SCOTUS Rules on Tariffs; Board of Peace; Trump; GDP; Hegseth; Gaza; Tucker | Yaron Brook Show

Well, what's up, foos, men of the J.O.S.

all here from the WWE.

When it's just me between matches, it's day one itch.

That means it's chumba time with hundreds of casino style games

and new titles arriving weekly.

There's always something fresh to try at chumba casino.

The daily booze make it even more fun.

And have me about to get them all during my downtime.

Ready for a fun way to chill out and enjoy a few minutes

for yourself?

Let's chumba.

No purchase necessary.

VGW Group Void were prohibited by law, CTs and Cs.

21 Plus, sponsored by Chumba Casino.

Oh, right, everybody.

Welcome to your own book show on this Friday, February 20th.

The date, the Supreme Court came down finally.

I think I know why it's taking us so long.

Finally, with the decision on the tariff case.

And it is quite something.

We'll get to all the details, or at least not all the details.

The details have been able to glean from a decision

made about three hours ago with me teaching class in the middle.

Whatever I mean, able to glean, this is going

to be looked on, examinated, reviewed, analyzed, I think,

for days and weeks to come because of the complexity of all

of this, but to be continued beyond this.

Anyway, the top line is that the court has ruled

the Trump's use of the IEEE PA to impose tariffs is illegal.

That is, they've knocked it down.

They basically said it is a misuse of the law.

The law does not provide the president

with the authority to levy taxes, to levy tariffs in imports.

They do it for a bunch of different reasons, which we'll get to.

They knock it down.

And basically, relegates the decision about tariffs.

It says that is Congress's decision.

As you can expect, as you can expect, this has Trump fuming.

Fuming is furious.

He's got a press conference, as we speak right now,

or a statement as we speak right now.

He's got Lutnik with him, the pit bull, a complete idiot,

but it's an aside.

And he's announcing that he's going to impose the tariffs

using a different section.

Anyway, we'll talk about all that.

We'll talk about it all that.

But that's first talk about the decision itself.

So this is a six to three decision.

The majority decision was written by Judge Roberts, the chief justice

of the Supreme Court.

It's relatively brief.

It's 21 pages.

Five other justices joined him in everything except one section of what he wrote.

Justice Gorsuch and Barrett joined only this section,

dealing with a major question, doctrine.

We'll get to what that is in a minute.

Then Justice Gorsuch writes a 48-page concurring opinion,

longer than the main opinion.

And I've got some juicy segments out of that in a minute.

That is probably of all of them, the most important of all the decisions,

because Justice Gorsuch is the most principled of all of the justices so far.

You might not always agree with him, but he's got something to say.

Justice Barrett writes a very short four-page concurrence,

basically weakening her position on the major questions doctrine.

Justice Kagan writes a seven-page concurrence,

the primary purpose of which is to challenge the use of the major questions doctrine.

And because the major questions doctrine has real impact for democratic presidents

in terms of how they use legislation, primarily regulatory agencies,

and the three liberal justices don't want to endorse

a four-throttle support of the major questions doctrine.

Justice Jackson writes a short five-page concurring opinion

where she is the lone voice, and, you know, anyway,

some argument about the reading of the legislative history

as the only tool for deciding the case, again,

basically a rejection of the major questions doctrine,

then in the opposition, Justice Thomas writes a 13-page dissent

that takes on the use of the major questions doctrine

on separation of powers, grounds.

So he's defending the Trump administration, and we'll talk a little bit about Gorsuch's

objections to Thomas.

And then Kavanaugh, who's also in opposition, writes a massive 63-page dissent

that basically defends administration's position in all respects,

a beginning with the premise that tariffs are one of many means of regulating imports.

So the statute under which IEEEPA, under which Trump used,

has something about regulating imports, Trump argued,

the Trump argument was that regulating imports

meant includes tariffs.

Most of the judges reject that interpretation, except for Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh generally has the most, I don't know, pragmatic decision of all.

I mean, a lot of it has to do with the fact that

this is going to create chaos, and this is not good, and anyway,

but also the interpretation of the lights off.

I think the major decisions here of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch,

I've read pieces of Gorsuch, I've read only a little bit of Kavanaugh's.

So this is going to be studied for a long time,

because of all the different opinions here,

and all the different disagreements that are going on here.

It's hard to extrapolate from this any kind of broader principles

that could apply to other laws.

But in this case, this is fantastic.

In the sense that the ruling basically upheld the rule of law,

it upholds the separation of powers.

And on that basis, just on that basis, it should be celebrated,

it will have probably very little effect on actual tariffs,

very little effect on the economy.

It's probably going to create a lot of chaos and uncertainty and

all kinds of stuff out there, which will probably have negative consequences

in the short run, because Trump is likely to impose tariffs in a different way.

You know, economically, who knows what's going to happen of all this,

but nothing, I don't think much good.

But in terms of separation of powers, in terms of rule of law,

this is fantastic.

And again, it's probably the case that Gorsuch's decision is the best here,

but I haven't read them all.

There's no way, and I haven't read their analysis of those who I respect,

who are going to read them all, which I will over the next few days.

So we'll return to this as we go along.

But there is a few things that I do think are worth talking about.

And let me just say something about because it's going to keep coming

about what is this doctrine, the major question doctrine.

So the major question doctrine is a Supreme Court established principle.

There requires federal agencies to have clear explicit congressional authorization.

For regulations with vast economic or political significance.

Now, vast is again, there's a lot of subjectivity here, but tariffs clearly are vast, right?

So what the purpose of it is to prevent agencies from relying on vague,

old or implied powers for major policy shifts.

And this whole idea here is to curb administrative outreach.

And really, the key case here is West Virginia versus the EPA,

which challenged COVID-19 mandates, but this was a 2022 decision.

And this is a big deal for Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh is a big believer in agencies should only be able to do what Congress explicitly says they

should do. They shouldn't be able to write the law themselves.

They should only be able to do what explicitly it says.

So as it applies to the IEPA, it basically is the IEPA allows the government to decline

emergency and do these economic emergency and do these specific things.

Those specific things are what the executive can do.

It can't do other things like tariffs.

So just to give you a little bit more on this.

Quartz Assume Congress does not delegate decisions of vast economic and political significance

to agencies unless the statute clearly says so.

The purpose is a clear statement rule that limits the administrative state, the executive,

and enforces the separation of powers by pushing significant policy decisions back to Congress.

The doctrine has been used to invalidate major federal actions,

such as the EPA's power plant regulations, the CDC's eviction moratorium, and OSHA's vaccine mandates.

You know, opponents argue that doctrine is not firmly rooted in the Constitution,

isn't consistently applied, allows close to substitute their policy preferences for those

of expert agencies. But that's the point here is, if Congress wants something done

Congress has to do it. It can't just delegate broad vague,

unspecific authority to agencies as they have for now for decades.

And then for the agencies then to write the law. That is not how our constitutional government

works. That's not how our separation of powers work. I think it's, you know, within the context

of the world in which we live, it is a good doctrine. And you know, it's the challenge to the

chevron era, chevron deference, which was a ruling by Supreme Court in the 1980s, I think,

that basically said we're giving deference to the regulatory agency. The regulatory agency will

interpret the law based, and we give deference to that. The court shouldn't challenge the regulatory

agencies. The executive branch has broad authority to interpret law as they see fit. That is now

out, basically. So this is very much a Gorsuch, limit the administrative state as much as possible.

All right, so a big part of this is i.e. EPA did not authorize tariffs, therefore tariffs

out. That is the, that's the basis for the big, this decision. This is what Gorsuch writes kind of

as an introduction, if you will, as a big picture, to this whole topic. So I'm just going to read

you from Gorsuch's concurrence. For those who think it is important for the nation to impose more

tariffs, I understand that today's decision will be disappointing. All I can offer them is that

most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of American people, including

the duty to pay taxes and tariffs, are funneled through the legislative process for a reason.

Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress

when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process

was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the nation can tap the combined wisdom

of the people's peoples, elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man.

Their deliberation tempers impulse and compromise hammers disagreements into workable solutions.

And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process,

they tend to endure allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways that cannot

when the rules shift from day to day. In all, the legislative process helps ensure

each of us has a stake in the laws that govern us and in the nation's future.

For some today, the weight of those virtues is apparent. For others, it may not seem so obvious.

But if history is any guide, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed

by today's result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is.

C.T.N.C.'s 21 Plus sponsored by Trump at Casino.

Writes and responsibilities. I hate that language. But given all that and there's nothing here about

Writes. I mean, what he is arguing is for the importance of separation of powers,

the importance of the legislative process that takes time, that is hard, that takes deliberation

and argument. It's exactly what people like Trump want to get around. It's exactly what authoritarians

want to get around. They want to be able to just decide and do. They want to be able to act.

They don't want to have to pass laws, laws take time and they're hard and there's a bunch of

people who don't agree with you. And you have to take them into account and you might have to

compromise with them and all of that. That is what the left has always argued against the

liberty of legislative process, starting with Roosevelt, right? Roosevelt tried to get his

stuff passed through basically executive control. He tried to get laws passed that were clearly

unconstitutional and he tried to get them hammered through in spite of the court and when the court

opposed him, he threatened the court and tried to overthrow it. And in that sense, he's the first

kind of authoritarian president, probably based on my understanding of American history, really,

you know, he didn't really, he didn't pack the court, he threatened to pack the court, really in

American history. So he, you know, it's this opposition to having to go through the legislative

process, passing laws. Every authoritarian hates that. Every authoritarian hates that.

And while we believe, I believe that much of the laws today on the books, maybe most of the laws

on the books today, I'll go even further, overwhelming majority of the laws on the books today,

shouldn't really have passed constitutional musters. Actually, if you have a proper understanding

of the Constitution and concept of individual rights, unconstitutional, you can just brush them

aside. It's certainly not as an executive. You have to undo the damage that was done and you have

to undo the damage that was done through a legislative process. And politicians hate that. People

are president hate that. They want to get stuff done as quickly as effectively as they can.

And what Godships is implying here is, yeah, when it's your side who's the president and you

just want get stuff done, then yeah, to hell with the legislation, let's just get stuff done.

But when the other side, you want legislations, you want to slow them down, you want to stop

them from getting stuff done. That's bad. And I think he's absolutely right. And that's

this is an important aspect of the separation of powers and the different roles our government

has. Let's see, have a few, you know, kind of different pieces out of the different decisions

that I want to, I want to read to you. I think this is from Roberts. The president

asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and

scope in light of the breath, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority.

He must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.

IEEPA's grant of authority to regulate importation falls short. IEEPA contains no reference

to tariffs or duties. The government points the no statute in which Congress used the word

regulate to authorize taxation. And until now, no president has read the IEEPA to confer such power.

We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only,

as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article 3 of the Constitution.

For filling that role, we hold that the IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.

Now you can clap and give them a standing ovation. That's absolutely right. I mean,

that's the best we can expect, I think, from our courts today. In a footnote,

they are looking at other tariffs, they're addressing other tariffs, and they say

that have been imposed by a president. And they write, those tariffs are also limited of limited

amount, duration, and scope. Right. Noting that the 10% search charge was described by President

Nixon as a temporary measure was, in effect, less than five months applied only to articles

which had been subject to prior tariff concessions and was capped at congressional authorized

rates, which suggests that they are open to tariffs. It's just not kind of the unlimited

authority that Trump has taken on himself, you know, to that is broad as it is.

Now, one of the things that Gorsuch does is Gorsuch's opinion takes on all the other opinions

and challenges them all. You know, he takes on Kagan over the fact that she claims the major

questions document as a magical innovation. He shows that it reaches back to the 18th century

to English corporate law, American means, and a bunch of other agency law and a bunch of other

things. He calls out Kagan and Sotomayor and Jackson for reading statutory texts broadly

when it came to the vaccine mandate, eviction moratoriums and student loan forgiveness,

but suddenly with the Trump tariff IEPA, suddenly they want to draw it narrowly. So he's showing

even though they agree with him in this case, why didn't you agree with me on the other cases?

When democratic issues were, if you're going to interpret laws narrowly,

interpret laws narrowly consistently, he writes, why do I concur in colleagues read IEPA so much

more narrowly than they have other broad statutory terms found in other major legislation addressing

other emergencies. So if you're going to, if you're going to do it, be consistent, he's telling

Kagan Sotomayor and Jackson the leftist judges. In terms of, you know,

yeah, I mean, he criticizes who criticism of the major question cases again and basically says

she's got it wrong, but you know, we'll get, if it's important, we can get into that in more

detail in the future show once I look more carefully at it. But he's basically there to defend

the major question doctrine. As I said, this is Gorsuch, this is Gorsuch, right? So he writes,

our system has separated powers and checks and balances, threatens to give way to the

continual and permanent equation, a power in the hands of one man, guess who their man is,

that is no recipe for a republic. That was in part of the section where he's criticizing about it.

Then he goes into a criticism of Thomas and Kavanaugh, but here's some stuff. You know,

Thomas is basically saying Congress can delegate all their authority at once to the president

and he can delegate, you know, everything. So Kavanaugh writes, on his view,

the only powers Congress may not delegate are those that involve rules setting the conditions

for the deprivation of life, liberty or property. Kavanaugh writes, from this rule, it follows that

Congress may give all its tariff powers to the president because, quote, importing as a matter of

privilege, unquote, as a result, this case does not implicate any separation of power concerns at all

according to Thomas. Gorsuch says, it's a sweeping theory. One that would require us to re-imagine

much of our case law addressing Article I's vesting clause, this is Article I of the Constitution,

about the powers the Congress has, and one that presents difficulties of its own.

He also writes later on, the president is seeking to exploit questionable statutory language

to grandize his own power. So Kavanaugh's ruthless here and ruthless towards

his other other injustices towards the president towards the president's use of this law.

His is a powerful rebuttal. So for him, Barrett is weak. Kavanaugh, Lido, just plain out wrong.

Thomas is off the charts wrong, and this is what he's arguing. All right, let's see,

what else do we want to say about this? This is from an article by

Scott Linticim. It is Ryan C. Crest here. There was a recent social media trend which consisted of

flying on a plane with no music, no movies, no entertainment, but a better trend would be going

to chumbacacino.com. It's like having a mini social casino in your pocket. Chumbacacino has over

a hundred online casino style games all absolutely free. It's the most fun you can have online

and on a plane. So grab your free welcome bonus now at chumbacacino.com. Sponsored by

Chumbacacino. It's worth noting what the Supreme Court got right. When the administration

invoked IEPA to impose sweeping tariffs on nearly all inputs, it stretched the 1977 sanctions law

while beyond anything Congress intended. IEPA was designed to let presidents freeze assets and

restrict financial transactions during genuine emergencies. The law does not function as a switch

in the overall office for presidents to unilaterally rewrite virtually the entire tariff code

passed by Congress. The Court's decision provides practical relief for Americans,

suffering from the administration's ill-advised tariffs. Businesses have been whipped

by tariff rates to change seemingly by the hour during the spring chaos. The tax foundation

estimates that IEPA tariffs increase taxes on American households by about $1,000 in 2025

and will tack on another 1,326. The unpredictability, especially for small businesses,

was almost as damaging as the rates themselves. But the end of IEPA tariffs does not mean

an end to unilateral trade policy. The administration has already been eyeing other

largely overlooked statutes that could produce a similar result. First, let's look at section 122.

Now, let me note that this has already now been mentioned by Chump in his

whatever, in his statement about the Supreme Court's decision that this is probably what he's

going to be using. Let's see what it is. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This provision

empowers the president to address large and serious balances of payment deficits through

import surcharges of up to 15 percent, import quotas, and some carbonate combination of the two.

That surely holds considerable appeal to a president who has consistently and mistakenly

reeled against the alleged dangers of U.S. trade deficits. So he continues as Van

Stan Vuger of the American Enterprise Institute and I explained in December in foreign policy

that the administration could replicate most of the IEPA tariff structure through section 122 in

short order. Countries currently facing rates above 15 percent with some reduction, but for every

other country, the hit would be nearly identical. And crucially, section 122 does require the

lengthy investigations that other trade statutes demand. The president could act fast, but there's

a catch. Section 122 tariffs expire after 150 days, unless Congress votes to extend them.

How much of a constraint this is, however, remains to be seen. If Congress declines the act,

which I'm sure it will decline to act, in a sense that it needs, I think, 60 votes to pass

Senate and is not going to get them, it might not even get a majority given Republicans who

oppose tariffs. If Congress declines the act, the administration could at least, in theory,

allow the travesty laps, declare new balance of payments emergency, and restart the clock.

The maneuver would raise serious separation of powers, concerns, but nothing in the statue

clearly forbids it. With the statue, never previously invoked, there's no judicial precedent

to clarify its limits. Trump could also use section 338. There's also section 338 in the

entire act of 1930, the famous Southali Act, that like section 122 has never been deployed.

It authorizes the president to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from any country that

discriminates against US commerce as compared to other nations. The statue is remarkably short

and vague. It assigns a role to the US International Trade Commission, which has a duty to

ascertain that at all times to be informed where the discrimination is occurring and to bring

the matter to the attention of the president together with recommendations. But whether this function

functions as a procedural prerequisite or merely an advisory channel is unclear, the statue

separately authorizes the president to oppose tariffs. Whenever he shall find as a fact that

discrimination exists, does that language empower the president to act unilaterally or must

be wait for the commission's finding? The text doesn't say. The Congressional Research Service

has suggested the section 338 falls into the category of terrorist authorities,

terror authorities that do not contain requirements of a federal agency to conduct an investigation

and make certain findings before tariffs may be imposed. But this interpretation has never

been tested by an administration, any administration or any court. Anyway, and then what counts as

discrimination, who knows, the law doesn't really say with any precision. Anyway, if he invokes this,

this is, if he invokes any of these things, it's going to go back in front of the courts and it'll

take a year to legislate. And even if they rule that's unconstitutional, you'd have another year

of tariffs. They continue in their article unfettered use of section 122 and 1338, along with the

better known statues like section 31332. Could essentially recreate the IEPA predicament. In practice,

this means the president can continue reshaping tax policy and the business environment on a whim,

redistributing hundreds of billions of dollars and imposing pervasive uncertainty. Without

express congressional authorization, the court did important work by raining in the misuse of IEPA,

but judicial intervention can only go so far. Congress spent decades handing off its constitutional

trade authorities the executive branch and those delegations remain largely intact.

Until lawmakers reclaim some of that authority and add serious procedural safeguards,

the risk of arbitrary tariffs will continue.

The court did its job. Now Congress needs to do its own. And that's the bottom line.

Congress needs to act. Trump is going to create chaos. It's what he does. Trump will continue to

find ways to unilaterally do whatever he feels like doing, because that's what he does.

Trump before the ruling came out earlier this morning said, without tariffs, everybody would

be bankrupt. Everybody. The whole country would be bankrupt. He believes this crap. He really does,

or he has convinced himself that he believes it, whatever. He said it often enough. This is this

is his religion tariffs are and he will find a way to impose them on us. He will raise our taxes.

There's no question about that. It's Congress is the only entity that can actually reign him in.

So, now again, there's a lot to analyze in the court decision. Thomas's decision in particular is

bad, really bad. He's basically suggesting that tariffs are not even a tax, which is just untrue.

Kavanaugh's is really, really a pragmatist, which is what you'd expect for Tavana.

Kavanaugh, a paganist willingness to let the president do whatever the hell he wants.

So, to be continued, but again, expect chaos, no surprise, with Trump. The other aspect of this,

this is one more aspect that I think is important to point out, is that,

what do you call it? Another aspect of this is that

companies that are going to sue to get refunds. How the refunds going to be allocated,

who they're going to be allocated to, big companies have lawyers to be able to go and sue this

and spend the money to get the money back. Small businesses don't well, the Treasury automatically

issue refunds. Well, it has to go through the courts and through lawsuits. How is the refund process

going to happen? Who knows, but this is also going to create a lot of chaos and a lot of

uncertainty, primarily for small businesses. Small businesses. It's going to be the fight of

2026 is refunds. Again, a major political flashpoint, and the harm is going to be born primarily

by small businesses, because large businesses can afford the fight, and small businesses cannot.

I guess that's basically what I had to say about this. When the decision was first announced,

stocks went up. They kind of went, they've kind of moderated. They're not up a lot. Stock

like doesn't know what to do with this, because again, Trump is just going to impose other tariffs,

and there's huge uncertainty around all this stuff. Again, chaos in the market does not like chaos,

does not like chaos. It's hard to tell. Gold has gone up. Silver's up quite a bit. Silver's up

like 7%. Other stuff is pretty stable. The dollar is stable. The bonds are just like the

interest rates are up a little bit. But yeah, it's going to take a while to absorb it,

and really everybody's going to wait to see what happens. Trump says, let's just see what this is.

Bubble Wallace here from 2311 Racing. You know what's slower than a pace car?

Waiting at the car wash. That's when I fire up Chamba Casino. It turns those slow minutes

into fast fun. With new games every week, you'll never get bored. Next time you're stuck in the

slow lane, speed up with Chamba. Play now at ChambaCasino.com. Let's Chamba. Sponsored by Chamba Casino,

no purchase necessary, VGW GroupFord, where prohibited by law, 21 plus terms and conditions apply.

Trump attacks Supreme Court, says he's imposing 10% global tariff. Let's see, I'm not sure

under what authorization he's going to impose. His first move, imposing a 10% global tariff

under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That's 122. Trade, the fact that he have deficits.

So 10% global tariff, some more sudden year, everything's going to come down. But then what?

The statue allows the president to post tariff's up to 15%. So it's interesting he's only doing 10.

Let's see, what else is he saying here?

Post 10% global tariff over and above the normal tariff's already being charged.

Now that the Supreme Court has struck down his whites, I don't know what that means.

Which tariffs that are already being charged? And who is he penalizing here exactly?

Yeah, I'm going to increase all your taxes because I'm mad at the Supreme Court.

The president also mentioned that all national security tariffs under Section 232 and Section 301

remain fully in place, including those tariffs on furniture, which is, as I mentioned,

national security issue. Under Section 232, we have, which is under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962,

National Security again. We have 50% levees on semi-finished copper products, 25% levees on semi-conductors,

automobile tariffs. There are lots of tariffs that are not affected by this Supreme Court ruling,

and now he's going to post 10% on top of that. So Trump is vindictive and crazy, and he's not a

sane person. I'll give you some examples of it in a minute. He's not, I've given you lots of

examples over the last 10 years and over the last few months. He's not sane. He's not, he's not,

he's just an emotionalist, unthinking, bombastic, you know, in that case, is what he is.

And so he's just going to continue to lash out.

Talking about some of the insanity, you know, one of the most insane things that he's doing

is this ridiculous border piece, right, which convened, I guess, yesterday, and where he is

chairman for life, he handpicks members, controls the finances, and chooses his own successor.

He has all the power for this thing. He supposedly has directed $10 billion of US taxpayer money

to go to this border piece. He has no constitutional authority to do that. Only Congress could do that,

but again, it doesn't bother him, at least to say so.

You know, and who is on this border piece? I mean, it's, it's a list of, a list of the most

authoritarian places, right? Who do you have? Bahrain, Morocco, Argentina. That's a sad,

that Argentina joined. Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Azerbaijan, Morocco, Bahrain, all,

authoritarian, Bulgaria, OK, European democracy, Hungary, you'd expect that Albania, Indonesia,

Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Pakistan, Pakistan, Paraguay, Belarus, Belarus.

The number one ally of Putin, Egypt, another authoritarian, Qatar, of course, Saudi Arabia,

of course, Turkey, of course, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Vietnam,

these other people participated in the meeting yesterday, right? So, France, Germany, Italy,

UK, Spain, Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, no way to be seen, our allies, no way to be

seen. And then Trump says in a statement about them, he says, in terms of power and in terms of

prestige, these are the greatest world leaders. The guy is unmoored, he is not connected to reality.

Now, you could accuse me of Trump due engagement syndrome, but he just is. He's, he's, you know,

half the countries on the list, a country that Trump has said cannot come to the United States.

There's someone reliable and risky that their citizens will not get a visa to the United States,

but these are some of the best, most influential, and most powerful leaders in the world.

I mean, it truly is, and saying here's some quotes from Trump from his first meeting of the

Board of Peace yesterday. This is some of the stuff that he said. He rambled on for about an hour

during the three-hour meeting. He rambled for an hour. He says, I want to thank Giannian FIFA,

FIFA, the World Football Federation. They gave me their first peace prize. They saw that I got

screwed by Norway, and they said, let's give him a peace prize. Then he gave out a shout out,

the Hamas. Every last remaining hostage living in dead has been returned back home. They dug,

and dug, and dug. Hamas did a lot of that work. You got to give them credit for that.

And then he turns to the king of Bahrain. His majesty, the king of Bahrain, he is so rich,

he can sit there. He can sit wherever the hell he wants. He might take a piece of this building.

Marco, he turns to Rubio. Take 25% of the building, the White House, for about 6 billion.

I mean, this is the president of the United States. He says, I have a good relationship with the

United Nations. Other than at my last speech, they did turn off my teleprompter. I got up there. My

teleprompter didn't work. First, I had an escalator that stopped. I was lucky. My movie star,

first lady, was in front of me, because I put my hands on a certain part of her body,

and I was able to stop my fall. This is the border piece. This is the important business of the

border piece. Then he goes on about millennia, right? She's had a successful movie. It's number one.

She's a big movie star. We can't have two stars in one family. I don't know what that means,

but it's not good. Theaters all packed. Women especially go back and see it two, three, four times.

He turns to Whitcuff. Everybody likes Whitcuff. Ukraine loves him. Russia loves him. Europe loves him.

I don't think Ukraine loves him. I'm pretty sure Europe doesn't love him. I'm pretty sure Israel doesn't

love him. He says, the president of Paraguay is here. A young handsome guy. Always nice to be

young and handsome. It doesn't mean we have to like you. I don't like young handsome men. Women,

I like men. I don't have any interest. It's not a standard routine. This is an hour-long

presentation in front of the border piece by President Trump. Can you imagine what all these

rulers of all these countries are thinking? He says, this building was built for peace. Nobody knew

what to name it. When Marco named it after me, I had nothing to do with it. I swear they said

there's a surprise coming. I thought they were going to give me a lot of money or something.

Maybe cash. I can always use some extra cash.

Then the president of Kazakhstan, who is a dictator, the dictator of Kazakhstan,

said, I'd like to propose to establish a special President Trump award to recognize a special

peacekeeping efforts. It's pretty amazing. This is your president. This is the world in which we

live in. Just to put a definitive exclamation mark around this, this is your president. Don't you

forget it. I know a lot of you will say I'm making this up because the TDS or whatever. I'm

making this up because this couldn't happen in America. Indeed, this is America. An

Department of Justice building has installed a banner in the front of the building,

facing against Constitution Avenue. I'm not sure what avenue this is. One of the big avenues

in Washington DC, a massive banner. I'm looking at it now. It's about four stories high,

four story high banner with a giant photograph of Donald Trump in front of the Department of Justice,

a giant banner of Donald Trump. I mean, this is like foreblown North Korea or

Germany in the 30s or Soviet Union in the 50s or whatever. We don't do this stuff in America.

Don't do this stuff in America. Like this is pushinality, worship, dictator, worship,

presidential worship. This is sick. It is really sick. And we're talking about the Department of Justice.

And this is, you know, maybe a Twitter might need you. This is year 104. We got three more of these.

I mean, what's going to happen in the next three years? How's it going to be top himself?

Well, we'll see. I've got some, I've got some video of TechSeth.

All right, take a breath. Deep breath. All right. We will survive.

We will survive. You know, somebody says you can say whatever you want about Trump. You can't say

he's not a megalomaniac. You can say he's a crazy megalomaniac, but that's maybe true of all megalomaniacs.

It's completely insane. Nuts. Nuts. All right. Let's send the economy quickly.

We've got a few stories that we can do pretty quickly. I think here, but let's send the economy.

We now have GDP numbers for the whole of 2025 have come out and we also got another inflation

number, price inflation. I have to say price inflation, not monetary inflation, price inflation,

number. So we'll talk about that. But let's start off with GDP numbers.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing. Victory Lane? Yeah. It's even better with Chumba by my side.

Race to ChumbaCasino.com. Let's Chumba. No purchase necessary. VTW Group. Boy, we're

prohibited by law. CTNCs, 21 plus sponsored by ChumbaCasino. The US economy grew only 1.4%

at the end of last year. That's the Q4. Now, when I say it grew 1.4%, that's

annualized. That's an annualized GDP number. So whatever it is, if that continued over the entire

year, it would be 1.4%. So that's slow. That's slow growth. Not negative growth, but slow growth.

ChumbaCasino's spending was decent, 2.4%, business investment in AI was strong, nothing

really else. Government shutdown shrunk government expenditure, which is a part of GDP. So that was

a real drag on the GDP number. So the shutdown hood growth as measured by GDP. But the reality is,

GDP was slow last year. So if you look at the entire year last year, a 12-month GDP over last year,

the economy grew in 2025 by 2.2%. Now, that is the slowest growth we've had since 2020 when we

had negative growth because of COVID. So every year of Biden's administration had higher growth,

it doesn't really matter. None of the years were particularly high growth. All of them

been below 3%. 2.2 is lower than any year where Trump was president other than 2020. His best year

was 2018 when it had 3% growth. But when he tells you, we have the greatest economy in

all of that. Yeah, I mean, it's grown, which means it's better than it was in past. So it is the

best technically ever. But in terms of growth, it's barely growing. And look, it wasn't like we

had robust growth under Biden. It was 2.8 in 2024. And Biden did a lot of things, I think, to hood

growth. But then Trump could have focused on the deregulation, could have focused on energy

policy, could have focused on the positives. Instead, he basically hammered growth

with reduced growth significantly with tariffs and with immigration. Those two things, you know,

a drag on growth, the drag on business, the drag on production, and therefore drag on GDP

I expect 2026 to be, again, I don't expect a recession. It'll be another year of growth,

but it's going to be in the twos 2% area. Maybe it won't be 2.2, maybe 2.4 because it won't have

a government shutdown, but who knows, we might have another government shutdown. The other thing

about 2025 is it was very much a year of jobless growth, dynamic hiring, despite a lot of consumption,

and despite an AI boom, very little hiring. I'd say immigration and tariffs manifest it

ultimately in significant reduction in, in, in hiring. So flat, you know, basically no new jobs,

no new jobs in, in 2025. So decent, you know, GDP, a good year for the stock market,

but a lot of uncertainty, a lot of uncertainty because you're taking away employees,

and you're taking away, you're taking away, and you're creating these taxes that nobody knows

exactly what to do with. So economy is chugging along, but slowly, chugging along and slowly.

Also came out today, December, PCE, that is something consumer expenditure, I forget.

All right, it slipped my mind. Anyway, PCE is a misery inflation that the Fed likes in particular.

This is on the Fed really tracks, right? Personal consumption, personal, personal consumption,

something, expenditure. So this has preferred inflation measure of the Fed. It rose 2.9%,

which is above expectations, which were 2.8, a core PCE, which is taking away the stuff that's

rose at 3%, which is significantly higher. These all annualized rates, of course.

It's at the highest level, the core is at the highest level since November 2023. So in other words,

inflation as measured in prices is not going down, not in a significant way, not according to the

way the Fed measures it, which means the Fed is very, very unlikely to reduce interest rates

anytime soon. Personal consumption expenditures, thank you, God. I don't know whether I just

evaporated from my mind. Personal consumption expenditures. So not a good number, not a number that

Trump is going to like, not a number that the Fed is going to like in terms of lowering interest rates.

Trump is still going to have to wait until he gets rid of the current chairman, the Fed chairman,

and install his own guy. And even then, it's not clear that there will be a majority on the Fed

to lower interest rates. The way Trump wants them lowered, just not clear at all. By the way,

remember, Trump keeps saying $18 trillion of investment of flowing into the country. The country

if foreigners are investing $18 trillion into the country. Well, another thing to note is that

the amount of foreign direct investment in the United States declined every quarter last year.

It was quite high in Q1 and declining Q2, the kind of voting Q3 and declined really, really low

in Q4. So it doesn't look like the world is rushing to invest in the United States. I guess

not really that surprisingly. All right, that's GDP. Let's do Hexeth. Hexeth, you know Hexeth,

he is our secretary of war, secretary of war. And he is speaking at some Christian conference,

and this is what he had to say. So listen to Hexeth. Yeah, I think a lot of people get,

I don't know, shivers down the spine or goosebumps. I'm not sure which ones you get. Listen to this.

If I may offer a few observations, protecting the God-given life of an unborn baby is not

political, it's biblical. Biblical, commanded by God. I think that's right. It's not political.

It's about the Bible, it's about religion, imposing religion on all of our lives.

But he keeps going. He keeps going. They're cheering. They're all excited. They're thrilled by this.

This is amazing. But he keeps going. It's not the end of it.

Protecting our borders from criminals will steal from us, assault our loved ones, and poison our

citizens is not political. It's biblical. Kill out poison. What are they doing? Exactly. Really?

You know, the monsters that are coming, I mean, think about the dehumanizing way in which he's

presenting them. Think about just the lies that are involved. Now, protecting women and children from

being trafficked for sexual slavery is not political. It is biblical.

Playing right into the mega-hands. How about prosecuting them? Standing guard over our children,

rather than letting them be taught perverse sexual practices or sharing a locker room with men

pretending to be women is not political, it's biblical. All right. So, I mean, the whole agenda of

the right is not political. It's not rational. It's not reasoned out. It's biblical.

It's commanded in the Bible. Therefore, one must do it.

They love that. Anything with trans, the right goes nuts.

Protecting our culture and our religion from godless ideologies and pagan religions,

not political. It's biblical. So, going after me is going to be biblical.

Godless ideologies. That's me. I'm a godless ideologue.

But don't worry. It's not political. It's biblical.

Equal to reality says, I think I'm going to throw up now.

Wait, you haven't heard the best one. I think this is the end of this passage.

Yeah, that's that. Here's another little segment. This is the end of his speech.

This is the end of his speech. Listen to this beauty.

Closing as long as I have breath, I commit to you that I and we should never allow any group,

no matter how large or small, to silence us from speaking the capital T truth.

Nobody wants to silence him from speaking. That's just a lie. He can speak whatever he believes

is the capital T truth. But it's a myth that anybody wants to silence that. But he is what he means.

That's the truth. The capital T truth is this. Here it is.

Truth. Christ is King. He died for our sins. We are forgiven.

Look, the audience is going wild. They're going crazy.

He can't even smile as they're going crazy. He can't even accept that. You know,

oh, even Jennifer's not throwing up. Not good. Not good. I didn't know I induced people throwing

up on my show. And he will come again in glory. Amen. Closing as long as...

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing. Victory Lane? Yeah, it's even better with Jamba by my side.

Race to chumpacaceno.com. Let's Jamba. No purchase necessary. VTW Group. Boy,

we're prohibited by law. CTNCs. 21 Plus. Sponsored by Chumpacaceno.

Can't wait from to come again in glory. Can't wait. Can't wait.

All right, that is your secretary of war and a, a future move in shaker in Republican politics.

This is the new Republican party. It's gone way beyond the religious right, the more majority

of the 1980s and 1990s. This is now all out war on anything that is secular.

Silence us. Godless ideologies. This is, and look at him with his sleek hair and his

perfect suit and, you know, lecturing in other places. You remember, lecturing the generals.

And this is a dangerous man. A dangerous man. Heads on military. Heads the Pentagon.

And has, I think, a bright future in the Republican party as we know it.

All right, a switch topic dramatically again. We're covering the news, right?

So it turns out that Gamas has basically done its latest provision of the casualty data,

right? All the data we have on casualties and Gaza comes from Gamas.

So they have now revised the casualty data in the Gaza war.

And, and, you know, I'm going to present you with the facts from that according to them, right?

The list has, has enough information to cite 68,000 deaths.

Now, I think, I think there's broad agreement that Gamas has probably lost about 25,000 fighters.

That leaves 44,000

wood deaths to be accounted for. Wait a minute. This, this, this, this is not right. 41,000. They can't, they can't, 40.

No, 43,000. I don't know. They can't, they can't come. 43,000. 800. Okay. They're rounding up 44,000.

46,800 deaths.

And, and second, let me just let's see what's going on here.

Yeah.

That's all right. So 44,000 wood deaths are accounted included in the 44,000 according to Gamas.

A 10,000 natural deaths. So 10,000 people died natural causes in the Gaza strip.

That means 34,000 supposedly civilians were killed by Israel and those, it includes those killed

by Hamas and the other militant groups either by execution, rocket misfiring, turf wars and the

lake. So even using Hamas's own numbers, Israel's civilian to combat death rate is pretty close

to one to one. Now, that's never, never been accomplished in urban war setting. We've never seen

anything like that. And particularly in an environment in which Hamas turned Gaza into one big human

shield. So given, I must start at the war, refuse the surrender, held hostages,

fired at Israel from civilian homes, managed the whole war from headquarters in hospitals, in

schools. The reality is that the number of gauzens killed is absurdly low.

And the idea of a genocide is ridiculous and, you know, just irrational. So as we get more numbers,

I'll keep reminding you of this fact. I also, I think this is going to be a really good interview,

but in a few weeks, let me see when exactly. Yeah, on March 9th, I can read interviewing Andrew Fox.

Are you still can't do Fox up? You can find him on Twitter and elsewhere. He's really interesting,

guys, special forces, British Army. He spent some time with Israeli forces, you know, with the aid

distribution efforts in Gaza. He has first-time account of Gaza. He's looked at the numbers. He's

analyzed what happened. He has views on the strategy. I don't agree with everything he says. I don't

agree with somebody says about Iran right now. I don't agree with everything he says about Gaza.

But he has a guy who has firsthand experience of what was going on and has written the academic

papers about the Gaza war. And so we're going to be refuting this whole idea of genocide

and analyzing the Israeli army's combat. I doubt that Andrew would agree with me on just

what theory. But it's not the point. The point here is just to get the facts, which I think he has

in a way that others don't. All right. So that is quickly on Hamas. Okay, finally.

Tucker Carlson went to Israel. He flew to the airport. And he interviewed Mike Huckabee,

basically at the airport. He wouldn't even go into Israel and immediately flew out of Israel to

Europe. I guess he can tell you now that he's been to Israel. He claims he was harassed

at the airport by Israeli security. Now I wish that were true. He should be harassed by

Israeli security. He is an enemy of the state of Israel. And his whole visit to Israel should

be scrutinized and he should generally be harassed. I'm all for harassing Tucker Carlson.

But the reality is that he wasn't harassed. There's actually video of an entry. He treated

like anybody else. There's no, he wasn't interrogated or anything. He just goes in and he's asked

even by one of the security guys to get a photo with him, like a selfie. So he's lying. He's lying

about it. Now he went there to interview Mike Huckabee. Now the whole idea of interviewing my

Huckabee is to show how Mike Huckabee is an evil, nasty, horrible human being and to justify

why everybody should be anti-Israel and that Huckabee is just evil for supporting Israel.

Now I haven't listened to the interview. I will. But it came out literally just before the show

came on. But here is the time steps. Here are the time steps for the interview.

So it starts off with Tucker Carlson explaining why he was interrogated in Israel. He wasn't.

I was interrogated once by the Israeli security forces. Believe me, Tucker was not interrogated.

I can tell you something about my old interrogation. He didn't even get that. I wasn't interrogated.

The airport, I was interrogated under other circumstances. Anyway, then he says, why did my

Huckabee meet with American traitor Jonathan Pollard? So a stab initially. How's Huckabee

advocated to extradite sex offenders who flee from U.S. to Israel? Why are there still classified

Epstein files? Is Israel of the Bible that comes secular government of Israel? Is Israel's Christian

population declining? Who has a right to land to the land of Israel? The killing of Christians and

Gaza. Benjamin Netanyahu's calls for genocide. Huckabee accuses Tony Aguilera of lying. I don't

know who that is. A fighting war isn't Israel's behalf. Why are 9-11 files still classified? Netanyahu's

many visits to the White House. The nuclear weapons that Israel stole. I thought demons developed

those anyway. I think they gave them to Israel. The demons gave them to Israel. Why is U.S.

sending Israel so much money? Is Huckabee okay with Israel providing free abortions?

How many Americans support war with Iran? Was the war in Iraq really about 9-11? Is all sabotaging

of U.S. negotiations with Iran? How many journalists does Israel kill in Gaza? Is Huckabee concerned

about the persecution of Christians? In other words, every question is slandered against Israel. Every

question is a got your question to Huckabee. It's just stunning just the questions. Now, I'm going

to listen to it because it's going to be interesting if Huckabee fights back or if he's just going to

roll over in this. I don't think he's going to roll over. I think he's pretty media savvy and I think

he'll fight back. Tekka Kalsut is already telling people that he thinks this interview is going to

get Huckabee fired by the Trump administration. At least that's what he's trying to do. Anyway,

and he's trying to portray Huckabee as a pedophile protector, a traitor to America,

and so on, and that's what the interview is all about. Now, you might say you're on. Stop talking

about Tekka. He's irrelevant. The guy believes in demons who gives a damn what he thinks. He's

irrelevant in America today. Nobody takes Tekka Kalsut seriously.

With hundreds of Casino style games and new titles arriving weekly, there's always something

fresh to try at Chamba Casino. The daily booze make it even more fun and have me about to get

them all doing my downtime. Ready for a fun way to chill out and enjoy a few minutes for yourself?

Let's Chamba. No purchase necessary. VGW Group Void were prohibited by law, CTs and Cs,

21 plus sponsored by Chamba Casino.

All right. So here is the results of a recent survey of 561 Republicans balanced by

age and gender conducted January 21 and 22, 2026, with a margin of error plus minus 4%.

And what they're trying to do is basically try to figure out how popular is Tekka Kalsut.

Basically as an indicator, a broader Republican sentiment about

issues, including the issue of Israel.

Okay, so the first major finding is a clear generational divide. Across the entire sample,

more than 45% of respondents believe Tekka Kalsut is likely to run for national office,

and more than 48% said they would vote for him if he did. So notice this.

48%. I've got this sample of Republicans. I mean, you'd need a much larger sample.

But 48% said they would vote for Tekka Kalsut. In spite of the fact that in our view,

I speak for myself and some of the people who listen to me, the guy is sort of viable.

I mean, this close to certifiable. I mean, demons attack him at night.

Demons invented their atomic bomb. Israel is the most wickedest country on planet earth.

Iran, the good guys, Islam is not that bad. Sharia law is cool. I mean, you can go on and on and on.

But we know Tekka is completely nuts. That's 48%. Now you say it's only 24% of Americans, but

if you as a primary, we could win America. It's stunning that half of Republicans would vote for

this idiot. This evil idiot. But here's the kicker. Among Republicans under the age of 44.

Now, most of my listeners, most of the listeners do your own book show significantly over 50%.

About 60% of the distance of this show are under the age of 44, under the age of 44.

So my audience, among Republicans under the age of 44, support was 58% said they would vote for him.

58, almost 60% of young Republicans would vote for him.

Among Republicans, age 45 and older, enthusiasm drops dramatically. Only 41% would be willing to vote

for him. Again, 41 is still way higher than would make me comfortable. So cosmopolitan political

appeal is younger Republicans. Now, this is not an outlying finding. Other surveys have found

basically the same thing. Right? Tekka Carson is incredibly popular.

As horrific, as insane, as disturbing, as wanting to make you throw up as that is,

is the reality. Tekka Carson is incredibly popular. And that's why I keep showing him,

because I'm hoping to give you the ammunition to go out there and crush these people.

So it's scary. It's scary. Tekka Carson is much smarter than Trump.

Much better educated, much more articulate than Trump. And in a position of power, much more

dangerous than Trump. I, by the way, years ago, predicted Tekka Carson would run. And I still

think he might, and I think he has a good chance. Would he run against JD Vance, who is a friend I

don't know, but he's going to support JD Vance and JD Vance, and he'll bring the younger voters with him.

God, people are throwing up all over the place on my chat. Stop throwing up on my chat.

Shouldn't throw up on the chat. All right, guys, we started with good news. We ended with bad news.

Sorry, but that is the news for this Friday, February 20th. Remind you tomorrow, we have an AMA

at 2 PM East Coast time. So ask me anything. Please join us. And those of you who

contribute on a monthly basis more than $25, you can, you can join the panel. You should have

gotten a link to it. Let's see. Those, so yeah, that'll be on Saturday. There will be

something on Sunday. I don't know yet. So stay tuned for Sunday show. I'll let you know

what the topic will be assumed, right? God, why is this like that? One second. All right, I want

to remind you all that there, I want to remind you all that there will be, what is it going to say?

That I'm doing the seminar in London on February 28th. It's on. So I have now enough people

that it's definitely on. So now it gets the point where there's not going to be that much space.

I've rented a room. The room is not very big. I didn't want a big group anyway. So there's going

to be limited availability. Please consider signing up and sign up this weekend. Sign up this weekend.

So we can, we can finalize it and lock this down. It's going to be about capitalism. It's, you

know, going to be very, there's going to be 10 people and we're going to talk about capitalism.

We're going to be lots of questions from you, lots of interaction. It'll be fun to hang out. We

can all go out to dinner afterwards if you want. So all of that is, all of that is available. It's

£300 for four hours, not that much money. I don't think. And yeah, so sign up. You can sign up

uonbrookshow.com. I just go uonbrookshow.com. Scroll down to the February 28th event and there's a link

there to the event right where you can sign up. And sign up should be easy. Not like last year,

where it was very difficult this year should be easy. So please consider that. I'm not buying

you dinner. No, I'm joining you for dinner. We can all go to dinner together. I buy my own dinner

or you can buy me dinner if you want, but I'll buy my own dinner and each person will buy their own

dinner. The 300 pounds per person will not go very far if I have to buy you dinner with that as well.

All right, I don't know if I can endorse that, Robert. I'll pitch a show without mentioning the

person you're interviewing because I don't endorse the person you're interviewing. All right, let's see

what else do we want to do? I'm trying to think what we want to do. I'm not buying you dinner.

Again, but first of all, you have to come. It's London. She have to be in London or somewhere in the

UK or you know, get on a train. Come on over. It'll be fun. Also, I'll be doing events in

Exeter, Durham and Exeter, Durham and Oxford. I think all of the events are potentially open

for the public. youonbrookshow.com will have updated information about where, what, all the details

but Durham, Exeter, Oxford. Exeter on Monday, Durham, Tuesday, Oxford, Thursday, Oxford, Wednesday.

And then if you're in Switzerland, Roland is in Switzerland. I'm doing events in Zurich

on Thursday. That's not that's not next week. So we got the next week after next. First, we

can not in March. I'll be in Zurich on March. I think it's six. It's a Thursday of that week.

So again, information available on uronbrookshow.com. Check it out if you're in the area. Come by

and see us. Okay, quickly. I don't have a lot of time today. We'll do our sponsors,

Dineware and Institution, encourage you to come to Porto for our conference, European conference.

I'll be speaking there on car and that's funny. Check out iNman.org slash start here. If you're under

34, you can get a scholarship. If you're paying, then you can get a discount. 26 YBS 10 is the

discount code. Alex Epstein is number one thinker in the world on issues of energy for us are fuels,

electricity, power more broadly. Check him out. Alex Epstein.supstack.com. You'll become a much better

thinker in communicator of ideas. Hendershotwealth.com. Hendershotwealth.com slash YBS. Hendershot with

two T's. They've got a product that can really shield capital gains tax liability. Check out the

interview I did with Robert on, on, you know, on my show. It's, it's in my playlists

under sponsors and you can also check out the website. And finally, defenders of capitalism,

defenders of capitalism.com. This is Michael Williams and, you know, I've worked on this as well.

A program called Defenders of Capitalism. Michael is great. The program is really good.

Thinking of different ways to expand it. Maybe go to the website. Check out, it's actually a pretty

beautiful website. Check out the website. Check out what is the program. Maybe you have, maybe you can

invite us into your company to present on capitalism or maybe you can into your industry group or

whatever. Think of ways in which you can bring defenders of capitalism to a wider audience.

Thank you guys.

Bubba Wallace here from 2311 Racing. You know what's slower than a pace car?

Waiting at the car wash. That's when I fire up Chamba Casino. It turns those slow minutes

into fast fun. With new games every week, you'll never get bored. Next time you're stuck in the

slow lane, speed up with Chamba. Play now at chambacasino.com. Let's Chamba. Sponsored by Chamba Casino.

No purchase necessary. VGW Group Void. We're prohibited by law. 21 plus terms and conditions

apply. All right, don't forget Patreon. Sign up for patreon.com. You run book show and become a

monthly supporter of the you on book show. All kinds of books at different levels of contribution

from the books really start at $10 all the way up to $1,000 a month. So check that out and let

me know. That would be that would be amazing. All right, let's jump into the questions. I have a

hard stop at around 4 p.m. Eastern time. A lot of $2 and $5 questions. Not many $20 questions,

but we did get a $100 sticker from Wes. So thank you, thank you, Wes, who really

you know really chipped into the to the goals. So thank you, Wes. Let's see if we had any other

stickers. Let me just check. Jacob, thank you. Bonnie, thank you. Maria Lean, thank you. Gary,

thank you all provided with stickers. And you too should come over and and do a sticker.

Westered $100. Those others are quite a bit less, but all appreciated, all valued,

and I think all of you. All right, let's start with Clark with a $50 question.

There's no place like the USA agree or disagree with the Supreme Court's decision. The fact that

a small business owner can take the present to court and win says a lot about how our constitutional

system is meant to work. Yes. And how in spite of everything, it still works. Now Trump's

vindictiveness will result in imposing tariffs on all of us anyway, using some other thing.

But the system works. It takes time. And it's not principled enough. And we don't have the

concept of individual rights working for us in a way it should. But the system works. And there

is no place like the US in the sense of that separation of powers and the checks and balances.

And that's why we need a fight for that. It's the one thing that saves us.

Declaration of Independence is becoming relevant sadly in this 250th year of its signing.

It's becoming relevant. But the Constitution is still alive. And it's still being used. And

whatever is left of the Constitution that's being used, we need a bolster. We need a support.

So yes, to the Supreme Court, yes, to defending our constitutional rights, yes,

the any way you can to preserve the separation of powers and the checks and balances that exist.

Thank you, Clark. Michael, will the Supreme Court ruling make Trump so angry, a taxi round,

or use the Iranian airstrikes as a distraction from his terror embarrassment? I don't know.

It's impossible to predict Trump. I doubt it. He lately has been floating a limited attack on Iran.

So just a, you know, a small attack just to show them were serious and then continue negotiating.

He really, really, really doesn't want to go all in on Iran. And even though he has all the

military there, even though it won't be a very lengthy campaign, even though he'd win big,

it's, he doesn't want it. And his people like Tekka Karsin think he's being manipulated by the Jews

to do it. So he's reluctant to do it. And so who knows, you know, maybe, maybe he does,

he's pissed off. So it goes after Iran. Maybe that'll be a good outcome. Michael, do most people

hold, who hold altruism intellectually, not want it fully. They're fine with you keeping

most of your own money, but you need to share some of it. Selfishness is okay if it's diluted

with altruistic activities. I mean, not selfishness, right? Selfishness is not okay, but yeah,

you have to, to some extent pursue your own selfish interest. I think what's his name, the,

God, the Australian effective altruism guy. I mean, basically, he says, look, I give 10%

and everybody should give 10% charity. And he says, look, I should give more. But I don't say,

you know, I said, you know, I want to live in a decent place. And I also want to eat decent food

and I want to have decent clothes. And I get it. I should give more, but I don't really want to.

So it's okay to pursue yourself interest. Just not too much of it. And, and as long, and if you

commit to doing 10%, then it's better than nothing, then you've done at least some altruistic,

but you should still feel guilty. Still feel guilty about not going all in. I think that is

a common-out attitude among, I say, you know, the, the pita singer, yes, thank you,

philosophical detective. It's ridiculous. My incapacity to remember names and

words escaped me. But, but yes, pita singer. And I think that's a, it's a pretty common

attitude among, now some pita singer and, and there's a, Makasco, I think, at Oxford, who go

all in by saying, well, you should pursue like a career and money so that you will have more to

give away. You should get rich so you can give more away. But the, the aim is to give more

away. And yes, you have to sustain yourself in the meantime. You have to be motivated. So, yeah,

you can do some fun stuff, you know, to stay motivated so you can make more money so you can

give more away. But it, everything is underlined by a, a sudden sense of altruism. And anything you

do that is self, is, that is even dangerous, a little bit of self-interest. Also has to be,

has to have an element of guilt associated with it. Christian, may I ask you,

may I ask you were, why you interrogated by security? In my younger years, I had my baggage

checked, the goals were searching through the underway in my backpack. But as a backpacker,

I had a great time in the Holy Land. Oh, no, I mean, I wasn't, I wasn't interrogated by the

border police in Israel. I was interrogated by the real people, the, what's called the Shinbet,

the Israeli internal security forces. And basically, I was interrogated while I was in the army,

and I was interrogated because they had identified me as an objectivist. So I was interrogated because

of my interest in Iron Rand, because of my involvement with other objectivists, because there was

a little objectivist movement in Israel. So objectivism was suspicious in their eyes. And I had a

long interrogation during, it was well, Israel was in war with 11 and 1982. And it was a lengthy

interrogation with the Shinbet. And it was kind of scary. A lot of, you know, I was threatened.

And anyway, sometime, sometime, you know, if you, if you play poker at Okhan, then you can ask

me the question, because that'll be a good distraction for you guys. But I like distract people

during poker. But sometime I'll tell you the whole story. But yeah, and they actually punished me

later, not, not right then, but I was, I was punished later. My security clearance was basically

taking away from me. I had a top secret security clearance that was taken away from me at some point.

So, yeah, it was, it was pretty, it was pretty bad. You know, Israel is a very imperfect country.

And certainly was when I was there. All right. Things look plum. This is from yesterday. A question

came in right at the end. Could you please tell the media source regarding trade deficit increases.

It's super helpful when you name the original source so we can forward them to others.

I sure, I mean, this one, you can find it anywhere, but Wall Street Journal certainly had a story

about it. Every, every one of the big media companies had it, but it was also covered by

alternative media. Anybody honest about economics carried this story, but you can find it,

you can find it. Wall Street Journal is good on these kind of issues. So the trade deficit, I think,

was one of the top stories on the, on the, um, Wall Street Journal yesterday. And it's just facts.

It's not, you know, I know I get accused all the time of relying too much on what, what people

call mainstream media, whatever the hell that is. All right, uh, Charlie, shallist summer.

Have you been watching a night of seven kingdoms? If yes, what do you think of it?

God, what do I think of it? Uh, yes, I've been watching. I haven't watched the final episode.

I guess that's soon this weekend is coming up. Um,

you know, it's, it's kind of fun. Uh, I don't like that the hero is kind of a doofus. He's not

very smart. Is he, uh, he's, um, big and brown. He has integrity. He, he, he stands up for the

weekend of poor as a night should do. He stands up to authority. Uh, okay, but it's, it's pretty

superficial. Um, he's, you know, at the end of the day, the show, uh, you know, and this is true of,

of, of, of all the, all the, uh, what do you call it? Game of Thrones. I mean, there's a

enormous amount of violence. The violence is pretty gross and unnecessary. I think it's, in its,

explicit and explicit nature and brutality. Um, you know, there's a fight. He wins a fight. It's like,

okay, what's it really about? I mean, a better night with, with more integrity and this is all

a prequel to the Game of Thrones universe. So I, I enjoy it, but it's just not, it's just not

that interesting. And it doesn't, what it lacks is it lacks the grandeur and drama and much deeper

and more interesting themes that Game of Thrones had. Game of Thrones had some, just amazing

episodes and some super, overwhelmingly dramatic stuff. Uh, they're just, and visually, there were

things in Game of Thrones, there's just a few, wow, they did that. And it was just, it was, so, while

the themes of Game of Thrones overall are very limited because you're setting it up in a barbaric

environment, uh, where kings, uh, rulers, absolute rulers everywhere. There's only so much you can do

with that kind of thing. You're not gonna, it's not gonna advocate for liberty or freedom in any kind

of way, but there were some really good themes around, uh, violence. There were some really good

themes around religion and the role of religion in politics and what happens when they combine. Um,

so, yeah, I, you know, it's, I'm enjoying it, but I just don't think it's great. And, and he's,

again, he's a little, even if you think he's in his late teens, he's just, he's not very smart.

He doesn't come across as very smart. And it's almost like they're playing him that way on purpose,

even a teenager can be smart. And, you know, he almost wins by luck. So it's, it's not like he won

because he's smarter, he won because he's a better fighter, almost sophisticated fighter, almost

thoughtful fighter. He wins by luck. Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing, another checkered flag

for the books, time to celebrate with Jamba. Jump in at JambaCasino.com. Let's Jamba. No purchase

necessary. BTW crook. Boy, we're prohibited by law. CCNC is 21 plus sponsored by Jamba Casino.

Which, yeah. Uh, James, do you think this will be called released their decisions just before

the state of union on purpose, just to flex their muscle? God, I never thought of that. When

is the state of the union? I guess next Tuesday or something? I don't know. It's a good question.

They're going to be there and he's going to wag his finger at them. He's, he's not going to be

nice to them. So it's going to be interesting. Wow. I forgot. That makes it all the more dramatic.

Now I have to watch the state of the union, even though I can't, I can't actually, I find it

very difficult to sit and listen to Trump. I can read him, but listening to him just, yeah.

He's such a horrible human being. Ian, what percentage of tariffs have been thrown out?

About 60%, maybe 50, 60% something in that range?

Liam, how was your interview with Moses, Hassan? Could you convert him to objectivism? No, no.

I don't think he's, he's a convert to Christianity. There's no reason to think that he's going to convert

to objectivism. It was good. You could find it. It's online. It's on my channel. So check it out.

I mean, he's, he's obviously an incredibly courageous brave, amazing human being. There was,

that could do what he did and go through the kind of transformation that he did. I mean,

my hat off to him, whatever, you know, whatever expression of, of respect. I have a huge amount

of respect for him. And he comes across a super intense, but super principled and, and, and dedicated

and understanding of the barbarity of the Palestinian culture as it exists today.

Clark says there are only two things for certain in life, death, and taxes.

Government powers are treated as a metaphysical given. Yes. And, you know, it's very, very,

very unpopular and rare for anybody to really challenge them.

It was Massab Hasan. Yes, Massab. You can find it on my channel or on the Iron Man Institute

channel for a few days ago. Check out the interview. Definitely go watch it. I think you'll enjoy it.

Hopper Campbell, property rights are not the rights of property. They're the right of humans with

a God too property. They are, they are a particular kind of human right. Yeah, they're individual

right. They're right. They're derivative of the right to life. The right to life means you have a

right to create and, and then, um, um, own that is take control over the things that you create.

So, uh, the right to life would be meaningless if you couldn't, if you weren't a beneficiary

of the products of your work, the product of your productivity. So, it's the right to

dispose of, the right to act on, uh, the right to create and then dispose of your property as you see

fit. So, it's, uh, it's an extension or a derivative of the right to life. There's only really one

right is one human right or one individual right, one. And that is the right to life.

The right to property, the right to free speech, the right to, the, the, the right to liberty,

the right to, uh, pursuit of happiness. All of those are derivatives of the right to life.

Hopper Campbell, there is a huge sensation on the Jewish, on the Jewish people, unlike anything

that would be tolerated towards any group of people. Yeah, but that's always been the case.

It's an historical fact that at least since the birth of Christianity, Jews will be singled out for

special attention, call it that, for persecution, for, uh, negative, negative views and,

and conspiracy theories and everything else. And it, it's a, in any time of tribalism,

the Jewish tribe is, is identified, isolated and, uh, attacked. And nothing has changed. It's,

I think, uh, David Deutsch calls it the patent. It's kind of a patent. He claims it goes back to him

before Christianity. I've yet to see real evidence of that. But certainly since Christianity, uh,

there is a patent. Always go after the Jews. Uh, and, and, and we're singing it again today.

Not javits, I'll go with them. You, will the tariffs still be collected just under a different

statute? It looks like it, it, it looks like it'll be different tariffs, different rates, different

process, but it will be under different statutes. That's what Trump just announced.

It's a matter of him operationalizing that in an executive order and exactly how that

functions. We will see in the next few days. But unfortunately, yes, although, technically,

it seems like they will have to, uh, uh, return the tariffs that are being collected so far

under the existing tariff. And remember, about 50% of the tariffs are not under this particular

provisions that they continue as usual, like the aluminum tariffs, the furniture tariffs.

Those are under the national security provision.

Not javits, I'll go with them. Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh all descended,

hypothetical pure tribalism. This case was clear. Yes. I think Alito and Thomas

had tribalism, particularly Thomas, who is much better than this. Kavanaugh is pregnantism.

It's, it's just, I think he can't see the constitution. It's just pragmatic. This is

create chaos. And it's a, it's a mess. So why do it? And, and it has implications. He doesn't like.

Not javits, I'll go with them. Have you seen Ben Shapiro's comments on the Supreme Court ruling?

They were actually pretty good. Uh, no, I haven't. Um, I, I don't follow Ben Shapiro.

You guys let me know when he says something interesting. Uh, yeah, I'm not surprised. He, he,

he can be good on tariffs. Just doesn't have the same kind of moral passion around it

that he has about other topics because he doesn't want to alienate his audience.

Uh, Abem Kempos, what is wrong with Alito and the other two justices? This was an easy case.

Alito's, uh, conventional, um, well, maybe not conventional. Alito is a big government

conservative, big executive conservative, give executive as much power as he needs, conservative.

Thomas is become a, a Trump tribalist and Kavanaugh is a complete pregnantist. That's my

interpretation. The oceanist, you need to tell me the Tucker Carlson, the guy who said he was

attacked by a demon light. Yeah, I know. Isn't it horrible? Roman, how to save America from

the dark ages? Keep doing what I'm doing. And you guys do more. Speak, speak, speak,

challenge, challenge, challenge. And don't join tribes. Uh, Robert, looking forward to your weekend

episodes. But Amy and I are interviewing. He who shall not be named at 6 p.m. So don't run,

uh, don't run too late. Kidding, not kidding, kidding, not kidding. I'm not going to run, uh, past, uh,

4 p.m. Eastern time. So you got plenty of time. You're planning to decide. I don't like to promote

people from the athletic society. So I'm not promoting. Um, but

Stephen, a $20 question, two parts, Sharia in Europe. Okay, let's see. Thalton proposed a

eliminate immigration benefits for all adherents to Sharia law. Um, why not eliminate

immigration benefits to all immigrants? Why just the ones that Sharia law? And why even let

adherents to Sharia law into the country? Why not just not allow people who adhere to Sharia law

into the country, which is what I advocate them are always advocated for. So I don't understand

that seems like a pretty weak approach to dealing with people who want to kill you and want to

take over the country and replace its government and want to undermine the very constitutional

of the United States. Um, Stephen also asked, as you have gotten noticeably worth,

worth with Islamic migration, can it happen here? It probably, it has gotten noticeably

worse. I mean, there are places in Europe that are very difficult to visit, uh, in, in terms of

the dominance of the Islamists there. Um, because of the multiculturalism in Europe, they tolerate

things that the Muslims are doing that are just unthinkable, uh, particularly the grooming gangs

in England and, uh, some other sexual violence around Europe. Uh, but I'd also say that in spite of

Islamic migration, Europe's still a great place to visit. And there's plenty to see and

there's plenty to do and it's still much safer than the United States, even with all the violence

that the Muslims are bringing. It's still much safer than the US. And if you look at cities

in countries where Muslim migration has gone up, like, I don't know, Stockholm and Sweden,

uh, real estate prices are still going up, which means people still want to live there. And, uh,

if you look at luck, the luxury end, you could say, oh, immigrants, illegal immigrants are driving

up real estate prices, which is nonsense, right? Um, if you look at the high end,

which is not where these immigrants are going to, that's rising because rich people, wealthy people

want to live in a place like Stockholm. So in spite of all everything you hear, you only hear the

negatives, the bad stuff, the horrors that the Europe is still up, a pretty cool place to live and

pretty cool place to visit, uh, not as cool as the United States. But yeah, I mean, as you know,

I, I, I go to Europe, spend two months a year in Europe, at least. And yeah, I really enjoy it.

And so don't let the fact that every Islamic immigration, uh, stop you from going to visit.

Could it happen here in terms of making it worse? And so no, I don't, well, I mean, arguably,

you could say, Dearborn Michigan is a little worse, but it's nowhere near or some parts of

Minneapolis with the Somalis. But it's nowhere near the same. The United States is very good at

assimilating immigration, immigrants, even Muslim immigrants. Now, yes, I'll say, stay in some

of their conclaves for a while, but over the generations that'll break up and they'll go away. Also,

the number of Muslims immigrating to the United States is so small. It's, it's an insignificant

number. It, it, it doesn't move the needle really, whereas because of where Europe is located,

close to the Middle East and Northern Africa, and because of the civil wars in that region,

Europe is experienced mass immigration of Muslims, which is very different than normal immigration.

So Europe has to be worried about the mass immigration of Muslims into it. The United States

doesn't have that worry. Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing. Victory Lane? Yeah, it's even better

with Chamba by my side. Race to chambacasino.com. Let's Chamba. Don't purchase necessary,

VTW Group. Boy, we're prohibited by law. CTSC's. 21 plus sponsored by Chambacasino.

JJ Jigbies, do you share the sentiment that if America and mass turns against the Jews,

culturally, politically, that that means America project is over? Yes. I mean, to the extent that,

I mean, that would be true if the American, if Americans today turned against blacks.

Or, you know, and I think that the nature of the way in which MAGA and the Trump administration

has turned against immigrants, if the entire American society turned against immigrants the way

MAGA is against immigrants, then you'd have to say it's the last days of America. This is not good.

So that kind of tribalism and that kind of okay of violence towards a minority.

Yeah, it really is. You'd think we progressed and gotten over that. We had that with Jim Crow laws,

with Ku Klux Klan, with Slavery, of course. And we got over it and to descend back into that as we

are, in a sense, with, with immigration is just hollow, just hollow. Roman says,

when will Texas start his first holy war? Well, I mean, the problem is a holy war inside America.

That's the really scary part. Robert says, when Amy and I went to Paris a few years back,

it was simply magnificent. Absolutely. Did old London. I love London. I'll be this soon.

And incidentally, Amy works in Diabone. And while there are parts of town, I wouldn't care to visit,

it's otherwise a great city. Yeah, that parts of town, in any city you wouldn't care to visit.

I have more to do with poverty and gangs than it has to do with ethnic groups.

There's certainly here in San Juan, they're parts of town. I don't visit.

All right, Michael, MAGA Christians, thank you, Robert. MAGA Christians are treating their

Epstein files like they do the Bible. They just pick and choose which parts they want to believe.

Yes. And then they analyze them and they find conspiracies behind them and they do biblical

analysis to the emails. But you're right, they pick and choose. There's certain things that are

very uncomfortable, like Bannon. Bannon was very close to Epstein. And yet his show is still as

popular as ever as far as I can tell. Jennifer, thank you for the awesome show. Thank you, Jennifer.

Really appreciate the support. Robert says thank you. Thank you, Robert. Linda says

with things heating up in the Middle East, how do you feel about auctioning the painting? Oh,

the painting. God. Yeah, we can do something. I need to get my act together. Let me see if I can

get my act together this weekend. I need to look at it again. Is it, is there a more developed?

Because you said that was a working progress. Is there more developed version of it?

But but we can do we can do that. Thanks for reminding me. Maybe send me another email later today

tomorrow. Oh, God. There's so many things. You have no idea, guys. And I just find it hard to

stake to keep everything top of consciousness. But yes, we can probably do something with the painting.

I go, I didn't want to tell you this. Well, we can do it. It strikes me as you're missing out

in a whole audience by doing it with me. I mean, there's a there's a massive pro-Iranian audience

on like places like Twitter. And that I think I think you could do a lot better by doing an auction.

I don't know how you would do it. But but using Twitter and social media and and hooking into

the Iranian diaspora who are very wealthy, I'd be happy to promote that. And we could do something

related to the show as well. But I remember I wanted to tell you that this is a painting of that

photograph of the one of the Iranian girls burning with a cigarette, a photo of

a Tula Hamini. So very powerful image as a photograph. And now I was a painting.

And but I think you could do really, really well,

hooking into somehow, walking into the that audience. And I don't know if I can get that

audience to come and come to my show. But I wonder if there's a way to live it social media to get

to that audience and do much better than you would do on my show. So that's the thought I had just

in terms of maximizing the revenue for it. So let's talk about it. Or you think about it and let me

know. Take that into a consideration. Think about it. I don't know. All right. Christian,

shock to hear the Shabbat story. Objectivists are the biggest offenders of Israel today. So I hope

those agents now know better. I, you know, who knows? One day, I don't know. I need to see if I can,

you know, maybe that'll let me look at my file. I have a file at the Shabbat because of that. I

probably have a final Shabbat because of all my pro-Israel activism. But I don't know what the

perception is of me in Israel. I know APAC won't use me because I'm too radical. I think, I think

they still hesitant about me. Thank you guys. Appreciate all the support. You know, I appreciate all

the superchats. I will see you all tomorrow at the AMA Sunday at the Amazon show. And

what else do I want to say? Yes, let's live it at that. Catch you tomorrow. Bye, everybody. Have a

great, great, great, great weekend. Bye.