'm not gonna let you. Americans right in front of me. That's going to be noticed.

Here's the other story that I don't know. It's just amazing what the public can be sold. And I saw Kyle Becker was responding the same way I would have. So there's a story now and I need a fact check on this. Can somebody verify this is really true? So I heard it from one source on Twitter so you know use your judgment. But apparently there's a story that Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann who allegedly ran three or four fraudulent operations against Trump in 2016-17 traveled to London and met with spies and stuff at the British spy center GCHQ and the British eavesdropping agency that provided materials to CIA chief John Brennan.

So we know that John Brennan said he did get some stuff from Britain. We know that Christopher Steele was an ex-British intelligence officer. And we were sold on the concept that there's such a thing as an ex-British intelligence officer or a professional. Do you think there's such a thing as an ex-British intelligence person? No. Now I believe he's not on the payroll. I believe he's not on the payroll but that's not like being an ex. Do you think that he could do something that his masters didn't like? No. And hope to have a relationship with them in the future which I'm sure was valuable to him.

So we never say directly that it's obvious that Great Britain was involved in the Russia collusion hoax if not completely behind it with Hillary Clinton. But why do we act like it's not? It's not there. It's right there. Christopher Steele was an ex-British spy. Why don't we call it British interference? It's just crazy that we just we all agree that it's Russian interference when the actual reporting is British interference. We're looking right at it. The news has reached a point where they can put it right in front of you and tell you it's not there. Right here. Here's all the Brits being behind this Russia collusion thing but it was Russia. Here's all the evidence it was really Great Britain. Now let's talk about Russia. And we can actually do that like right in front of you. All of the information is right there. It's obvious Great Britain was involved in some level. Obvious. But we just act like it's not true.

San Francisco is trying to, I guess the mayor is behind this, they've got a proposal in which the police would be able to continuously monitor neighborhoods and cities through your personal security system. What? That's right. If you have a Ring camera that's connected to a network the San Francisco police, there's this is a proposal, would like to at any time they want look through your camera. Total access to it at any time and see what you would see if you were standing on your front porch.

And the idea is that once they had access to all this surveillance, yeah what about your indoor cameras you ask quite reasonably. Quite reasonably. And do you think the police would misuse this ability to see what's happening in your house? Of course. Of course. Somehow of course. Yeah. And don't you think they could tell when you're home? Yeah the police will know when you're home. Do you want the police to know when you're home?

Now I'm a big supporter of the police. Love the police. It is however a fact that there's not much difference between a police officer and a criminal. Now there's an important difference which is one is on the side of the law and one is not. But in terms of their personalities not that different. You know the ability to do dangerous things for benefit for really not that much benefit. You know if you assume they're underpaid which I assume so. I don't know if you said what is a group of people you at least want to know if you're home. Number one would be criminals. The number one people you don't want to know if you're home or not is criminals. But what is the number two organization? The second group that you would most not want to know about what's happening around your home isn't that the police? And it's the police because I wouldn't trust them. Not because they'd see my private stuff which is a good enough reason. Somebody says my wife. Yeah your ex-wife.

Do you think anybody will be a police officer with access to the system who also has an ex who has that system? Imagine the police officers being able to see their ex-wife or husband and their new lover visiting the house. Do you want any of that? The amount of intrusion into your personal life is just through the roof.

Now here's something that I would be okay with. If the police said optionally if you want to put a separate camera system in front of your house and give us access to it but it's your choice. It's got to be a specific kind where we can't get to any of your other cameras or anything. So it's got to be a walled off system. If you'd like to have that kind of a system and you agree then we'll be able to look at it. But you have to agree and you have to know exactly what they have access to and what they don't. I could imagine having a Ring doorbell let's just say. And let's say if Ring could somehow wall off its software so that the police could only look through the front door. If you've got other cameras somewhere. Could you imagine labeling it law enforcement monitored? That would be better wouldn't it? Like if you were worried about your own security and you had a Ring camera that's good. But if you had a Ring camera that you knew the police could look at in real time that's a little scarier. As long as everything you did was voluntary that's a different situation. But if they're going to force this no I don't think it can get approved. Do you think there's any way that could get approved if the resident doesn't? You think there is? I mean maybe. It seems like a long shot but maybe.

I could tell you when the Ukraine Russia war will end if you could give me the following information and I know you can't but maybe someday somebody can. It goes like this. How quickly can Russia find and spin up new ammo warehouses? Because their ammo warehouses are being targeted for destruction by Ukraine who now has new accurate long-range weapons to get to all their ammo depots. And if their ammo depots were beyond that range they also wouldn't be useful. So now Ukraine looks like they can get to any useful ammo dumps that Russia would have on Russia's side of the territory.

Now the question is this. We have X many missiles and rocket launchers that can do that level of accuracy. Is it that, what's the name of them? The HIMARS or something. There's a specific type of weapon. So they're being shipped to Ukraine and I think they have nine HIMARS. So I think Ukraine has nine of them. People are saying can we get a hundred now.

Carried a gun in the Capitol and he threatened to kill his family if they turned him in. So the warning there was that the person who is overcharged at the Capitol there was some extenuating situation there maybe. But in general the overcharging, in general there will be specific cases where there's a real argument there.

Getting back to my point. How many rockets can a HIMARS, one HIMARS system send per day? Could they send a hundred rockets per day? What do you think? They could do at least dozens right now. How fast can the Russians build ammo warehouses as they're being destroyed? Now I'm making an assumption here that we're always going to know where they are because we have eyes in the sky and we've got probably just tons of local intel because remember Russia is occupying an area in which not everybody being occupied is happy about it. So in theory the locals should be plenty happy to say you know I saw some ammo trucks heading into that building. So I feel like we would always know where they are.

And I would also say that Russia's military capability would basically disappear if their ammo did. Now everybody adjusts. Maybe they'd threaten with nukes or something so we don't know what would happen. But in theory the number of HIMARS missiles blowing up a number of ammo depots, if you have enough missiles and you know the number of missiles is increasing as they're getting more of them and the rate at which Russia can replace them at some point will be lower than the rate at which they can be destroyed. As soon as that becomes a permanent situation which seems very likely the war is over.

I feel like we now know what it looks like. Now of course anything could be wrong. Predicting war is sort of silly because it's always based on surprises and adjustments and things you don't see coming and the fog of war and who knows if anything we've heard about the war is even true at this point. But it does seem to me that the number of HIMARS compared to how rapidly Russia can build new depots that are functional, I think it's down to that. Am I right? It's down to that. And what appears to be what is going to happen is that Russia will start to think that they're lucky if they can keep what they've got and they'll make a deal that doesn't make them happy. At the same time the Ukrainians will make a deal that makes them very unhappy too which is a good deal. Makes everybody unhappy.

Somebody asked if I was registered to vote. The answer is I don't remember if I'm registered. Do you register once or do you register every time you move? How does that work? But I don't vote. I'm not registered as a Republican or well I take that back I might be registered to something. I don't remember if I registered as either a Democrat or Republican. It wouldn't have meant anything to me. It would not have been an indication of who I was going to vote for. I probably said independent. I have registered in the past. I don't know if I'm registered at the moment. And I don't have a plan to vote.

The reason I don't vote is different from your reasons. It's because I do this publicly. I don't think you should vote if you're going to try to be objective about anything. Right now it's hard enough to be objective about anything and I don't think I hit that standard. I wish I did. But for me there would be a bias that would occur if I voted that would increase whatever bias I'm already operating under and struggling against. The rest of you, you should vote. I recommend it. If you're talking in public about politics at least give a thought to not voting. I wouldn't want you to give up your right to vote. If it makes you feel good go ahead and do it. But just be aware that casting an actual vote like acting with your body makes it really hard later to say that you made a mistake.

If I tell you I think this candidate's better than another one then it turns out I'm wrong, well it's going to be hard for me to say I was wrong but at least I didn't vote for him. Do you see it now? Well okay that candidate I was pretty sure would be the good one turned out poorly but at least I didn't vote for him. Do you get it? That would make me more biased. There's no way I would act the same if I had voted for him. If I voted for him I'd feel like I had to defend it to the death even though logically I shouldn't.

Revolver has an article basically mocking the New York Times coverage of the Ray Epps situation. So y'all know Ray Epps was caught on camera inciting protesters to go into the Capitol on January 6. And he seemed to be if not the most vocal organizer certainly one of them. I think the most in terms of going inside the Capitol. I think he was the most vocal. I think he had a megaphone and everything else. Did he not? And fact-check me on that. Did he have a megaphone? I think I may have just imagined that. Somebody says yes or are you, I'm seeing yeses and nos. Yeah isn't that interesting. So some of us have false memories and it might be me. I think I've conflated him with other people. There was a megaphone person there but I don't know if it was him. Anyway we won't settle this right away but it doesn't matter.

And here's other things that the Revolver story says about the New York Times. It wrote what too many of us, our impression is that the New York Times was trying to cover for some intelligence agency and run a cover story that would make their operative allegedly looked like he was just an innocent citizen. So it looks, too many of us can't prove it but it looks like the New York Times is just working for an intelligence agency to write a fake story about Ray Epps to cover their tracks. That's what it looks like.

Now do I believe that's what happened? I don't know. But the New York Times has been incredibly accused and proven to be untrustworthy on a number of topics of great interest to the public from weapons of mass destruction and you name it, Russia collusion. I mean they have a long record of clearly backing fake news. Clearly. So when they say Ray Epps is just a citizen and there's nothing to worry about here do we believe them?

Well I will tell you that just this week my famous Democrat friend who I mentioned anonymously, a smart person that I of