ntion or not even the thought of overthrowing the country, then how can you call that an insurrection? They have to be thinking it. I think I will do this thing that will result in overthrowing the country. If nobody had that thought, and as far as I know, there's no evidence that anybody had that thought. Again, there might have been a couple of crazies in the crowd, but in terms of the larger nature of the crowd, no.

Now, if I had 60 seconds to just say those things to Bill Maher, I could reprogram him because unlike most people, he actually listens to arguments. You know, this is my best compliment I could ever give anybody. He's actually able to find the door, but sometimes you have to shine a flashlight on the door knob. But with just the smallest amount of help, I believe he's fully capable of escaping that hoax. And when he does, I think he'll be done with Democrats. I think he'll just be done with them at that point. And I think he also knows the whole Trump is stealing your democracy is not really describing anything that's going on in the real world and at some point he's going to see presumably Trump leave the office peaceful turnover and that'll change everything although if I'll tell you what's going to happen if JD Vance wins the presidency the Democrat rats are going to say, well, it's another term of Trump. So really, it's just Trump staying in office, but he's doing it in this way that technically he's not staying in office, but damn it, it's still just Trump running everything. So Trump will be the back door to JD Vance and JD Vance will know he's got to do what Trump wants even though Trump's out of office because Trump will have so much influence that he could take down the sitting president if he wanted to which he could which he could. So it doesn't matter if Trump leaves or not. If JD Vance or even Marco Rubio, if anybody who is seemingly loyal to Trump backfills and is the next president, Democrats will say, see, I told you he stole our democracy. We just got more Trump no matter what we do. So that's happening.

Anyway, let's call all of the Russia hoaxers insurrectionists because that name actually fits. That's not persuasion. It's not brainwashing. It's what they were doing. It's exactly what they're doing and it's exactly not what January 6 people were doing. So let's use that word right.

Well, the Gateway Pundit, Jim Hoft, is writing about how Tulsi Gabbard, DNI director, is apparently uncovered yet more documents that seem to go to proving that Obama was behind doctoring the intel to make it look as though Trump and Putin stole the election. Now, we already had indications that Obama was the mastermind there, but apparently there's more. I haven't seen them, so I can't judge how credible they are. But there's now irrefutable evidence, says Jim Hoft, that detail how Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment, a document that they knew was false. I believe that is probably proven at this point.

Now, as far as I know, Obama probably would still not be prosecuted even if we had the goods on him. Is that right? Because he was a sitting president and you know, we don't go after them for what they did in office. Maybe. Although you could argue that that precedent's been violated. So if Trump violates it, well, maybe he didn't start it. Maybe.

All right. And I also think that if Tulsi Gabbard and all the Republicans say, hey, this document is proof. It doesn't mean it's proof because I haven't seen it. But you can imagine if it's like everything else in the world, the Democrats will read it differently and they'll say, oh, no, look at this sentence. This sentence, the way he worded it, gets him out of trouble. And then the Republicans will say that's obviously he's just saying that to stay out of trouble. It's clear that what he meant. So I don't believe there's such a thing as a document that everybody would look at and say, oh yeah, yep. If that document's real, that Obama is an insurrectionist. I don't think that's ever going to happen. We'll just disagree on what we see.

Well, meanwhile in Portland, the governor of Oregon is trying to get Trump not to send the military in for the violence that's happening in the streets and the rioting, etc. So the governor of Oregon says there's no insurrection, there's no threat to national security, no need for military troops in our major city, which would be Portland. But correct me if I'm wrong. Those people that are doing the protesting, are they unarmed? They don't have guns or they're not brandishing, right? And are they trespassing in any situations? Are they trespassing? Because I was taught by the Democrats that if you are protesting in a way that is unarmed and also trespassing that that's called an insurrection. An insurrection. You've heard of that, right? If you simply walk around without weapons in a building that you're not supposed to be in, that's an insurrection. Apparently, the Democrats think that's how you overtake a country because that's why they think the January 6ers are insurrectionists because they wandered around without weapons inside a building where they didn't belong. So I would say that Portland is experiencing an insurrection as defined by Democrats. Republicans, not so much.

But yeah, well, it's yet another day of pretending that we can't tell that Kamala Harris is a sloppy drunk. There are two more videos came out where she's just drunk as a skunk. Now, it might be prescribed medication. It might be Xanax or something like that, but I've seen drunks and I'm pretty sure I've seen people on Xanax and this looks drunk. I mean, I could be wrong, but it just looks so drunk. It doesn't look stoned. It looks drunk. I can tell the difference.

All right, here's a reframe for you. This will change your life. All I'm going to do is reframe something you've been looking at and you'll never be able to see it the same again. You know, Mark Ruffalo, the actor Mark Ruffalo, he's very associated with Democrats and the more left-leaning Democrats. And he was complaining about why we need the Second Amendment and these what he calls weapons of war. I think he means the rifles. And he acts with whoever he's talking to like he's smart enough that he knows what Republicans don't know and that he knows that these weapons would be useless if the government turned on the people or a dictator started to form. Now, does that sound like he's right? No. No. He is someone who doesn't understand war or guns or anything. Doesn't understand Republicans. As I've said many times, I promote no violence whatsoever. I'm just describing. I'm not recommending. I'm not predicting. I'm just describing.

If some dictator tried to take over the United States, the plan would not be to go shoot the dictator. Although we've seen recently that a leader can't be protected outside. If you put a leader outside, somebody's going to get on a building with one of these quote weapons of war, which is literally what was used against Trump, used against Charlie Kirk. So does the dictator want to live in a world where he can never go outdoors because somebody's going to be on a roof with one of these? Does the dictator want to live in a world where on day one all of that dictator's relatives will be rounded up and kept as prisoners for negotiating? All of their relatives, all of their friends will be rounded up by armed men. Now, Mark Ruffalo, did you really think that the people with the guns were going to go up directly against the military? No. No, that wouldn't work at all. No, they're going to use those guns to kill every single person or kidnap them that would have any leverage with the dictator. Do you think the dictator wants to lose every single person in their family and all their friends? Probably not. Probably not.

So there would be massive assassinations, massive assassinations. You know, every person associated with the regime when they walked out the door, they'd get clipped, right the not necessarily the top five people in the government, but once you got past the top five, they can't really protect them that well. We would know where they lived. We would know their schedule pretty quickly and they would get clipped as soon as they walked outdoors. So that's what it would look like. Now, I'm not recommending it. I'm not I don't want to make that sound like it's noble or anything like that. I'm just saying if you didn't know that the way it would work would be not a direct confrontation with the military, if you didn't understand what the most likely outcome of that situation would be, you're not really qualified to talk about it because his opinion is based on his opinion.

Somebody says Scott's a monster. Well, in this context, I simply am understanding monsters because there is something that will turn every man into a monster, including me. All right. I don't feel like I'm a monster at the moment, but do you think you could do something to me that would turn me into one? Oh, yeah. It wouldn't take long. It would just depend what you did. You know, if you hurt somebody, let's say a loved one or something, how long would it take me to turn into a monster? Immediate. It would be immediate. And I think that's most men. Most men would turn monster if you give him a reason. We just need a reason. The difference between a murderer and a law-abiding man, now this is just men. I can't speak for women, but the difference between a man who's a murderer and a man who's law-abiding is a good reason. That's it. Just a good reason. We all can become monsters immediately. If you didn't know that, maybe you feel better not knowing it, but you're always surrounded by monsters. They just happen to be in check. They just don't have a reason. That's it. They just don't have a reason. Give them a reason. Find out what happens. I can tell you what happens.

So here's my reframe. I haven't gotten to it yet. The reframe is this. You think that the left have a different political point of view? I say the left, the far-left, we're not talking about ordinary Democrats now. Ordinary Democrats have nothing to do with what I'm about to say. The far-left are all Dunning-Kruger people. Now, Dunning-Kruger, most of you know what that is, but that's the observation that there are some people who believe, it's very common, that they know a lot more than they know. So if there's something they don't know, they think it's unknown because if they don't know it, probably nobody else knows it either. So that explains Mark Ruffalo. He's simply somebody who doesn't know the weapons culture, doesn't know probably anything about guerrilla warfare or revolutions. Maybe just uninformed. And but he has that weird quality that you see on the far left. Again, not regular normal people like Bill Maher. So Bill Maher is not in this category. I'm talking about the people who have that weird smug look on their face when they say things that are completely stupid.

Have you ever seen a 20-something with green hair explain how you know their ideas are better and how you should open the border and let the people out of jail and they've got this look on their face like I'm so smart. You know, I'm talking to some dummy, some dumb Republican, but look how smart I a