orld. So if you looked at the Minnesota fraud and let's say you heard a report that there were some fraudulent children's charities you would say to yourself well you know it happens. They should go to jail. But you would think it would be isolated.

But what really is happening is this. It's an immense diversified machine in which you can't even keep track of how many frauds there are within the larger scope of things.

Now I would argue that the pandemic had that same quality that if you looked at the individual bad actors you would notice that there were people lying and maybe people doing things for money etc. But you wouldn't necessarily see the scope of it. The scope of it was unbelievable. And also unbelievable. I said it twice because it mattered. You wouldn't. That's the problem I had in the beginning of the pandemic. I would hear reports of let's say data that was ignored and I would say yeah that can happen. Data is ignored. Somebody would say this study was suppressed and I'd say yeah yeah things happen. A study could get suppressed. But my brain was at the time incapable of imagining the vast scope of the fraud.

Did you have the same issue? You could tell that something was wrong and you could see the buckets of the wrongness but you just couldn't wrap your head around how big it was. Now that's the same as these NGO frauds. You really couldn't wrap your head around how big it was and therefore you were frozen into inaction.

Well back to David Strom's point. Remember how there were many many claims of election irregularity and I would hear them and I'm guilty. That's totally guilty. And I would hear a claim and I would say yeah yeah maybe that really did happen. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but it was in this little bucket. Then you hear another one. You say all right well there's more than one. It's in this little bucket. But it wasn't until maybe this year that we could understand that all the different ways that the election was, I think, rigged in my opinion that you would never be able to put your head around how massive the attempt of rigging was. And so you can't deal with it. So you default to well it happens. It's in a little bucket. If we catch people doing things we'll try to take them to court. But it's not really about the whole system. It is the whole system.

So there needs to be a name for these gigantic frauds that we can't recognize because we're only seeing the tree and we're not seeing the forest. Oh wait. We already have that. All it is is another one of those. You can't see the forest for the trees. So you look at a tree, you're like well you know it kind of sucks that that tree is unhealthy. Hey who cut down that tree? But if you're looking at the tree you're missing that it's the forest. That might be a big deal.

So my prediction for 2026 is that our understanding of the size of the election fraud and we might be finding this out through ActBlue for example is enormous. We might find out that it's not a coincidence that electronic voting machines are used in battleground states. That might not be a coincidence.

It could be that one of the benefits that Trump will get out of attacking Venezuela brought you up the wrong tree. It could be that we'll learn if something changes in the leadership of Venezuela. Imagine a new leader going in and then imagine Trump saying all right we helped install you. We are going to be your friend. We'll help you rebuild Venezuela. But you're going to have to tell us, did your guys or any Venezuelans have anything to do with rigging our systems? And then maybe we'll find out.

So prediction, this will be the year we find out that the election was more than the trees, that it was about the whole forest. Well 2026 just started out interesting.

Trump posted a meme that said we're entering the golden age and also separately that the hunter be the hunted becomes the hunter. So those are two big themes for 2026.

How many of you think I had anything to do with those two things? Because I've been saying for a while that we would be entering the golden age but then the pandemic blew that off track. And I've been saying for a while that Republicans would be hunted if Biden had won the election. And sure enough they were hunted. January 6, etc.

Oh, add January 6 to the list of things that were too big to understand. Yeah, the whole January 6 insurrection hoax it's just bigger than we could imagine it could be a hoax but that's what made it invisible. Yeah. The scale of that hoax when in fact the real insurrection was Democrats trying to remove Trump. But they did such a good job of creating this fake January 6 select committee and hunting down all the people that they took a thing that they reversed it essentially. They reversed reality because at the time they had the power to do that. They were the insurrectionists.

And the best way they could cover up for the fact that they were the insurrectionists is by accusing the other side of being the insurrectionists. And that's what they did almost successfully.

Well believe it or not, time for a sip. Yeah, the J6 thing was professionally produced. That's another hint that it wasn't based on facts.

Well amazingly, PG&E, the power company here in California, is for the fourth time in two years going to lower the rates. So apparently they pulled a bunch of moves that allowed them to lower the rates. So good for them. I was not aware of that but it will allow Governor Newsom to say that he lowered costs.

Now as far as I know Newsom had nothing to do with the fact that PG&E lowered their costs but whoever's in charge always gets the blame. Whoever's in charge always gets the credit. And if Californians think or even if he runs nationally he's going to be able to say he lowered rates and there's no indication that anybody but PG&E was behind the lowering of the rates but I'm glad they did. It's not a huge amount of money. So but it's just now up. It seems like a big deal if it just doesn't go up.

New York Post is reporting that a court has ruled in favor of the Second Amendment and open carry in California. So I guess there was a law limiting open carry of firearms and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by 2 to 1 said that was too unconstitutional.

Am I wrong in thinking that the Ninth Circuit is usually liberal leaning? That's true, right? I don't really follow the courts that much but can you confirm this in the comments that the Ninth Circuit usually is left leaning? Is that true?

Anyway so it surprised me that they got a 2 to 1 ruling in favor of the Second Amendment I would say.

All right. I'm going to file this next story under it is true. Okay I'm getting confirmation. Thank you. Yep. Well it was sort of a surprise.

Did you know Newsmax is reporting this that the Department of Justice I think you knew this part has requested Minnesota and I think 21 states in total. They look like they're all lefty states. I think they're all blue states. I'm just looking at it quickly. Either all or most are blue states. But they've been asked by the Trump administration to produce voting records because we want to see if there are any fake voters on the rolls.

What do you think happens when you ask for voting records? Oh by the way I forgot to tell you that ActBlue they changed their accounting so you can't tell what they were doing. So as soon as ActBlue was investigated they immediately changed how they record things so they wouldn't be able to tell if they're up to anything bad. Now that's pretty on the nose, isn't it? Yeah.

By the way Marcella reminded me that the on the nose thing is something I use a lot. On the nose. So that would certainly suggest a possibility of guilt.

But what do you think is going to happen when the states are asked quite reasonably to produce records that show that their voters are real eligible voters? Well we don't know yet but they have 15 days to produce it. And I'm going to guess it will be less produced than the Epstein files. I do not think they'll produce it. I think they will do everything they can to lose the records.

You know maybe what will really happen is they'll say oh we lost those records. All 21 states are going to suddenly have a problem. Oh yeah we had those records but yeah they weren't backed up. But what I don't expect to happen is that the federal government will get the records. And why? Well obviously. Why? Because it's fraudulent. Obviously.

So I don't think there's any other way this could go. There's no way they're going to give them records that prove that their voters are not real, right? There isn't any chance that they'll do that. So they're either going to fight it infinitely in court or they're going to have a water leak or something. But we're not gonna see this.

Here's a weird story. I talk about this a lot lately but you know the defense company called Anduril that Palmer Luckey is the head of apparently he's made the claim that Anduril has some kind of technology called Anduril's Seabed Sentry. And he says, and I quote, I swear I'm not making this up. He said I can know where all the whales are, the submarines, boats, where all the divers are. Do you believe that?

Do you believe that he has in place technology that can identify where all the whales are and all the boats? Wouldn't that make it? He also says submarines. Now obviously there's a great military value to that but here's my question. Are submarines stealthy enough that we or anybody else could make one that's invisible to this technology? Or can he see everything?

And if he can see everything does that mean we already know that there are no alien bases under the ocean? Because I don't believe he believes there are alien bases. Maybe one of the reasons he doesn't believe it is that he can see everything under the ocean and if any alien craft had entered he would have seen it. Is that possible? Oh that's a really interesting little story.

Well the Washington Examiner, Naomi Lim, is writing about how the midterms usually go to the party that's not in power. And Trump has questioned why that happens. Why does the other side almost always, not always but almost always, how do they almost always win the midterm? And I don't know if we know the answer to that exactly. It might be psychological. It might be because people only cared about the head of the ticket and if there's no presidential race you know the devoted people don't show up. Is that it? Might be some combination of things.

But here's the interesting part. So his chief of staff Susie Wiles who gets a lot of credit for being smart they say they want to put Trump on the ballot you know in the conceptual way not the actual way. And her thinking is that the Democrats are going to put him on the ballot by just saying you know you have to thwart him or defeat him because he's still president. And the best way to do that would be to elect a bunch of Democrats in Congress.

So Susie says she wants to put Trump on the ballot. I think she said she hasn't told Trump yet but what she wants is for Trump to campaign like he is on the ballot but you know he'd be campaigning for surrogates and proxies and stuff. That will probably happen.

But in this story was a little piece of data that I think was contradicted later in the story but I'd never heard this before. That people will vote for who they think understands their problem not who has the best solution. Have you ever heard that? It's the first time I've ever heard that. And I question whether that's true.

But even if the Republicans came up with a great plan if they didn't show that they really cared or really understood let's say affordability. So you could argue that if Trump does a great job on affordability it wouldn't matter to the midterms partly because that would be in the rearview mirror by the time it happened. Right? So people don't vote for the past. They vote for do you understand what I care about as their way of understanding whether something would be done about it.

So at the moment the Democrats were doing a better job of acting like affordability is the main thing that would beat the Republican plan of saying oh we did a good job on energy and eggs and a few other things. So that would be a winning position.

So can Trump reverse that? Can he show enough empathy and enough of a plan going forward such as healthcare? Also in the article was the idea that if the Republicans don't have a healthcare plan, any kind of healthcare plan or one that doesn't sound good, they can't win because that would show a lack of empathy.

The Democrats still have the option of saying we understand your pain. You know we're going to do something about it and what we're going to do about it is throw massive amounts of money at it and you know that'll fix it. Now if you're a voter you say to yourself oh I don't like overspending. But if they can immediately solve my problem and they immediately understand it which is what it would sound like that's a winning play, winning proposition.

So at the very least Trump would have to have a Republican plan that doesn't sound bad or crazy and he would have to show that even though he got a few victories on affordability that he has so much more to do. So if he can sell both of those ideas, we have so much more to do. It's a top priority. I totally understand why you want more affordability. You know we're going to make it happen. Here's one of the things we're going to do for healthcare. But short of that the Republicans have a lossy path.

All right. I saw this quote today from Elon Musk once again always in the news. He thinks that Neuralink, the chip you put in people's heads, in the future there's nothing physically to stop them from being able to restore full bodily function. So in other words if you had let's say a break in your spinal cord at the moment there's nothing we can do about it. But if you had a Neuralink chip, not yet. Not yet. They can't do it yet. But in the future it will be able to bypass the disturbance in your existing nerves and just send the signal t