0010 Sir Gene Speaks

So they let's start off with some good news. It appears that Gina Carano was not unemployed for very long. Today we found out that the daily wire, which has Ben Shapiro's company has teamed up with Gina Carano to produce a movie. The the company has previously produced another movie called. Hi, Ron fight. I believe I haven't seen it. So I can't say how good or bad it was, but this will not be their first movie. in the, I guess the irony of the situation here, we have somebody who's a conservative Jew Ben Shapiro, whose company is now teaming up with somebody that was literally kicked off Disney or daring to make a comparison. About Jews now, prior to the Holocaust, we're not documented holocausts here, Jews at the beginning of the years and prior to world war II. So this is all before Poland was attacked and make a comparison about neighbors fighting neighbors and neighbors, making it easy when the authorities started rounding up Jews for them to be able to do I think it's a perfectly valid comparison. I said that yesterday. And it appears that Ben Shapiro doesn't completely disagree. Now. I don't think he's quite on board. As much as I am in this. I watched him talk about it his point was, this is not a bad comparison. However, we should try and not use the Holocaust in any comparisons. I don't think that's a reasonable position. I think the Holocaust, like any other event in the history of the human race can be used for comparison purposes. It just, shouldn't be abused of that. In a way that the liberals right now are abusing the word Nazi and the word fascist and certainly the word Hitler as referring to Trump. So those are all absolute abuses of historical events and historical names. But in this particular case, I think what Grano accurately is pointing out. Is that, Hey, the Holocaust didn't happen in the vacuum before the Holocaust, there were events happening, which led up to the Holocaust. And then those events, which his neighbor fighting with neighbor, trying to turn their neighbors in all these types of things is what she's referring to. When she's comparing the events of Germany in the 1930s. To today. And I think it is a fair comparison. So anyway we'll find out what the movie is. We'll find out more about it in due time, but right now it looks like we have a fairly happy Gina Carano. She's saying I'm sending out direct message of hope to everyone living in fear of cancellation by secretary and mob. I've only just begun using my voice, which is now freer than ever before. She's right about that. And I hope it inspires others to do the same. They can't cancel us if we don't let them very true. The cancellation only happens if you do nothing about it after the fact, and frankly, her being canceled off Disney and simply moving on to a different production company is exactly what I've been trying to push for people doing with a traditional social media, like Facebook and Twitter. You should leave Twitter and leave Facebook because there are alternatives and the alternatives are not rooted in the same types of evil, parasitic functions that Twitter and Facebook are the alternatives, whether it's Federation with master down there, other clients that are federated or even gab, which is not really, I don't think they're federated, but at least an alternative. And there are plenty of other smaller sites that are messaging platforms to replace Twitter, to replace FA Facebook sites that allow you to not just post texts, but also posts, images, audio files, all kinds of media that are out there. The problem is they haven't been really promoted because it's been a huge uphill battle for them to try and push their way up. To fight the giants out there like Facebook and Twitter. Imagine writing a Twitter alternative piece of software today and or let's say not today, but let's say a year ago, and then trying to compete with the likes of Twitter, which is the de facto standard. You're going to have 1e-07% market share against the 99.9999. That Twitter has. It's going to be every dickless uphill battle. So in some ways, part of the silver lining that we're seeing right now from cancel culture is that more people are either getting kicked off Twitter or are themselves leaving Twitter as a sort of a protest to people who they follow on people who they like getting kicked off Twitter. And when they do that, they will inevitably be searching for alternatives. And there are plenty of alternatives out there. So I'm on a platform which is run a Mastodon which is run for the community of the no agenda podcast. And it's called no agenda social. It's a pretty big community to this point, I think approaching 10,000 people. So it's certainly not like just you and your closest five friends. This is a fairly large. And when you consider that community links to a whole bunch of other federated groups and it's not just Macedonia as the platform. There are other platforms that all talk to each other as well. There are just a plethora of options to go to, to sign up and get yourself up on one of these alternative media networks. And it, it really doesn't have to be something as huge as gab. And I don't know if gab publishes their numbers and I'm not really honestly sure how big they actually are, but they've been around for a long time. And however big they actually are, as I'm sure quite a bit bigger than the brand new communities that are popping up. But I would even say rather than going to get to gab, which is, I don't believe it's federated. I could be wrong on that. I would recommend going to a community which is federated. And then you can find all kinds of sources of information and people who you might be interested in, which are and gab, I don't think is fed federated. It might be, I could be wrong on that, but I would still recommend going to a community which is federated. Because you can find a ton of other people that are on other platforms and other sites, which can all communicate through the Federation. So even if the people that you're following, the people you're interested in talking to are not on the exact same platform, because the platform is federated. You'll be able to follow them, which is really cool. And it allows you to communicate with, certainly, maybe not quite as many people as are currently on Twitter, but it's growing at a humongous rate. Meanwhile, Twitter is both losing user base and money. Last report I saw they were they lost like 1.1 0.5 or no, it wasn't 1.5. So maybe one and a quarter billion. It was over a billion dollar loss for the quarter for them. Which should tell you something about their advertisers pulling out and that wanting to be on a platform, which is mostly at this point, known for kicking off people and silencing free speech. Yeah. Advertisers don't want to be on something that's controversial. We know that unless they're actually doing political ads, they're not likely to spend money, but they also don't want to be on a platform. That is at this point, really literally becoming known for de platforming. And I think right now, if you just ask some random person on the street, when you think of Twitter, what's the first thing that comes into your mind. It's not going to be, Oh, it's this great place where we can share information ideas with other people and communicate it's going to be yeah. Either. It's going to be either one of these two things. It's the platform that is kicking off conservatives. Or it may be it's the platform that is finally getting rid of all the Nazis, but either one of those two answers is not an advertiser friendly answer. And I think that's the problem that Twitter's going to have. I think they're in for a rough time. I honestly think there's a very high likelihood that Twitter will end up going out of business. I don't know that they can survive based on the current trends. Of both people leaving and losing money. I don't think at this point they're a brand new start up anymore, which means they can't be sitting in the red for years at a time. And the advertisers are not going to come back as the number of users diminishes instead of grows on Twitter. That's a good thing in my book because that platform certainly deserves to die. At this point. Facebook, I think, is going to stick around longer because it's tied into so many other things as well. People will find it a little more difficult to leave platforms like Facebook, because like for example, neighborhood associations special interest groups like gardening or even video game groups there, they all have groups that they've built on the Facebook platform because obviously Facebook is promoting that stuff and it was free. And so it's harder for people to walk away, but I certainly still recommend doing it. I've walked away. I'm not on Facebook. I don't have any accounts on there at this point. And the people that are still on there that I'm used to communicate with because, and groups that I belong to you got to deal with it. And I'm not the only one. I may be certainly one of the early people saying this, but so they're like, look don't put stuff for our mutual group on a platform, which a lot of us are not going to want to be on either because we don't want to give up our private information. In order to be able to use that platform for free, which is a great reason, or because we just disagree with the political politics of the platform right now. Having, and this is what's shocking to me because this is still happening. There are still groups that are conservative thinking in nature that are surprised and shocked and are complaining. About having their content censored or the whole group's website deleted off Facebook. Like really? What the hell were you thinking? What made you think that Facebook was a good place to meet? Now? I have a little more sympathy for people that have relied on Amazon in order to create their own platform. But nonetheless, It's still somebody else who is ultimately managing and owns the infrastructure you're on. And that's really the beauty of the federated universe is that all these little groups the, no agenda, one that I mentioned, no agenda, social, they're all running on separate hardware. Some of them might be running in Amazon. That's certainly a possibility they don't have to be. They're basically running on Linux servers. Any hosting service that has Linux servers can be used to create one of these servers, the amount of data flowing through is not huge from my understanding the when I looked at pricing for these, right? So to set up a one that's fairly basic, that'll host up to 2000 active users. So more than 2000 registered, but 2000 that are active on the platform. That would run. I want to say that was$50 a month, right in that range or so, so really any special kind of affinity group, anybody that's a club or anybody that has a particular interest that they want to communicate with can get one of these federated Mastodon or, and I don't want to just use Vance down there. They're probably the biggest and most well-known, but yeah. Any of these types of platforms that are federated, they can get set up for pretty cheap. And since it's all running on Linux, you can even move it. If you find the better, cheaper deal somewhere else, or the host you're on is giving you warnings about, you're getting too many complaints from people about your content. Hey, you can just take the whole thing, downloaded, uploaded to a new provider. And off you go you're back in business. Everything else can travel with you. So until they get to the point where they're literally blocking DNS names, and there are threats of that happening right now, until that actually happens, you can move your content fairly freely, as long as you have good backups. And as long as you're not using any custom features and what I mean by custom features. And I realized I might be getting a little overly techie in this. But it all depends on who's listening, right? You may think I'm way not techie enough, but what I mean by custom features are the use of proprietary technologies. For example, like with Amazon offers on their platforms. So you can spool up a virtual server, essentially something that's emulating a Linux or a windows server on the Amazon platform. And that's one way to do it. And if you do it that way, you can get off their platform fairly quickly, simply by encapsulating that server downloading that the image of that server the contents of the virtual drives on there and moving it somewhere else. But typically what companies do is they want to take advantage of a lot of the custom features that Amazon offers. And last I looked there was over a hundred different services that Amazon provided each one. Tailored to a specific type of a specific type of features that a website might utilize. For example your storage might be sitting on S3 your website running on on Amazon, and then you might use some of the AI features that they offer. For scanning images, for example, for doing image recognition, that's a separate service they offer. So all these things work with each other. They're all potential things that you can order off Amazon. And the beauty of Amazon has always been that you only pay for what you use. You're not paying for just a big gold server sitting there and only running a 10% utilization. You're only paying for actual usage. But the flip side of that is once you start using more and more of their proprietary services, you're more and more tied to Amazon. I think this is where parlor went wrong, frankly, they were not able to simply download all their data and then shuffle it over to a separate host to be able to bring it back up. Clearly, parlor was not in a position to do that because they were utilizing. Some proprietary technologies from Amazon. To be fair, that's the point, right? So if you're not putting up something controversial, let's say you've got some stupid kid's game that you're building or even a smart kids game that you're building, I guess I shouldn't say stupid, but if you're doing that and you put that on Amazon and you're using a lot of their little plugin pieces that they offer through the cloud services. That's great. That's what you want to be doing because you're going to maximize the utility for probably the least amount of costs. Although lately I don't think Amazon is as competitive as it used to be price wise, but by doing that, you'll have a product maybe faster. Maybe you can build it quicker. They'll, there'll be advantages to using Amazon for that, for things that controversial we've now found out, like we may not have assumed this would ever happen. But certainly at this point, we have found out that if you would do something that could be deemed controversial, God forbid saying something about the Holocaust or even the timeframe of Germany prior to the Holocaust, apparently you can't talk about Germany and all of these days, if you plan on doing that, don't use Amazon. And I'm sure there's other hosting companies that may also not want you on their platforms as well. But we for sure know, Amazon does not want anything remotely conservative on that platforms. Is this a surprise? Not at all. We know Jeff Bezos political stance. We know that his his political stance is essentially expressed through the Washington post. Or is it Washington? Yeah. Washington post, Washington time to think is the more conservative publication. The post is what he bought and. If you watch any interviews with people from the pulse, they're all very quick to tell you that Jeff Bezos has zero editorial control. He doesn't tell us anything about what we gotta be doing. He just provides the money. In fact, they're proud of the fact that they haven't made any money since Jeff Bezos bought them or that all the money that the paper makes has been put back into the paper so it's been reinvested. Which could be perceived a couple of different ways. One is Jeff Bezos just bought a mouthpiece. He doesn't need it to make money. It could be perceived as wow. Jeff Bezos is really frugal, which we know he is from reading about his time growing Amazon. And so there, there are certainly different ways to read that, but essentially the reason those people can say, Jeff, Bezos doesn't at all interfere or interact or tell us what to do at the paper is because he doesn't have to. He bought a newspaper which absolutely coincided with his personal views. So if you buy something that completely expresses your own viewpoint, why would you need to interfere with it? Why would you need to go in there? And make any changes or, put your own agenda there if they're already using your own agenda. Really don't think it's a great argument for saying that Jeff Bezos viewpoints don't represent the viewpoints of the paper. I think if anything saying that he doesn't interfere or have a total control is a Testament to the fact that the paper already, even before he bought it, Expressed his own political viewpoints. And that's a pretty, pretty far to the left viewpoint. We also know from from watching Jeff bayzos documentaries and certainly reading about him that he is not a guy that's been motivated to simply take profit. He's a guy that's been really good. And that this is a complimentary thing I'm saying about him. That's been really good at making sure that profits are put back in the business in order to achieve the growth. So he's not about just personal expenditures of wealth, although he does own the largest private residence in Washington, DC. I saw a photo of that recently, and people were talking about how a huge Putin's castle is. I don't know, man. I think Jeff Bezos might give him a run for his money. So there is that it's not like Jeff is living anaesthetic lifestyle. He is certainly spending money. He's not spending anywhere near the amount of money that he's making though, of course. And now that he's stepping away from Amazon and I guess that's not going to actually happen until the fall, but a fall of 2021 is what it's projected for. But once that happens, presumably he'll be able to spend more time doing other things. I suspect it's going to be related to the rocket business, but maybe not, maybe he just wants to do more worldly travel, maybe start a foundation, like bill Gates to find some African children to to give tainted drugs to and kill them off. And I'm only half joking on that. So as we do know, some of the things that bill Gates has been involved in have been pretty shady. I will put an asterisk on that statement. And but let's get off of that topic. I've talked enough about Amazon and services they provide and the dangers of being on a platform where you can't simply pick up and move your stuff to wherever you want. Now I've seen a number of stories today talking about the the positive news for the Trump campaign or Trump campaign. For Trump, it's not a campaign relating to the way that the hearings went today. I guess the defense has presented both video evidence and oral evidence demonstrating that nothing that Trump did was at all different from, or in fact was even as extreme as statements made to encourage disruptive behavior. By the Democrats. And there's a video that they published, which I've watched, which is very good, that it's probably 10 to 12 minutes of a lot of different Democrats, including currently in office Democrats, including the vice president, including the president saying things much stronger and much harsher than Trump's call to I guess to the insurrection that the Democrats are claiming he did. There were actual threats of bodily harm coming out of the Democrats. And I'm sure all of them would say the exact same thing that Trump's attorney said is this is simply political speech. This is how politicians have been speaking for decades. If not centuries, a call to attack your enemy is a normal part of political speech. This is not something unique and different and relating to. Through physically going and storming your enemies houses. Although there, again, if you watch that video some of that from Democrats side directly related or directly targeted towards the black lives matter and Antifa, it certainly calls to attack certain people's homes and certain people's private property. It just simply wasn't to attack the white house and it wasn't to attack the Capitol. But I think that the typical American. Sees the way that politicians and in this case, predominantly Democrats, but certainly plenty of Republicans seem to see themselves and their work, their place of employment, the building, they work in as somehow being above and beyond reproach of a typical normal business or private residence. Like it's perfectly okay for Antifa to burn down Portland. And for black lives matter to torch Kenosha, but somehow it's in a whole different level to have a protesters on the January 6th break a couple of windows in the Capitol. Now I'm not excusing those people. I think they did a stupid thing. I don't think it's anywhere nearly as high of an illegal activity as a lot of Democrats with payment out to be. But nonetheless, it was a super thing. If they would've just surrounded the capital, not going in, kept the chance up, kept the flags up, kept the prayers going that would have had a much better positive impact than once they actually went inside. And a lot of them were just walking around and do a Willard on the inside, not knowing what to do because they never thought they wouldn't be inside. So it was group think mentality, crowd mentality is like, Oh, everybody's going to the left. I guess I'm going to the left as well. Know this is what cows do when they're running in the herd or geese do when they're flying. If they're just following where everybody else is going, you don't see geese just separating out and all going slightly different directions. No, they pick one dude, one, one goose, and they followed him. And and when that gives gets tired the next guy in line just keeps going the same direction. Everybody gets aligned behind them. So it's the same thing here. People that were there standing, surrounded by other people. As soon as that group starts moving, they start moving. Wherever that group goes, they start going. Now a few of them were smart enough to peel back out of the group and say Whoa, I'm going to say outside and take photos. I'm not going inside, but it doesn't really matter to the Democrats. They've condemned everybody that was in Washington, DC that day. As guilty of insurrection. That is so absurd on so many different levels, but nonetheless, that's what they're doing. They're condemning literally everybody that was that flew in from out of town that was in the city. I have friends that were in DC for work at that same time and they were double searched their ports. There was plenty of that going on. But when you look at the number of people that are traveling to any city and certainly a city that is as cosmopolitan, as DC simply clumping everybody together is ridiculous, but that's what they're doing and not just the Democrats, but bank of America and believe chase did this as well is they've voluntarily provided data. About their customers to FBI for any customers who had charges that were in their home city one day and then in the DC and surrounding area of Virginia and Maryland during January six. So anybody that happened to have used the credit card in-person in Virginia or in Maryland or in DC, right around the days of that event. If that's not normally where they live, their data has been voluntarily provided to the FBI and some of them I'm sure will get visits. Some of them have already gotten visits and questions saying, if so, why were you in Washington, DC? This is really unprecedented in American history, or maybe the closest we come is with the the Japanese interment camps during world war II. Which was also an absolutely black stain on this country. It was something done by a democratic president, as they tend to, with a Democrat Congress, to single out one group of people simply because of something that those people have in common and with the group that the Enlite, which happened to be obviously Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, but the country of Japan. Is wholly different from people of Japanese ancestry and background who are us citizens. Now, us non-citizen Japanese probably appropriate to find out what they're doing in the U S what they were, when they came, what they were doing, where they live. I can see that because they're here on either tourist or work visas. But for people that were citizens of the United States, whose only similarity through the country of Japan was that's where their ancestors came from is ridiculous. And it is a black stain on the United States. And it always will be, that is the direction we're going right now, except this time, the group of people, isn't Japanese, the group of people, isn't Jews in Germany, in the 1930s, the group of people today. Are people that actually support America and what it stood for the majority of its life. And that is a contrary view to what the current administration sees America. And what it stands for is much closer to the people that voted for Trump than the people that are trying to change America. And they're not hiding about it. They're being open about the fact that they don't like the current America. They want to absolutely change America and change it to a socialist country. So right now that is the difference. It is not an ethnic, it's not a place of a birth of your ancestors. It's not even the place of birth that you are right now. The distinction is based on political ideology. And they have grouped together half the country as somehow being on the wrong side of history and as needing to be re-educated at best and terminated at worst. And yes, there have been people you just need to watch that video that Trump's lawyers played that have called for for the killing of Americans. They disagree with. So I think that comparison is absolutely ridiculous. I think Gina Ronald's comparison was absolutely on the money and we need to be very careful where we tread and the Democrats also, I want to mention, they love pointing out that as well, that maybe it's the 73 million people that voted for Trump are they need to be reeducated. They're crazy. Hey, I got news for you guys. There's only a couple of million difference, even using the fake volts that came in for Biden, even though if we pretend and we have to pretend for this example, that all the Biden votes came from live human beings that intended to vote for him. And we're not simply manipulations or fake votes, but let's just pretend that's the case. Let's just say for this example that the entirety of the Biden votes were correct. What that represents is there's only a few million votes, more the Biden got then Trump. So you can't say it's the 78 million people in the United States that are the the Trumpsters are the ones that need reeducating. It's really it's. It would be like the 47 48% of the overall American population. And let's let me look that up. And the entire American population is 329 million people. So Hey, guess what guys? It's not 72 million or 74 or 78 million that you need to put in your interment camps for reeducation. It's more like 165 million, cause it is almost half the country. And again, this is only assuming that all of the Biden votes were true and accurate and correct. And we know the reality is very different from that. And so the number of people that want to put people that supported Trump and people who didn't vote for Biden. Into reeducation camps. The number of those people is actually smaller than the number that they want to incarcerate. Think about that. All right. Let's move on. What else we got in use today? Here's another story. So first it was Biden's son, then his brother now to son-in-law. Howard cream could present a conflict of interest in using president Joe Biden's office for personal gains. Wow. What a shocker. So the entire Biden clam is using that position for personal gain and has been using Biden's position in the Senate for personal gains. That's amazing who would have thought that? Anybody that would have actually paid attention to alternative news to news coming from conservative sites. Months and months ago would have known this mainstream media, of course, blockaded this. They had a full blockade around any information that could present Biden as somehow being guilty of improprieties or anybody in his family of being guilty and improprieties. But now we see that even the media that was pretending it wasn't the case. They're starting to realize that if they don't cover this now they're literally going to come across as well. I don't know. I don't know if they care about what they come across is. Yeah. Now it's getting hard to stop the flow of information. I think Biden's managed to disappoint a lot of liberals, a lot of Democrats with his inaction, with his duplicity, with his focus still on Trump, rather than on doing the things that he promised. Now he did crank out over 50 executive voters at this point, but a lot of them are stuck in legal challenges. So they're not actually being acted on. And there are plenty of things that he can't do with executive orders, including the minimum wage that was being promised at$15 an hour. It looks like nobody is supporting that or virtually none of the Democrats are very few of them are. So there's no way and none of the Republicans, so there's no way that's going to go through Congress. That's going to be a dead end for Biden. The the closing of the pipelines, it looks like on a local level on state levels, governors are starting to step in, certainly there are things that need to be done on a national level, but we're gonna find out and we're already finding out right now. Is that Biden's presidency is going to be really good for federalism. It's a presidency that is going to kick into high gear. A lot of governors in States that are not left coast or New York or Massachusetts, but all the other governors it's going to make them think twice about. What can they do on their own rather than waiting for Washington to do it. And also for the more conservative governors it's going to kick in the thought of what can I do to circumvent Washington? Like how far can we push state's rights in avoiding policies coming out of Washington? Because generally the only real threat that Washington has is withholding of federal funds. And this is something that came up with Trump in California. It's come up previous to that with with Bush as well. Is this idea that well, if the States don't do X, then we're not going to give them federal highway funding and no state wants to have to pay for highways, federal highways that are crossing through them. Now I would say no. I would say now there would be a slightly different train of thought in. Maybe if that threat was presented, a state could say, great, we're going to turn that highway into a toll road. So if we're not getting money from Washington, it is no longer a federal highway. It is going to be a state toll road and they can absolutely do that because if the federal government isn't providing funding, Those roads effectively revert back to the States. They're really still on state territory. They're still at built by the States, but the way it works is when when a highway that is a state highway is designated as a federal highway, then the federal government pays for improvements to that road. Very rarely does the federal government pay for the actual paving of those highways. They generally will be. The States will effectively volunteer certain routes and say, Hey, this should really be a federal role. It's part of this highway system. We'd like to get federal funding for it. And maybe the federal government come back and say it needs to be at least three lanes wide for that to happen. And the state will do that. And anyway, long story short, they're usually built by States and the federal funding provides for ongoing improvements to those roads. If that goes away, I think we're going to see a different reaction. And that's just one example. There's a multitude of examples where the federal government's threat of removing federal funding. Like for jails, for example, if you have federal prisons that are in in different States as the federal government tries to pull funding for that, then the state can and I'm guys I'm way over simplifying this, right? There's a lot of legal challenges that need to go through when this happens, but. Potentially let's say potentially the state can then turn around and then farm out that facility as a private facility, or turn it into a state facility and then be actually generating money. If it's a privately run prison from our even, maybe it's even if it's a federal or a state controlled prison, they might be able to do it because when you've got an, a prison is free labor for all practical purposes, the rates you're paying. They're in pennies instead of dollars to those prisoners. Now the prisoners have no expenses also. So it's not like they're starving to death because you're not paying a minimum wage, but the labor that you're getting out of prisons is competing to some extent with labor that would be coming from China or other private businesses in the U S. So it's not like it doesn't affect the economy at all. My point with all of this is simply to say that this is going to be a great four years for federalism. We're going to see a lot of States flexing their muscle and challenging the federal government on things that the federal government has maybe historically done for the last hundred years and been able to control all of a sudden that being the case. And I'll give you one last example before wrapping up, and that would be That would be providing the state national guard to be sent for federal deployment things. Like what just happened in Washington DC, when there was a call for 25,000 national guard to come in those national guard report to the governors. Not to the federal government. And so it was really the federal government asking the governors to send in a combined 25,000 troops. I'm pretty sure Texas is not going to be sending any national guard troops to Washington DC ever again for the next four years. I just don't see that happening. I don't think Texas is going to be the only state not doing that. If we're going to have national guard doing anything, it's going to be effectively patrolling the Texas border, which the federal government has now decided they're not going to do. And the wall is not going to be built, which is, the idea of building a wall in one, four year term, I think it was ridiculous for Trump to promise to begin with this is a massive project. It took a lot more than four years to build the great wall of China. And you pretty much have to have something that's about the height. Of the great wall of China in order for it to be effective. So what we have right now is really more of what I would call a wall of discouragement. It's a wall of, it's not super easy to cross one river and be across the border anymore. Now you have to cross the river and then while you're wet, you have to either dig your way underneath the wall, or try and climb over it. And it's tall and it's got barbed wire on top and. Or maybe it's got wire next to it. So if you fall, you end up falling into barbed wire, it's like finance. It's a wall to try and prevent people from trying to cross over. Not so much a wall that guarantees no one's going to cross over. It's not the great wall of China by any means. If anyone's seen photos of of the wall on the South border of the of Texas, With Mexico, you can see what I'm talking about. It's a wall of discouragement above everything else. So I know there's a ton of other stories that know I've seen today and I've posted about, but I've managed to ramble on for the majority of this. So I'm just happy for Gina Carano. I'm sad for a lot of other things that are happening in the, in Congress right now. It does appear like the defense for Trump went well. Although obviously we won't know until the end, how many of the Republicans in the Senate ended up betraying Trump and betraying conservative principles and stabbing him in the back and proving that they were always rhinos. There are certainly some of those. And I'm still gonna cling to my prediction previously that. I don't think it's going to be nearly as big a margin as some conservatives think as like Ted Cruz thinks it's a slam dunk. I think that right now, the we're about 10 away from the Democrats having a two thirds, majority, I think we'll get down to seven. I think that the Democrats will be 700 away from having a two thirds, majority. By the time the vote is actually taken. So we'll see if I'm right or not. And if I'm not right and it's it's a much bigger margin than great. That's awesome. But I somehow just think there's going to be a couple more demo or a couple more Republicans than enough flipping towards the Democrat side on this. Just really feel that. So let me just wrap this up. Thanks for listening. Young guys. Hopefully you're enjoying the podcast. I'm going to be making a few little changes, but for the most part, I'll try and keep the same coming out every other day from now on.