one. This is on this. Somebody is going to say Scott what the president said is racist period. If they add the period it means they don't want to talk about reasons. They don't want to talk about context. They don't talk about anything. If they say end of story it means they don't want to talk about reasons. And when people say Scott you're an apologist it's because they don't want to talk about reasons. They don't want to talk about what I said. They don't want to talk about facts. They don't want to talk about anything that would reveal they don't have a counter opinion.

So when they come after me for being an apologist or they say Scott just stop, just stop yeah or full stop that's the other one. So here's somebody saying Scotty the shill. So that person is triggered into cognitive dissonance but they're blocked. Period. Yeah end of line. It's the end of the conversation. You're an apologist. Stop making excuses. It all means the same thing. All of it means the same thing. It means that I can't talk about this on the level of reasons and details and context and I just give up but I'm still mad so I'm going to be mad at you instead of the situation.

All right, let's talk about something else potentially gigantic that's going to be totally buried in the news. So speaking of Lindsey Graham, Lindsey Graham and Jack Keane — who I believe is General Jack Keane if I'm correct, retired general — so both of them authored an article. It was in The Wall Street Journal. And listen to how interesting this is. It's about the Iran nuclear situation.

So Lindsey Graham and Jack Keane — now one assumes that they're working on the same side as the president. So if you see that Lindsey Graham and Jack Keane wrote an article about foreign policy and it's in The Wall Street Journal, what do you assume about it? Well what you assume about it is that it's an A/B test. An A/B test. So if the president suggested this idea it would be a little too dangerous because if the public hated this idea the president would be forever tagged with this idea and then he'd have to defend it without even knowing if it was a good idea. But if Lindsey Graham and Jack Keane write an article and it's published in The Wall Street Journal then people say oh well it's not the president. It's two people who would like to maybe influence the president. And if people take to this article and it gets a lot of clicks and people say huh that's a pretty good idea then the president can adopt it. But the president is insulated at the moment cleverly because if the idea dies in public he doesn't ever have to take responsibility for it.

But I assure you that the president has heard this idea. It's fair to speculate that that's true. Not guaranteed but I would say it's in the high ninety percent chance that Lindsey Graham has spoken to the president on this exact topic. The president is letting him test it out in public.

Here's the idea. And by the way Mark Schneider who talks about the Green New Deal and it's my source for all things nuclear along with Michael Shellenberger who is great on this too. This is an idea that may sound familiar. The idea is to be okay with Iran having nuclear energy but have the fuel rods supplied by an outside country that is not the United States because obviously Iran would not want to depend on the United States for any part of their nuclear energy program.

Now since Iran is saying that the reason that they want to develop nuclear is for internal energy purposes, Lindsey Graham and Jack Keane have suggested in this Wall Street Journal article that the United States might be okay with them developing a robust nuclear energy program so long as the parts that could be weaponized, the fuel, comes from a third party which they suggest could be Russia and/or China. If they're smart they'll use both of them because then you have two sources so you never have one. You don't ever want a single source for anything. Beyond that even the United States would probably sell them fuel rods. So even if let's say you know for some reason Russia and China decided not to, well as long as they're really just using it for domestic energy and we can confirm that even the United States would sell them fuel rods because it's just stuff you sell. But we'd have to be sure that they needed them.

Now they don't need to buy from us because they don't trust us and they would never be okay with that. But as long as they can buy from the countries that already have nuclear — China and Russia — and surely those countries have the capability and the reason to provide fuel rods, then Iran will never have the type of materials in their own control that could make a nuclear bomb. They would have a robust energy program and they wouldn't have to depend on the United States for anything. Pretty good, right?

Now what the article from Graham and Keane points out quite cleverly is that even if Iran says no to this deal or even the outlines of this as a deal, if say if they say no to it, it will have revealed quite clearly — and I think this is accurate — it will reveal that they didn't want nuclear technology for energy. That they wanted it for a bomb.

So somebody's yelling at me Iran wants a bomb all in capital letters. They want a bomb. Maybe it's entirely possible that Iran only wants a bomb and that's the whole purpose, right? It's possible. But what's fun about this and clever about it is that they don't say that. They say they want it for domestic energy purposes. So this offer would test that. It would allow them first of all it would allow th