the people in charge are going to make sure they hit that DEI target to have enough black pilots. And they will because they're human beings. The bosses, who might all be white, by the way, are going to pick people with maybe a little lower qualifications. And this would be true if you're talking about black people, brown people, yellow people, any kind of people. Doesn't matter what color they are. So this is actually a comment which doesn't have anything to do with race except that the DEI focuses on a particular race. So I explained that. Do you think they said oh no of course not.

And then there are a bunch of others where I won't go over them all, but they're all things which are obviously in a context when the quote is right. So this is the trick. You should look for this trick. If the quote is in quotes and the right quote, the context will always be wrong. If the context is right or let's say it a different way. If they don't use a direct quote and they paraphrase what he said, the paraphrasing is never right. It never matches what he said.

So it turns out that the left has developed this whole mythology around Charlie Kirk in which they imagined he thought and said things he never thought or said. Now, that's the only way I can explain why he's got black friends and black supporters who know him well and know very much what he said and what he thinks. There's no other way to explain that. You know, there is not a certain set of black Americans who don't recognize racism or don't care about it. That's not a thing.

So I was pointing out to a gentleman named Amir Odom who's a young black gay influencer online and he went online to let you know that none of those things were true from his personal experience. And apparently Charlie Kirk mentored him. That's right. He mentored him and Amir says that he wouldn't be where he is as now he's made a go of it. He's doing some good influencing online and he says that Charlie was the whole time mentoring and positive and stayed in touch with him the whole time. So did he know that he was gay? Yeah, he's out. He's open. Did he know he was black? Yeah, he did. Did that stop Charlie from being his close friend and helping him in business? Didn't make any difference at all to Charlie.

Now I had a little bit of the same experience in which I spent a pretty good chunk of time over my life mentoring black people who asked for help and I would say, yeah, I got some advice. And I often stayed in touch with them. There are people I've now known for years who check in with me once in a while. It's very common. Did I not give them advice because they were black? No, it never even occurred to me. Of course I'm going to give them advice if I have the advice and they need it and it would help. And did I enjoy my interactions? Yes, every time. These are people who I consider my friends. But the left, they live in a sort of a bubble hoax world.

Anyway, Amir is, if you want to follow him on X, he's at Amir X Odom. A M I R X O D O M. And this is me giving Charlie a little boost because if he wanted Amir to do well, I'll honor that. So I'd like him to do well too. So I will tell you maybe you should follow him. So if you're on X, give him a follow.

All right. So I believe that there's something coming that's pretty big, which is there's going to be this gigantic Charlie Kirk cognitive dissonance experience for the left. Because they don't have a theory to explain what's going on right now. So the only way they can explain it is to assume that half the globe are Hitlers themselves or they don't know what they know or so there's going to be a whole bunch of trying to understand the world that they're observing. I don't feel like I have any confusion about the world I'm observing. But the Democrats are going to have a big problem because they're going to have to figure out why everybody says this guy is an angel, but they've been acting like he's such a bad person they have to kill him. At some point, this won't apply to everybody, but at some point there will be a healthy number of Democrats who realize that they were on the side of killing an innocent man. Meaning that they didn't act on it, but they were sort of happy it happened maybe. And then they're going to find out that he was nothing like they thought. And this will be one of the biggest mistakes of humanity. It's one thing to kill somebody because you're going to get something out of it. This was not that. This is killing somebody and getting the opposite of whatever it was you wanted because you're going to get a lot of that. You're gonna get a lot and it's going to be the opposite of whatever you thought you wanted. But it's because you killed the wrong guy.

I saw somebody say today, was it King John? He goes by that King John online. I believe it was he who said today that they killed our son. Boy, do I feel that. You know what I mean? Those of you who know my story know that that hits me hard. Anyway, that's what they got wrong. If you kill our stranger, we might be mad, but we'll probably not change our schedule over it. If you kill our son, all of our sons, we're going to change our schedule, right? Tomorrow won't be the same as today because you killed our son. And that has more I think that has more meaning in more than one way if you know what I mean.

Well, some are saying there's a little action on this online that the Smith-Mundt Act, that's where the government used to make it illegal to intentionally lie on the news. But then I believe it was Obama who changed the law so that it became legal to lie to the country and propagandize and persuade mostly from our intelligence people. But basically in general it became no longer illegal to intentionally lie about the news if you're a news entity. Intentionally. It's legal. And so there's a movement to go back to the way it was, to make it illegal because we think we'll be better. And apparently Trump reposted a video that was calling for that. So that would suggest if you know the Trump way of acting that he's testing that. He's putting it out there with his name on it. Just see what happens. And if he finds that at least his base is solidly in favor of this change, I think he'll act.

Yeah, but it only affects people who are intentionally lying. So you could still say, oh, I didn't know. I thought the Russia collusion was real. Oh, I'm so surprised that it's not real. But if you found a bunch of documents that you know very clearly make it look like it was a ploy, well maybe you got some legal trouble in that case. And then some people are suggesting that instead of calling it the Smith-Mundt Act, that it would be called the Charlie Kirk Act. I don't know if that raises the chance that it would get implemented, but some people are thinking that.

All right. Well, on international topics, looks like Trump is looking to fast-track the immigration here of white South Africans because they're under the theory that some of them are being put in danger. So the AF Post is writing about this. So Trump administration launched a program. They're fast-tracking these immigrants because of their perceived danger. Let me tell you, that's going to be a hard one to sell in a diverse country. I don't know if there's any, I hope there's some analogues to this as in there are other cases where other ethnicities have been targeted for fast immigration. Somebody needs to tell me that. It would be awkward if the only time that happened was with white people. Now, I'm still all for it, by the way. It doesn't even if the only time it happened was for white people, I'm all for it. All for it. But it might be a hard sell.

I guess London had one of the biggest nationalist rallies in modern history. Just enormous. Tommy Robinson who I don't know a great deal about but he seems to be a previously jailed free speech guy and I think free speech was the purpose of it. They had a surprise guest by video which was Elon Musk and he seems to be completely down with that movement and it's big and they held a moment of silence to honor Charlie Kirk. Now, it's hard for me to imagine that there's anything that would happen in another country that the United States would have an enormous event and have a minute of silence for that person from another country. So this is big and I don't know that we can even size it yet because we don't know if it's still growing. We don't know how big it is and we don't know how fast it's growing and we don't know where it's growing. It's big. So I wouldn't underestimate it or overestimate it. I always get those two confused. Anyway, all right.

Here's where I'll get myself assassinated. The Washington Examiner says that the Gaza conflict has driven some AIPAC-backed Democrats to stop taking money from AIPAC. So AIPAC is the totally legal, totally transparent American entity that supports Israel and they work really hard with Congress. You know, they pretty much every Congress person has what they call their AIPAC person and almost all of them get money from AIPAC. So some of them are mad about the way Gaza is going, so they're just saying we're not taking any more of your money. Not many, just three House Democrats so far, but that's notable.

And here's my take. I don't trust any politician who takes money from AIPAC. So let me say that as clearly as I possibly can. When it comes to only about things about Israel or let's say the Middle East, I wouldn't distrust them necessarily on any other topic. But if you're taking money from AIPAC, I don't believe anything you say and I'm not going to change that opinion because that's how money works. The whole point of money is that it influences people. They wouldn't be giving money if they didn't think it worked. Do you think they'd be wasting all that money? Hey, here's some money. What do I need to do? Nah, nothing. Will you ever ask me for a favor? Oh God no. It's just free money. No. They give them money so that they can influence them. So if you want my trust on any decision that has to do with the Middle East, if you're taking money from AIPAC, shut the up. I don't want to hear anything you have to say because I would consider you completely untrustworthy and not necessarily on America's team for just those decisions. Is that clear enough?

All right. Now, by the way, AIPAC is completely legal as long as it's legal. I will also observe at the same time I say that I will never trust anybody who takes AIPAC money on an Israel question. At the same time, I can observe that Israel is really good at this. They're really good at it. And you know, I can hold both thoughts at the same time, right? That their skill level for supporting their own national best interest. Really good. Really good.

Now, I'm going to double down. You might have seen some video of Marco Rubio and Mike Huckabee with Netanyahu and they were wearing the little beanie caps and they were touching the Wailing Wall with reverence. I hate that. Now I know you're going to disagree and you're going to say that you know you're religious so it's just a religious thing. The Judeo-Christian crossover is so str