are the odds that in a world where everything else is corrupt, our elections are the one thing that are not? And that we have electronic voting machines for no reason. No reason. They're not faster, cheaper, easier. In fact, they're worse on everything as far as I can tell. I'd be willing to be corrected on that, but they appear to be worse at everything except what would be the one thing the electronic voting machines would be better at? Cheating. Cheating. That doesn't mean that's what they're used for, but I can't think of any other reason they would even exist unless you want to use them for cheating.

So that doesn't mean American elections were cheated, but the odds that we had used them or had or somebody had used them to cheat in some other election somewhere else, well, again, to imagine that it hadn't happened would be a pretty big stretch. And to me, it just seems obvious. It just seems super obvious that you just wouldn't even have these machines. We wouldn't even be having the conversation about keeping them unless somebody saw some advantage that they can't say out loud.

Are you at all convinced by the fact that nobody who wants to keep electronic voting machines has ever given a reason why to keep them? Nobody. Right. If you can find it, send it to me. Send me the article where there's some country or some election entity who says, "Oh, no. We want the machines because the machines are better for this reason." What is that reason? If you've ever seen them even claim a reason, show it to me. I believe that nobody even tries to make an argument because what are they going to say? It's cheaper. It's not. It's more reliable. It's not. It's faster. It's not. Sort of the dog not barking, wouldn't you say?

So again, I have no specific knowledge of anything that was any rigged elections. I just look at it and I say, I don't know how they could not be rigged.

The Trump administration is debuting what they're calling their fentanyl free America plan. So I guess that would be a variety of actions all aimed at reducing the fentanyl risk. So they're going to try to work on the demand as well as the supply. So the supply part is you know blowing up the narco ships and Trump is teasing and I think is somewhat serious about going in on the ground in Venezuela and maybe other places. But one thing I learned today is that the fentanyl in the US may be largely controlled by the Hells Angels in Canada. So I guess the Hells Angels in Canada are sitting somewhere in that distribution. And that's not the biggest surprise in the world, but it does suggest that we have a way to deal with it because it wouldn't be hard to figure out who's in the Hells Angels and it probably wouldn't be that hard because they're not the most technologically sophisticated. So I would think that we could penetrate their communications fairly easily. And maybe that'll make a difference.

But you know there's one thing that maybe I could help on which is the demand part. Now if you didn't know this most of the people who take fentanyl I think most 29% of fentanyl pills contained a potential lethal dose. Jesus. A significant drop from 76% of pills tested two years ago. Wow. But if you didn't know it, fentanyl is often in pills that are sold as not being fentanyl. So if you bought a Xanax, for example, on the street, it might look exactly like a Xanax, and it may have been made in a pill machine to look exactly like Xanax, but it might actually have fentanyl in it. So that's the big risk. When people know they're taking fentanyl, they either are experienced at it, which reduces the odds of them overdosing quite a bit. The people who are experienced. But if you're not experienced and you don't know what's in the pill, you're in trouble.

My guess is that's what got my stepson. He probably didn't know it was in the pill because he never would have taken a fentanyl pill. I mean, he told me that directly. He would have considered that insane to take a pill that he knew was fentanyl. He wouldn't do it. But he did take a pill and it must have had some fentanyl in it. And that was not something that he could say no to apparently.

So I was thinking is there any kind of messaging that would reduce the chance that somebody would take a pill that might have fentanyl in it but you don't know? And I don't have an answer for it, but I'm going to test this out with you. Don't be a gullible fentanyl victim. Now, this is not a refined message. This is just first draft. So I don't know if this is a good idea, but let me tell you the thinking. Nobody wants to be gullible. If I said to you, don't be a drug addict. I can tell you from lots of life experience that people will say, well, sorry, I am a drug addict. I am. So that they'll just say I am a drug addict. It wouldn't stop them from taking a pill. But if you said that you're a gullible fentanyl victim, nobody wants to be gullible. So even people who are drug addicts, they like to think that they know what they're doing. Nobody wants to be thought of as gullible. So if you say instead of you're a victim or you're a drug addict, those two things don't motivate anybody. But if I said to you, damn, you're gullible. Seriously, you took a pill that could have had fentanyl and you just believe the person who told you it doesn't have it. That's gullible. So gullible is something that people will actually try not to be. But drug addict, once they are a drug addict, they kind of live with it. It just becomes who they are. But I think gullible is a powerful word. There's no way to know without testing it. But that's the sort of thing that could reduce demand. Yeah, don't be a sucker. But I think gullible maybe even better than sucker. Yeah, sucker is not bad, but I think gullible is worse. All right, works for you.

All right. Remember, you know, it might seem to you like this is not a powerful thing, but those of you who saw what happened when I started saying that alcohol is poison, it was just one word, poison. And apparently some hundreds of people that watch this show cut down or completely stopped alcohol because of one sentence. Alcohol is poison. So I'm not sure if don't be gullible is that strong, but it could be. It could be that strong.

All right. Rand Paul's pushing back on the Venezuelan narco boat attacks. Now, I often say this about Rand and I say this about Thomas Massie as well. When they disagree with me or they disagree with a policy that I think is a good policy, I don't say to myself, you idiots or you selfish guys or I don't say that. I say these are smart people and they do mean well and they do want what's best for the country. If they have a different opinion on stuff, I stop and listen. I might still disagree as I do with Rand Paul on this topic, but I have complete respect for the fact that they're willing to present a sincere and well expressed alternate view. That is really useful even if you disagree because you know what you'r