oing to take some calls at the end of some comments here. So if you have some questions, you might want to be thinking about them. I'll take questions on anything today. Yeah, anything at all.

So let's talk about what's new. So it turns out that North Korea is trying to interfere with American elections. Here's my question to you. What country is not interfering with American elections? Quick, name a country that's not interfering with American elections.

I mean, North Korea clearly has. They just made some comments about Joe Biden. Israel obviously has. They're naming stuff after Trump. I mean, when Israel starts naming things in Israel after your president, they kind of want that guy to get reelected. Or that woman, depending on the time.

So Venezuela is affecting U.S. elections probably more than any other country, and they're not even trying. Simply by being Venezuela. Venezuela just sits there being Venezuela. That's probably going to have more impact on it than Facebook, just by this example.

What about China? China's definitely interfering with our election. They might not be trying to do it, but everything about how they act is having an effect on our elections. So I'm starting to think maybe we should just get rid of this fiction about other countries interfering with your elections and just embrace the fact that all of our elections are international affairs now.

I'm not completely serious, but the point is you can't really turn off the impact from other countries. Yes, maybe not in Slovenia, as somebody's saying in here, but the big countries.

Let's talk about another big country. Iran. Oh, let's talk about China first. So I was watching the, I think he was the Chinese ambassador, being interviewed on I forget which network. And the Chinese ambassador was answering questions about potential bad actions by China. And I've never seen a worse ambassador. How in the world does that guy keep his job? He was just the worst.

If you ever get a chance to see the Chinese ambassador to the United States on TV, you have to watch it just to watch how bad he is. Now, a question I have is whether all I'm saying is some kind of a social cultural difference. Because the way he answers questions looks exactly like he's lying.

And by the way, somebody's saying I should do it closer. So specifically he was asked about Huawei, if I'm pronouncing it correctly, the Chinese telecom company that the U.S. is saying if you install their equipment they'll spy on all your traffic. And listening to the Chinese ambassador try to explain that away, it really looked like he was confirming everything about them. Because his denial was so transparently wrong for Western ears that I wondered what I was even listening to.

And so here's my question. Was it a cultural difference? Because if you ask somebody from the United States, "Hey, is your company putting spy equipment in all of your telecommunications?" If you ask somebody from America, they will say no, that's not happening. That's a ridiculous rumor. Here's probably why it got started. But no, there's no proof to that. No, there's no evidence of that. And by the way, you know why? We invite the inspectors to come in and look at our chips and you could just tell.

So the American wouldn't answer it that way. They would go right to the facts. The Chinese ambassador simply sort of changed the subject. And I'm thinking to myself, okay, do you even know what country you're in? If you're in the United States and somebody says, "Did you murder that person?" And you say, "Well, we could talk about murder, but maybe we should talk about the weather. Why is nobody talking about the weather? Why does everybody have to talk about the murder? Why don't we talk about the weather?" If you say that in America, a hundred percent of Americans say, "Oh, okay, you're guilty. Obviously you're guilty. You didn't even answer the question. You just changed the subject."

And here's this Chinese ambassador who apparently knows nothing about America. How the hell did he get his job? I'm serious. You're probably the least qualified looking person I've ever seen in such a high profile job. He acted like he didn't know how Americans work. He answers the question in a way so damning and so confirming of Huawei's inappropriateness in our networks that I thought, how does he even stay alive? I mean, it seems like he'd be sent to one of those concentration camps.

And then he was asked about the Uighur concentration camps, at least they're being called that. And he actually with a straight face looked at the interviewer and said, no, those are just job education places. Everybody, they can come and go. Doors are open. We don't even have a lock on the gate. You could just walk in there, get some training. And of course we want them to be trained so they can be productive citizens. Why wouldn't we want them trained? Why wouldn't they want to be treated?

Now I'm paraphrasing. He didn't say it that way, but it was one of those jaw-dropping things where I said to myself, and I'm going to be fair here, Western media is so unreliable that it is possible, I'm not ruling it out, it's possible that they're actually just job training centers. Now I don't think that's true. It seems to me we probably have a pretty good idea what's going on over there. And it seems to me that they're probably just as bad as it sounds. There probably are concentration camps. I'd imagine that's true because we've seen interviews with family members of lost family members and obviously they can't go visit them. So it seems to me like the most obvious lie I've ever seen.

And so this guy goes on American TV. Again, does he even know what country he's in? Does the ambassador to the United States from China know what country he's in? Because he looks at it and goes, no, those are just job training places. And I'm thinking, I think I'm looking at Hitler. So this Chinese ambassador made me think, instead of thinking, you know, I thought he would have answered the question about the Uighur concentration camps. I thought he was going to come up with something better. You know, at least a lie that sounds like there's some gray area.

Like maybe he should have said, oh yes, they are detained there, but they've all committed some kind of a crime. We're trying to rehabilitate them. Then I was going to say that's evil enough. You know, I wasn't going to think that that was good, but still it's a concentration camp. But I thought they would at least put some kind of spin on it to make some kind of attempt to make it sound like there was some reason why maybe the coverage of it was not quite accurate. It didn't really. It was a good idea. I thought they would at least take a run at it.

And he looks right at the interviewer and says there's just job training places. You know, of course it's all voluntary. And I just thought that guy needs to be, I don't know, executed. Why? Because what he was talking about was a concentration camp and he just lied to the world about its existence. Now I suppose that's part of his job, but really China, you couldn't come up with a better cover story than that? That was pretty pathetic.

All right, enough about that. I'm just quite seriously, I don't know how he keeps his job. He could not have been worse as a spokesperson for China. What I do appreciate is that he's so bad at it that he doesn't leave any question about the facts. He confirmed every bad thing about China without trying. I thought it was the worst.

Anyway, I read about, so as you all know, President Trump has increased the sanctions on Iran. I did not realize how effectively he had increased the sanctions on Iran. Listen to this. I just found this out today. So this month the administration tightened up the sanctions so that even if you were a country we like and you were dealing with Iran, you would get sanctioned too, I guess. So we were trying to stop anybody buying Iranian oil.

Now when you hear that you say to yourself, yeah, yeah, yeah, we have a bunch of sanctions but then everybody finds a way to work around them. So if you're like me, when you heard we were putting more sanctions on Iranian oil sales, didn't you say to yourselves, yeah, that'll hurt them ten percent? Didn't you think it was something like that? Yeah, that'll squeeze them a little bit, maybe twenty percent.

Turns out since the sanctions got tightened, zero ships have been leaving Iran's oil terminals for foreign ports. Zero. We actually closed down their tankers that were selling oil to other countries to zero. Pattern or that'll last, but it certainly tells you that Iran needs to do something and do something quickly because the government is falling apart.

Now I love it. And again, I'm going to say historians will look back at this administration as the model for how to do things, even though in our current moment anything President Trump does gets tons of criticism because that's the world we live in. But historians will not have to deal with the politics of the time. They'll be able to look at it in the rearview mirror and just say whether something was good or bad, if it worked or if it didn't. And I think Trump's policy on Iran is going to be one of those lasting good examples.

Now of course we don't know how it all turns out, but the way he's setting it up is the cleanest thing I've seen so far. Here's what used to be the way we used to treat Iran. If you do things we don't like, which we know you're doing and you're always doing and you keep doing, we're going to do things that you don't like. So that was the old proposition. If you do things we don't like in a variety of different ways, we will do things you don't like in a variety of ways. And what did that get us? Iran did a variety of things we don't like and then we would do a variety of things they don't like and nothing really changed.

Trump has clarified this situation. As I understand it, the proposition is your economy will be completely obliterated. Because that's what it means when zero tankers leave your ports. If you can't get a single oil tanker out of your port, you're looking at the end of your economy. The alternative is you saw Iran try to game the system a little bit. Maybe put some missiles on ships, put a little military risk into the equation, muddy it up a little bit.

What was Trump's response to Iran muddying up this very clean situation? The clean situation was do what we want or we will completely annihilate your economy. We won't damage it. We won't take it down ten percent. We won't impede it. We will eliminate it. We will eliminate your economy. That's the Trump proposition.

So they try to add some variables with the military stuff to disturb. Do you bring the whole frickin' armada? I mean not an entire armada, but he brings enough firepower to turn the entire nation of Iran into a burning super cinder because they loaded some missiles on ships apparently. And then he's going further and he says that any actions against our interests, and I'm not sure if that applies to, say, Israel's or not. Probably that would be not what's on the table. But the president said very clearly that any military action against our assets would be the complete elimination of Iran. Iran would cease to exist as a country.

Do you think he means it? I do. I think he actually completely means that. I mean when he says obliteration of Iran, we're not talking about the people or the physical country but rather the leadership, I'm pretty sure. The military that's close to the regime would be completely eliminated. And I'm pretty sure that the regime itself would be completely eliminated.

So think of the clarity of the current situation. The clarity of the situation is that the Iranian people have now three options. Number one is to go along with whatever peace plan gets revealed. I think in June they're going to unveil the administration's peace plan. So option one is to go along with some kind of a peace plan, which is the last thing they want to do because I'm sure that involves not funding their proxies and really not doing any of the things they're doing. Probably means some retreating from territory. It's probably a lot of stuff they don't want to do.

Option two, have their economy completely destroyed. Completely destroyed.

Option three, have their country, in terms of the ruling class of the country, completely destroyed.

Three options: complete destruction of your leadership as in dead, complete destruction of your economy as in we're not just taking it down ten percent, you just won't have money, the economy will just be gone. Or three, play along with some kind of a peace deal that probably would be good for everybody.

Now if you, the only way you could ever imagine that Iran would agree to anything would be with this level of clarity. Anything short of the level of clarity I just described, and I think is being just as clear to the Iranians, I think that that's our best possible situation.

Now I see somebody saying you are not being realistic. I'm not telling you that the peace plan is going to succeed. That would be kind of unrealistic. I am telling you that the clarity of the way in which we're dealing with Iran is unprecedented. We've never had this kind of clarity. And clarity goes a long way for this stuff. The best thing you can do is find some clarity. And Trump has definitely got it.

So this is why I think that Trump will be seen as the model for how to do this stuff in the future because of the clarity of it. Completely black and white.

All right, I've got something else. Why is it that we're not seeing as many images from the border? Have you noticed that we keep hearing about the immigration problem getting worse and worse and worse and worse, but you don't see that many pictures anymore? It seems as though the news, and maybe both sides of news, are downplaying the border stuff. Why is it?

Now it could be because it became bipartisan. It's a weird way. The border problem started as, you know, the Democrats said well it's not that much of a problem, it's not that much of a problem, so let it go the way it is. And then the Republicans say it's a big problem. But now it's obvious that it's a big problem to everybody. And so under those conditions it feels like maybe the news doesn't need to cover it so much because we all know what to do except we need to do something better. And so that's our situation.

So I think it's just less in the news because the Democrats don't have anything to complain about and the Trump administration's all right.

I'm just looking at all your comments about my microphone. Let me tell you that I'm not going to change it so it is what it is. If it doesn't work it doesn't work so you don't need to tell me.

I saw that, you know, Beto is going hard for impeachment. He's going hard for impeachment. And I was watching him and I thought he doesn't even seem close to being a viable candidate. Doesn't even seem close.

And I'm also going to officially revise my prediction. Are you ready? So I had a prediction months ago, about maybe six months ago, that Kamala Harris was the strongest candidate for the Dems and that she was the most likely to be a risk to Trump. I have now watched Kamala Harris in action. I have seen her proposals. I have watched her interact on camera. She is one of just about the worst candidates I've ever seen. How in the world did she even get elected senator? Am I wrong?

She seems awkward. She seems uncomfortable in her own skin. She's got policies that only sound crazy and impractical. And she has added nothing interesting. She's boring and terrible at the same time. And for a long time I thought she was their best hope. And so I'm starting to understand why the Democrats are pushing Biden, who on paper seems like the least likely person who could beat Trump.

This is my opinion, not anybody else's opinion. In my opinion he's a terrible matchup with Trump because if you take Trump, all of his good points, and you remove all the good things from Trump. Oh he's brave, you know he'll do things other people won't do. He's unpredictable. He's interesting. He's funny. He's provocative. He knows how to use social medi