radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is the Iran Book Show. All right everybody, welcome to Iran Book Show on this Thursday. It's kind of afternoon here, hope everybody is having a fantastic week, it's weekend soon, traveling to California on Saturday. Yeah thanks for being here, we've got an interesting show today I think, it's going to be fun. Let's see, announcements, yeah remember you can use the super chat to ask questions, you can support the show by going to patreon by subscribe star or iranbrookshow.com slash support, but patreon is great, that's where most of the growth is happening these days, but feel free to use any other platform you want in order to support the show, really, really, really appreciate it. We have a new sponsor and that is the well new slash old sponsor and that's the Iran Institute is back as a sponsor of the show and they are currently running the Atlas Shrug Desai contest, so this is an essay contest open to 12th grade college and graduate students worldwide, anywhere in the world, you can apply, you can read the novel and write an essay, you can win $10,000, the number one prize is $10,000, 800 to 1600 word essay on the philosophical themes from the book, the specific themes to write on, you also, if you haven't read Atlas Shrug yet, you can get a free copy of Atlas Shrug as part of this deal, so to do all this, you have to go to iran.org slash start here, the link is below in the description, iran.org start here and the deadline to enter the contest is November 6th, November 6th, all right, let's see, so there's some interesting stories today, a couple of them are going to take a little bit of time, so let's start with, I think the story from the Supreme Court, or not found the Supreme Court, but about the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court is, let me just close all these windows that are open now, all right, the Supreme Court is about to hear, it started yesterday actually, or actually Monday started hearing cases for the new term, and what stands out about this term is it's going to be, given the cases that are going to come in front of the court, it's going to be a real opportunity for this court to potentially completely and utterly restructure or, well restructure the existing regulatory framework. The administrative state is going to come before the court in a variety of different functions of it, and the court is going to have to say, yeah, everything's fine, keep going, keep doing what you've been doing, which is what they've been doing for 20 years now, or the Supreme Court could say, you know what, a lot of what's been going on with these regulatory agencies, a lot of what's been going on with the administrative state regulations is unconstitutional. This is huge, and of course the left and even some conservatives are panicking over this, because there's a real potential that the the Supreme Court is going to completely overhaul the regulatory infrastructure of the US government. Now, I think the probability of them doing that is small. You basically have two judges that are clearly committed to this, and that is Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Gorsuch in particular, this is his issue. Clarence Thomas, this has probably been his issue forever, so he's been on this site forever, but now he's got an ally in Gorsuch who is clearly and equivocally wants to completely unwind the regulatory state as we know it. The question is, can they get another three judges to support them? I fear that many of these court cases are going to go against Gorsuch and Thomas by maybe a seven to two, six to three, five to four vote. They might get a lead on some of them. I just don't see how they're going to get the others on board with such a revolutionary stand, and this would be a revolutionary stand. I mean revolutionary stand, I mean standing by the Constitution, actually adhering to the Constitution, actually implementing it. That's the revolution. So I want to go over the three cases quickly. We're not going to deep dive here. We will as they get, particularly when the decisions come down, we'll dig deeper into them. But I just want to give you a sense of what these cases are and the implications. But these are three cases to watch this term. The three most, maybe most important cases to watch. I mean, there are others. This is going to be a big term. They've taken on a lot of stuff. But these three are the ones related to the administrative state, to the regulatory state. And they're the ones to watch and they have a wide-ranging implications. Now the first one is called Loper Bright Enterprises versus Raimondo. And this is an opportunity for the court to overturn a decision that the court made in 1984. And the deciding factor in that court decision was Justice Scalia, the legendary conservative justice who I've never liked. And in that case, Chevron versus NRDC, and now it's called Chevron, and it's referred to as Chevron. Basically in 1984, the court established that courts must defer to regulatory agencies reasonable reading of a statute when it's reviewing regulations rather than override the regulatory agencies' expert judgment. Because Congress tapped the agency, not the courts, to fill in blanks left by legislation. Such a legislation. The legislation does specify everything. It's left stuff open. The Chevron says it's the regulatory agency's responsibility to fill in the gaps, to interpret the law, and to basically be a legislature in filling in the holes that the legislature, Congress, didn't actually do. This is hugely controversial at the time, but because Justice Scalia, the conservative kind of guru, was the guy who really orchestrated Chevron, nobody's really challenged it. Well, Neil Gorsuch clearly is going to vote against Chevron here. He really wants to overrule Chevron. This is his biggest thing coming to the Supreme Court, was to try to do whatever he could to overrule Chevron. Gorsuch's argument is going to be, look, it's the legislature's job to legislate. It's Congress's job to legislate. It is unconstitutional of them to delegate that responsibility to an executive branch agency, i.e., a regulatory agency, to do their job for them. It's just illegitimate. The court should rule that the regulatory agencies do not have the power to legislate. If Congress intends for a particular action to be taken, Congress needs to legislate that action. Now, I don't think this is going to be overturned, but again, Gorsuch and Thomas are clearly going to vote to overturn Chevron. If it's overturned, if it's overruled, it puts thousands of regulations in legal jeopardy. I mean, thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands. It thrusts industries into economic uncertainty, what it does apply, what it doesn't apply, and it makes the courts, it enhances the court's power to ultimately decide what Congress meant or what didn't mean, what it legislated, what it didn't legislate. Now, almost every newspaper article out there is against overturning Chevron, as you'd expect. Ooh, it's going to create economic uncertainty, we are told. It's going to throw regulations into this massive uncertainty, this void, and it's going to bad for the economy and bad for it. And it's going to enhance the power of the courts. And I go, no, no, no. Overturning this will give the courts the appropriate power that they have. It will send an indication to Congress that they can't shook the responsibility of writing laws that are ambiguous and open-ended with the expectation the regulatory agencies will fill it in. And economic uncertainty is good. It means that there's more possibilities for freedom, more possibilities for liberty, more possibilities for less regulation, which industry will embrace and it will actually be a very positive thing for markets and industries and the world more generally. This of all the cases before the court that relate to these kind of issues, this is the most important, overruling Chevron would be massive and a massive move towards liberty, towards freedom, towards return to constitutional rule in this country, to constitutional order, to respect for the Constitution, the executive branch, being the executive branch of the legislature, being the legislature, and the courts making sure that they all follow the Constitution. So I'm excited, but I'm pretty pessimistic about the possibilities, but it is going to be great to see Gorsuch's opinion about this. I think it's going to be, I think it's going to be good and I think it's going to be strong. So that's one. Second one is CFPB, the Consumer Financial Protection Board versus Community Financial Services Association. Basically, the court here is going to decide whether CFPB as constructed today is constitutional. It is responsible for consumer protection in the financial sector. It is a baby of Elizabeth Warren. It was created as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. It is one of the most abusive, destructive, and overbearing regulatory agencies that exist. And the issue with the CFPB that is going to be decided by the court is that the CFPB does not get its funding from Congress. Again, Congress has shook the responsibility of allocating funds to the CFPB. The CFPB receives funding directly from the Federal Reserve. Now, this is questionable in a sense that it supposedly, the challenges at least claim, it violates the Constitution's Appropriations Clause. Congress is supposed to appropriate money for the executive branch.  Now, I believe the consumer financials, you know, the CFPB is unconstitutional on many other grounds as well. It's just a horrific agency and one of the worst interferences in markets that the government involves. But here they're going after the financing. So here the court could basically say, look, this is a violation of the Constitution's Appropriations Clause. If Congress wants the CFPB to exist, it needs to figure out a funding mechanism. It needs to appropriate funds for the CFPB. It can't just delegate this to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve, by the way, is right now because of interest rates losing huge amounts of money and might at some point have a negative balance sheet. How does it fund something when it's anyway? It funds it because it can put money in. It can put no end of money. Again, this is a big case. It's a separation of powers case. It's a case that could basically dismantle the CFPB and destroy it. And that would be amazing. And the chances of Congress agreeing to recreate the CFPB, given divided government, are very small. So this could be the elimination of the CFPB, as we know it at least. I'm super excited about that. The CFPB is nothing but an evil institution of statism, and it has done nothing but interfere with markets and interfere with the well-functioning of financial markets. I know the Left loves this organization. It has already collected huge numbers of fines, and it's already been very, very, very active. I view that as almost all negative and destructive. It would be fantastic if the court ruled against the CFPB. Again, my fear is that it won't. Again, the middle-of-the-road Republican nominees on the court are probably not courageous enough, not committed enough, not intellectual enough to actually take out the CFPB. But it would be amazing if they did. And finally, another element of this, which again, massive consequences, massive consequences. This is a case called SEC versus Giochessi. I'm probably mispronouncing some of the names, but not important. It involves an action for investors fraud brought by the government before ALJ. Now what is an ALJ? An ALJ is an administrative law judge. So it is an executive judge appointed by the regulatory agency to make decisions with regard to violations of administrative law, administrative law. It's a administrative tribunal of the United States. It's to provide a neutral form to resolve certain administrative disputes. And every regulatory agency has these administrative ALJs. And the question is, so this is the SEC under the SEC, the Securities Exchange Act, created an ALJ for the SEC. The Securities Exchange Commission won the verdict and it was a $300,000 fine against this hedge fund founder and his advisor. In the lawsuit that followed, the plaintiff claimed that the ALJ violated the constitution. That is, the constitution does not allow for administrative legal judges, right? So legislative judges. So again, this is huge. There are about 2,000 ALJs employed by the federal government across a range of agencies. Imagine shutting those down and actually, I don't know what the alternative is, but actually forcing these kind of disputes into regular courts that would slow the process down, which is great, and it will cripple some of these regulatory agencies, which is great. And these are kind of judicial systems created within regulatory agencies that, again, don't function in the same way as the constitution, based on the constitution. Think about it. The SEC has its own legislature. Is the SEC even constitutional? The whole alphabet super agencies are kind of a fourth branch of government. I mean, the Federal Reserve, you could argue, is a fifth branch of government that the constitution does not account for. So dismantling any aspect of these is, I think, a win. And now it will create havoc within the regulatory world. But it will actually, everybody will have to take a step back and figure out what is needed, what is not, what is necessary, what is not, and figure out these, figure out if we're going to have regulatory agencies, they're going to have to be scaled back and they're going to have, they're going to have a lot less power and Congress is going to have to take up much more responsibility. Now again, I expect all these three cases for the good to lose and for the status quo to win, but they will get more judges voting than usual. And it's important that these be, come to the forefront and that there be decisions and minority opinions and this is how ultimately you change things. So I think this is huge. So hopefully, hopefully we get some rulings out of this that are positive. And you can tell that it's huge by the fact that everybody's panicking about it. You've got, you've got articles saying, oh, healthcare is, it's the end of healthcare in America because, because, you know, these provisions support the regulatory administrative state with regard to healthcare. And if they go away, that's going to die. You know, and, and, but generally that without the CFPB without these things, chaos will rain. And unfortunately, I think those arguments are going to win out, but, but they're driven by fear. And, and let's hope that there are a few people out there. Well, we know Gorsuch and, and I think Thomas will take the right stance on, on these. All right. This is pretty funny story. Newk Siberia. So the, the, the movement to Newk Siberia is not actually emanating from the West. It is not actually emanating from Ukraine, but it's actually an idea of the Russian, Russian today editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonian. She basically suggested that maybe we should nuke our own territory somewhere over Siberia, where it wouldn't cause any damage and it wouldn't impact human, human beings living there. But that this would be a, a, a, a threat, a warning to the West that be careful people, be careful. We can use nukes and we're willing to use it. Imagine, we're willing to use it in our own territory. Imagine what we will do to you. Now you can imagine. I mean, she says this on live TV and has not retracted it. Indeed, she is, she has filed a, a, a defamation lawsuit about people trying to misinterpret what she actually said about, about all of this, but about the new king of Siberia. So this is, this really happened. She said, what will happen if all of the electric devices and satellites would be knocked out, right? Now, because of this nuke exploding about the territory. Now, I mean, politicians of Siberia are going nuts. People in Siberia are going crazy. This is a deep insult towards Siberians. They are arguing she needs to apologize to the residents of Siberia at the very least. The Kremlin and Putin, who are big allies of, you know, of Margarita and Russia today are backing off. They don't want to have anything to do with this. They're pretending they never heard about it. It's distancing itself. And they have, they've made it clear that they have no intentions of setting off a nuclear device anyway, that they have a moratorium on nuclear testing. And, and none of this is going to happen. They actually now want to probe her comment, you know, have an official probe about what she said and what she said. And it's actually quite funny. The Chechen leader, on the other hand, you know, Ramzan Kadyrov, the nutcase from Chechnya, who just is, is, is angling for war at any opportunity. Ramzan supports Margarita. So he thinks this is a good idea. And supportive of Margarita, Simone Jan's idea of setting off a nuclear bomb above Siberia somewhere as a threat somehow to the West.  You know, he's arguing that what she really meant was that even with such an unfavorable development of events as a thermonuclear blast, Russia compared to the rest of the world will not lose strategically, not what she said, not what she intended, but even that's nonsense. She literally said we should blow up an atomic bomb. Anyway, it's kind of funny to read all the newspaper stories about this, but hopefully you found that modally entertaining, nuking Siberia. Russians nuking their own country. All right, let's see if we can do this. So I want to go over, we don't have a lot of time, but we'll do what we can. I want to go over quickly this. I want to go over quickly the case, the fraud case with Trump. I talked about a few days ago, but I kind of went through it very fast. So I want to do it a little slower and talk about what actually is going on here, what the case is, and what basis is it being filed. So this is just to update you on where it's coming from. I mean, all of this stems from 2019 testimony in front of Congress by Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen. In that testimony before Congress, basically Cohen, who had all kinds of withering criticism of Trump and of himself, basically that testimony included claims that Trump had inflated the value of his assets and the Trump organization engaged in systematic fraud. Now, this testimony, him saying this, set off a New York state fraud investigation that ultimately culminated in New York Attorney General's current case against Trump. So the civil complaint that was filed last September in civil, not criminal, alleges that Trump committed fraud for years by inflating the value of his property and other assets by hundreds of millions of dollars in order to receive better loan terms, low insurance premiums. There are seven counts called causes of action related to the alleged fraud, naming Trump, Don Jr. and Eric, as well as two Trump organization executives in the complaint, along with 10 Trump business entities used to control and operate commercial assets like Trump's New York golf clubs and Trump Town. So that's the course, the case is being brought under a New York law. Let me just find the New York law. Who wants to end? This is a New York specific law that allows the Attorney General to make such a claim against the business that he believes is committing fraud. It does not have to show that anybody suffered a loss. It does not have to show that there was a party that actually was damaged by the fraud. All it has to show is that the actual business engaged in fraud in presenting what do you call it, false information in order to receive some kind of benefit. So as compared to usual fraud, usual fraud cases, and this is section 2312 of the New York executive law, fraud doesn't need to have caused damages or involve a victim for the Attorney General to find a personal entity liable for fraudulent conduct. And the case we're looking at is brought under that title. Unlike an ordinary fraud case in which the party suing must prove laws, economic laws, the special law empowers the Attorney General to ask for a court to grant both an injunction against the continuation of the conduct and a money remedy not based solely on the loss of the party suing but rather focused on gains to the party benefiting from the proven fraudulent conduct. And how is fraud defined? It's defined pretty broadly as any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretence, false promise, or unconscionable contractual provisions. All of these could be deemed as fraud. What the Attorney General in New York is asking for is $250 million penalty, which she estimates as the Trump gain from the fraudulent activity. And the primary fraudulent activity here is misrepresenting the value of the properties of, you know, basically his net assets, but primarily of properties like his condo he claimed was 30,000 square feet. It's only 10,000 square feet or 10,996 square feet or, you know, different Winchester County estate, which he claimed was worth $261 million and four different appraisals showed that it was $30 million and on and on and on. And some have quibbled about some of the appraisals, like the one of Mar-a-Lago. Most agree about these appraisals that he provided were completely out of the ballpark. Now, Trump claims that, look, the contract had a provision saying, don't rely on my appraisals.  The law in New York says those kind of provisions don't count.  So, again, we could argue about whether this fraud law is a legitimate law that is an objective law, a law that you would support in a rational society. I think legal experts would have to weigh in here and decide whether it was appropriate or not. But it is a law in New York, clearly the law in New York. Appraisals are not subjective. There's methodology behind appraisals.  There's actually methodology, you know, that determines by law what a legitimate appraisal is. So you can't just get away with claiming that it's subjective. What surprised I think a lot of people is that the judge last week, basically, or last month, last week, last month, same thing, ruled against Trump's motion to dismiss the case, or Trump had filed a motion to dismiss the case, and partly ruled in favor of the Attorney General's motion for summary judgment. Not completely, but summary judgment means we don't need a trial here. You know, I've already ruled. This is obvious. And basically decided that at least on the question of fact of where the fraud was committed, he ruled that absolutely fraud had been committed. And as a consequence, he ordered the defendant's New York Business Certificate to be cancelled, that is Trump's and Trump's business entities to be placed in a receivership. This is a huge loss for Trump. It basically says that he's lost control over his properties in New York, which is massive. Now, there's lots of other details, and there's, of course, the trial is going on right now. The trial is complaining that it's not in front of a jury, that it's only in front of a judge, but his lawyers never asked for a jury trial. So it's to the extent that he might have gotten one. He didn't even ask for it. And the square footage, you might argue that there's some disagreement about valuation, but you can't misrepresent the square footage by a fact of three, 30,000 instead of 11,000. That's absurd. Anyway, this is the basis of the judge claiming that it was fraudulent. You know, again, the legal defense is going to be, look, nobody took a loss here. The banks and insurance companies that were involved, nobody's complaining about this. There's no there, there. But even if there's no loss, that doesn't mean fraud did not happen. So I can understand the argument that Attorney General is making. It's going to be interesting to see how the case is ultimately settles, but it clearly looks like, I mean, on the main issue of fact, Trump has already lost on the issue of where the fraud was committed. And this trial is probably going to take months. By the way, the other thing about this is they don't have to show intent. They don't have to show intent. The law does not recognize the due diligence clause as basically eliminating your requirement to provide accurate information, or at least accurate within a scope of margin of error. Anyway, the reality is that this court is going to take probably weeks, if not months, that there are at least 27 witnesses, but the potential of 127 witnesses, it's basically going to rest on the specific language of executive law 6312 and whether they were violated, whether the law was violated or not. You know, already Trump has appealed the finding of fraud to a higher court, so all of this is going to be appealed. I don't think what this court decides ultimately will stand without appeal, whether the appeal court accepts the court or not. We'll see who knows how far up the chain this goes. I assume this has all been done in state courts. This could go to the New York Supreme Court, whether they will even review it or not, hard to tell. But that is the drama that's happening in New York. And you know, Trump is going to argue, of course he's going to argue, this is all political. There's no there there. This is just arming, what is it, weaponizing justice in our country, which is what he kept saying, and he keeps saying, he'll keep saying, and he keeps saying that through the election. You know, and if he wins, then he'll argue, see, but I defeated it. And you're still, but in a sense, it'll play even better for him if he loses, because then you'll say, see, they're after me, I'm a victim. I mean, it is stunning to me how a political, our entire political map now has turned into a map of victimhood, who can claim to be the biggest victim, whether it's the left and its long, long history of writing the victimhood train, or whether it is the right now and particularly Trump of, oh, my God, what a victim Trump is. And we should all feel endlessly sorry for him. All right, this is being long today, because we've gone a little bit more in depth on some of these stories. But we've got one more to go. But let me remind everybody, you only have three questions in the super chat. So let me remind everybody that this is your opportunity to ask me a question about anything, disagree with me, challenge me, present your own point of view. I'll read whatever you write. So this is an opportunity to do that. In addition, you know, in addition to, you can also support the show by using a sticker. Thank you, Jonathan Honing. Thank you, Gene. And thank you, Paul, for supporting the show in that way, value for value. We've got 80 people listening, you know, $3 from everybody, four, five, $10 from a few of you gets us to the target quite easily. All right, let's, oh, Euro energy, yes. So there is a brewing conflict between, I mean, I know this will shock you in Europe between Germany and France around energy. And as usual, with these kind of disputes, the Germans are wrong and the French are right. The Germans are wrong. But, you know, we'll see. But it's not clear who's going to win the dispute. And the dispute basically is centered around nuclear power, energy. They're trying to wrap a European wide strategy for energy. And that means, you know, a set of packages that provide subsidies and incentives and tax bakes and so forth, certain types of energy, and a focus on those type of energy, and with an attempt to grow basically alternative energy in an effort to decarbonize. France is saying, fine, great, let's do that. I mean, they're all statist, right? But France is saying, but the ultimate alternative energy and the one you should be subsidizing, not windmills and solar panels, we'll do that too. But the one you should really be subsidizing is nuclear, nuclear power. Of course, France gets, I don't know, over 80% of all its electricity from nuclear power today. And you know, why not more? Germany gets right now zero of its energy for nuclear power. So you can see the conflict, the conflict over which model is building windmills and solar panels, solar farms in Germany with it. I hate to tell it to the Germans. I think they know this, but the sun doesn't shine that often. Versus nuclear power, which is reliable, safe, relatively cheap once you get it running, there's no, there's nothing in the world that has a greater energy concentration than uranium.  You can produce huge amounts of electricity. And France went from relying about for about at the peak, about 70% of its electricity in the mid-1970s. About 70% of electricity was produced by fossil fuels to today where it's under 10%. Under 10%. I mean, that should be the model. And every country can do this. There's nothing unique about France. And they did it in a relatively short period of time. From 1976, really, where they started on this building boom of nuclear power plants, well, they started earlier, but that's when they first started going online. To 1988, they went from 70% fossil fuels to under 10% of fossil fuels. So, I mean, that is amazing. So, I mean, France is insane about so many things with regard to environmental policy, tax policy, regulatory policy, investment policy, pretty much everything. You know, you can't fly airplanes now. You can't take commercial flight from a city if you could take a train with under, I can't remember, two or three hours or whatever. So, let me note, but in nuclear power, they're the good guys. Anyway, this is a big issue that is creating conflict within the European Union. And they're all at the bargaining table trying to figure this out. I mean, the solution is obvious. Europe should go nuclear. The US should go nuclear. The rest of the world should go nuclear. In the meantime, we should rely on fossil fuels and then primarily natural gas. And then, you know, while it takes us to build those nuclear power plants, we should deregulate massively so we can build them faster and cheaper. We should get micro nuclear, the small nuclear power plants. And that's the way you deal with pollution, with CO2, with everything, with everything. It ain't happening, unfortunately. All right, before we go to the questions, we've got a few questions here and hopefully we'll get more. I want to remind you that I managed to do this as a sponsor of the show. Right now, the taking entries into the Atlas Shrugged Essay Contest, you could win $10,000, $10,000 by if you win the Atlas Shrugged Essay Contest. It requires writing an essay 800 to 1600 words on a philosophical theme from the book. They provide kind of options. The deadline is November 6, so if you're going to submit an essay, you've got to start now. You can find information about this. You can find information about this at einrand.org slash start here, one word, start here. And you can see the different things that the Einrand Institute is promoting. This week, we're promoting the Atlas Shrugged Essay Contest. This is for high school, 12th grade, college and graduate students worldwide, anywhere in the world, $10,000. That is a lot of money you should try. Don't forget, enter the contest. And all of you should go to einrand.org, start here, slash start here, because there's a lot of stuff there about the Einrand Institute, a lot of programs, a lot of things you can do, register, download on there that I think you would all enjoy and benefit from. All right, Brie, the entire regulatory state was just made up by FDR one day. It is the poor state of history that makes people think it is necessary for the country to function. Everybody should read The Great Society by Amity Schlage. Yeah, I agree about reading Amity Schlage's book, The Forgotten Man, The Great Society. And yes, the regulatory state was, I mean, it has, I think it has some predecessors before. I think it has some with Wilson. Remember, the Federal Reserve, which is part of all this, was created in 1914, so before FDR. But during that period, basically from 1914 to the 1930s, that's it. That created it. And many of the financial regulations we have today were the 1933 and 1934 banking and securities acts. I mean, a lot of what we suffer today were consequence of what FDR did. And then if you think about all the regulatory, all the environmental regulations that we suffer from today, almost all of them, including the regulatory agencies that were created to deal with environmental issues, were all created under Nixon in the early 1970s. Little did we know that these agencies would become the monsters that they are today, like the EPA, all created under Nixon. So if you really think about that, from a regulatory perspective, the big things were FDR, Nixon, and then you get Bush, Sabin's Oxley, and you get Dodd-Frank.  And Republicans, Democrats, they all participate, all participate. It's funny that the biggest environmental regulations and the creation of regulatory agencies for environment were all done under a Republican. And then reinforced by, I think, Bush, Bush passed another one of those, what was it, Kleene, Animal, something. One of the big environmental regulations were also passed under one of the Bushes. And nobody questions it. I agree completely with Brie. Michael, what evidence are you looking at showing wages have been increasing? Oh, well, I mean, God, all you have to do is look at the right kind of graphs. You can find, where can you find the evidence? You can find it on the Federal Reserve website. I think the St. Louis Fed has this data. But some of the best articles on this, and you can find them out at the American Enterprise Institute's website. So if you go to the American Enterprise Institute and you search for wages over time, you'll find some graphs that illustrate this. And one of the key things to realize is that the graphs that show wages not increasing, the graphs that show wages over the last 30 to 40 years lagging, one of the things that they do, they do several things wrong. But one of the things that they do is they use the wrong inflation deflator. And it turns out that the, that which inflation deflator you use, so that you're looking at the dollar for dollar for the same measure, it makes a huge difference to the result that you're going to get in terms of, in terms of what actual wages have done over the last 40 years. Michael says, did you see a story about the Swiss journalist who received 60 days in jail for anti-LGBTQ hate speech comments? I did. I saw it briefly. I haven't looked into it. But yes, I mean, it's sickening. Remember, and this is Switzerland. Well, it's a bastion of freedom in Europe. But we talked, I talked to Fleming Rose, if you remember, about the decline of free speech in Europe. I mean, we focused a lot on Islam and things like that. But it's also true of LGBTQ, the hate speech laws in Europe are terrible. I didn't realize before reading this article that this was also true of Switzerland. I thought things would be better in Switzerland. But it turns out that yes, it is true. Apollo Zeus is taking me up on, I will read anything you write. And he wrote, Einwand was wrong on everything. So I, you know, that's a great sound bite for you to then post you on book has gone crazy. He actually said that. But there you have it. All right, I think that's all the questions that we have. We're way behind on the on the super chat. So if anybody wants to step in and get us to the goal, that would be that would be really nice. It would be helpful. Don't want to start October on such a downer. It's going to be a rough month anyway, because we're going to be traveling a lot with significantly fewer shows for the month. Let's not start it in a position where we're behind anyway. Andrew says, very good YouTube video by a right independence in an independent independence in an independent world topic, important topic. And uncle gives an impression on manners and in himself, his impressions on manners and in himself. Cool. I'll check that video out. Thank you, Andrew. All right, we got one more question by string a bell. Have you or will you pick up a copy of Thomas Sowell's new book, social justice fallacies? What are your thoughts and so I probably won't. Now, because I don't respect soul, I do immensely. But because I don't think I learn that much from it.  And I've been talking about it one way another for over a decade. I like Thomas Sowell a lot. He's one of the better economists thinkers out there. Obviously, we disagree on certain things. There's some conventionality to his economics that is unfortunate. He starts off, anyway. But he's generally free market, which is overwhelmingly free market, which is good. His social analysis on things like racism, culture, things like that is very good. And I've learned a lot from it. Generally, I think he's a spokesman for liberty and freedom and sanity over all. He's a little too much of a conservative for my liking, rather than a true free market classical liberal. But he's as good as we have in the world in which we live. So I'm a huge fan. Given that he's better than 99% of the intellectuals that are out there in the world. And I'll take him even though there's certain issues I might disagree with him on. And I might look at the book. There's just my pile of books to read. It's so vast. And I try to read books about things I really don't know anything about or know very little about. And I try to focus on that. That's why I probably wouldn't read it. There's a lot of books who I probably agree with that I just don't read because of that very fact. All right, Sylvanus has come in with 50 bucks. I mean, these news roundups have become meaning the goal has become dependent on Sylvanus, which I feel bad about. I mean, it would be great if some other people stepped up with him to get us. Thank you, Jeremy. Thank you, John. Thank you, Michael. Thank you, Shelley. All of you also stepped up with stickers to get us closer to the goal. So we're doing much, much better because of Sylvanus in terms of reaching the goal. Those of you who'd like to support the show monthly, which is better for everybody, I think, you can do so at youronbookshow.com slash support or Patreon. Patreon is probably the easiest for everybody. And those of you who don't like Patreon, don't like PayPal, there's always subscribe star where you can do it as well. So please subscribe on a monthly basis that gives a certain predictability to cash flows. And, you know, I'm working to, if I can get those numbers high enough, we're still far from that number, then we can make super chat less important and we can also get rid of ads. But if people keep asking me when is that going to happen, it will happen when we get those numbers high enough, but they're not going high enough yet. So maybe the day will come and we're going to try to do stuff to make that day come. We are getting more subscribers. That's good. Subscriptions are rising. And I think revenues will follow. All right. Thank you, everybody. I really appreciate the support from all the superchatters and the stickers and the questions. I hope you enjoyed the show. I'll be back tomorrow, probably at the same time. And don't forget tonight. Don't forget tonight. Really, really important. And that is that Harry Binswanger will be on. We'll be talking about what makes Ayn Rand the only one out there talking about real philosophy. You know how philosophers accuse of not being a real philosopher? Well, what makes her the real philosopher and the rest of them pseudo philosophers? So we'll talk about that. Apollo Zeus wants to redeem himself. So he wrote Ayn Rand was right on most things. That's good to know. Apollo Zeus will have to find out from you at one of these opportunities, what you think she was wrong about. Savanas just stepped in with another $50. So thank you, Savanas. He's committed to getting us to target on these news roundups. And I really appreciate that. He says, don't worry about Iran. I'm pretty introverted. So I have fun spending where I do. I really appreciate that. All right. And Andrew asks, the news roundups have substantially replaced my news intake. Would be interested in how many people have done the same. Also, Trump would lie about what he ate for lunch.  Never mind if he thought he could get something in return, something out of it. What do you think motivates his compulsive lying? I think it's what gives him a sense of control. And I think the fact that he can get away with it, I think he gains, he's fundamentally a privacy of consciousness mentality, which I think a lot of people are degrees of it. But for him, he's primarily motivated by a privacy of consciousness. And one of the things of privacy of consciousness mentality needs is this sense of efficaciousness over reality. That is, I can make stuff up and get away with it. And that confirms to him that reality doesn't really matter, that only matters what happens in his head.   Because, because he had a lot of political pull, he got away with it because he captured the imagination of Americans. And they were willing to let him do anything. And he was willing to get a rep. But the way you you get a sense of control over reality is you say, Well, what actually happened didn't happen. And nobody calls you on it. Nobody calls you on it. And that's kind of gives you a sense of, Okay, my, my, I'm, my, my privacy of consciousness is real. It's true. It's, it's actually there. Right. Reality doesn't matter. So psychologically, and philosophically, it's this privacy of consciousness mentality. And, and I think he has it in space. And I know other people who have it. It's, it's unbelievably destructive to self and to anybody around them. Because they literally make it all up. And reality, the truth is not a judge of anything.  I mean, it's a whole topic, which we should have, we should talk about with our philosophers at some point, and get get insight into, all right, John, just put us over the, the, the threshold of reaching our goal. So thank you, John, really appreciate it. Guys, go on to ironrad.org slash start here and check out all the programs and all the goodies available there. I will see you tomorrow tonight with Harry Binswanger. Bye everybody.


Well, thank you. Thank you all very much. I'm delighted all of you could come by today. The question before us is a simple one. What value do we place on human dignity and on human worth? I realize that's rather bluntly put, but you know one of the things I've been intrigued by while I've held this job is an attitude in government that says every approach to public policy issues must be complicated and indirect. Now come to think of it, and I know this will come as a surprise, kind of reminds me of an anecdote from back in the days when I was also in the media business and radio. And most of you will remember for those radio dramas, the sound effects man and all of the things that he devised from coconut shells that he would pound on his chest to be a horse galloping and so forth. This one particular time at WHO Des Moines, rehearsing for a play there, and there was a sound effect that called for water falling on a board, and the sound effect man went to work. He tried sand on a drum, and he tried rice on cardboard, and peas on something else, and he was going on and he couldn't get anything that sounded through the microphone like water on a board was getting near showtime, and somebody suggested trying water on a board.  Well that may seem a long way from the drug problem, but it isn't. Trying water on the boards really what we've tried to do with America's problem. You see so much has changed during the past few years that I'm not sure many of us remember the skepticism that greeted early anti-drug efforts. There were even those who questioned whether drugs were that much of a threat to society, but we're wiser now and sadly so. We know that the price our society and our children have paid for laxity about what is quite simply a public health menace of the first order, which is what brings us here today. I know most of you in the media are cautious about being part of joint efforts with any government agency, and as a general rule I think this caution is well advised. But on certain matters of life and death, on questions of national survival, I think there's room for common purpose between us. The fact that those of us here today and people from almost every walk of life are now allied on this issue indicates a new public consensus, a consensus that has developed around what we just talked about, a very simple, very direct set of propositions, that drugs hurt, that drugs kill, that each of us must in our daily lives just say no to drug use and drug users, and saying no doesn't just mean a private refusal to use drugs. It also means taking active steps against drugs or drug use whenever it occurs and whenever we see it. Now this set of very direct propositions has had impact for the first time. We're seeing progress, progress measured in statistics but also in something much more profound, a change in awareness across America, a change that puts the goal of a drug-free generation within our grasp. The most recent survey of the nation's high school seniors is indicative of the change. Even more revealing than the fact that one-third fewer seniors acknowledged current use of cocaine in 1987 than the year before, almost all the students said it was wrong even to try a drug like cocaine. So America and especially young people are realizing that we have a drug abuse problem and that illegal drugs are deadly and wrong. It's gratifying to see that in homes, schools, businesses, and communities across the United States the wall of denial is crashing down. We're also recognizing that individual freedom does not include the right to self or social destruction. Drug use is not a victimless crime. It is not a private matter. While we must be concerned with the personal consequences for the individual, we must demonstrate our great concern for the millions of innocent citizens who pay the high price for the illegal drug use of some. These costs are measured by crime and terrorism. One recent study suggests as much as 50 to 75 percent of crime is drug related. There is also lost productivity, increased health care costs, continuing threats to worker and public safety, the transmission of AIDS, and an overall degradation of our society. If I could interject right here in a community in California several years ago before we began to get as serious as we are about this problem, the Santa Barbara Police Department, they were pretty much aware of the users and so forth, and on a weekend they rounded all liquor gather, rounded them up, and put them in the huescau for the weekend. And they did it as an experiment. The burglary rate in Santa Barbara dropped to virtually zero while those users were off the street. So we're also overcoming an erroneous perception of the illicit drug user as powerless to act against drug availability, peer pressure, or his or her general lot in life. In fact, our nation's law enforcement officers, while hitting the pushers and suppliers with a force greater than ever before, acknowledge that the drug abuse problem will ultimately be solved by preventing non-users from ever starting to use illegal drugs and getting current users to quit. Finally, we're having to face squarely those things which we've built into our culture that enable illegal drugs to exist in our society. As citizens and individuals, we're realizing that although government must do everything possible to help, a solution to the drug problem will only come when each of us directly confronts and rejects the cultural acceptances of illegal drug use in our daily lives. In 1981, there were a lot of people who believed drug abuse was so rampant that we were defenseless to do anything about it. But as I said, we're taking down the surrender flag that has flown over so many drug efforts. We're running up a battle flag. We can fight the drug problem and we can win. This call was answered by concerned citizens from around the country who were committed not only to fighting drug use but to achieving a drug-free generation of young Americans that is now our goal. Last week, Nancy and I spoke to over 2,000 such individuals at the White House Conference for a Drug-Free America. Believe me, not so long ago, this conference would not have been possible. And there are still those who continue to say that because we have not quickly solved a problem which took decades to develop, we should throw in the towel. Well, let's remember that our actions today are an investment in the future. We know there are a large number of individuals, primarily those who acquired their drug use habits in the 60s and 70s, who persist in using illegal drugs. And this persistent demand for illegal drugs is met by sometimes seemingly limitless supply. But a surge in drug-related crimes, deaths by overdose, births of drug-addicted and drug-impaired babies, and even the destabilization of national governments by traffickers should not be viewed as harbingers of defeat in our war on drugs. These events should instead strengthen our resolve to stop this insidious evil once and for all. No, America's awakening to its drug problem has not come easily. We remember a nation stunned after the death of Len Baez. The same rude awakening has occurred only recently in the Washington, D.C. area and nationally as to the stranglehold of drug criminals on foreign governments. But believe me, with each jolt into reality, we strengthen our offenses and move closer to a drug-free America. Remember, the shock of recognition is not a sign of defeat. It's the beginning of victory. Many important campaigns are now underway. Businesses are taking strong action against drug use in the workplace. Several states, such as New Jersey and Missouri, have enacted stricter laws against illegal drug use and trafficking. A number of important initiatives are underway to achieve drug-free schools, drug-free public housing, and drug-free transportation. Our law enforcement officials have aggressive offenses underway. We're working to improve treatment and to increase the drug user's incentives for seeking help. And we're working internationally with the individual countries and organizations, like the United Nations, to stem growth, production, and transit of narcotics. And here, your own work has been particularly important. Long gone are the days when drug coverage focused on what the government was or too often was not doing to solve the drug problem. Today, drug abuse is the subject of major industry initiatives and in-depth specials on the nightly news, daily newspapers, and weekly magazines. Also gone are the days when drug use was frequently glamorized in movies and television, on radio, and in print. Today, the media is revealing the deadly truth about drugs and why each of us must take a stand. So in addition to your individual efforts, I hope you'll keep up your tough reporting on this story. This means holding government officials accountable, of course, but it also means keeping a close eye on trends in drug use in America and reporting to your readers fully and fairly about those efforts. Let me assure you that when Nancy and I see stories about how far we have to go in this battle, we welcome them. I also want to mention at least some of your individual programs. The Academy of Television Arts and Sciences is actively promoting an ongoing awareness of the drug abuse problem to be reflected in everything which is broadcast. The National Association of Broadcasters is now in its fifth year of the NAB On Air initiatives, which include a variety of major programs against drug and alcohol abuse. The media advertising partnership for a drug-free America, the largest anti-drug use advertising campaign ever attempted, is working toward a one and a half billion dollars in volunteered media time and space to unsell illegal drugs. The three major TV networks, 13 cable networks, 13 radio networks, and the nation's newspapers and magazines are donating space and time for the media advertising partnership anti-drug use advertisements. The Miami Herald has published more than 175 anti-drug use public service ads, many of them full-page, since joining the campaign just last year. Capital City's ABC broke with its tradition of local autonomy for its many print and broadcasting properties in 1984 after the death of an employee due to a drug overdose. They implemented a company-wide substance abuse policy. In addition, ABC contributed 482 commercials, half in prime time, to media advertising partnership spots in the past nine months. The Boston Herald launched Say No to Drugs, a major community-based drug education campaign designed to help combat drug abuse among young people in the greater Boston area. The Chicago Sun Times has teamed up with WLS-TV Chicagoan Say No to Drugs. The Motion Picture Association has produced a series of anti-drug messages which are shown before their feature films in movie theaters across the country. I don't want to brag, but one of these PSAs features my own leading lady. All of these initiatives liberally represent billions of dollars in expertise and coverage which has been invaluable in moving toward a drug-free America. And this is just to mention a few examples of the excellent work that all of you are doing. So on behalf of the next generation of Americans, the many lives that will be saved and whose futures will be bettered, I want to extend a heartfelt thank you to each one of you. Thank you. God bless you.


Here's how to cut your own hair at home so you can grow it out and keep it healthy while also shaping it. So let's transform my hair from this to this. So I'm starting with uneven hair that is dying for a haircut to make it even and rounder and healthier overall. I did an experiment on each side of my hair and you can tell which side have the product that caused your breakage. So we learned from that and are moving forward with a fresh cut. So I'm starting with a really good wash and I'm using the Redken Acidic Bonding Concentrate Shampoo which is great for color-treated or damaged hair and also makes my scalp feel really good and gets out all the product buildup I currently have in my hair so I can reset. Rinse that out. Then I'm going in with my favorite protein treatment that I happened to cross on Amazon one day and it makes my hair feel really healthy and get curlier. And it's from this random brand called Hype Pro Pack and I'll link it, but this is going to make my curls so defined and it'll be easier to see the shape and layers and also come out with an overall healthier head of hair and I leave this on for 15 minutes even though it says two to five, but whatever. Then I rinse it out of my hair and I'm using a thick conditioner because my hair needs a lot of moisture. It's very porous, but also because it holds my curls together well which is what I need for the dry part of this cut. So this Joico Moisture Recovery Conditioner is goaded for that and I've used it for years throughout many videos in old packaging and it never disappoints. Make sure you detangle your hair well so it's easy to work with while cutting it. I'm making a center part all the way down the back and look at this length difference. This is why I record everything and post it so you guys know what to do and what not to do. So don't use an aggressive color remover twice in one day. This length difference is disgusting, but let's fix that. You're going to need to section your hair into four quadrants. So we have two front sections and two in the back since these will be cut differently. And I'm working with small sections at a time starting in the back on the shorter side to make sure I get everything that needs to be cut and then even out on the other side. I'm using a fine tooth comb to detangle and pull evenly outwards then saving that angle between my fingers and holding it where I can see so I can cut a straight line across and using hair scissors to cut one to two inches. I'm also cutting this short piece's end. It feels so much nicer and easier to run my fingers through now. Then moving on to the next section I'm making sure it's wet and detangled and adding a chunk of the freshly cut hair as a length guide and then cutting it to match and this piece was long and thin so it needed to go. Now I'm pulling the same section a little more out and upward kind of like at the zenith of my head so I can add layers and when you pull it forward you can see that the straight line is now slanted due to the new angle so I'm cutting it straight across again so the top pieces will end higher than the lower pieces therefore forming layers. Next section I'm adding another guide piece cutting off the ends then going in at a higher angle to cut the layers and you can already see that these layers are layering at a beautiful curve that I made to shape my curls so I don't get the dreaded triangle of sadness hair. I'm matching up the hair from the underside of my ear with the already cut side to make sure the sides turn out even so I'm cutting a lot off of this side and then meeting them in the middle to double check before using this chunk as a guide for all the other cuts. Now I'm doing the same technique on the other backside and cutting about four inches to match the length and the way that I choose the length of my hair is by taking the shortest piece which was on the other side and cutting it to the length that eliminates all the split ends, the sparse areas, the long straggly pieces and ends up with a fuller blunt cut for ultimate health especially because I'm on a mission to grow out my hair as healthily as possible for dyed hair and it's important to get split ends before they split all the way up the hair shaft and to have blancher ends so the section is stronger and less likely to break off. I'm cutting so much on this side because of the experiment mishap but it needed to be done and I know I can get back to this length but even healthier. I'm so happy with these layers and don't forget to cut the little hairs around the nape of your neck too and once you're done with the back now it's time to move on to the front, wet it, detangle and then get started with the guide piece using the same method but we're using a different method to add the layers in the front so once you do the first cut you want to redirect your hair forwards towards your face and then cut the angle in and don't forget the ends of your baby hairs too because I'm trying to grow those into teenage hairs eventually. Next section, use the guide, cut, pull forwards, add the layers.  For the section next to your middle part you can over direct your hair for even more intense space framing if you want or use this technique to make flattering bangs which I'm not doing, I'm trying to grow it this time and look at those layers. Baby hairs and then time to match the side lengths. Again, this is like five inches of hair straight but I know I'll get there again. I've been using hair growth methods to get fuller, longer, healthier hair and I'm determined to get it super long before my next crisis where I impulsively cut it all off but who knows when that will be. I'll make a video about all my methods and give updates along the way but this cut is now where I'm starting from so let's track this growth over the next few years and see how well my methods work. This is a hair growth oil blend that I made myself based on research of the best oils, essential oils and ingredients that best stimulate the scalp and promote growth and it also happens to smell amazing to the point where I get compliments on my perfume when it's really just my hair oil and it's been working really well especially along my edges which haven't been this long for as long as I can remember and it's also nice on the length of my hair. I'm adding more conditioner to make my hair as hydrated as possible and brush it out, admire the layers and start finger curling. I used a good amount of product and oil in my hair so I could get the most defined finger curls possible because I'm going to be doing a dry cut once it's fully dry so I can check each individual curl and also adjust any shaping based on how it looks when it's dry. This is how it looks after air drying and the shape is exactly what I expected. It feels so much healthier, I have the layers I wanted and now I'm ready to go in and do any little tweaks and inspect individual curls. This side was a little disjointed so I went in and turned that middle section into more of an angle and less flat so now I have four main layers and the curve that I was looking for. This is how the back looks which was almost perfect except for a couple rogue curls in the middle so I grabbed those and trimmed them to make the shape rounder and added a little water on the end to see how it would naturally curl back up so I don't cut too much off when the ends shrink back up and now I have the shape that I wanted. Do the same for any curls with scraggly ends if you find any and now I'm really happy with the shape, the layers and the way my hair feels after this fresh cut and my hair is finally even again. Using a lot of oil and finger curling gives a lower volume, higher definition look and here's what it looks like without finger curling and less oil and I definitely like both looks because I love to have options and I'll be changing the color soon so stay tuned for that.


What's good? George J. Will Ross back again with another video. So we're gonna check out top 20 pipe bombs and wrestling history I think a lot of us can agree MJF's epic pipe bomb or Some people are calling it a nuke I have to put that easily in one of the top five greatest Promos of all time It's it's either top five top ten of all time It's it's there and if it's not in the least top five in this video I don't know how that I don't know how it is So I'm just looking to see where he places the MJF promo This is up there with the CM Punk promo from ten years ago That still stands the test of time this promo ten years later ten years from now We'll still be one of the things that people will be like yo This was insane. This was something that will always be remembered in my opinion So we're gonna check this out. There's always been some great promo work in wrestling So let's check out some of them see where they rank appreciate all of them support. It's Disney WCW If not, I might go say my piece at some other show recipe said he got your attention now Oh My and I'll never let that go on myself. You can take this job and shove it up your you know Wow Just seeing that just hearing people who share any suckin in he ends up in WWE and doing some of the best work as well There man Rest in peace Eddie a legend in the wrestling world Wait, hold on. Wait. Did he just wait? Did he just attack him? Wait a minute. This this is Eddie Kingston.  I've seen some of his promos his promo work with CM Punk and Chris Jericho on a doesn't fantastic. Oh man. Oh Wow, did he say Uncle Paul Triple H? Oh Man, Eddie Keese is great. It's a good video That was cool.  Oh ECW I love that place But he see W. Simply didn't love me back I found fame and fortune in WWE I pull the sock out of my pants and made Vince McMahon laugh the doors of opportunity Open wide for Mick Foley. Wow He's he was definitely speaking a lot of truth here.  This was a good good classic promo from a big phone This was a cool promo from Jim Ross. I'm not he was speaking a lot of Truths and how he feels like a work shoot. I love promos like this that blurs the lines of real and storyline. I love it Oh, here we go. This is a good promo. Thank me to Good promo segment This was a good segment Kevin Owens is another great one to on the microphone And this had a lot of truth to it and this is why it was enjoyable Because Shane McMahon was getting used to a lot of the spotlight from the talent That's on the show that are actively wrestling This was good too Kevin Owens was so great here. This was so cool, bro. Oh my god This was a good promo too This was cool. There is someone to blame The streak And that's how they kind of tied it in because punk was supposed to be at WrestleMania 30 But he he took his ball and went home. He was supposed to be there and If he was gonna be there the whole card would have been changed The yes movement wouldn't have happened the way we wanted it to at WrestleMania 30 because originally I think See a poker supposed to face the unders not the undertaker triple H at WrestleMania 30 But he wasn't trying to do that. I think he was supposed to pay face triple H And I don't know what they were gonna have Daniel Bryan do at the time but once see upon left it literally changed the landscape of of the yes movement and And how WrestleMania 30 played out. So This is good too Right about now. They definitely need to see the now.  Hey, oh That was nuclear heat, bro Hey, Russo, did you write in my cousin Owen's death? Someone like you who knows nothing about the technicality put somebody 90 feet up Here it is How do you take over the WCW? 67 million dollars Yeah, I got an answer to that one you're gonna give me the microphone Oh Joey saws had a good promo segment to This was good bro and once again, I'm always say this promos that blur the lines of truth or in reality Make what wrestling what it's the best parts of wrestling. Well, you don't know What's real here? What's a storyline even though it plays into a storyline? There's truth elements and you always want that because then it can it it brings in the fans It brings in the dentry. What's really going on here? He's really speaking how he feels or He's saying something that us fans relate to Oh What I did for Vince McMahon was make his kingdom safe Vince McMahon Didn't want someone like the Undertaker Representing the World Wrestling Federation, but I remain loyal After all his hand-chosen favorites left town greener pastures more money Stayed here. He forces me To fight my own brother. He put my family tragedy on the line for ratings Demand my shot at the World Wrestling Federation title.  Oh Talking smack one of one of the best eras of smackdown This miss segment and they kind of go into it if you guys have seen the evil documentary Definitely go check it out on peacock not sponsored by them, but he explains all of that Was not scripted That's how he felt at the moment because he was so upset and what Daniel Bryan was saying. He was like blow how what he was pissed like he was legit mad and That's how he expressed it and it was one of the greatest things Easily one of the best promo segments of all time.  Let me tell you about a guy who tells his WWE fans the people that he loves that he will be back If they would let me come back I would come back. Well, why don't you quit? Why don't you quit and go to the bingo halls with your indie?   That was so good Oh Oh No show this event tonight He pumped out on me and he pumped out on every single fan in this building tonight. Wow We have two types of wrestlers TNA diehard who come here and entertain and bust their ass please fans And we got superstars who think they can come and do whatever they want however They feel like But they screw each and every fan who paid to see them no matter how old they are It's Samoa Joe coming in here and doing what he does best Wrestle and be the best damn professional wrestler in the world.  You think this is funny make.  There are distinct differences between the two of us Mick because you're talking to the guy who lost in here In a match in Germany continue to wrestle. No, I'm not talking about that guy Why don't you tell me where you were Mick on the night of July 22nd? 2007 at the Comic-Con signing little pre copies your book keep the little Sneakers at home because I'm lacing up the leopard skin. Well, Mick. Don't you?  What the Oh Yeah, this this right here They definitely did This was a good promo segment. Oh Man, I thought this would be higher on the list, but it is in the top five. So I'm okay with this Yeah, this Legendary promo This is so good Oh My god, bro, he he this is great I'm so glad I saw this live. I I will it would be one of those things where The CM punk pipe pipe bomb. I didn't see live I watched that on YouTube like maybe that the next day because I you know I heard about it This I watched live and I will always remember Watching this live on stream with you guys just in shock at what I was listening and see Fantastic promo This was savage this was so you call your own boss Effing mark.    I think it may be in my top five of all time I'm gonna have to say potentially I want to say I put this in I Would have put this as number two I would have put MJF's promo as number two and then see a person's number one The reason why I still have CM punks as the number one promo for me personally is it brought me back to wrestling? This is what brought me back to wrestling His promo alone brought me back because at one point I want to say It had to been probably 2000 I Want to say like 2007 was probably one of the last years I was watching WWE and then from 2008 all the way to When that promo happened, I believe that was like 2011 That I think that was maybe 2010-2011 I would say that was like 2011 So for those three years from 2008 all the way to like 2011 whenever that promo happened I wasn't watching wrestling. I stopped. I was in college at the time. I was focusing on other stuff I just stopped watching wrestling. I just didn't really care that much But when I saw this on YouTube and I started watching it. I was like, huh? This is this is very this is this is interesting, you know saying like I knew who CM punk was I was like, okay. I'm liking this. You know saying this is this is Quite interesting and the thing is I knew who CM punk was because you know I'm see clips and hear stuff about him and all these other different things So I like I knew kind of who the person was but once he was saying all these things I could relate to it because I hadn't watched the product in so long But it made sense everything he was saying I was like that still range true now and I haven't watched it in years and that's when I started watching it More like weekly. I started watching it like Frequently, you know saying because I wanted to see what they were gonna do with CM punk How this was gonna play out and then it just went from there for me So that's why I rank it as my number one favorite promo of all time because he got me back in the wrestling Without that promo segment happening. I don't think I I do I I'm into wrestling like that as much And be honest with you.  Is it the best promo you've ever seen in or heard? Is it above the CM punk pipe bomb? Where would you rank him and I would like to get your thoughts and opinions on it But I appreciate all the love and support on the channel roads and NK appreciate y'all keeping me. See y'all next one. Peace


Hi. Playing business. So I have a confession to make. I am an imposter. When I look in the mirror, I see a high school teacher. Fifteen years ago, I went looking for a place where intelligent people connect money to effective strategy to build a better world. What I found was social enterprise and its little buddy, Impact Investing. So I started to play business. So this was 15 years ago. I saw myself at the time as sort of a non-profit Mad Max infiltrating the world of the crazy for-profit people. But again, that was 15 years ago. Now I have to update the image, of course. While playing business, I've learned three things. Impact is product, good opposes bad, and entrepreneurs are everywhere. So let's look at the first. It's absolutely critical that we quantify the efforts of our work. But we do that to understand the success of the enterprise. Impact is not for donors and investors. Impact is not a return on investment. While it costs money to create impact, impact is not money. The innovation that we inhabit as social entrepreneurs is that we use money as a tool. We use money as a tool to sustain our efforts to create products that solve human problems. It's solving problems that's valuable. Solving problems is the impact. That's what we're investing in. And that's what we're earning profit to sustain. Impact resides in the lives of our customers and our communities. And it's delivered through our products. Throughout the presentation, I'll be providing some helpful Twitter content. Good opposes bad. So we've been having this argument in this sector for many years. Good versus bad. Impact first versus financial first.  A social enterprise is defined by its ability to create good. And every social enterprise must earn profit in order to continue to exist. Wining about which one is more important than the other is an example of what Jed Emerson calls bifurcated thinking. And it completely misses the blended value, which is unique to social enterprise. However, there is a conversation I think we should be having. And that's good versus bad. In addition to a company's impact through their products, a company's business practices provide impact to the community, positive and negative. The first example, bees leave the hives and they go to the neighboring communities and they pollinate the plants. It's a good thing. And the second example, waste leaves the plant. It goes into the water stream and communities downstream have to pay to clean that water. It's a bad thing. What we should want from all of our community, from all of our companies is net positive externalities. So let's look at a couple specific examples. So good journalism and information is essential to a well informed citizenry. These companies, NewsDeeply ProPublica Solutions Journalism Network, they contribute to a well informed citizenry.  Access to quality medical care is critical to any vibrant community. Medicine's 360, they focus on creating pharmaceuticals for women and uniquely, they focus on ensuring access to those pharmaceuticals. Farmer Bro, he focuses on maximizing his profit and in turn makes his products more difficult to access. The fact that his products can actually save lives is irrelevant to his business model. Food and agriculture are fundamental activities of any society. In this space, we've done a great job of catalyzing and supporting social enterprises and impact investors that focus on healthy food and sustainable agriculture. At the top of any worst company list you can find, you will see Monsanto. Monsanto focuses on maximizing their profit, ruthless competition and market monopoly. Again, the fact that food is their product is irrelevant to their business model. Fascinating things are happening in the automotive industry. There is a potential disruptive innovation in the wings for financial. And after this morning's presentation, I snuck this slide in real quick. I'm glad their logos had the two colors that made it nice. So one of the things I want to say clearly is that the purpose of good business is to create good. And more specifically, the purpose is to sell impactful products and to create net positive externalities. But also, the purpose of good business is to displace bad business. More suggested Twitter content. Entrepreneurs are everywhere. So Marta Sen is a Nobel Prize winning economist. And in 1999, he wrote the book, Development is Freedom. In that book, he introduced the idea of human agency. He said simply, an agent is someone who acts and brings about change. He said, more importantly, that without agency, we are not free. Now this is not free like freedom fries. This is free as in the freedom to be a member of the public and a participant in economic, social and political actions. One thing that entrepreneurs do is they reject paternalism. And they reject the idea that to succeed, they need to be included. Entrepreneurs don't ask for permission. Black Lives Matter is an example of a population courageously declaring their humanity in the face of devastating oppression. Like great entrepreneurs, Black Lives Matter is not asking for anything. They're declaring their status as humans. And they're refusing to allow anyone to be a gatekeeper to the human community. That's agency. That's entrepreneurial. What I realized was the conditions that need to exist to have agency, that opportunity exists, that I can recognize opportunity and that I can exploit opportunity are the exact same conditions that need to exist in order to be an entrepreneur. And here at the altar of the cult of the entrepreneur, we are in a bit of a rut as to what we think an entrepreneur is. The millennials of Black Lives Matter, they are entrepreneurs. The dreamers. The dreamers have shown brilliance, creativity, grit, and yes, unreasonableness in the face of intense opposition. The dreamers are entrepreneurs. And these women, these leaders, they're also entrepreneurs. I've had the opportunity to speak with each of these remarkable women. And each of them has no options but to create regenerative economies in their communities, in Greece, in Mexico, and in Lapland. What ties all of these entrepreneurs together is their values. They're entrepreneurs of a different mold. We're living whole lives in vibrant communities is the goal. I think the exclamation point is really important on that one.  We need businesses that have impactful products. We need good businesses that displace bad businesses. And we also need to take advantage of the new breed of entrepreneur. Thank you very much.


Hey, you guys know trial closing is a real thing.  You're doing it because when you ask someone, hey, who do you want your beneficiary to be? How do you plan to pay for this? How much coverage do you need? What got you thinking about this? Do you agree that you need this? All those things are trial closes. Getting someone to get closer to making a decision, the whole purpose of trial closing is to ask questions that get you yeses, that get you closer to them saying yes. It makes it easier. Trial closes, the definition of trial closes, if you look it up, it probably isn't there. But if you looked it up, it would say, hey, these are the things you ask so that when you get to the end of the presentation, it's easier for them to buy. It's easier for them to pull the trigger. It's easier for them to say yes in that moment. I want to hear what are some of your favorite trial closed questions. Put them in the comments below. Give us a like because one of the biggest things that I do is after I've warmed them up for a few minutes, I love to start off the second step of the sales presentation, the fact-finding portion by saying, hey, Betty, I appreciate you allowing me in your home. Thank you so much. What got you thinking about this? That's my best. What got you thinking about life insurance? What got you thinking about this? Why did you allow me out? What got you thinking about all this craziness? What allowed such a beautiful looking dude to come out and talk to you today? There's all these things. Everybody's different, but you've got to know what you're going to ask, when you're going to ask it. You've got to know that what you're asking is going to get you closer to the close.


Hello, welcome to SS Unitech, so still decide and this is continuation of SSIS tutorial. So today we gonna discuss about how we can load data into Excel file from our database as I am using SQL Server. So we will use SQL Server and we will load data from SQL Server table to Excel. If you haven't watched previous video of this video series then I would strongly recommend to watch that video where you can understand how we can load data into database from Excel file. So here we will understand how we can load data into Excel file from database. So again we will face two type of scenarios. In our first scenario as you can see database table contains nwarecat data type for string data. As we can see in our first table we have four columns, first is ID, name, date of birth and salary. So we have four columns. In our second column as we can see from name we have nwarecat data type. So we want to load data from this table to our Excel file. We have six rows so these six rows should be inserted in our Excel file. So how we can do this? First of all we have to use a data flow task inside the control flow panel because we are dealing with movement of data and then move to data flow panel. Inside data flow panel we have to use OLEDB source from where we want to get the data and then Excel destination where we want to load the data. So let's move to SSGT to create the package. We want to create a new package, right click on this SSIS package then new SSIS package. Now I want to rename this package from database to Excel and this is for nwarecat. So this is our package name. So inside control flow panel we have to use data flow task. So we can drag and drop this data flow task. And once we double click on this it will directly move to data flow panel. So inside data flow panel we have to use OLEDB source where we want to get the data. So we can drag and drop this OLEDB source. Next we need to make the connection with our database. So double click on this OLEDB source then we can see it will ask for OLEDB connection manager. So click on new. We have already connection. I want to delete this connection and create a new one. Once we click on new then connection manager window will be open. And inside we need to select our server name. So we can select our server name. So this is our server name we can select. I am using window authentication. Then we need to select the database by which we want to connect. So we want to connect with SSIS test. Now we can check our connection. Connection succeed. Click on OK. So here we need to select the table. So this is our table. Employee data. Destination nwarecat. Go to on columns. As we can see ID, name, date of birth and cell D. So we have all the columns. Click on OK. So we have done our source part. Now we need to configure our destination. So we want to load data in our Excel destination. So we need to drag and drop this Excel destination and connect. Now double click on this Excel destination. Then it will ask for Excel connection manager. So we need to select our Excel connection manager. As we don't have any Excel connection manager at yet. So we need to create a new one. Now we can browse. And this is our destination. Go to Excel and EMP data nwarecat. Now we can click on open. Once we click on open. So here we can see our first row has column names. Then click on OK. Once we click on OK, then it will ask for seed name. So here we don't have any seed because our Excel file is not available at yet. So we want to create a seed. We can click on new. As we can see, create table Excel destination. So it will create a seed. We can click on OK. So once we click on OK, then we can see Excel destination seed will be available in our Excel file. So we can select go to on mapping. So in mapping, as we can see ID, name, date of birth and cell D. All these columns have been mapped successfully. So we can click on OK. Now we need to execute our package. As we can see, six rows should be inserted in our Excel file. So go to on Excel file. So this is our Excel file we can open. And we can see we are getting six rows. So we have six rows. And our first row should be column names. So this is our first scenario. So this is our second scenario. As we can see, database table contains wirecard data type for string data. So here, if we want to load data from database to Excel file and our table columns contain wirecard data type, then it will not be mapped successfully. And our package will not be succeed until unless we will not use data conversion. So let's see stars. You need to create one more package. Click on new SSIS package. And this time we need to renew with database to Excel and wirecard. So again, we need to use a Dataflow task inside control flow panel. So we can drag and drop this Dataflow task. Once we double click on this, it will directly move to Dataflow panel. Inside Dataflow panel, we need to configure our package. So here we want to select our source. So our source is OLLB source because we want to get the data from SQL server table. Now we can make our connection and I want to delete this and create a new one. We can select our server name. So this is our server name. Now we need to select our database name. So database name is SSIS test. Now we can check our connection. Connection succeed. Click on OK. Again OK and again OK. So here we need to select our table from which we want to get the data. So we want to get the data from this wirecard table. So we want all the columns and click on OK. So as we can see in our second table, we have wirecard data type for name. So we have selected this table and we have 20 records on this table. So these 20 records should be inserted in our Excel file. So here we need to select our destination. So our destination should be Excel destination. So we can drag and drop this Excel destination and need to map. Now we need to make connection for this Excel destination. So we need to select file. I want to rename with wirecard. Now click on open and OK. Here we don't have any seat at yet. So create a new seat, click on OK. Again OK and our seat has been created. Now go to on mapping. So inside mapping we can see our mapping succeed. So click on OK. So here we can see our destination has reflected an error. So what is error? The column name cannot be converted between unicode and non-unicode string data type. So we have to use data conversion to convert non-unicode data types to unicode data type. So we have to use data conversion. So drag and drop this data conversion and map double click on this data conversion. Then we can see our name. We can select name and we can rename our output alias name with name new. Then we can see our data type currently we are having string data type. So we want to convert this string data type to unicode string. Then click on OK. Now we need to map with our destination. Now go to on mapping. So as we can see we want to delete our existing mapping with name and map with new column which is name new. Now click on OK. As we can see error has been gone. Now we can execute our practice. So once we execute our practice so 20 rows should be inserted in our Excel file. So go to on Excel file as we can see this is our Excel file. So we are having 20 rows. So normally these two types of scenarios will be faced when we want to load data into Excel file from database. So I hope you have understand how we can load data into Excel file from database. If you like this video please subscribe our channel to get many more videos and please share to others. Thank you so much for watching.


Hello and welcome to this session. This is Professor Farhad and this session we're gonna be looking at an introduction to partnership taxation. Specifically, we're gonna start by looking at types of partnership. This topic is covered in the corporate income tax course, as well as the CPA exam regulation section as well as the enrolled agent exam. As always, I would like to remind you to connect with me on LinkedIn if you haven't done so. YouTube is where I house my 1,500 plus accounting, auditing, tax and finance lectures. This is a sample of all the courses that I cover, including the number of lectures. So not only I cover taxes, I cover other topics as well. On my website, I do have additional resources in addition to the lectures, which are on YouTube. I offer a multiple choice through false notes, PowerPoint slides, and if you're studying for your CPA exam, 2,000 plus CPA questions. So today I'm gonna be talking about a partnership. So generally speaking, we need to know what is a partnership? Basically, a partnership is an association, free association between at least two individuals, two persons or more, they don't have to be individuals per se, but two persons legally by law, which is a corporation could qualify as an individual to carry on a trade or a business with each contributing money, property, labor or skills. You have to contribute something and you expect to share in the profit and losses. So simply put, it's not only you share in the revenue, the most important is how you're gonna split the profit and the loss and you have to contribute something, either money, property, labor or skill to establish yourself and we're gonna be talking about those rules later on. Just FYI, partnerships are governed by sub chapter K of the internal revenue code and this is important because we're gonna be talking about schedule K and K1. So this is why we call it K because it's governed under that sub chapter as far as the IRS internal revenue code. The entity must be incorporated, it cannot be a corporation, it cannot be classified as a corporation, trust or a state, so it cannot be incorporated, okay? And you have to have a partnership agreement signed by each partner, you don't have to, but it's preferable that you do and what would the partnership agreement include? Basically, it's a contract between the partner. This document outlined the rights and the obligation of each partner and my advice to you is this, if you're gonna go into a partnership with any individual, even your brother, your own brother, it's better off being in writing, okay? The allocation of income, deduction and cash flow, the initial and future capital contribution, conditions for terminating the partnership and other matters. Simply put, how are you gonna form the corporation? How are you gonna allocate the income, allocate the deduction, allocate in the cash flow? Partnership has a lot of very specific rules, so if you don't understand the rules, it may backfire against you down the road, so that's why it's very important that you spell everything out in the written contract. Now type of partnership, we're gonna have basically two type of partnership, partnerships, but many type of partners, we're gonna have two type of partners, but many types of partnerships, but partnership entities are defined and formed under a state law. Just like corporation, they are state law, govern the partnership law, okay? There are typically distinguished based on the classification of partners, so we have two type of partners, okay? We have general partners and limited partners, and those are the partners that define what type of partnership we have, okay? So now we have to know who are the general partner or partners and who are the limited partners? Then we'll talk about the type of partnerships. So the general partners think of them as the risk takers. So let's assume you have an idea, an idea for some good business strategy or some idea for a business that's in need. Well, you don't have the money. Well, guess what? If you're gonna go to ask someone for money, most probably they don't really understand your business. So they're gonna ask you, well, what is my risk? And basically, you have to give them some protection because they're not invested in the idea, all what they can contribute is their money. So the general partners think of them as the people with the ideas. So they are the risk takers. Think of them that way, okay?  General partners, they can participate in managing the entity, okay? But here's what happened with the general partners. The general partners are responsible for any debt incurred by the corporation. So if the entity incurred that, that is recourse to the partnership, okay, secured by the old partnership asset rather than specific partnership properties, a general partner can legally be called upon for repayment. So simply put, any obligation for the partnership becomes your own obligation. Now, why would you be a general partner? Most probably because you believe in your idea.  Limited partners, they cannot participate in the entity's management. They typically, they don't why? Because they are considered silent. So it's a general partner. You go to someone who has money and that individual, if you came to me with an idea and I don't understand your business, but I think it's a good idea. I would say, okay, I'll give you the money, but I want to be a limited partner because I'm not really sure how this business works. So I will take my chance, but I will take a limited chance. So that's why they called limited and silent mean they don't participate in the management. So simply put, they are only liable for the partnership that to the extent of any unpaid contribution, they have contractually agreed to make the partnership. So how much are they responsible for? It's what they agreed to be responsible for and in regards to the debt. So you cannot go after them once they satisfy this obligation, that's older obligation, okay? So we have to understand between the limited partners who are not risk taker, think of them as silent partner and the general partners who will dive into the risk, okay? Now, let's talk about the type of entities treated as a partnership. We have general partnership, we have limited partnership. This is, these are the type of partnerships, limited liability company and limited liability partnership. Now, if you know anything about my lectures, once I have a list, I'm gonna go over this list one by one, starting with the general partnership. A general partnership consists of two or more, obviously you have two, general partners who may participate in management. Simply put, general partnership, everyone is taking the risk. And here you have no limited partners. If you have a limited partners, then it becomes a limited partnership. If you have, let's just, if you have 200 general partner and one limited partner, it's no longer a general partnership because you have this one limited partner, okay? Now we understand where a limited partner is. So here we're talking about 200 general partners. They're all responsible for everything, okay? General partners often are used for operating activities and corporate joint venture. This is how, when we use general partnership. Limited partners, again, limited partnership from the word limited. A limited partnership is a partnership with at least one general partner and one or more limited partners. So simply put, in a limited partnership, you need to have a general partner because you need for someone to take care of the whole risk, right? But a general partner, a limited partnership does not exist without a limited partner. So you have to have, you have to have at least one of those and you could have many, many LPs, but you have to have at least one general partner because someone has to be responsible for the partnership, okay? So this is where a limited partnership is. These partnership often have numerous limited partners and they are used to raise capital for real estate development, oil and gas exploration, R&D and various financial investment vehicle. This is what they're used for. Now here's what's gonna happen. To reduce your exposure to the entity's liabilities, the general partners, they're often themselves have limited liability. So for example, what does that mean? It means they can be a C corporation. So simply put rather, so this general partner is a C corp and we already covered the C corp. C corp, they have their own protection or they can be an LLC, which is an LLC, we did not cover LLC. We're gonna cover LLC in the next slide. So you could also form a partnership entity in, as an LLC, okay? LLC, the owners are called members, not partners, okay? It's a hybrid type of partners. Now what does it mean hybrid? We're gonna see they're gonna have the benefit of a corporation with limited liability and the benefit of tax flow entity, which is really defined the term, they have the benefit of a corporation for liability and the benefit for taxation as a tax flow entity, okay? With respect to the LLCs that, members are treated as limited partners. So when it comes to that, they are protected. They are only responsible up to the amount that they contractually agreed to take on. LLC members generally participate in the management of the LLC. Now although you have limited liability to the debt, you can participate in management, okay? Well, what does that mean? It means the LLC combines the corporate benefit of limited liability for the owners with the benefit of the partnership taxation, including the single level tax. So simply put, your money, it's gonna be taxed once. It's gonna flow from the business to you personally. It's not gonna be taxed twice. If properly structured multi-owner, an LLC is generally treated as a partnership for all tax purposes. So as long as you structure it properly, you can treat it as a partnership, which is good. It means the money is taxed only once, tax flow entity. And we'll talk about this a little bit more in the next section, where we need to talk about how the income is taxed, okay? So the governing agreement of an LLC is known as the operating agreement. Just FYI term you need to be familiar with. Last but not least, LLP. LLP in most state, it's a limited liability company is treated very similar to general partnership. However, here's what's different about the LLP. LLP partner is not personally liable for any malpractice committed by other partners. So if we're talking about a doctor's practice, they have five doctors practicing. If one individual committed malpractice, guess what? The other four are not responsible. And this is what an LLP is. This is why doctors, lawyers, accountant form LLP. So this way, each partner is responsible for their own malpractice. So an LLP is currently the organizational form of choice for most large accounting firms. So when you go to work for the big four or an accounting firm, most likely, they are formed as an LLP. Now this is an overview about the type of partnership basically in the next session, we're gonna go and dive into a little bit more into the key concept and taxation of partnership. We're gonna talk a little bit more about the basis, how income is allocated inside basis, outside basis, when you contribute property, what are the tax consequences, so on and so forth. Now, as always, I would like to remind you, if you have any questions, email me. I strongly suggest you visit my website for additional lectures and additional resources as I have many, many lectures, not only taxes, but audit, finance, and especially accounting. Good luck and study hard, especially if you are studying for your CPA exam.