ated the people who were in charge of it that all of a sudden it wasn't hard to find out who it was? Have you been amazed that this is the one guy they can't find? They're finding all these grandmothers from the January 6 event, but they can't find this guy despite all of the video of him. And really, you know, you could show one toenail of one of the January 6 people and our technology would say, "Oh, I know that toenail. That toenail belongs to..." And then we'd put him in jail. That's the old way. They did not belong in jail. But that's what would have happened. But no, this guy was a total mystery.

So I'm going to say that I do not believe the FBI couldn't find him. I'm going to be firmly in the camp that doesn't know for sure, right? Don't know for sure, not 100%. But my working assumption is that the FBI was corrupt and the people that were removed from the job were more likely intentionally avoiding catching him for whatever reason rather than incompetence or inability.

It gets even weirder because apparently he works as a bail bondsman and it's a family business. So his father owns a bail bondsman business. Must be doing pretty well because it looked like the house that this guy lives in is a high-end house. And I don't believe you get a high-end house because you're just an employee of a bail bondsman, but you might have one if you live with your parents. So I don't know for sure, but I would guess probably living at his parents' home.

Now, if you lived at your parents' home and your dad was a bail bondsman, which means he has some kind of affinity for or connection to the law enforcement world, do you think his father didn't recognize the video of his son walking around with that hoodie and those sneakers? Do you think you wouldn't recognize your own son if you saw them wearing the clothes that they probably wear at home? You don't think you'd recognize that? So I have some questions for dad.

Is this, you know, if I found out tomorrow that he didn't wear those clothes ever at home or that he knew that he would be recognized if he wore his own clothes and he had these only for the purpose of disguise, which is possible, by the way. Well, then I would say, well, even your father wouldn't recognize you under those conditions because his face was completely concealed. But I feel like you would recognize your own progeny, you know, the way they walk and especially the footwear.

Anyway, I got the bail bondsman thing from Grok, so if it's hallucinating, you've been warned.

All right. Do you know Tim Burchett? He's a Republican representative from Tennessee. Apparently, he has asked President Trump to cut off all funding for the NGOs, the non-government organizations that have often been accused of being giant money laundering fraudulent entities. He says that he wants Trump to cut off all funding to the NGOs until they can figure out where all the money is actually going because a lot of it is going into people's pockets. And it appears to most of us now, thanks to the good work of Elon Musk and DOGE, we finally learned that there's a gigantic mechanism for taking your tax money out of your pocket and putting it in the pocket of strangers while pretending to feed the poor. And this is not a small operation. We're talking billions of dollars.

You know, I've told you I've been puzzled by how we could have such a big deficit because it kind of happened fast, didn't it? I mean, even if you allowed that the pandemic made things worse, didn't it seem like we sort of instantly got to this impossible place where we couldn't pay our debts? And I have to admit from the beginning I've been thinking is somebody just stealing it. But it seemed like the numbers were so big that nobody could steal that much money. I mean you can't steal a trillion dollars a year. And now I believe you could. I believe you literally could steal a trillion dollars a year with this NGO mechanism because any one entity might be getting a billion here, a billion there, but there are thousands of them. Just thousands of them. Yeah, you could steal a trillion dollars if you really worked at it. And apparently they were working pretty hard.

So I have a generally good feeling about Tim Burchett, meaning that he seems like a good patriot who wants to do the right thing. And I don't think that he's robbing anybody. So he wouldn't have anything necessarily that he needs to cover up. He'd be hard to blackmail. I doubt he's got a love child somewhere or something. So you need somebody who can't be blackmailed, who's clearly a patriot, and has a real interest in going after something like this. Does that include somebody like Tim? I think yes. You know, I've seen enough of him that I trust him. I mean, it's just a feeling, you know, nobody can know for sure what's in somebody's soul, but he looks pretty trustworthy to me. So I think that would be worth a shot.

Well, as Bjorn Lomborg often says, if you don't know who he is, you should. He's some call him an economist, but I don't know if he would call himself that, but he's taught us to look at both the costs and the benefits of climate change. He does other things as well, but he's well known for that. Meaning that climate change might in fact make some things worse, but we always ignore how much better it makes things. And he gives us his latest example, I think he's got an article in the Wall Street Journal, that the hurricane season, which apparently is over, had no hurricanes hit landfall in the United States. And probably climate change has something to do with that. So if you were to actually be honest about your climate change analysis, which is what Bjorn Lomborg is teaching us to do, you would say, well, I mean, you have to include even if you imagine climate change ruined some parts of the world eventually, you'd have to add in that it did save us a hurricane or two if in fact that becomes a pattern. It's not yet a pattern but if it becomes one we should say hey maybe this climate change has as much good as bad would be the proper way to approach the analysis. No matter which way it ended up that would be the way to go.

Scott, blame it on... Okay, I don't know what that means. I'm looking at your comments. So we're still talking about the allegation that Pete Hegseth ordered a double tap attack on the narco boat, meaning that there were a few survivors from the first missile, but a second missile was dispatched to take care of the survivors and get rid of the weapon of mass destruction. That would be the drugs that were on the boat. But so the Wall Street Journal had one version of events, but it's been debunked by ABC News, the New York Times. So the Washington Post, I think I said that wrong. Scratch that. The Washington Post had the story that appears to be that Hegseth somehow was watching the attack and ordered the second missile and then they're acting like that would have been a war crime.

Well, let's ask somebody who actually knows what they're talking about. So apparently an individual named David who is a former deputy director and acting director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in the Obama administration. So this is important. He's an Obama guy who says, quote, we use double taps all the time. He said, you would get the initial signature sign off of a target that's been hit. He said in a podcast recently, "And if you saw that they squirted, I guess that must be some military term, and were injured, you hit them again." In fact, he said there was often a second predator that would be a missile ready to go. Wait, is a predator a drone or a missile? And for our purposes, it doesn't matter. In fact, he said there's often a second predator ready to go that was fully expected to be used if he didn't have a 100% coming out of the first hit and maybe a third hit, adding that it was done routinely and there was bipartisan support on the Hill for doing it.

Isn't that enough? Isn't it a drone? People are saying so the predator is a drone. But isn't it enough that somebody who would be in that position who knows exactly what is real and what isn't, who's actually been in the field, who's actually ordered attacks. If that person says it was routine, is there anything else to talk about? You know, the people who are acting like it's a war crime are just idiot Democrats who sit behind desks. I don't know that there's any military people who think it's a war crime.

Anyway, apparently Secretary Hegseth has asked the Navy admiral who was overseeing those operations in the Caribbean to step down because that officer had voiced concerns about what he called the murky legality of the attacks. Do you think that if there had been some other president, do you think that this admiral would have had that problem? Given that we do know with high certainty that it was routine to have a double tap and even a triple tap if needed, do you think that this Navy admiral didn't know that? And do you think that if Obama had been president or if nobody had even brought this up as a potential issue? If nobody had ever brought it up, would he be worried about its murky legality? I don't think so. So was this a good firing? Yeah. Yeah. I think that was a good firing.

All right. So well, he's not really fired fired. He's just going to retire a couple years early. Which is fair. I mean, he did. It's not like he committed a crime or something. So a little bit of early retirement seems appropriate. I wouldn't take anything away from him.

Let's look at Minnesota for a moment. So I guess the speaker of whatever their political situation is, Speaker Demuth, talked about the budget forecast and that they're going to be short $3 billion. So there's going to be a $3 billion deficit in Minnesota. And Speaker Demuth said, quote, "Last year, Governor Walz blamed increases in social services spending as the main driver of the deficit that was created. We now know that much of the increase was the result of fraud." Yep.

As I've been saying, in 100% of situations where there's a lot of money involved and people are not watching it carefully, as in having a robust auditing situation, which most of the government stuff does not have a robust auditing situation, that the inevitable outcome, inevitable. You can't stop it if you wanted to. If you have lots of money involved and nobody's watching it in the sense of an audit, of course it's going to be stolen. Of course it is. It's not ever going to go a different direction. There's one way that goes. Somebody steals it. And that's probably what's happening.

But at least New York State doesn't have any problems. Oh, wait. Apparently, Governor Hochul when she was lieutenant governor had an aide or an assistant who worked as a... No, actually it was a Chinese spy who was working as the deputy chief diversity officer. Now, that's a bad combination. Here are two things you never want. Number one, you don't want anybody on your staff who later turns out to be a Chinese spy. That by itself would be bad enough. The second thing you don't want is a chief diversity officer. And God knows you don't want a deputy chief diversity officer because that's two more than you really needed. So this Chinese spy was the worst possible combination. Chinese spy and diversity officer.

And she held that role since 2018 I guess to 2020. And she said in some kind of document that was recovered that Hochul was sort of easy to manipulate, but it looked like the only thing that Hochul did that was sketchy was do some pro-China video that she was asked to do for the 2021 Lunar New Year. So Elise Stefanik, who's running for governor, I guess, pointed out yeah, that Governor Hochul got co-opted by a Chinese spy to do a pro-Chinese video. That's not the most damaging thing that could have happened. I think Hochul just thought she was servicing the Chinese American part of her constituents, which wouldn't be a crime. So none of it looks like a crime per se, but it doesn't look good. Doesn't look good.

It makes you wonder how many Chinese spies have we not caught. You ever wonder about that? You know, I have this theory that most shoe salesmen, if they're selling women's shoes, that they have foot fetishes. And the reason is that someone with a foot fetish would be willing to work extra hard for less money because they're getting that secondary benefit from being a shoe salesman if you know what I mean. You know what I mean? So that over time the people wh