ing that nation. What's the antisemitic part? What am I missing? Can somebody fill me in? I mean I honestly don't know.

Right there are plenty of people who are Jewish who don't approve of Zionism meaning they don't approve of Israel having a Jewish state. So there's somebody who disagrees with everything right. There's no issue that you don't have disagreement on. So everybody's, there's always going to be somebody disagreeing with everything.

Does anybody have any idea why the Z word is, if you don't agree with prioritizing Israel over the United States are you automatically antisemitic? Is it because, here's my best hypothesis. I'll see if this rings true. There is a second, well let's say there's an alternative use of that Z word by people who are unambiguously racists and see it as part of a global conspiracy. But that's not the dictionary definition. The dictionary definition is not what the worldwide conspiracy theorists are saying. That's their own definition or their own usage of it. The common usage of it is the formation of Israel and then the support of it as a Jewish state. Isn't it? Isn't that the definition right?

And I actually looked for the definition because I thought maybe there was an element to the definition I didn't get. But here's my best take. My best take is that of course Thomas Massie is not using it in an antisemitic way. Okay let me just say this. Thomas Massie did it. You think he did an antisemitic post like this soon after October 7th? An elected member of Congress. You think he did an unambiguous antisemitic post which he knew he was doing? Really? Yeah really. Really. You could actually stand in front of me and tell me you believe that?

But here here's my best defense of Schumer. All right so let me steelman this. Is that the right word? So I'm going to take Schumer's point of view and argue it the best I can. It is true that people who are definitely antisemitic have used the word Zion as an integral part of their antisemitic larger messaging. Is that true? Can we agree on that? That the people who are unambiguously antisemitic especially online use the Z word as part of their antisemitic messaging. So if you are associating with that group in any way like even by using their wording well that's maybe a little suggestive of antisemitism because you're borrowing their language. I can see that. I could see why somebody would ask you to disavow the post but that's really different from being antisemitic.

So I don't believe that even Schumer believes that Massie is antisemitic. He's talking about the choice of how to message. Would you agree with that? That even Schumer is not saying he is antisemitic. He simply is objecting to the messaging because it's too suggestive of a world in which they use that word too much in the worst way.

But here's the thing. Massie is not an idiot. He's just using words the way words are used. So I get it. And here's the other thing you need to know. Now this applies to my situation of my own canceling but also almost all the other canceling. It's never about the person who gets canceled. The public and the political players they use stories about public figures to attach their messaging to. So it's never really about the public figure. None of this is about Thomas Massie. It's about the fact that some people want to make sure you know that they're as supportive as they could be of the Jewish community and they want you to know that they won't tolerate anything that looks even suggestive of being on the other side.

So the way to interpret it is it has nothing to do with Thomas Massie because it legitimately has nothing to do with Thomas Massie. He just used English words the way they're used in the way he likes to use them. Everybody understood exactly what he meant. There was no confusion about what he meant or who he is. But still can turn it into something because it's easy to do so.

But also here here's the other thing you should be aware of. This is a hot war right. This is not theoretical. Israel is at war and they're right in the thick of it. Here's what I would not ask you to assume. Don't assume that people are being objective observers of anything. There's no objectivity happening here and if you try some objectivity you're going to get your ass handed to you right. So a lot of the messaging pro and con of everything is more about do you support Israel right. So this is the point where any little diversion from the perfect messaging in favor of Israel is going to get a lot of scrutiny. I'm surprised it hasn't happened to me yet.

You know I've said from the start I'm 100 percent backing Israel and my reasons are easy. My reasons are easy. It's what any country would do. Any country who would experience what they did on October 7th would respond the same way if they could, you know if they had the military might to do it. So having an opinion on it to me just seemed like a waste of time. It's just going to happen. My opinion isn't going to change anything. So I'm 100 percent understanding of it and supportive of it. But I don't know that that'll protect me because you realize the first second I say something that could be interpreted as off message the ADL will come after me right. Like you can't be 100 percent in favor of Israel and still be safe. You're just not. And I think Massie is an example that he's anyway there enough about that.

All right. As Mike Cernovich has pointed out, I'll just read his post. He said Bill Ackman and the Harvard donors are the leading indicators of 2024. He will never openly support Trump talking about Ackman. Not the point. Even Trump haters see a huge mess meaning the country. Imagine what most Americans are thinking. And then Mike finishes in his usual provocative way. He says that's why the regime is using media apparatchiks to incite assassination. Hyperbole. Is that too far? Is that an exaggeration?

Do you think the Democrats have an intentional strategy of getting Trump assassinated because it's the only way they can stop an obvious train that's under control which is their own train but they don't want Republicans to stop it. They want to I guess keep the train going.

I agree with this completely and I'm going to add some weight to it. Here's some weight. Rob Reiner says that Trump would be the end of democracy. Rob Reiner yeah who's the head of an organization that includes some former CIA members on it. Some say without evidence that Rob Reiner might be part of the deep state blob and not just a person with an opinion. Some say. But if that were true I don't know that that's true. I know that he acts exactly like he's part of the deep state. I don't know that it's true. I just know his actions are consistent with it.

And if it were and he says it's the end of democracy what does that signal to you? Well by itself it would just be political blah blah blah right because people say stuff like that. But when you say it about Trump and it's in the context of all this other stuff that I'm going to mention it does feel like a call to assassination. It does. Because if you can tell people that Trump is bad enough, he's enough of a Hitler dictator tyrant then you can make the case that there's nothing that's out of bounds to stop him. Nothing's out of bounds. So look for this in their messaging. Nothing's out of bounds. They won't say that but they will say well he might murder your children so you know do what you have to do. You know it's going to look like that.

All right what else? Liz Cheney warns that a vote for Trump quote may mean the last election that you get to vote in. Ah so Liz Cheney says that you will probably lose your country if you let him win. But what does Joe Biden say? Is there anything scary sounding? He says we cannot let him win. We cannot let Trump win. That's an interesting way to word it isn't it? Usually it's something like we have to fight to win. If he wins you know it'll be a bad country but if I win it'll be good. But that phrase we cannot let him win does that sound like permission to do anything to keep him from? If you cannot that seems like it's going beyond preference. Cannot is a decision. See the difference? We don't want him to win as a preference. Our team would do better as a preference. He'd do a bad job as a preference. I'd do a good job as a preference. He has bad policies that's a preference. I have good policies that's a preference. We cannot let him win is a decision. That's not a preference. That is allowing anything. We cannot. Cannot is a really strong and it feels like you meant it.

I swear to God we just have to have the all caps filter. If I read you the stuff that the all caps people are saying on YouTube you would just laugh. It's like why do you label yourself as an idiot? Like why would you label yourself hi I'm an idiot look at my all cap statement. Oh oh oh.

All right. So the Democrat playbook is they're going to go after the following things from the Republicans. So here's their attack on the Republicans. They're going to go after the potential for a national abortion ban because Republicans talk about that. Apparently Trump has wisely refused to engage on that question which is the right political stance. And as others have pointed out assuming that Democrats still have some power in Congress I don't see how there would ever be a national abortion ban. Do you? How in the world would Congress change so much that you could get a vote for a national abortion ban? Does that even sound like something that could happen? You know don't say whether you'd like it or not but is it possible? It doesn't seem like it but it's a good political club because to the extent that Democrats think it could happen it's a good approach.

I don't know they say that you know Trump will cut climate funding. He probably will. And then they say he'll undercut and attack American democracy. This is coming from some Democrat adviser. All right. And he's going to punish his political opponents and be a dictator.

So Trump does this town hall thing on Hannity. He's asked the question about being a dictator. Do you remember what I told you? I told you that he should mock people for that idea. You just laugh at them. He did not do that. Instead he makes it so hard to support him. Instead he said I'll only be a dictator for the first day. Come on. Come on. Can you give me any little relief here? Can you possibly give me a chance of surviving the next year? Like I feel like I'm going to get assassinated right if I say two more good things about him and he says one more thing about being a dictator for the first day. I feel like I'm going to get assassinated. Can you try a little harder to keep me alive for the next year? Are you kidding me? Don't say you're going to be a dictator the first day but only the first day. Only the first day.

Now was he joking? Of course of course he was joking. But when it gets requoted or just quoted you don't get the joke part. You don't get that he wasn't taking any of it seriously. So of course the news today is that he says yeah I'm going to be a dictator on the first day. They're literally quoting him as saying I'm going to be a dictator on day one because he actually said that but then he said you know only day one because you know get some stuff done or whatever. And it didn't even make sense. It didn't make sense because he wouldn't have to be a dictator. You know if he actually has the powers to do the things he wants to do he doesn't need to be a dictator. Why would he say that? Why? Why come on make it a little bit easier for us huh? A little bit.

All right well I think he'll probably trend in the right direction on that. Yeah yeah I think he needs to be funnier in mocking it. He needs to make sure everybody knows that he thinks you're an idiot for thinking it. Here would be the way I'd explain it. You want to hear the fastest persuasive argument for how he will not become a dictator? All right here it goes.

Become a dictator? I've been president for four years. Do you know how hard it is to get anything done? Do you know how many people would have to be involved in any small decision? Even the smallest thing has to be approved by this miles of bureaucracy. Do you know how many of the bureaucracy are Trump supporters? Mostly not. Mostly not. You've got a whole government of people who are against me who work for me. How in the world am I going to become a dictator when I can't even get an executive order passed that doesn't get reversed in a few months by the next president? How in the world? I couldn't even get the National Guard to protect the Capitol on January 6th. How in the world do I become a dictator? Can somebody tell me that plan? Like if I make a phone call and tell somebody to do some dictator stuff in your world do they go do it? In my world it starts this big bureaucratic process which stops everything from happening. I can't even do easy things. I can't even do things you want. Do you know what else I can't get done? I can't build a wall and most of you want one. Think about that. Not only can I not take over the country by talking. By talking I'm not going to become a dictator because I talk myself into it and talk you into it. You would need the entire function and structure and the military to somehow be on the same side of that. I can't even get Congress to do the things that most of the people in the world want to be done. I can't even get easy things done. How in the world am I going to take over the country by posting on Truth? He's not even on X. He's not even on social media. He's only on his own social media. How in the world is he going to take over the country? I mean to me that's just funny.

And here's why that's persuasive. Because as soon as you say the bureaucracy is so thick that I can't even do things that all of you want me to do you'd be done wouldn't you? The moment you hear that you go okay that's kind of