study that feels like it just comes out every year for decades. According to the University of Victoria, testosterone in your body odor is linked to perceptions of social status. Apparently both men and women can smell your testosterone. Does that make you afraid a little bit that men and women can smell your testosterone? It's true. We're very sensitive to it. In fact when Carl the Fly was fighting me I got a little whiff of his testosterone and I got to say I was impressed. That little guy, he was just packed with testosterone.

Anyway, if you're joining the stream late, I love how nonsensical that sounded. You'll just have to ask somebody else about Carl the Fly. But it seems to me that for decades the same study has been coming out. Oh, women can smell testosterone again. Oh, women can smell testosterone. Oh, men can smell testosterone. I don't know why we keep studying it. Just ask me. I would have told you.

Well, Zohran Mamdani, he wants to use more social workers for the 911 calls as opposed to the fire department and police. And apparently that's been something they've been testing prior to Mamdani. So they've been testing it since 2019, 2021. So they've been testing it. It's called Be Heard. So it's a pilot program now. A pilot program that's been running for five years. Isn't it sort of time to decide whether it worked? What do you think? Did the pilot program work in which they would more likely send you a social worker than a police or a fire department person? Did that work? It's been five years. So now they would have a good sense of whether it works or not.

Well, according to a political veteran named Bill Cunningham, who once served under Michael Bloomberg when he was mayor, Cunningham says that the program needs quote stronger management. Oh, I think I found the problem. In what world do Democrats give strong management to anything? In what world? No, I'm not going to argue with him. You're saying dumb idea. So I'm going to surprise you.

The question of whether replacing the first responder types with social workers, that has not been tested even though it's a pilot program and it's run for five years, they haven't tested it. Why? Exactly what Cunningham is saying is that it needs stronger management. If you take a great idea and then you throw terrible management at it or you hire people for it that are your cronies, it's not going to work. It doesn't matter how good the idea is. So we really don't know if this could work. Is that fair?

Now I realize that with my audience I'm supposed to say Mamdani is a communist or at least a socialist and what we should do is get rid of him and every single one of his ideas is bad. I really don't think every one of his ideas is bad unless you overlay on it that it will be managed by Democrats because I don't think that they hire for merit. I think they hire for identity that they kind of say they do. Right.

So if you take any good idea in the world, any good idea, and then you have it run by people who can't make anything work and then it doesn't work, do you conclude that the idea was bad? That's not really — that doesn't follow. The only thing you can conclude is that one group of people, Democrats, don't seem to be good at managing anything. Now you could argue, and I wouldn't push back too hard, that Republicans if they're part of the government also don't do anything well. The government never does anything. The more money you give to the government, the worse it is, etc. I wouldn't push back on that. But there definitely seems to be a difference between Democrats just trying to manage anything versus Republicans trying to manage anything. There does seem to be a difference.

So here's what I would caution against. You know I know you don't want Mamdani to be too successful, but why would you throw away the idea that you might have some option for lower cost 911 responses? That would be part of the benefit if he did it right. And that it might be more on point because for some of them it's not about the danger, it's about the specific situation.

Now most of you understood, right? I think you understood that nobody ever said, "Send the social worker to a domestic violence place where the violence is happening at the moment." You all know that, right? That's sort of just something somebody says to mock it. They're not sending somebody instead of the police to anything dangerous. If it's dangerous they would still send the police even under the pilot program. So there's no scenario where you send an untrained person into a dangerous situation either now or with a new program.

Communism wasn't implemented correctly. Well, did I say that here? Here. I love it when people have to make up a quote for me and put it in quotes to prove me wrong. So somebody just did that trick in the comments. So somebody put in quotes as if it's something I did say or would say that communism was great if it had been implemented correctly. Did I say that? Was there some place that I don't remember this morning where I said every idea in the world is a great idea, you just have to implement it correctly? Did somebody hear me say that? Did I hallucinate that?

No, you idiot. Every idea is a different idea. Sometimes they're good ideas. Sometimes they're bad ideas. Do you like to do — never mind. You're not worth it. You're just not worth it.

Can we make one agreement? There is such a thing as good ideas and bad ideas. Can we get that far? Can we agree that there's such a thing as good ideas and bad ideas? Can we further agree that a good idea will never work if you have bad implementation? Can we agree on that? Can we also agree that if it's a bad idea, good implementation probably won't save it? Can we agree on that? I'm not saying anything you don't agree with. So stop pretending and stop putting my words in fake quotes and acting like I'm an idiot because I agree with you completely. Right? If we're on the same side on this topic, calling me dumb about it is kind of calling yourself dumb.

Anyway, stocks plunged because the market reacted because the government reopened. Does that give you any confidence in your government that the minute it reopens the stocks plunge but when it was closed the stocks resumed the moment that we think the government might do something? Oh no. Oh no. The government might do something. That's so bad. We don't want our government doing stuff. Sell your stocks.

Well, according to PJ Media, Katherine Salgado is writing that 500,000 double dippers on the SNAP program. So SNAP is where people who need help with food can get the government food assistance called SNAP. And there are 500,000 of them that were double dipping, meaning that they were getting more than one dose of it. And there were 5,000 dead people on the just in 29 states. Now that's just 29 states. So the other states I think didn't allow them to look into it or something, but we assume it's at least that much problem or worse.

How in the world do we get to this? I swear to God. When I drive around I look at how expensive the houses are in some areas, not everywhere. I think to myself, my common sense doesn't understand how this many people could buy this many good houses. You ever had that thought? And I think to myself, is this because of crime? If you had a secret way to view your residential neighborhood, so somehow you could just put on glasses and you could tell which of the homes were only afforded because of criminal activity. Maybe like more than you think.

How many of them are only affordable because somebody had an estate that they inherited? Well, it'll be a few. But what you wouldn't find is a whole bunch of people who got a good job and they could afford a nice house. There'd be a lot of that, but there's a tremendous amount of wealth in this country that's sketchy. And I'm thinking that the sketchy amounts are bigger than the legitimate amounts at this point. It feels that way. Does it not feel that way to you? Like I seriously it looks like people are embezzling from their company or they stole from somebody. I can't understand how so many people could have so many nice houses given the cost of living in California.

Now I understand why I have a nice house. You know, I'm a public figure. I have a kind of job where you could guess how much I make practically. So I understand why I do. But why do all the other people have nice houses? Do they all have amazing jobs? I don't know. Something's going on.

Well, here's another evergreen story that just never goes away. There's a therapist who says that Trump derangement syndrome is real. How many times do we have to hear that? Doesn't everybody know that Trump derangement syndrome is real? It's about as real as you can get. Yeah, it's very real.

Joe Rogan had a guest, Gavin de Becker, who's an interesting guy. And Gavin I've had some brief interactions with him and he was very kind, very generous. So I like Gavin de Becker. Anyway, he says that we're not hearing enough about what the MAHA people and RFK Jr. in particular are succeeding at. So he says that there have been some significant wins for RFK Jr. but the press is kind of downplaying them. But let's test. So he gave some examples.

Removing mercury from all vaccines. So that's something that RFK Jr. got done. How many of you knew that he got mercury removed from all vaccines? Now I don't think that there were many left that had it. I think there was a relatively small number of vaccines that still had it, but he got rid of them. Now I don't know if I think there's a counterargument. I guess there's always a counterargument, but maybe that made a difference. I'm no scientist so I don't know for sure, but maybe it made a difference.

He stopped a bunch of mRNA research projects that didn't look promising. That's again Gavin de Becker's take. He said he stopped fluoride in water or he's recommending against it. I don't know if he stopped it or recommending against it if that made a difference. That seems pretty big. And a bunch of things he's doing with food. More about the diet I think. So there's a lot happening there. I'm not sure we're totally informed.

But the reason that we don't necessarily hear that government good and big pharma and big ag not always so good is that de Becker says that something like over 90% of cable news channels are sponsored by pharma. In fact something like 80-something percent is just Pfizer all by itself. Is that true? Is it true that 80% of cable news funding is one company? I knew it was big, but is it that big? Wow.

And I'd also point to something that — oh, what's his name? The seven words you can't say on TV. Who's the famous comedian whose name I'm blanking on. All right, you know who he is. But anyway, he said that you don't have to have a conspiracy if everybody knows what they're supposed to do. And certainly every single member of the cable news world — yeah, George Carlin, thank you. George Carlin is the answer.

So George Carlin pointed out that the bad guys, you know, the rich people, they don't have to have a meeting to coordinate because they all know what's good for rich guys. So they just all do what's good for them and that's good for the other rich guys. I think this is one of those cases that you don't have to tell the on-air host what they can and cannot say. They know what they can and cannot say. So it looks like an invisible crime. It's not really a crime, but you know, an invisible bad behavior.

All right. I hate to bring it up, but do any of you know what the Republican health care plan is? Anybody? What do you think is the quote Republican health care plan? And can you take the Republicans seriously if they don't have one? You know every now and then some Democrat will be debating me on whether Trump's a good idea or a bad idea. And when they get to healthcare I just go, I'm out. Nope. As far as I know Republicans are doing basically nothing on healthcare. And it's one of our biggest problems. If you argue that healthcare is a big component of the debt, which it probably is, then it's extra bad, right?

So here I had to ask Grok because I didn't even know what Republicans were sort of pushing. Here are some of the things that Grok says Republicans are pushing. Block grants to states for Medicaid. Okay. How is that a plan? That's not a plan. That's just giving them money to do the thing they're already doing. That's not a plan. That's nothing. Well, are you supposed to save money by doing that? What exactly would be even the point? Obviously you want to fund healthcare but is that the good way to do it? What's the argument? I don't even get that.

Then Republicans like health savings accounts where you could put money in your own account and it would grow and someday if you had a problem you could use it. I don't really think that's an answer. That doesn't look like a real — it might be an answer on top of a health care plan, but it's not a health care plan.

Tort reform where it would be harder to sue your doctor. Yeah, I would listen to the argument on that. I can imagine that tort reform is necessary but is that your health care plan? Tort reform? How about price transparency at hospitals? So Republicans want more price transparency. Haven't we wanted that for 25 years and nothing happens? Presumably because eventually it reaches somebody who makes money by not telling you the prices of things and they have some political connection so they just stop it.

So it looks to me like the Republicans have a grab bag of things that are sort of in that domain but nothing like a plan. Do you know why Republicans don't have a healthcare plan? Do you know the reason? I know the reason. None of you know the reason. It's the same reason the Democrats don't have a workable health care plan. Does that help?

So the Democrats have a plan which is just spend unlimited money on it and you'll be fine. That's not really a plan. So why is it that neither the left nor the right can even come up with a plan? It's something you would call a plan. Like they might call it a plan but would you call it a plan if the plan is just, oh, allocate more money, you'll be fine. It's not really a plan. Not much of a plan.

The answer is this. Nobody knows how to do it. If somebody on the left or somebody on the right had an idea and they could explain it and it made sense and it could save money, well then we might have something to talk about, right? Nobody has an idea.

Do you know the only way out of this is if Elon Musk makes a robot hospital? Nothing else is going to work. Let me say it again. The one and only way to get a health care plan, as far as I can tell, if you've got a better idea let me know, would be Elon Musk literally building a robot hospital to test it. And then maybe later there would be robot urgent cares and robot general practitioners and stuff like that. But there doesn't seem to be a path where human beings are providing health care and everybody can afford it. The everybody can afford it part can be solved by the robots. The access, even if you're in a remote place, can be solved by robots. Your robot can show up in the middle of the night.

Do you know how many times I've had a medical problem on a weekend? Good luck. You have to go to the emergency room. But wouldn't it be better if your Tesla self-driving doctor pulled up to your house at any time of day because they don't have to sleep? And if you needed a specialty piece of equipment, then the robot would already be on the line and say, "We're going to need an echocardiogram. Here's the address." And then suddenly another Tesla pulls up and the only thing it's doing is delivering that piece of equipment that will be used then and then return to the big bucket in the sky.

So unless you're thinking of healthcare so radically that you're completely just redoing it and ripping it out the way Elon approaches something. By the way have you heard Elon Musk talk about the biggest problem that engineers make? Boy does this apply in this case. He says the biggest problem that engineers make on any domain is that they try to optimize something that shouldn't have existed.

Now healthcare should exist but should we be optimizing human health care in hospitals? You have to ask that question. Is that the thing we should be optimizing? Well, a little bit, because they exist and you don't want them to fall apart and stuff. But shouldn't we be looking at something that's completely different, built from the bottom up? There's only one person I know in the United States who could pull that off, and he's kind of busy at the moment. And I don't even know if it'd be profitable. So you need it to be profitable, but I would say that here's what we need. We need some way to at least tell a story that we can move from what we have to something like an AI-driven, robot-driven — somebody will come to your house. You'll always be one call away from some advanced intelligence that knows what you need.

So it seems to me that without that level of deep re-engineering we don't have a chance. We don't have a chance. At the very least I would love to hear what — let's say Mark Cuban, Elon Musk, I'll throw in Bill Gates. I know what you think about that. Why are not our smartest people already telling us how to do this? Is it because they can't figure it out either? It might be. It might be they can't figure it out either.

But I would love to see the most aggressive. And by the way all of this can be tested small. So you don't have to turn the entire United States into a different system and hope you got lucky. You could say, "All right, we're going to test this in this one county. It's not even that populated, and we'll do a bunch of things, but in another county maybe we'll try a few other things, and then in a year we'll look at it." I would be happy. Or if somebody said, "We don't have any way to reduce the cost today so we're just going to fund it." But in five years you're definitely going to have an AI doctor or some people will, not everybody. And then you draw your budget such that it goes down because you're getting rid of the people — getting rid of the people is not the goal — but you're reducing costs over time by bringing the AI in.

So I also wonder what percentage of all our health care costs are administrative and government regulations and paperwork. If it turns out that that's like 40% of the cost and it might be right. If you had to guess how much of the health care costs is the paperwork and would you say 40%? You know without knowing too much about the industry which I don't. It seems like everything's at least that much. So could you cut that in half? Probably if you just had a smarter way to administer it.

All right, moving on. You know Michael Wolff, he's the author. He's the one who is the adviser friend of Epstein. Turns out that we know now he tried to blackmail Trump. He tried to get — he tried to talk Epstein into blackmailing Trump.

Now if I said to you I'd like to engineer for you the worst reputation you could ever have. And I'd say well if you're going to make it the worst reputation anybody had you're going to have to throw in some underage stuff. You know what I mean? And sure enough he was hanging out with the underage stuff guy. So that's not good for your look. And then it turns out he may have been one of the people teaching Epstein how to be a blackmailer. There's no evidence they taught him how to be a blackmailer, but there is some documentation that they're looking at Trump and I guess Wolff said in a text message or an email to Epstein, quote, "I hear CNN planning to ask Trump tonight about his relationship with you either on air or in scrum afterwards." This is 2015. So 2015.

And then Wolff said to Epstein, "I think you should let him hang himself." Quote, "If he says he hasn't been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency." In other words he could keep Trump's secret and act like he had not been on the house or not been on the plane but he had the option of blackmailing him. Might want to keep that option open.

According to Wolff — and also he goes listen directly says he says if he says he hasn't been on the plane or to the house then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency. You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you. I can't even believe people talk like this. Can you? This is the way people talk. Oh my god.

Or if it really looks like he could win the presidency you could save him and generating a debt. Oh my god. Pure blackmail. How would you like to be the person so dark that you're the one who taught Epstein how to blackmail better? Does it get worse than that?

But I was laughing at the fact that the New York Post referred to Michael Wolff as discredited. He's a discredited author. And I was thinking what they refer to me as. So I'm a — no, I'm not discredited. What do they call me? Remind me what they call me. I'm not discredited. I'm just something disgusting. Anyway once people like me and him get canceled we get a new name.

All right. So good luck with that. Oh they also call him a Trump-obsessed. So he's discredited and Trump-obsessed. Meanwhile the Justice Department is suing disgraced — thank you. Yes they call me disgraced instead of discredited. I like disgraced.

So the Justice Department is going to sue to block California from their new intention of redistricting. And it makes me wonder should we just change our system for everything? And instead of just doing it and waiting for the lawsuit, just make the lawsuit part of the process. Because if we sue everybody about everything, which is our current situation, you might as well just build that into the process that you know first you pass the law but then it just goes automatically to some political some court entity. That's my idea for the day.

John Fetterman had some kind of cardiac incident. Doesn't seem too serious but it did cause him to black out and fall on his face and got some minor injuries. Like I say staying in the hospital to be evaluated. And it makes me wonder, so John Fetterman was in the news already like in a big way. He was in the news and then this happens which obviously he did not plan which puts him in the news again. Does it feel like he's not an NPC? Does it feel like he's a player? Because why is he in the news so much? By coincidence he's in the news so much. I don't know. I think the simulation has plans for him. That's what it looks like.

All right, I'm going to take a challenge. Challenge is this. I'm going to read a headline from the Hungarian conservative and I want you to see if this shocks you. So how shocked are you? Zelensky's inner circle rocked by massive corruption scandal. How many of you are shocked? Shocked that Ukraine is being accused of a massive corruption scandal. What are the odds of that? I ask you, the most corrupt place on earth. What are the odds of that?

Anyway, so there's allegations of as much as a hundred million got siphoned off by his cronies. So one specific one in particular, there's some businessman named Tymur Mindich, and I guess he's being accused of being part of whatever this allegedly is.

California is — do you get sued for issuing all those illegal commercial driver's licenses? Yeah, I think the Trump administration is going after them for that. So the Trump administration will withhold up to 160 million in federal funds unless California revokes quote every illegally issued commercial driver's license, of which there are quite a few. Do you think that Gavin is going to do that or is he going to give up the 160 million in federal funding? Well, I think it'll go to court. What do you think? It should just go to court immediately automatically. It's going to end up there.

Well, I saw in the news today on Reclaim the Net, Cindy Harper is writing that Israel has a bill that they're considering now that would allow the Israeli government to shut down foreign media outlets. So it passed the first reading which means it has some potential of becoming law but it's not there yet. And what do you think of that? And when I saw that I thought, well isn't that the same as the United States? Doesn't the United States block foreign news platforms without looking it up?

All right, here's your challenge. Without looking it up, tell me in the comments, do you believe that the United States already had this either law or right or something that we were already banning foreign platforms? I thought we were because when was the last time you saw Russia Today, RT? They used to be everywhere and then they disappeared, right? And I think there might have been a few other examples.

So I asked Grok to look into it. And it turns out that we do not have that law. What we have is something better. We have massive censorship. So if you're RT and you're trying to get some traffic and some income on YouTube, good luck. You're going to be treated like that guy Scott Adams. Have you heard of him? No, I'm just joking. Yeah. So if you want to be alarmed, what is more alarming than the fact that we don't need that law because we already banned people just with our normal censorship tools? And banning a Russian entity especially really easy. Really easy.

I don't even know if this is another one of those George Carlin situations. Did somebody need to actually contact YouTube and say, "Hey, there's something happening right outside my house." I don't know what but it's big. Yeah, they didn't have to coordinate. They all just knew what to do. So before you mock Israel for their censorship, we're not so different.

Here's another story. The Federalist, MDK, is writing about this that the same Department of Justice partisans as they're called partisans that drove the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. You know what I'm going to tell you the story I was going to tell you instead of what the story is. Is it my imagination or has all the stories about Crossfire Hurricane and the Russia collusion and all the bad behavior in the old Obama — have they now become just noise? Like if this story had broken when it was fresh it would be the biggest story. But because time has gone by and now we've been confused by all these similar sounding stories, like if I hear one more story that Jack Smith did something that we think might have been sketchy, how am I even going to sort that in my head with all the other stories about Jack Smith allegedly did something sketchy? I can't keep them straight.

So I'm completely lost. And I don't know if any of this is intentional. I mean certainly not by the people reporting it, but there's something about time plus complexity that just hides any bad behavior. And I think we've reached it because I don't think there's going to be any justice for any of these older acts. But it's hard to get people all worked up about them because we don't really follow it. Meaning that even if you read the story you end up thinking, "Is that the one I read last week?" Well let me ask — I'll ask you this way. How many of you have recently read a story? It might have been in Just the News or it could have been something else. And you thought to yourself, is that a new story or is that reiterating an old story or is it an old story that they added a new email to? Did the new email change what we knew about the old story or did it just bolster it?

The whole idea that we can figure out what these bad actors may or may not have done I think is gone. I think the complexity and time have just sort of erased the crimes in a practical sense, meaning that they'll never be held accountable. So I didn't know that was a thing but it looks like it's a thing.

Speaking of stories that you don't know if they're new or old, apparently Nevada is going to be reopening the case of what they call the fake electors. So Ella Lee is writing for The Hill and I want you to see some of the language that she used in the story. So you remember the 2020 election. I'm sure you remember. And you remember that there was an effort to get alternative electors. Now why did she call them fake electors when they were very publicly alternative electors? Meaning that if something went one direction they would be activated but if it went another direction they wouldn't. What makes them fake? Isn't fake kind of subjective? Because it certainly seems to me that there was some possibility that they would cast the real vote.

How about they also say talking about people who quote falsely claimed that Trump won the 2020 presidential election. How does she know or anybody know that it was falsely? What process was used to determine that that Trump didn't win? I don't know if there's any way to know. The whole reason that we're talking about getting rid of election machines, the whole reason we're talking about same day voting, the whole reason we're talking about voter ID for voting, the only reason that those are conversations is that reasonable people know that we can't be entirely sure who won the election.

So how do you get off saying falsely claimed? You could say not supported. You could say unproven. You could say baseless if that were true. But you really can't say falsely claimed. That's an overclaim, right? How would you know? You would know. I don't know that it was fake but I also don't know that it wasn't. I wouldn't know.

So this feels like one of those evergreen stories that but I guess they were fighting over some process thing so it got delayed. Otherwise it would have already been resolved. But anyway, Elon Musk is dunking on the head of the EU. Somebody whose name is Ursula von der Leyen. Apparently Ursula said she was talking about building the European Democracy Shield and she said that if democracy is the foundation of freedom. Oh I'm sorry. No that's what Elon said. So she was talking about Europe's democracy shield and Elon dunked on her on X by saying, "If democracy is the foundation of freedom, shouldn't your position be elected by the people?" She's not elected. She has an unelected position.

All right. What else we got going on here? According to Axios some lawmakers were concerned that they weren't getting enough briefings about the narco boats being blown up. So you know what Trump did about that? He said, "Give them more briefings." The reason I wrote this down as a story is that how often do you hear that? Hey, we've got a problem. There's not enough of X. All right, we're going to do more X. Anything else? You just don't see somebody complained and then somebody said fixed. Done.

But what it made me wonder is how many boats there are. If you were to count up all the boats that could be used in this way, there can't be that many narco boats, right? How many are there? So now we've blown up what, 20 of them. Given that you could put a bazillion dollars worth of drugs on one narco boat. How many were there in the first place? Like if you wanted to make sure that one of your narco boats got through, how many do you need to have? Five. And then you know multiple cartels. So each of them maybe have five.

But what it made me wonder is how the narco boat salespeople sell their boats now because somebody still has to go to the narco boat sales place to buy a new narco boat, right? Because they're running out of boats. So what does the salesperson say in those situations? "Oh, we make the finest narco boats. We promise and this is our commitment to you. If you buy our narco boats with our extra fast motors and our good navigation, if you buy our narco boats we can guarantee that you will reach your destination unexploded up to 5% of the time." But what is happening to the other 95%? And why do I have a bad Mexican accent?

And then the salesperson would say, "Oh but you have to compare us to the competition." The competition loses I don't know 98% of the boats. We can get you there 5% of the time and that's better than you can get from the cartels. Well maybe I'll go back to the cartels and tell them that there's no practical way for me to get this job done. Well you could. You could definitely play it that way. You could go back to your cartel boss and in about a minute and a half they would tie you to a chair and torture you but you could do that. Or you could overpay for this boat and have a 5% chance of surviving. Take your pick. Well I'm just saying it would be hard to be a buyer of narco boats.

Chinese astronauts are returning to Earth in a different ship because the one they were in got cracks in it from some debris in space. Can you imagine being in space and looking at your windshield and seeing it cracked? What would be scarier than being in a rocket ship and looking over and seeing that your window is cracked and that it might keep cracking? That would be pretty scary. But the Chinese astronauts are made of tougher stuff than I am and they just waited for a new ship, jumped on it. It looks like they'll be fine.

Meanwhile German police have been looking to solve the mystery of who blew up their pipeline, the Nord Stream 2. Now I don't think it's a mystery who blew it up so much as finding the specific people and punishing them. But here are some numbers you might not have known. So how much money has Germany donated to the Ukrainian defense? The answer is 37 billion euros. They are the number two biggest funder of Ukraine's military defense after the United States.

So isn't that great that they're so friendly with Ukraine and they get along so well that Germany will put 37 billion euros in it. But oh but wait they actually spent a lot more than that because once the war started and the pipeline blew up I guess the cost of energy in Germany went through the roof. So Germany ended up spending maybe a hundred billion extra euros that they wouldn't have had to spend except for the Ukraine war and maybe something with the blown up pipeline.

So how do you get a situation in which Germany is funding Ukraine's defense while Ukraine is blowing up valuable German assets and acting like they didn't do it? That is a complicated part of the world, isn't it? I don't know how the Germans put up with that but I don't know how they put up with anything. I do not understand Germany.

And apparently the Pentagon has announced that the new operation called Southern Spear is going to squash the narco terrorists in the Western Hemisphere. I think we knew that was happening. But at least it has a name now. At least it has a na