an unlimited number of people who live in the building or allegedly live in the building, you can vouch that they are legally allowed to vote even if they don't have ID. So in other words, if I understand this correctly, the janitor of a big building could vouch for every person in the building even if every one of them had been illegal. And that's actually a written law in Minnesota. It's a law. Now, when that law got passed, what was anybody thinking? How in the world? Yeah, there's some paperwork to vouch. How in the world did anybody think that was for anything but cheating in the election? What would be the other reason? You know, usually the Democrats say, "Well, we don't want to suppress voting, so we want to make it easy to vote." There's no way. There's no way that that particular law was to stop suppression of voting. That was purely to make it easier to cheat. I would say you can't say that any other way.

Well, are any other states or cities having problems with fraud? Oh, surprise. Real Clear Investigations says that there was some guy, a city official in Austin who had given a bunch of fake contracts to friends that were fairly gigantic, had been doing it for a while. So let's see how much he got. He was using the city credit card which he was allowed to use for city services but instead of doing city services he used it to pay 30 different vendors but the city auditor could only verify that eight of them were even real companies. And of the real companies do you think those are relatives too or people who gave them kickbacks? So most of the money or a lot of it went to places that appeared to be fake. At the same time, the guy who was doing this was earning over half a million dollars a year in salary. So he was overpaid and he was just massively doling out the city credit card to his presumably fraudster friends.

Now, how long ago was the first time you heard me say this? That all local government is criminal. All local government is criminal. And the reason is this because there's always somebody who's in charge of who gets the money and there's never enough audits or security to stop it from happening fraudulently. So again, a lot of money involved, people involved, time goes by, poor auditing procedures. Was this predictable? Yes. If you took a dart and threw it at a map of the United States and hit any city, you don't think this is happening anywhere else? I'll bet some form of this, maybe not as bad, but I'll bet you some form of this is 100% in every city. 100%. Because whoever has the wallet will be just infinitely approached by people who say, you know, if I got a little bit of what's in that city wallet, I'll bet you a lot of people would donate to your campaign. There's no way this system could produce. If you saw it on paper, if somebody said, "We've never had a city before, but we're going to invent a thing called a city, and here's how it will be run." And you simply just drew on paper who has the control, who's watching it, how money flows, how money is allocated. Anybody smart would know that that was a setup for fraud. So the cities are designed in a way that guarantees fraud, guarantees it. And sure enough, that's what we see.

Well, here's a story about further layoffs in the media world. According to The Wrap, entertainment and media layoffs are up 18%. And 17,000 jobs were slashed in 2025. Now what they mostly mean is the traditional media. So there have been some mergers and cutbacks and stuff. So the traditional media took a hit, but I would argue that that's not the bad news it looks like because the independent journalists and the independent media and I would be part of the independence vastly increased. So it's not really a story about less media employees. It's more a story about less traditional fake news stuff we don't want to see media and way way way more Nick Shattles and Scott Adams's and people who are doing a show independently. So I think that is an evolution, not some kind of a problem. And I love the fact that the jobs that are being created are being created by the people creating them. So it's not like a boss had to create a company that hired people. It's more like people like me said, "What happens if I turn this camera on and start talking? Can I monetize that?" Yep. Turns out I can.

Well, according to SciPost, Karina Petrova, there's a study that says that shocking headlines make people skeptical, but that over time they come to believe the thing that was the shocking headline. Does that surprise you? So the idea is when you first see like a headline that says shocking thing happened here or there and then you read it, you go like, well, you know, I don't know, I'm not sure that's true. Yeah, everybody says everything's shocking. So you automatically put some critical thinking on a headline that just seems a little overdone, but then over time you forget where you saw the headline and you start thinking it must be a fact. So you remember the story, but you won't remember your initial skepticism. So it makes it believable over time. I think probably only if you hear it repeated.

All right. We talked about this before, but this just blows my mind. So San Francisco, a city you would associate with being lax on crime, right? So San Francisco, most people would agree left and right that they would be soft on crime compared to other places. But despite being soft on crime, apparently they have this license plate reading technology called Flock, F-L-O-C-K, and it can read license plates and they've got about 500 of them in major roadways in San Francisco, around San Francisco, and that it's centralized. It must be in other cities too. So they have a centralized nationwide database of more than 1 billion license plate reads each month. Now they're being sued by someone who doesn't want them to be able to track you if there's no warrant. So if there's no reason to track you, at least one individual is suing because he says that should only be they should only track you if they have a warrant and these are warrantless. So apparently you can in most cases you could track a car in San Francisco from wherever it starts to wherever it ends up. How comfortable are you with that? Because remember it's tracking everyone.

Well, how in the world do you stop people from tracking their spouse? Don't you think that every engineer who has access to this thing is already tracking their ex? Find out where their ex goes when they go to work. Probably this would put an end to cheating. But it's weird that the most lenient city would be doing this of all things. Now so far all I know about it is it tracks license plates. I don't believe it does facial recognition, but it would be easy to add it. And I don't believe it has a full AI capability, although obviously that would be coming. So if you take a 500 camera system and you can track license plates, you can track faces which I just assume is coming and you can use AI to make it identify and flag things. You have created quite a monster. That is a monster where you're not going to know where does that end up like how bad will that become you know if they do it gradually like well it's just license plates then it doesn't seem as scary but once you realize there's nothing to stop them really from adding facial recognition and AI what in the world could that become I don't know.

So we always talk about this California wealth tax where they're floating the idea in California that some billionaires would have to give up 1% of their wealth per year for five years. So in the end 5% of their wealth would be taken in taxes apparently. I didn't know this but even Gavin Newsom opposes it but Bill Ackman so it might not happen because you know if the governor opposes it he could veto it. Bill Ackman warns that no one would stay if California implements a wealth tax. Now, we've already seen some billionaires in California state t