ten mentioned as the strongest or one of the strongest candidates for maybe future president.

So why in the world would ABC News dredge up a story from 2011 to try to destroy Josh Shapiro? Because it looks like that's the only purpose. Why would the left destroy one of their leading names from the left? Well, here's my belief. All right, this is speculation, but I believe that the real criminal elements in the Democrat party, I mean the super criminals, I'm talking about the Clintons, super criminals as far as I can tell, they are reinstituting their Clinton Global Initiative, which we all believe was a money laundering operation. And in order for that to work again, they would need not just a Democrat in office, but they would need one that they could say, hey, other countries, this president whose office, it's not us, it's not the Clintons, but it's somebody who's so tight with us that we can get them to do some favors if you give us a huge amount of money that we can launder into our own pockets, right?

So if the Clinton Global Initiative is starting up again or trying to, that must mean that they've picked somebody they know they can work with if that person becomes president. And here's my speculation. They don't think they can work with Josh Shapiro. They do think they can make a lot of money with Gavin Newsom. So what I'm going to be looking for is to see if the most criminal people, the ones you just know are criminals, are all backing Newsom, because if they do, that would suggest they know that he can be their Biden or their Obama or whatever they need him to be.

So I don't think it's a coincidence that ABC News is strangling one of their own. The only reason to do that is if one of their own could beat Newsom in a primary, and Josh Shapiro could beat Newsom in a primary. He does have the ability. So that's what I think. So I think that the power people in the Democrat party have already picked Newsom. It probably won't matter what the public thinks because they will tell the public what to think. That's how it works. They'll just tell him he's the guy. He's the only one that can beat him.

And in the meantime, Hillary Clinton says, I think it was yesterday, we have to stop demonizing each other. And then she demonized the Republicans. It's almost, it looks like a joke. I mean it looks like Saturday Night Live or something where she says we have to stop demonizing them. And without taking a breath, she didn't even pause before she demonized them. Incredible.

All right, let me give you my strongest opinion on all this rhetoric stuff. And as JD Vance said, I also believe that there are people on the right who say things that go too far and might, but hasn't happened yet, might potentially cause somebody to act in a violent way, and we don't want that. So I'm against that.

However, there does seem to be a difference in the rhetoric on the two sides. As I said, calling somebody dumb as a rock doesn't make you want to do anything violent. Saying somebody is Gestapo and they're taking power and they're going to take your democracy definitely makes you think of violence. So I'm going to say that the Democrat leaders are 100% to blame for recent violence against Republicans.

Now let me be clear. The way our legal system works is that the people who pulled the trigger are the only ones who can be blamed. But that's because that's the only practical way to run a legal system. You couldn't say, well yeah, he murdered somebody, but in fourth grade he had some bad influences. That doesn't work. The only way you can organize a society is that the person who does the act gets punished. But whoever talked them into it or influenced them or brainwashed them, unless it's really direct and really immediate, doesn't count. They get a pass.

Well, as a trained hypnotist who studies persuasion a lot, let me tell you with 100% certainty it is the Democrat leaders that are causing the violence. There's not even the slightest chance that it's any other way. Because do you know what causes action? Ideas. At least complex actions. Simple actions like a reflex, there's not much thinking involved. But a complex action like I'm going to do a plan, I'm going to be in a place, I'll have these assets, I'll do this thing. If it's a complex plan, that only can happen because you have an idea.

Let's say the idea is that Hitler has taken over the country. It doesn't have to be a correct idea. It just has to be a full idea in order to get a complex action. Now, there's no exception to that. Can we agree on that? That for a human being to do a complex action, they have to have an idea in their head that matches the complex action. Would you agree? There's no question about that.

Now, what causes an idea to be in a head? How many people would have thought, hey, I think I'll climb on a roof and start shooting people, if their entire influence in life had been sitting in a darkened room by themselves? If they had no input from anything, do you think they would say, huh, of all the things I could be doing, I feel like I'll get a gun and climb on a roof and start shooting people? No. There is no way that that complex idea gets in your head without being put there. It has to be put there. You don't go looking for it. It has to be put there. That's the way it all works. It's the way it works on both sides. It's not just a Democrat thing. All of our complex ideas about politics on the right and the left were put there. You don't have an original idea in your head, nor do I. All of our ideas were put there.

And so if somebody climbs on a roof and starts shooting, it is a reasonable question: what put that there? Now they might also be crazy, but even crazy people have a wide range of things they could have been doing that day. Why did they pick that one thing? It's because somebody put it there. They put the idea there.

And the way you put an idea in people's heads is what? How do you put an idea in somebody's head? Well, sometimes you can show an image, you know, a meme, but mostly in politics with words. And those words are Nazi, Hitler, Gestapo, stealing your democracy, autocrat, oligarch. Oligarch doesn't get you killed. I'll give Bernie credit if I may. Bernie Sanders is sort of, he's always been a mixed bag. He'll do 10 things I hate and then one thing where I'll go, oh, okay, that's actually quite reasonable. One of the things that Bernie Sanders does is he doesn't do this Hitler thing, does he? I don't believe he does. Now it also makes his rhetoric kind of empty. They're an oligarch. Do you climb on a roof to shoot somebody who's an oligarch? Not really. Oligarch would be in the category of dumb as a rock. They both are just insults. Typical. But you don't go kill somebody for being dumb as a rock. You don't kill somebody for being an oligarch. You just don't.

But that other stuff, oh yeah, you start making a plan if you hear those other words. So words create ideas. Ideas create actio