ould the Democrats back another older white guy? Do you think an older white guy can get elected now as president? You know it was impressive that he ever became mayor of Chicago but president? I don't know. I'm not sure if the Democrat coalition would allow that. You know they had some special feeling for Biden that didn't always make sense to me. So I don't think Rahm Emanuel would have that Biden sort of affection, but that'd be a problem because you know they're all about the diversity and if they run another white guy it's going to be sort of a glaring non-diversity situation anyway.

The other problem with Rahm Emanuel, and I'm not sure about this, give me a fact check on this, but when I've seen him in public and he's criticizing Republicans, I don't think he makes stuff up, which would make him unique among Democrats. Democrats generally just lie. So they say oh DOGE is going to cut your social services but the truth is the only cuts they're looking for are the waste, fraud, and abuse which wouldn't cut anybody's services. In fact might protect them because there would be more money to actually pay people. So if he doesn't lie, could he win? Because mostly what Democrats have is those kind of lies. Oh Trump is a dictator. I know. Would Rahm Emanuel say that? It's so stupid. Trump's going to cut your Social Security. He's not. Well he wouldn't be running against Trump but this whoever he's running against, would he say that that person is going to be cutting all your social services when he knows that it's not going to happen? I don't know. So he'd be an interesting one but I'd worry about him a little bit.

Meanwhile, so here's a good example. In Axios there's a headline that says DOGE is taking its wrecking ball to the Social Security Administration, the agency responsible for overseeing retirement and disability benefits for 73 million Americans. Now if you saw that headline it would look like they're cutting benefits to people who get Social Security, right? That's not the story. The story is that they're cutting the staff and they have very old computer systems and so there are some issues about whether it can just function with fewer people. I imagine it can. I'm not too worried about it. But that's the sort of lie. It wasn't a lie technically because the article describes what they're talking about. But that's the sort of thing that the Democrats have to run on. They have to just make stuff up because they don't have real stuff. Because otherwise they're running against common sense. So they have to assign stupid opinions to Republicans just so they have something to complain about. Oh I think he wants to kill all the babies. What? Nobody said anything like that. Oh yeah I'm pretty sure he's indicated he wants to kill all the babies. No. All right.

There's a story about the former CEO of Barclays, the bank, that apparently he had sex with Epstein's assistant. We don't know how old that was. But the funny part about it was, so he's admitted in court, I don't know what the court case was about, but he admitted that he was involved in the Jeffrey Epstein world there. And they're looking to ban him from the industry, blah blah blah. But apparently they discovered a thousand emails, like really friendly emails to Jeffrey Epstein. And he says he doesn't remember them. He sent a thousand emails. I don't remember doing that. Really? Really? I sent some emails? Huh. I don't have any memory of that. There were a thousand of them. Yeah. So he doesn't remember just daily.

Now I'd be lying if I didn't tell you this. Barclays bank went after me once in the past and because it's a court situation I can't tell you the details but oh my god do I hate that bank. Let's just say that my point of view is quite supportable and Barclays can't tell you what that was about but I do not like that bank. So I don't want to be too happy because their ex-CEO, he's not the current CEO, got in trouble with Epstein. But on the other hand it was hard not to enjoy it.

Meanwhile, you know the law firm Perkins Coie, am I saying that right? Coie. I used to think it was Coy but Perkins Coie. So they're the ones who were behind Hillary Clinton's Russia collusion hoax and some other things that Republicans don't like. And so the Trump administration yanked their security clearances. But there is some kind of challenge. They found a judge, of course. You know one of the top law firms in Washington, of course they found a judge who was willing to try to block it, to block the actions that the Trump administration's taking against them. But I saw one article that says that Perkins Coie is not challenging the removal of their security clearances but then I saw another article that says they are. So I don't know. It could be that they might want to say well it can't be every single person who works here. Maybe it should only apply to the people who worked on that project. But other people say it looks like we've got Mr.

Fart is back in the house. So if we could find a way to block him again, why some people decide that that's the thing they're going to do. Unbelievable. It's a problem in the comments.

All right. So but one lawyer at Perkins Coie said that all of the trouble that the Trump administration is giving their law firm, especially the security clearance part I think, represents it's like a tsunami waiting to hit the firm. So they do think it could just ruin their business entirely. But as Julie Kelly points out, Beryl Howell I guess this is the judge who oversaw the special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into the phony Trump Russia collusion and now she's the same person who's presiding over the Perkins Coie lawsuit against the president. Now doesn't that seem like some kind of weird coincidence or you know some kind of conflict of interest? So she was on the Robert Mueller case and now she's on this Perkins Coie thing. And the Perkins Coie people were involved with the Russia collusion hoax. So that's a sort of an only-in-DC thing.

Julie mentions, well in other news the EPA is getting rid of a whole bunch of rules and one of them is the endangerment finding. So this is a finding. Alex Epstein is talking about this on X. It's a finding that allowed Obama and Biden to ban gas cars and shut down power plants and slow U.S. oil growth and lock up our limitless natural gas, says Alex. And they're doing a lot more but this one seems like a big one.

So how much do you think this is going to make a difference to our economy if the EPA is sort of reduced in its impact? Well we should all be worried that things go too far and you know something will get polluted. But as Lee Zeldin points out out of the EPA, they're very concerned to make sure that they're not making the air or the water dirtier. But they want to get rid of just the BS part of the regulations. Should make a huge difference.

At the same time according to The Verge the FCC chairman Brendan Carr is asking the public for suggestions about how the FCC should get rid of regulations. And I love that. I love getting the public involved because the public has a much better idea what stopped them from doing the thing they wanted to do. So you're going to find small companies and big companies saying oh I've got an idea. We tried to build this thing and we couldn't do it because of the I don't know one thing or another. So if you could just get rid of that rule that'd be good.

So I love this. I love the fact that he's involving the public because the public does know what things are the biggest problems. And it's true, transparent. So if the FCC and the EPA make massive changes to deregulate, the business community is just going to love that. So I would say that things are looking really good for the long run of our economy. Better than I've ever seen it actually. Let me double down on that. The current things that are being done under the Trump administration are in my opinion the most positive things I've ever seen happen in one compressed period of time. I've never seen anything this amazingly good. From reducing regulations to even the tariff stuff, I think it's going to work out. In the short run, lots of uncertainty. Stock markets say we don't like uncertainty so they plunge. That's all built in.

And if you can get one thing right about the economy it's to make sure that you got the long run right even if it has a little bit of pain in the short run. That's the hardest thing to do is something you'd have to do if you had a mandate and it was your second term and you were determined to get it right. So this situation is so unusual. If you add DOGE, you know the cost cutting and really just finding out what kind of total corruption was in our system, I'm almost as interested in the corruption and the money laundering and the shadow government that was caused by all the NGOs as I am about the cost cutting. These are amazingly, amazingly positive trends.

Now will the courts block everybody from doing everything they want? It looks like it. The courts are trying to block just everything. You know anything that Elon Musk wants to do, anything that Trump wants to do, somebody's going to find a friendly judge who will try to block it. But I've never seen anything this positive in my entire life. Nothing with this much impact that could make a big difference in the long run.

Trump's proposing an idea to, according to Howard Lutnick, U.S. Commerce Sec