d she not say yes to something so obviously protective? Why? Well secondly as Kash Patel points out Pelosi's daughter was filming a documentary about the events of that day. What would be the better event? What would make that documentary really shine? Well it wouldn't be if the National Guard came in and made immediate order and prevented people from trespassing. There would have been... what kind of movie would that be? Oh a bunch of people protested. It was all very peaceful. They went home, right?

So now here's the question. If you were Nancy Pelosi and you were as clever and as experienced and weaselly as she is, do you think that you would be tempted to let trouble happen, including physical danger trouble, in order for your daughter's career to really take off? And the answer is that's pretty much what politicians do. They pretty much put other people at risk for their own personal benefit and their family's benefit. That's the most common thing they do. So yes I do believe that she would put people's lives at risk absolutely to just boost her daughter's career a little bit. I do think that. I can't think of a second reason that would make sense to me why you would decline the National Guard.

Right. So I'm going to say that given the things that we know for sure, daughter was doing a documentary, it got a lot more interesting when the danger started and that she turned down help that was the obvious help to give. And by the way why would the person who was planning an insurrection offer to put in place the people who would stop the insurrection? I mean the whole narrative was completely ridiculous and Pelosi was behind the narrative. So I'm going to say that she was directly the cause of the insurrection and that she knew that she could blame the insurrection on Trump supporters, which she did, if she made sure that there was not enough protection to keep people from getting out of line.

So I'm going to say my current working theory is that the FBI may not have been directly involved but they wouldn't need to be 'cause if you have that many angry people and you have a no-show of force that it looks like they're not in any particular risk 'cause there's not enough police there. That would be enough to guarantee there would be too much trouble. Now she may have overplayed her hand and it may have gotten more dangerous than she imagined it would get, especially dangerous to members of Congress. So she may have been surprised that it got worse than she thought but I'm going to say this is 100% on her. I believe January 6th was an op that was not planned but rather in an opportunistic way Pelosi saw a situation forming that they could possibly take on Trump forever but the risk of it would be some people would get hurt. And I think that's what she did. I believe that she is 100% behind that hoax and that I don't have any more questions. To me it's asked and answered. Maybe there was a handful of FBI guys who were in on something but I don't see it. You're going to have to do better if you think that the FBI was involved. They may have been but I don't see it. All I see is numbers and that's completely different. So all right.

Apparently according to Fox News, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two big housing giants, are going to leave New York State because it's too sketchy to be there when the attorney general is Letitia James. So you might be aware that Bill Pulte has found some news about Letitia James and her paperwork for housing and alleged mortgage type fraud that's not been proven, alleged. But now this is putting more pressure that taking two big entities out of the state because it's just too dangerous to be in the state with her there. And I would say that especially now after those agencies were implicated in implicating her and that we know she's a revenge monster, you have to take your business out of that state. You can't even stay in the state with that attorney general. It's too risky. So Pulte is right again. He's right again. It would just be dangerous to stay there.

David Sacks and others are criticizing this group called the SPLC, the Southern Poverty Law Center, who exists sort of like the ADL does to pretend to be finding bad people and racists but really they're just a Democrat hit entity trying to act like they're something else. Sacks points out that if you search for Stephen Miller the first thing that comes up on Google search is something that calls him names. What did they call him? Anyway so it's something that calls him some kind of a racist or something. And the SPLC also has an article about me from 2020 and it says it was about election denial. So it put me in the election denial category and which by the way I don't believe I'm an election denier. I have not seen proof that the election was rigged. But they seemed to think that I was on that team. But the refusal for Trump to concede and said then a tweet response that I said, this is what they claim, that people have been brainwashed to accept Biden's win and that that's part of the broader far-right rhetoric.

Now did I say that people are brainwashed to accept Biden's win? I don't know. But that's not a claim about the election itself. That would be a claim about how people come to believe what they believe about the election itself. So I didn't have any comment about whether the election was rigged. My comment was that the individuals who believe it wasn't were brainwashed to believe that. It was not based on any data they could have possibly had access to. It was based on propaganda. But anyway they throw me on the list so that someday my name will be associated with this hate group or the group that finds hate groups. Great.

So the SPLC and ADL really need to be eliminated from the United States. There seems to be a lot of energy to get that done now. So we'll see. I think anybody who donates to either of those groups, they're just asking for trouble because at this point if somebody found out you donated to either of those groups you would get boycotted immediately. And you should be. They're despicable, both of them.

Well I've been listening to an argument that Scott Galloway has been making about how Israel is not allowed to win a war and that there's a double standard there. And I thought I would just talk about the argument itself. So this is less about Israel. This is just about is this argument good? Okay. So one of the arguments is that in World War II for example the US just did horrible things to the civilian populations of Germany and Japan. And nobody called that a genocide. They just said well you know it's a war and if you're going to win the war you're going to have to win the war and it's going to be really ugly. So that would be an