it and then they interviewed me and I made this joke. I said that my mother was the second worst cook in the world after her mother. Now that's something that we kind of said in the family. It was like a family joke that was also true. It was true. My mother was the inspiration for Dilbert's mother who had a cooking show called Cooking with Salt. It was just salt. So basically would you like it seasoned? A little salt. That'll work. Yeah salt was great. I love salt. But I made this comment to the author of Bon Appetit magazine and I said to myself my mother's never going to read Bon Appetit magazine, am I right? The one thing I don't have to worry about is I knew for sure that my mother living in a little country mountain place she definitely was not reading Bon Appetit magazine and certainly not reading cover to cover to get to the last page. That's how stupid I was if you can even imagine that level of media stupidity. Yep, yep. It took approximately 10 seconds from the publication of that article for one of my mother's friends to mail it to her and say I hope you've seen this. That's right. That's what friends are for. That's what friends are for.

So have I ever embarrassed my parents? Oh yeah. Yes I have. Yes I have as a matter of fact. But the difference between me and Hunter Biden is I still sometimes do things that don't embarrass people. Sometimes. I mean not all the time but I sometimes go into a business enterprise that if it worked it would just make everybody happy. It wouldn't make anybody embarrassed. Like how is it that Hunter can't find anything, anything in that domain of don't embarrass your parents? Nothing. There's not a single thing he can do that doesn't embarrass his parents. What's up with that?

Is your dad a piece of — you know both of my parents are deceased. Have you read Hunter's autobiography? I haven't.

All right. So there's no reasonable suspicion there's anything going on there.

All right I believe we've talked about it all except that this minister of truth started out with some fake news I think. So this minister of truth woman, the head of it, said that it's not conservatives, it's not just conservatives who are being silenced on social media as the conservatives believe, but that there are many studies, many studies — I'm not going to mention them because there are many of them. Oh you want to link to the study? I'm not going to give you a link to the study. There's many studies. Many, many, many studies. And these studies show that some liberals are also being censored. So the idea that censorship is sort of working against conservatives has been debunked and debunked by the many, many studies of which I will not link and will not mention. Many, many of them. And it those studies show that liberals are censored too.

Now did you catch the trick? Did you catch the trick that she used? And then I used it as well. Tell me if these two things are opposites. Most of the media suppression is against conservatives but there have been studies that show that liberals also have been censored. Are those opposites? Does one debunk the other? No. But she presented them like they do. In other words she literally — and I don't think this is delving into personal opinion. I don't think this is a subjective statement — the head of disinformation tried to tell us that these studies would show that there was the same amount. No she didn't say it. This was the clever part. She simply said that the studies show that liberals also get banned. I'll bet that's true. I'll bet there's at least one case of that. Two would be plenty. If there were ever two people in the history of banning and they were liberal and they got banned then her statement is right. The studies have shown that people on the left also get banned. It would just take one or two. Does she mention how many? No. Does she compare the rate of conservatives being banned or suppressed to the rate of the other side? No. And wasn't that the only question? That was the only question. The only question was how much for conservative versus liberal and she answered it with an absolute instead of how much. Oh they both have a little problem there. That is intellectually dishonest. It is disinformation by design. That is clearly designed as disinformation. Her statement could not have been more clearly intended to mislead. It was intended to mislead and it did.

Now when Greenwald asked did they intentionally pick the most ridiculous person for the job it's not just the way she looks because she has a theatrical mannerism which would probably work great in a lot of contexts but not this one. Not this one. This is the only job you don't want somebody exactly like that. If you put her in lots of different jobs I mean you come u