s in charge of the House. That's not cool.

So there's something like a seven out of nine chance that Democrats will win back the House and not because they did anything right and not because that's the way votes work, not because of any of that, not because they ran good races, not because their policies were popular, none of that. It might be only the luck of the draw that there were 17 Republicans looking to retire and that might be the only thing that matters to the outcome of the midterms. You know, even the redistricting might not be in time. I know, but it probably won't be enough to change the result. But these retirements might.

So why am I only hearing about that now? I think I had heard about it, but I didn't know the numbers.

Well, Tim Urban is reporting on X that there was a Harvard survey that 32% of students say using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is acceptable, at least in rare cases. Well, I'm glad they had the rare part, that using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is acceptable. 32%. Oh, but only in rare cases. Do you know what would qualify as a rare case? Whatever you didn't like. Well, I don't like that. Well, looks like we got a rare case. I guess we can go attack them. 32%. Really?

Do you know how unlikely it is that I would ever speak at a college ever again? No way. There is no way I would ever speak at a college. Oh my god. You know, this is just Harvard, of course, but do you think that this is so different from other colleges if you did the same survey? I don't know. I mean, I'd love to think it's a real outlier, and if you looked at any other college, they'd be like, "Oh, no. Violence is never called for." But Harvard, I don't know.

What would you do if you knew a body of people, 32% of them thought that maybe violence was appropriate because of something you could say? Well, that's right. You get the fuck away from them. Exactly. See, you're learning. I'm here to teach.

A reporter asked Trump was he planning to make Antifa a domestic terror organization? And he said, "It's something I would do." Yeah. If I have support from the people back here, I mean, there's an administration, specifically Department of Justice probably and the FBI. Whoever was standing behind him, it was the right people. He said I would do that 100% and others also by the way but Antifa is terrible.

Is Antifa a terror organization? I don't know. It would depend exactly what they're saying and what they've done so far. I guess that would be sort of an edge case, but I'm in favor of trying. So Antifa has by its nature, by its design and by its very charter is to destroy the United States. So why would we put up with that?

If Antifa destroyed, let's say they succeeded in what we know they want to do, which is essentially destroy all civilization or some version of that, wouldn't that look like terrorism? Because people would be dying in the streets and cannibals would be running wild if the economy just got destroyed or the government got destroyed. So it's not terrorism like making a lot of things blow up. Although I'll bet they've done that. I'll bet they've blown up some things. I just don't know my Antifa history. But they don't need to. If what they're going to do is dismantle the system, which we know would result in starvation and conquest and massive death, feels a little bit terrorist to me. Even if that's not what they intend to do, the effect of it would be that.

Well, I guess the U.S. military blew up another Venezuelan drug boat. We've got more exciting video if you like to watch people blowing up.

I remind you that as much as I like the canceling of the people on the left, you know, there are a lot of people who may have showed some joy over the bombing and death of in this case three male terrorists. I don't think any of us are beyond the temptation to act happy when somebody who's genuinely terrible meets a bad end. The problem with the Charlie Kirk stuff is that by no measure, by no measure was he a terrible person. There's nobody who knew him who thought that. Nobody on the left, nobody on the right, nobody who knew him thought he was a terrible person. Only the people who were in the Hitlerian bubble who had been convinced that he said all the things that he did not say.

All right. In other news, Israel launched a ground offensive to take over Gaza City. So they seem to be very done with negotiating for the return of hostages. And it seems like I'm sure that if a reasonable offer were made they'd take it. But at the moment it looks like they're not waiting. They're just going to take over Gaza City and it's going to get probably bloodier than it ever has. Unless what Israel does is warn people to leave and then if they don't blow up the buildings anyway. I mean it's war. And I'm not saying they should. I'm not approving of it. I'm just observing. I don't know what options they have.

What option do they have if people don't want to leave the buildings? They can't really do it door to door because it'd be insanely dangerous for them. And they don't really have to take that risk if they don't want to. There's no requirement for them to take a high level of risk when they can say here's the deal. There's zero chance that we will bomb you if you leave. You know, here's the area. There's no chance that you'll get bombed. Now, you have to deal with the fact that you've been displaced, but you're going to get displaced either way. If you stay, we're going to bomb the house you're in. I'm just making this up to make a point. That's not what Israel said.

If you leave, we're going to bomb the house because it might be booby trapped and it's too hard to figure it out. So under all scenarios, the house is going to disappear or the building. So the residents have a 100% chance of avoiding blowing up simply by not being in the house and not being in that neighborhood that they very clearly specified you don't want to be in this neighborhood. But only 40% of the people who lived in that neighborhood have left. What is up with that?

Is that because they believe that they have a better chance staying in their building than they would if they went on foot and tried to find food wherever they could get fed? I don't know. It's pretty hard to get people to leave their home. There are still people in the Ukraine front line who are like old guys who still live in the house. They just don't want to leave. Like, well, you know, I lived a good life. I'm just going to stay here. See what happens. So there's always somebody who wants to stay, but 60% it doesn't sound like they understand that the play is to flatten everything. I don't think you would stay if you understood that, would you? I don't know.

So over in Ukraine overnight, I guess there was one of the biggest or described as massive attack from the sky, a relentless aerial terror, some say. And Zelensky is looking for more resources to fight him. But here's my question. What would a massive overnight aerial assault look like? It would be a lot of drones, right? There would be missiles, maybe other stuff, but a lot of drones.

And here's what I'm wondering. What is the upside limit of how many drones each side is going to field before this is over? Is there a theoretical number of drones that one side could have that would end the war? You know, if tomorrow Ukraine had 10 million drones and they all worked together and they attacked Russia, would 10 million drones be enough to change the fate of the war? And who could get to 10 million drones, just picking a number, faster? Ukraine or Russia? Because they both seem to be able to get a lot of drones. I mean, that's a lot of drones. So I don't know.

But my guess is that the number of drones in each swarm attack will continue to increase, and it might continue to increase for a long time. So I wouldn't be surprised to see drone attacks with 100,000 drones. I feel like that's coming, not too long.

Well, a bunch of Canadian supermarkets got busted for covering up the made in America, made in USA labels. *Daily Mail* is reporting. So Canada, they want their food, but they don't want to act like it came from the U.S. They're still mad at us. So they've been covering up. But the phenomenon of covering up the U.S. label with a Canadian label is called maple washing, which is a pretty good name. We maple-washed it.

There's according to Newsmax, David Kaplan is writing that there's a watchdog, so-called watchdog, nonprofit watchdog that's going after the Soros Foundation. So the chair of the National Legal and Policy Center, it's a nonprofit in Washington, sent a strongly worded letter to the Open Society, that's Soros's organization, asking them to cease and desist their funding of various organizations that the watchdog thinks are dangerous. And stopped funding events that quote have been marked by persistent and dominant messaging that Trump and his supporters are Nazis, fascists, authoritarians, white supremacists and worse.

So the idea is if you know the gathering is going to say that kind of stuff which seems like inciting violence to me then he wants Soros to stop funding them. Well, as you know, the Trump administration plans to look into RICO of the Soros organization. So finally, after years of people like me complaining, why don't you go after the money and at least understand where it's going and how it's being used? And it looks like that might be happening.

All right. You want a little bit extra schadenfreude? Did you get a good dose yet? That creepy feeling of feeling good because somebody else is having a bad time. Ideally, somebody that's evil. That would be better.

Well, here's another one. You ready? This is my favorite one of the day. You know Zohran Mamdani he's running for mayor of New York and he's the communist socialist and he was endorsed by the governor of New York Kathy Hochul so that's a pretty good endorsement right you get the governor in