omplain like crazy but you're going to accept it.

So Russia and NATO your two choices are this: nuclear destruction of all of civilization or wait a few weeks and everything will be fine. Which of those two choices sounds better to you? Complete nuclear destruction of civilization before we even get to Mars or how about we just work it out around January 20th, 21st something like that.

Now given that every smart person in the world believes that a negotiated peace is now not only possible but guaranteed and we know that Putin as tough and mean as he can be, some say evil, but I'll tell you what, nobody accuses Vladimir Putin of being irrational. Nope not once. He's not an irrational guy. Do you know what? Trump is not irrational. You can hate his policies. You can hate anything he says, his posts, blah blah. He's not irrational. He's very very transactional and so is Putin. So you've got the two most transactional leaders, the strongest ones, the ones who can get what they want because they have enough clout in their own land to do it. They both want peace. They want a lot and of course it's going to happen.

So here's what you need to know if you're worried. We have the lowest chance of nuclear war with Russia right now between now and you know January, mid-January. It's the lowest risk of nuclear war. It'll never be lower than this. It's close to zero. And the reason is that one hundred percent of the people involved can see that simply waiting is almost guaranteed to work whereas using a nuke is basically death. We've never seen choices this clear. So could something accidental happen? Well I suppose. But in terms of intentional nuclear war it's the lowest risk in your lifetime because it would be the only time that there's no argument for a nuclear war the next few weeks. None. A few missiles go into Russia. Sorry that's not even close. That's not even close to a nuclear war. It would be maybe if it were closer to the beginning of the war or looked like Russia couldn't win you know maybe if things were different it would be dangerous. But in our current exact situation you have the lowest risk of nuclear war you've ever experienced in your life. Nobody wants it and I think that both sides are probably, one assumes or at least one hopes, probably both sides are giving a little extra attention to making sure there's nothing accidental that happens because an accidental any kind of accidental alert that would make one side spooked would be the worst thing you could do. So they probably have also the most attention they've ever given to making sure there's no accidental thing. I would imagine that they're testing the red phone every five minutes. Is that still a thing? Is there still like literally a phone you can pick up in the White House and Putin's going to be pretty close to picking it up? Yeah they're going to make sure that we have a direct line of communication that there's no delay and if somebody gets a false signal one way or the other you want to be able to call and say did you just send a nuke our way and we need to say no or whatever vice versa. So we'll be fine. It's actually the last thing I'd worry about today. It's not even on my list of things to think about. You will be fine. But the only reason you'll be fine is that all the reasonable people are up in arms right. If you just sort of ignored it that would be the wrong thing but being super alert to how big a deal this is is good. That's where you want to be. That's where we are.

All right. The Gateway Pundit says that people in the DOJ and FBI at least the officials are hiring their own criminal defense lawyers ahead of Trump's return. Now how often have you hired a criminal defense lawyer when nobody has even accused you of a crime? Have you ever done that? Well nobody's accused me of a crime and as far as I know I haven't committed any but you know I think I'd better get myself a criminal defense lawyer. Well some of them might be genuinely innocent of all crimes and maybe just worried but it sure looks guilty doesn't it? Now they're all innocent until proven guilty so that the standard is innocent. But if it's really true that they're lawyering up I feel that on some level they think that there's a real risk. On some level I think a lot of people know they were part of a conspiracy and I don't know if they know if that conspiracy was legal or not.

Because let's say there was enough evidence for a RICO prosecution and it could be in several domains because the Democrats and you know everything from the military to the mainstream press and the intelligence people they seem to coordinate on a lot of stuff. So at what point does the coordination if the outcome is something illegal hypothetically, at what point does the coordination toward that one outcome that's illegal become RICO? So you can see a situation where somebody just took a meeting or took a phone call and they were sort of in on the plot but maybe not super actively. You know they were just sort of part of the conversation and maybe didn't do something to stop it. Are they part of the RICO? Can you go to jail for being part of the conversation? Because the whole RICO is that it's a coordinated group planned activity. If you're part of the people who are plotting even if you didn't do the action but the people who did the action met with you and got some advice and you said well I'm not going to stop you, are you guilty? I have no idea.

So I want to say again as I'll say this many times because I think the more I say it the better, I'm completely opposed to any Trump lawfare. If I see even the scent of it I'm going to go nuts because we didn't go through all this work just to put a bunch of it in charge right. We didn't fight this hard to get rid of lawfare just to do our own lawfare. That's no go. You better have really really good evidence of a crime you know the way it should be. You should have really good evidence of a crime and I wouldn't go looking for it if there's not anything that's you know somewhat on the surface. So no we I am absolutely not okay with lawfare as any kind of revenge. And believe me I feel like I've been a victim of coordinated activities. My cancellation I don't think happened just all in a vacuum. Yeah I'm pretty sure that was part of the larger you know Democrat political strategy to cancel everybody they can. But even then I don't want anybody who didn't break a law to go to jail. I want zero of that.

All right so they got their lawyers. As Mike Cernovich says on a post on X he said what Democrats did in Pennsylvania gives credence to 2020 stolen election claims. Future claims will be informed by what we all just saw. Stolen election deniers, we'll call them stolen election deniers not election deniers as we shall call them now, carry the burden of proof. So what he's talking about is that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court told the election board to stop counting illegal votes. An illegal vote would be one that has let's say a non-matching signature or there's something irregular about it that makes it uncountable. But the election board decided to just ignore the court order and just keep counting them.

Now somebody said that it wouldn't be possible to easily back out the ones that are miscounted because maybe they're not separately keeping track for the ones that are illegal in case there's a you know motion to remove exactly those illegal ones but nothing else. If they can't tell which ones are illegal and which ones are legal when they're done counting what's your recourse then? An audit and then you just still don't have an answer about who's the senator. It goes on for months. I don't know. But to me I'm going to agree with Cernovich on his take that watching the Supreme Court tell them to stop counting illegal votes and then watching the election board try to do it anyway certainly suggests that rigging is normal. Meaning that this doesn't look like something that somebody came up with that they never thought of before. It just has that feeling like you kind of did that a little naturally. They just kept counting and they kept finding all these votes.

Well I personally have no proof that Pennsylvania is going to end up doing something illegal but we do know they're violating the order of the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania. So do you go as far as I do and say that Cernovich is right that just watching this tells you that 2020 was probably crooked anyway?

There are now six Democrat leaders at least who say they will not comply with Trump's new government immigration enforcement. So you've got the Arizona governor, Illinois governor, Colorado governor, Massachusetts governor and also the mayors of Chicago and Boston which are obviously in two of those states. S