ll, why did I even join the military if I'm not allowed to do illegal things? Well, I don't know. Sounds like a mistake. Because I joined it just to do illegal things. Now, what could be less useful? Seriously, what could be less useful than telling people in the military the one thing that every person in the military already knows? I'll bet you couldn't find one piece of knowledge or information that had as many people knowing that you can't do it. It'd be hard to match it.

All right, but here are some funny things coming out of that. Number one, apparently they're getting a nickname. This the seditious six. I saw that on social media. I don't know if it's catching on yet, but it's very funny. The seditious six.

Now, I had to check with AI to figure out what sedition means versus let's see what are the other words they use around this, you know, insurrection, sedition, treason, right? Those are all the words that they use. And I guess Trump suggested that if anybody is involved in sedition, they should be executed. Now, he didn't name them, but people kind of connected the dots and said, "Hey, I think Trump's saying that maybe they should be executed."

Now, here's the problem, and you may have spotted this on your own because I've given you some hints before today. Have I ever told you, and yes, I have, that you can predict Trump's reaction because he'll always take the strongest path. Now, that doesn't mean he's serious about it, and it doesn't mean that that strongest path will ever happen. But if you're just talking, as in he's talking about what you do about these seditious six, if you're just talking, you can kind of guarantee in advance that if there's one thing to be said that's the strongest thing, even if it's the wrong thing, if it's the strongest thing, you know, Trump's going to say it, right? And so far, that's worked out for him. But it does create this set of evidence that the Democrats would use that he's a fascist authoritarian. So you can see the problem?

So the problem is if you were to artificially create a situation as a Democrat in which there was no space left for the strongest opinion except for something that's over the line. Would you consider it over the line to talk about executing members of Congress for making this video that didn't need to be made under the assumption that really the reason for the video is to try to turn the military against the sitting government? Well, there's a lot of mind reading that would be involved in that.

But so here's the problem. If the Democrats get smart enough, and I worry that that's what just happened. If they get smart enough, are they not going to realize that they can trap Trump into saying what is over the line by going as close to the line as they can and sort of leaving him not much space for whatever would be the strongest thing to say? Now, did he say the strongest thing you can say when some members of your government make this kind of a video? Yeah. Yeah, that's the strongest thing you can say. It's not even the law. It's not even the law that you can execute people for what would be I guess they would say sedition, which is an unproven allegation at this point, right?

Sedition is not the death penalty. I didn't know what was so I had to ask ChatGPT. Now if ChatGPT told me the truth and did not hallucinate then treason could in some cases be the death penalty. But even that would be rare. And treason is when you're working with a foreign country to undermine your current country. That's not what's being alleged. What's being alleged is sedition which is people within the country trying to change the government outside the constitutional mechanism. And then there's insurrection which would be some version of trying to do it from the inside also not necessarily implying there's any foreign country involved. So it's the foreign country involvement that pushes you toward maybe execution, but even then probably not. It would be a rare occurrence.

So here's my open question. Did the Democrats become suddenly smart enough that they knew that if they did this ridiculous thing that didn't need to be done, which is a video telling the people in the military exactly what every one of them already knew. Don't do any illegal things. Don't follow any illegal orders. Like I'm not in the military and even I knew that. Is there even one person who's in the comments? Let's say, is there one person in the audience right now? Show me in the comments. Who didn't know this, whether you've ever been in the military or know anybody who's in the military or had any contact with the military, didn't you know that they're not allowed to do illegal things? Like, they can't just go murder people because their senior officer told them to. You all knew that, right?

So if we acknowledge that it's probable, can't read their minds, but it's probable that the Democrats who made that video were completely aware that it did nothing useful, but that it would bait Trump into saying the strongest thing you would say in that domain. And the strongest thing you would say is what he said. And then they got their little food for the day. Their food for the day is, can we trick him into saying something that we can determine or we can define as being authoritarian or fascist? Yes. Yes. We tricked him into saying the strongest thing.

Now, as I told you, it's almost, I think I've said every time, but maybe that's too strong. When Trump's instinct is to take the strongest position, even if it's not practical or something that could ever happen in the real world, it still makes him look like the strongest person in every conversation. And in the long run, that's going to pay off because sometimes you just need a strong leader. And you're going to look around and go, "All right, well, I don't like everything he's ever said, but I have to admit, we need a strong leader right now, and you can't beat that. That's the strongest leader we've ever seen, at least in my lifetime."

All right, so here's my question. How do we know that the Democrats did it just because they're stupid and combined with TDS? Did they think this was actually something the country needed? How many of you think that? Because I'm just thinking, what are the possible explanations for why they even made that video? Stupid, right? They'd have to be stupid because they'd have to know. They'd have to realize that there's no point in it. Doesn't change anything. And then or they just have TDS or they're stupid and they have TDS. Does that explain it? I don't think it does, honestly. And I don't know the answer, so I'm just speculating too. But if I had to guess, I feel like there's somebody over on that team who is smart enough to know that this would be a way to generate these artificial he's an authoritarian. He's a fascist. Just look what he did. We'll keep this in the news forever. I feel like it's intentional, like it's some kind of a trap they set up.

Now, the real question is this. Can you trap Trump? Is he trappable? Well, Megyn Kelly found out he wasn't that trappable the first time he did a debate with the Republicans. Remember the very first debate? You say these terrible things about women. That's a trap. There's no way you're going to get out of that. Only Rosie O'Donnell. Oh, okay. I guess there is one way to get out of it.

So while I am sure it's a trap, whether intentional or not, that's still open. But it functions as a trap. Would you agree? Everybody agrees with that, right? Even if it's not intentional on the part of the Democrats, it functions as a trap. And did Trump walk right into it? We'll see because once he, I think once he recognizes that it's a trap and by now he certainly has. Of course he has. He's going to have an unpredictable, which is what he did with the Rosie O'Donnell move. It's just unpredictable. He's probably going to have an unpredictable response. So what I would look for is what happens next because to me it looks like the Democrats had a pretty good play. It looks like they couldn't possibly be as dumb as they're acting. So I'm going to guess that they knew what they were doing or at least one person over there did and created this situation where they can generate these new headlines that are based on nothing. They just created a situation that wasn't there. Pretty clever.

But watching Democrats find new ways to be useless never gets old. And then of course each of the Democrats involved has now been asked multiple times by the media, can you give me an example of one of these illegal orders? And so far they've been smart enough not to give examples. And instead they say, well, some version of it's not that it's already happened. It's that we're worried that it will happen. To which I say, isn't that every problem in the world? Every problem in the world is just something that they're worried will happen. Shouldn't you worry about some things that are actually happening?

Let me tell you something that's actually happening. We're overspending and running ourselves into debt. Let me tell you something that as far as I know hasn't happened and probably won't. The US military obeying obviously illegal orders doesn't feel like a big problem. It hasn't affected me yet, but their argument would be someday in the future this might happen. Yeah, I see in the comments somebody saying color revolution. You are correct. So this could be just one move within a larger set of moves that we would call a color revolution. What would that involve? Well, it would involve getting some street muscle. Check. They did that. They did the anti-Tesla stuff, the no kings stuff. Street muscle. It would involve trying to create a narrative that the media can carry forever that says one of them is a bad egg and must be removed. Check. They're now creating the narrative. And now the press is trying to decide if they're going to be duped.

So I guess Elissa Slotkin, one of the six, was on This Week on ABC and asked some questions and did not have any examples of any illegal orders. I don't think anybody else has, but her defense of why they did it involved a reference to Nuremberg and the movie A Few Good Men. And somehow she made an argument which is funnier if you actually hear her say it that the existence of Nuremberg and the existence of that movie are somehow support them making that video. I'm not even going to try to explain that argument. It's so stupid. It's just funny.

All right, that was funny. And when asked if she believed that Trump had issued any illegal orders, she did the to my knowledge, I'm not aware of things that are illegal. And now one of the seditious six, Representative Jason Crow, now he's saying that he's got a problem because he's getting death threats and bomb threats from what I imagine would be people who are on the other side of the political aisle. And he says it's very disturbing stuff. When you have the president of the United States threatening to execute and to hang and arrest using this rhetoric, people listen to it.

Well, he's not wrong, is he? He's not wrong. I mean, I think he had an example that he played and stuff. So yes, if the president of the United States, be it Trump or be it Biden, says something like, you know, these other group of people are bad people. Whoever it is, you're going to give some nuts who's going to take a shot at him. So did this create a super dangerous situation for these six Democrats? Yes, it did. But was this situation going to create itself? No. Was this situation something that Trump dreamed up? Was Trump sitting at home in his boxers in the White House and thinking, I've got an idea. If I can just trick them into making a video that doesn't need to be made, then I can say that anybody who would do that should be hung and then some crazy person will go hurt them. Do you think that happened?

Or do you think Democrats created a situation that absolutely did not need to be created by making the video in the first place and accusing the person that maybe some of you voted for of being a fascist dictator authoritarian? Which one of those created the situation? Representative Jason Crow, I will give you Trump worsened it. Can we agree on that? I'll give you that. Trump worsened it. But who created it? Who created the situation that just didn't need to exist? Was it the video that six people created that didn't need to be made to tell people what they already knew and offered absolutely nothing except the opportunity for Trump to, all it did was create an opportunity for Trump to say these people should be hung even though he didn't say that about them specifically technically. People connected the dots and assumed that that's what he's telling.

So I'll give you that. I will give you that. Democrats. Trump worsened the situation. He didn't create it. You're going to have to own creating it. But as a supporter of the president, I will own worsened it. I will own that. All right. And by the way, I'm not in favor of it in case I need to say that clearly. Not in favor of that level of rhetoric. But I accept that it happened and it happened on my side. Is that okay? I accept that I'm on the side where that happened and that I have some responsibility for it, don't I? Wouldn't you agree as a member of a team, certainly a longtime supporter of the president. I have some responsibility for that. And I'm going to take my responsibility right now, which is maybe it's time to back off on that a little bit. Yeah, maybe just a little bit. Back off on that. Yeah, we don't want to be killing anybody for their political opinions.

Not all of you will agree with this. I get that. And by the way, I accept that too. I accept that some of you are not going to agree that there should be any softening of that position. But do you really want your elected representatives to be hung over a dumb video that obviously they were just not clever enough to know how this would turn out? I don't know that that feels like I would not be benefited by that in any way, but the country would be harmed by it. So no, I don't want to see anybody hung over their political speech, even if it's pretty raw like that was. That was pretty raw on both of their parts really.

Well, Zohran Mamdani was on one of the weekend shows and he was asked if he thinks Trump is a fascist. Remember that's the same question he was asked when he was in the Oval Office. And he didn't get to answer it, but he answered it on TV and he said basically yes. He said, "That's something that I've said in the past and I say it today." All right. So I will give him credit that Mamdani has not backed off from saying that Trump is a fascist. He's doubling down.

But does that make sense when you also know that they had something like a productive conversation about affordability and they think they can work together to get that done? Does that make sense? Does that compute in your brain that he says he's a fascist, but apparently he can work with him on getting affordability because you know who's really good on affordability is the fascists. So kind of weird. I feel as though you could criticize Zohran for working with fascists. So the next question I'd ask him is, Zohran, do you think it's okay to work with a fascist? Because he just said yes.

So is the thing that really happened, maybe the only thing that really happened is that the word fascist just turned into a non-word because Trump actually joked about it in the Oval Office. He said, "You could just say yes. Just say yes is easier." Like Trump wasn't even denying the fascist thing. It's so harmless now. It's so overused and you know it's overused without real evidence of anything that looks at least in my opinion in that category. So it could be that we're watching that word become completely disarmed partly by Trump saying ah you could just say yes just say I'm a fascist it doesn't matter. And then again by Zohran who agrees that it's an accurate word but he can work with him. Well, if you can work with him, it can't be that bad, can it? It just makes the word look ridiculous. So maybe that's a step ahead.

Zero Hedge has got an article today that since 2008 the US gas pipelines have been booming. Now that's the pipelines, you know, the physical pipelines. And I didn't know this, but apparently even long before the Trump administration, even before the first one, the pipeline boom was begun. And now we're seeing a lot of it having been built out. So we're going to see sort of the benefit of it under the second Trump administration. But if you wondered how's the US doing in the energy business, the answer is really good. Really good. So the regions, what region? Sort of the Oklahoma Gulf Coast region is going to get a big boost in capacity very soon. Good news. Anything that's good for your country's energy situation, probably good for your country.

I didn't know this was happening, but apparently there was some big I think maybe a 30 nation climate summit that was in the Amazon. I don't know if they found their way out. That's funny just to imagine that they all went in there and they couldn't find their way out. No, they could find a way out. But Breitbart is writing about this and I didn't know about it probably because the US had not participated. So Trump said no thank you. We don't need to be part of this climate summit. But was that a mistake not being part of the climate summit? Let's see what group of political people in this country would have said we should have gone to the climate summit. Well, I think that would be Democrats. Am I right? If Democrats had been in charge, don't you think the US would have gone to the climate summit? Yeah, we would have. And then we would have been part of their amazing accomplishments.

You know, I keep saying that Democrats do useless things like doing videos telling the military things the military already knows. A lot of useless things. But this one, oh no, this was useful. It was all these countries, they went into the Amazon and then they said important things and it took days and days, but finally when they gave out, they had applause because they had done something useful. Let's see. What was that? What was the useful thing they did? Oh, I guess they agreed to quote voluntarily accelerate their climate actions. No specific goals. No specific end points and no definition of accelerate. So that was useful, wasn't it?

You're seeing the pattern, right? It's not my imagination. The pattern is pretty clear. This was completely a waste of time because it changed nothing. And Trump was smart enough to say t