Episode 2806 CWSA 04/11/25

Here, let's check the stock market.

And surprisingly, Bitcoin is up.

The S&P 500 is up.

Not a ton, but it's it's up.

Tesla's kind of flat, slightly down.

All right, let's get our comments going and then we got a show for you.

You're going to love it.

All right.

Almost ready.

There we go.

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.

You've never had a better time.

But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup of bugger, a glass of tanker, chalice, a canteen jugger, flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

That's right.

Go.

Oh, thank you, Paul.

Everything's working today.

Good to know.

Well, I wonder if there's any science that they could have saved some money by asking me.

Oh, here we go.

According to Sai Post, Bianca Sediano is writing, there was a study published in the journal of environmental psychology and they found that simply imagining natural environments can reduce your stress and promote relaxation more so than imagining an urban setting.

Uh-huh.

That's right.

Imagining nature can make you feel better than imagining an urban setting.

Huh.

I wonder if there's any way they could have gotten to that result faster and with less expense.

Anyway, anyway.

Oh, yeah.

You could have asked me or you could have asked anybody who's ever been trained as a hypnotist because it's lesson number one.

I think it's literally the first thing we learned that if you make somebody close their their eyes and imagine a nature scene that their body will relax.

That literally I think it's the first thing you learn.

So yeah, you could have uh just asked me about that next time.

Next time do that.

According to Zero Hedge, the House has passed a a bill, which means it hasn't passed the Senate yet, requiring proof of citizenship to vote.

So, it's called the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act or SAVE and it passed with a little bit of margin.

Yeah, even four Democrats joined in.

Interesting.

So, Chip Roy uh is the sponsor for this and uh would amend the National Voter Registration Act also to require states to obtain proof of citizenship in person from people registering to vote.

So, you better bring your ID.

But if it even goes further and it requires states to establish programs to remove illegal immigrants from existing voter roles and allows US citizens to sue election officials who don't adhere to the proof of citizenship requirements.

Oh, that's interesting.

So, it allows individuals to do the suing.

Now, I saw somebody's comment that this will never fly.

Uh even if it gets passed, the Supreme Court will knock it down.

Some say because the states have uh I think what was described as an ironclad control over how voting is done.

But I'm not so sure.

I'm no Supreme Court expert, but I it does seem to me like the federal government um in its role of protecting the country, I mean, just as a national defense issue, could require that the only people who vote are American citizens.

So, other than that, I could see that the states would have most of the control, but uh we'll see.

Uh I don't know what I don't know what the uh the predicted fate of this is, whether it gets completely passed by the Senate and then whether it can survive a challenge.

So, but anyway, it's got some Democrats on it.

So, that's not the worst thing.

Um let's see what uh the view host, Sunonny Hosten, says about this.

Well, uh, she says that requiring voter ID, um, is bad for many blacks and women who will not be able to vote.

Um, I love how crazy she sounds.

Well, when I watch Sunny Hen, I like looking at her eyes and her face as she says things that probably every person knows is the we we're still looking for that one that one person who doesn't know how to vote or doesn't know how to get an ID but still wants to vote.

Now, I do believe there are people who don't have IDs, but I don't think they're clamoring to vote.

So, we're still looking for just one, just one person who says, and you know what would happen if one person came forward and said, "I don't know how to get ID, but I'd really like to vote." What would happen?

Whoever they were talking to would tell them how to get an ID and help them vote.

So, as soon as you find anybody who's in that category, the first person they talk to solves their problem.

It's like, "Oh, well, uh, just go down to the DMV." Well, I don't know where the DMV is.

Oh, well, let me check.

Okay, here's the address of the DMV.

Uh, just go down there and get an appointment and get your ID.

Um, but now the it's extended from if you require ID, it used to be that it was a way to suppress black vote, but now it's extended to uh, divorced women.

Is there a big problem with divorced women who want to vote but they've got the wrong name last name on some of their documents?

Is that Is that a big problem?

Can Can we see one example of that, please?

I think Hillary Clinton weighed in on that, too.

Still waiting for that one person.

Um, I'm going to delegate this issue to the uh Department of Imaginary Concerns because if we can't find one person in the real world, what would that make that issue?

Imaginary.

That's right.

But it is an imaginary concern to a lot of citizens.

So, we can't ignore it.

We should delegate it to the Department of Imaginary Concerns.

Let's see what else we got going on here.

Uh over on MSNBC, uh former Attorney General Eric Holder um says that what's happening now with Trump and his administration is quote remarkably similar to kind of what happened in Europe in the 30s.

Uh and if you don't stand up and fight now, it's going to be too late.

Um, it seems to me that the drama, they only wrote one play.

I mean, if you're going to be a drama, you should have more material than this.

But they only have one play, and it's called Everything is Hiller.

Uh, and everything I see is Hiller, and all I want to talk about is Hiller.

And by the way, have I mentioned Hiller?

Um, now it seems to me that uh if you're imagining Hitler, but there is no Hitler and there's nobody really acting like Hitler, what would be the department that that should be delegated to?

I've got an idea.

Let's delegate it also to the Department of Imaginary Concerns.

Let's see what else the Democrats are up to.

Um, Representative Hakee Jeff says that Donald Trump and the extreme MAGA people are doing everything they can to tank our economy.

H, are they are they doing everything they can to tank the economy by negotiating trade deals and lowering regulations and lowering taxes and Yeah.

That's that's exactly what you do to tank an economy.

Uh, making energy more affordable, lowering inflation.

Yeah, that's how you do it.

Um, and it's going to drive us, according to Jeffre, drive us toward recession and gut the health care of the American people.

So, it's going to gut the health care of the American people.

Now, I could imagine at least two ways that that could happen.

Gutting the health care of the American people.

One would be to do nothing and just keep the way we're going because that would lead us to a bankrupt country that couldn't pay for health care or anything else.

So the path we were on guaranteed the end of health care along with the end of the country and the end of everything really your life probably.

Um but at the moment there's no suggestion that the uh that the Trump administration would do anything to your health care um benefits.

So what would be the right department to assign this imaginary future concern?

H oh I've got an idea.

How about the department of imaginary concerns?

Does anybody see a pattern?

the the biggest most effective attacks from the Democrats all imaginary everyone.

It's not based on anything that's happening in the real world.

Uh that's their best take.

Here's some good news.

Uh activist Robbie Starbucks has another big win.

He got IBM to end their DE DEI policies.

Now, I would read you the list of all the things that IBM decided to stop doing.

It was a whole bunch of woke stuff like requiring uh proper pronouns for people and stuff like that.

But the list was so long.

It just wouldn't work in this kind of a podcast.

So just take it from me.

Uh IBM was just massively entangled.

It it seems like they they had wrapped this, you know, ball of string called DEI around everything.

and uh unwrapping it is a pretty major project.

So, it's a whole bunch of things had to be changed to unawwoke IBM.

But the good news is, and I'm going to give IBM some credit for this, um, that when they were confronted with, you know, the, let's say, the argument and, uh, the activism and Robbie Starbucks uh, apparently very effective approach, they decided to unwind it.

And probably there was a lot of volunteering of what parts needed to be unwound.

So, I'm going to say uh my my standard for judging people and my standard for judging companies in this case is not if they make a mistake or do something I don't like or something doesn't work out, but how do they deal with it?

You know, once you know you've messed up, do you correct it?

Do you ignore it?

Do you say it never happened?

Um, this looks like IBM fully embracing that it wasn't a good idea and then fully embracing the steps it would take to unwind it and being somewhat transparent about it.

So, I'm going to say uh IBM A+ that you you've reached my highest standard of ethical behavior.

I would never judge you that you once made a mistake that you know I suppose if it were you know you were a slaver or something I would still judge you but under the normal you know behavior of companies uh I judge the prior behavior to be completely irrelevant.

I judge the current approach uh working with Starbucks to do something productive.

Um A+ A+ good job.

I saw a report.

I don't know how confirmed this is, but uh somebody said the New York Times had a story that the White House is considering, they're just considering um using uh government money, your tax dollars, to give $10,000 per year to every person in Greenland.

Do you think Do you think that's going to happen?

So, somebody must have calculated how much uh Denmark is contributing and then figured out how much could it cost if we were to essentially outbid Denmark so that the people of Greenland said, "Oh, I wouldn't mind $10,000 a year.

I wasn't getting that much from Denmark." Um, but I don't know if Denmark is doing more than that.

Maybe they are.

But what are there's something like 60,000 people in all of Greenland.

So 10,000 times uh 60,000 would be 600 million.

So that would cost us 600 million per year.

Is that something you want to you want to do to have control of Greenland?

I don't know.

Um, when the story is that they're considering it, I don't take that too seriously cuz what the White House should be doing is considering all the possibilities.

If they just have it on a list of possibilities, perfectly acceptable.

Um, it doesn't mean they're going to do it and it doesn't mean it's the only thing they're going to do.

It doesn't mean that we're going to do it with nothing in return.

you know, maybe there's some rare earth minerals we could get return or something like that.

But, uh, I like the fact that the White House would be looking expansively at other options.

So, again, good job looking at the options.

Doesn't mean I'm in favor of it.

Um, I' I'd have to see a lot of details to to know if it makes sense, but uh I like the I just like the noodling of it so that it's not, you know, we've looked at all the options basically.

Meanwhile, Pegas reports a big success the Panama Canal.

So, he was down there dealing with Panama and I guess the deal involves uh Panama hosting more American troops so that we've got more military presence there and that our military would be um essentially a a guardian against China ever having control over who goes through or how much it costs for them to go through.

And then I guess Panama agreed to end their um end their contribution to the uh Belt and Road initiative coming out of China.

Their contribution would be you know just being part of the Belt and Road thing.

So that all looks like a big win.

Um and this would be if if this is a stable and workable plan and it looks like it it all looks pretty stable and workable.

Um, then this would be an example of Trump making a first big offer and then negotiating for something in the middle that just makes everybody happy because I don't think that Panama loved being the potential of being dominated by China.

I don't think they loved it.

Um, so and they know they can, you know, deal with the United States and that our military is not there to, you know, conquer them.

we're there to make sure that we have access to the canal.

So, if that's the case, then that would be another big win for Trump and his style of negotiating where he goes big and then he's got room to negotiate.

Um CNN is reporting that the uh the consumer prices the inflation um it went down you know a tiny bit in a month over month but this is actually the first time we've seen this since co a month over month over drop month over month drop so it's very unusual and uh they say that the reason for it the big driver because normally you'd expect it to go up at this time of the year is gas prices didn't go up.

So, energy costs allowed inflation to stay put and slightly slightly go down.

Um, that's exactly what Trump promised us.

That's exactly what he promised.

that he would loosen up all of the energy sources and that when energy goes down, inflation would be, you know, impacted in every domain.

Now, I'm not sure that this is 100% because of Trump changes, but it could be.

Um, yeah, it could be.

So, we'll see.

That's good news.

uh Trump in along those same lines, Trump is reversing uh a bunch of Biden policies about Alaska and energy.

So this is the center square is reporting this.

Um so he's reinstating a program to make a whole bunch of acres up there in the uh Enoir region available for oil and natural gas.

Now I guess he did that in his first administration and Biden canceled it.

So, we'll see if uh the oil drilling companies are willing to take the risk that it gets cancelled again because I suppose if you got another Democrat president, um things would look dicey.

But at the moment, um it looks like there's going to be a bunch of changes that making it easier to uh get energy out of that part of the world, which could make a big difference.

Speaking of which, um, according to Newsmax, Lee Barney's reporting, um, there's a big drop in oil prices from a year ago.

The oil is 28% lower than it was a year ago.

And, uh, and oil went down another 3% just recently because of the fears of the uh, trade talks.

So, oil going down is a pretty big deal.

Um and so Brent oil is trading around $64 per barrel and um somebody somebody who knows what they're talking about says that by the end of 2026 by the end of next year we could be at $55 per barrel.

So the direction for inflation looks pretty darn good, you know.

And and by the way, this is uh you know, this would be a counterbalance to whatever the tariff problem is.

So if you're going to have a tariff fight with China, the very best environment you could do it in is where inflation is under control and there's a gigantic probable lowering of energy costs during the same period they're negotiating.

So that would certainly take a lot of sting out of any uh tariffs.

Um I mean it's going to affect people differently.

So the people were most affected by the tariffs may not get most of the benefit but at least on a country level um that would be a pretty strong negotiating position.

Um here's some some science that's kind of cool.

according to live science rand Collier is writing that there's a breakthrough to allow you to physically manipulate 3D holograms so that you could you know touch them and and move them around with your hand.

I'm not sure if you could feel them.

Um that was a little unclear but you could physically manipulate them.

Um, now apparently it's it's sort of in the early experimental stage, but they've created a demonstration.

So if they can do it in a demonstration, it's probably pretty real.

Uh, assuming the demonstration is not fake.

It could be, but imagine that.

Now, what do you think would be different if we could manipulate holograms?

Do you think that people are going to have a hologram boyfriend?

Because if you add AI to a physically manipulative manipulatable hologram, it's even better than a robot cuz you could just turn it off and it'll go away.

But you could have like a a living room boyfriend that's only in the living room cuz that's where your 3D hologram is.

And you can make your boy your boyfriend like, you know, only a few inches tall in case you wanna, you know, not be bothered too much.

I don't know.

Um, I still think there's some possibility that the UFO sightings are some kind of hologram.

Uh, I'm not going to commit to that, but I let me broaden that to say one possibility for the UFOs is that they're somehow projected from somewhere else and and they look like physical objects, but maybe they're something like a hologram.

Uh, why?

I don't know, but I wouldn't rule it out.

According to uh news reports uh well Trump is saying this uh Mexico owes Texas uh like 1.3 million acre feet of water and uh he's going to tariff Mexico if they don't pay up.

So apparently there's some kind of long-term agreement 1944 treaty that says that South Texas farmers get certain amount of water uh that must flow through te through uh uh through Tijana area I think.

And uh so at the moment that's being cut off.

I'm not sure why, but uh Trump says if they don't fix that really fast, he's going to escalate with tariffs and maybe even sanctions.

So, we'll see.

Um, were you wondering if the Chinese investors would panic before the American investors?

Well, American investors, according to today, they're just saying, "H, our stock market's sold enough and it's kind of stabilized." Now, that doesn't mean it'll last to the end of the day.

I'm I'm not predicting anything and I'm not predicting it won't, you know, wildly jump around as there's more negotiating.

But if you want to know what's happening in China, according to Reuters, uh the government just told the biggest money traders that they can't they can't sell too many Chinese stocks in a day or they'll shut them down.

So, if you're a big investor in China and you were thinking, hm, this would be a good time to sell all of my China stock, you know, while you're a Chinese company.

Uh, China just told you, yeah, if you do that, we're going to put you out of business.

So, is China panicked?

Uh, and that's a pretty good pretty good threat, isn't it?

That will put you out of business.

So, it looks like China can control the selling of their stock market.

Um, I guess you shouldn't be too surprised by that, but that would give uh in theory that would put a bigger risk on the American side because the Americans don't do that sort of thing.

Uh and I guess uh US put that 125% tariff on China and they just reciprocated with 125% tariff.

So we're going to tariff each other like crazy.

Um but according to AFP the US dollar has dropped um kind of hard uh dropping nearly 2% just uh last day I guess uh at least against the euro.

So is that a big deal that the US dollar has gotten weaker 2%?

I don't know.

I suppose if it keeps going it's a big deal.

Um, so anyway, the trade escalation continues.

Um, so we'll see how that goes.

Here, here's a story that's hard to believe, but looks like it's true.

Um, the New York Post is reporting, Ronnie Ray is writing about this that uh, some time ago, I think it was during the Biden administration, there was a meeting between China and the US in which China acknowledged its role in years of cyber attacks against the United States as retaliation over its support for Taiwan.

Now, it's not surprising that it was happening.

It's surprising that the Chinese said it just directly, you know, a complete confession uh right to the Americans in a private meeting.

Now, that's kind of mind-blowing, isn't it?

That years of cyber attacks, they're like, "Yeah, we we've been cyber attacking you for years over your Taiwan policy." Now the obviously the implication is that you can't stop us and that you know we have this ability to hack you anytime we want.

So that is one scary kind of a threat and you have to you have to throw that threat into the tariff negotiations as well.

Um, and to me, this is just one more one more evidence that our our relationship with China is an abusive relationship.

If it were a personal relationship, you would say, "You need to get out of that relationship.

You know that you're being abused over and over, right?" Um, they're just cyber hacking you and then bragging about it and they're they've got trade policies that are bad for you and they don't care and they're stealing your IP every time they can get near it.

And if you try to challenge them in court, there's no way to challenge them.

If that were a personal relationship, what would all of your friends recommend?

They'd recommend you get out of it.

So, we'll see what happens.

Uh, but here's some more risk.

According to the Epic Times, uh, Yan, let me try to get his name right.

uh Yan he's uh posting today that the uh that they talked to an author the Epic Times did and uh there's an author that says that um China controls 95% of the key components necessary for our generic drugs.

So if China were to shut down export of those chemicals, our health care system would basically collapse.

We just wouldn't be able to make drugs.

So that's how dependent we are.

Now it seems to me that that looks more and more like an abusive relationship.

It's like, well, there's an implied threat that if you were to leave me, bad things would happen.

Oh, yes.

Bad bad bad things would happen.

Your your healthc care would collapse and abusive relationship.

And uh that's I guess the author of the book China RX is where that came from.

Um, so here's what I think.

So using that same frame, um, I do believe that we're in an abusive relationship.

Uh, meaning that not only are things, you know, unbalanced and unfair, but like an abusive relationship, you can't negotiate your way to a better situation.

If if you're with somebody, let's say you're living with somebody who's an abuser, have you ever tried to negotiate with them?

How'd that work out?

Doesn't work.

There's no such thing as as a negotiation with an abuser.

They're just abusers.

And China seems very intent on continuing to be the abuser.

So I think our path with China is very similar to the path that you would see in an abusive personal relationship.

You can either put up with it because you think the risk of not putting up with it is too great.

You know, you might lose your healthcare, you might get cyber attacked, they might take Taiwan 10 minutes later.

Um all of our costs would go up.

I mean, these are real serious seriously big problems.

So, what do you do?

Stay in the abusive relationship?

Is that how you'd play it if it were your personal relationship?

Because it's the same thing.

If you leave me, uh, I will hunt you down and beat you up.

Uh, you'll never get a job.

You'll be poor forever.

Your children will starve.

Sound familiar?

So, you can either put up with that and it might even worsen over time because why would the abuser fix anything?

because the abuser is happy.

Or you can risk everything to stop it.

You can risk everything.

That's what it's looking like.

So, our two choices, you know, under a normal situation, and I'll I'll take you to an abnormal situation in a moment, but under a normal situation, you either put up with it forever and it just gets worse.

And that's what we were doing, or you you risk everything.

You risk everything to get out of it.

Trump is pushing us to risk everything to get out of it.

Is he wrong?

What's the thing that the Democrats hate about Trump?

He's a bully.

He's a strong man.

He's a dictator.

Right?

But boy, do you need that now.

Cuz if you're in an abusive relationship with someone else, who do you call to help you get out of it?

You call somebody who's a bigger bully.

There's no other way because you're not going to be able to do it.

You need a bigger bully.

Trump's a bigger bully and we've never seen anybody like it.

Now, is it a good idea to risk everything?

I'm not even going to say this.

I'm just going to say those are your choices.

Suck it up and be abused for the rest of whatever's left of the United States, which might not last long since China seems to have designs on controlling the world.

or you risk everything.

Doesn't mean you lose everything.

Doesn't mean you lose everything because sometimes you can scare a bully away, but you have to be the bigger bully by far.

So, how what do you do?

So, th those are two choices you don't want, right?

And it's really easy to do the do nothing choice and just put up with it and just it gets worse but then you get used to it.

You just put up with it until your country is toast but you hope it's not today.

You're just trying to get through today or you risk everything to put an end to it.

Now I have a hypothesis that the way um and this wouldn't be for every single person but if you don't have if you don't have a direct trading relationship with China in which case you would be you know biased toward your own business interests which would be fine.

Um I think how you see the situation of this abusive relationship is that you would handle it the same way you would do it in person.

In other words, if you're the kind of person who says, "God, I I'm just going to put up with the abuse," then you're probably the same person who says, "Why can't we just, you know, get along with China?" You know, just sort of do what we were doing before and keep asking if they'll do better.

That's probably what you would do in your personal relationship because that would be your your level of risk for that sort of thing.

But there are other people who would say, "You know what?

I've reached the end of my patience.

I'm going to risk everything.

Might he kill me?

Yes.

But it's it's better than this life.

It's better than this life.

And there are a lot of you like that.

How many of you have dealt with a bully the only way you can?

Some of you.

How many of you have been in an abusive relationship and said, "You know what?

I'm gonna walk out of here with my bare feet because I'm done.

I'm just done." That's some of you.

So, it's just a hypothesis, but I'll bet you the way you would deal with a with an abusive relationship in person has a lot to do with how you're looking at this China situation.

Uh, I'll bet there's a pretty good ven diagram overlap.

And so I'm going to offer you a trap door, an escape.

I'm going to offer you another option, one that's not on the table right now.

So this is the hypnotist take.

So, if if I were in charge, uh I would use my hypnosis background to say, "All right, if you only have two choices, put up with the abuse or risk everything to get away, how could you invent some new options that just don't seem to exist?" And I'll give you a couple.

One option would be to negotiate with China and say, "Here's the deal, China.

We'd like to treat you more like a peer and treat you with complete respect.

So you have you have a take on trade that you think whatever you're doing is fair.

We think it's not.

Let's negotiate in public.

Let's put all of your trade practices in the public domain.

Maybe the UN, maybe some other kind of public um you know public structure.

and we're going to show what it is that you have been doing and then we're going to tell you what we think would be a fair situation.

Will you negotiate with us in public?

What what are they going to say?

They're going to say no.

And then you keep at it.

No.

Let's do this in public because China, we don't want to be your enemy.

We want a good trade deal.

If you can't do it in public, that's going to say a lot.

We're gonna we're gonna put all of our terms in public.

Everything we want, we're going to publicize.

We're going to explain why.

And we're going to tell you what the context is.

Will you do the same?

And put them in a position where they simply have to defend their position.

Because right now, if you say China, China is giving us bad trade deals.

Uh, maybe somebody knows what a tariff is, maybe they don't.

Maybe some people know how bad the theft of IP property is, maybe they don't.

Maybe people know that if you went to China and tried to use their justice system to fix, let's say, an IP theft, you wouldn't even get a phone call returned.

There's no process at all.

Um, and so and if you looked at other restrictions and other risks and if you looked at the surveillance that they do of any American who goes over there, you can't even bring your phone.

I mean, imagine a country where you can't even bring your phone or your laptop because there's a 100% chance they're going to hack into it.

Imagine dealing with a company that if you u make a product is successful but you're making it in China.

The very first thing they're going to do is steal it and they're going to make that same product um you know they're going to run the factory all night to make more of the fake one than you're paying them to make the real one.

And then they're going to compete with you and you're going to say, "Hey, it looks like you just ran my own factory that I was paying you to make my stuff.

It looks like you just ran it for extra hours and then put it on Amazon and you're just competing with me with my own stuff against me." And you know what China would say?

Take it up with our courts that don't return your phone calls ever.

Not sometimes.

Ever.

There's no path.

So, how many people know that?

How many people know how unsafe it is to do business in China?

Well, some people know it.

Let's do it in public.

Let's put it all in public.

Now, if they if they uh fight the idea of doing it in public, that would be kind of embarrassing.

And it would also sort of force us to be the ones who described their practices in public without their defense.

They wouldn't have any defense to it.

Here's another one.

So, we could do that, but we could also do the following.

We could tell China, "China, I think we've been uh maybe unnecessarily um disrespectful to you.

Wait for it.

Just wait for it.

We We've been a little bit insulting and we've been a little bit disrespectful.

And I think that we've been trying to get you to change um in ways that you don't want to change.

And we're not the boss of you, China.

China is a great nation with a gray future and a gray history.

And China should be allowed to be China.

So this would be the let China be China um approach and you say to them we think you should be China and just be be China any way you want to be China.

Just continue to be exactly like you are.

However, we'd like to announce that our long-term uh position is to do a friendly friendly, respectful unwinding of all association with China.

We'd like to unwind all of our business, but some of it's going to take years, such as the pharmaceuticals and the drugs business, and some of it might happen a little faster.

But there's no offense.

We're going to do this with complete respect.

We agree that your position is one that you can take.

So rather than trying to embarrass you or bully you or negotiate you into a compromised position that you don't want to do, we think that was a big mistake because it didn't it didn't really understand the power and the interests of China.

And from now on, we'd like to let China be China alone without us.

And if you don't mind, we'll continue buying things from you where it makes sense.

But we're going to unwind as much of the business as possible as quickly as possible in the friendliest way possible.

So we'd like to remain good um let's say good relations but without any trade because let's China let China be China.

China is an aggressive tough um highly respected country and if you would like to be China without any without any push back from the rest of the world we accept that.

So, we accept your terms and we hope you don't mind if we unwind completely.

So, two possibilities that are not on the table.

Negotiate in public or agree to a friendly, completely respectful, complete unwinding of business over time.

So, that's that's how a hypnotist would approach it.

So you'd give them some options that are were never on the table.

Because if you deal with the options that are on the table, you're going to get the same result everybody ever got, which is, do you want to do a deal?

No, we don't have to.

Uh, but please, no, but it's bad for us.

We know.

But it's so it's super good for you.

For you while being bad for us.

Do you understand that?

Yeah, we got it.

You can't live in that frame.

You You have to change the frame.

So if China wants to be China, let's let China be China.

We don't need to change them.

All right, let's get back to America here.

Um I'm loving watching the the news people explain why they were so bad at doing their jobs.

And the best example, of course, is the uh the Biden's uh Biden brain situation where they pretended they couldn't notice.

So now we've got Chris Saliza, who used to be on CNN.

He's not anymore, but he was he was what I'd call a anti-Trump specialist.

I used to talk about him all the time in the first term in the first election.

And uh he said that the reason that uh he didn't cover the Biden brain story was it wasn't any kind of intentional activism um he said we simply didn't push hard enough to get around the smoke screen from the Biden people.

What smokeokesc screen?

you and I and everybody with a television set could see Biden was falling apart from I think I think I started saying it in 2019 and I wasn't alone.

There were plenty of other people saying uh what are we seeing there?

That that doesn't look right.

And then they started hiding him.

I don't think that could have been any more obvious.

and they, you know, his schedule was basically, uh, the schedule is he's not doing any work today.

He's going to go to the beach again.

It could not have been more obvious to everybody watching.

And you're telling me that the only people who couldn't notice were the people who quote didn't push hard enough to get through the smoke screen.

the the fact that the the news is trying to blame the insiders for protecting them is unbelievable.

I mean, I wonder how much of this they believe on their own.

Like in their own minds, do they think that's true or or do they know that it's like a ridiculous rationalization?

I don't know.

So, uh, Trump had a, uh, cabinet meeting yesterday and, uh, I saw a summary by Insurrection Barbie on Acts about, uh, some of the good news out there and there was some news, some pretty big news.

So, Brooke Rollins um, talked about the, uh, the terrible position that the Biden left the farmers in.

Um she explained that there's been a 30% increase in input costs and that the previous administration left them with a $50 billion trade deficit even though that that was zero when Biden took office.

$50 billion deficit when it started at zero.

Uh and so they're working on overcoming those issues.

So basically the Biden administration with Biden's broken brain um just let our food supply just be in tatters by the by the time he was done and the Trump administration is working hard to fix that.

Brook Rollins appears to be a superstar in the administration.

So that's looking good.

Then Tulsi Gabbard had some updates which were all individually interesting um especially about things like um RFK files and the JFK assassination files.

Those are being prepped for release.

I don't know when, but that's interesting.

But the most interesting part and this is from Tulsi Gabbard.

So this is your government talking.

So this is not podcaster.

This is not some rogue person with an opinion.

This is your government.

Your sitting government says that the electronic voting machines have been vulnerable to hackers for a very long time and uh that they've been vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation of election results and uh they're continuing to investigate.

That's the government saying that that voting machines were vulnerable and have been for a very long time.

And I think there was something said about they were not even designed to modern cyber security standards.

Now that does not mean that they've identified any problems with other elections.

So, one of the questions you can say, but wait, the voting machine people have sued people who said that there were problems.

They've sued people who said there were specific problems, like there was a specific manipulation.

That's not what Tulsi Gabbard is saying.

Tulsi Gabbard is saying that by their their nature, by their design, uh they would have some vulnerabilities.

So, um it's not about a specific claim.

Uh and uh and she puts it in the context of working toward Trump's goal of having a paper ballot, you know, kind of a same day election because if you don't if you don't debunk the safety of voting machines, it's going to be hard to talk anybody into getting rid of them.

So, to me, that's a big deal.

It's a really big deal.

Now, how long have I been telling you that there's no way to protect, you know, a cyber device like that?

To me, it just seems obvious.

you you wouldn't have to be some expert in cyber security to know that these older machines that have been hacked by hackers in a in a variety of you know different forums.

You wouldn't have to know the specifics if you knew anything about technology.

You would say I don't think they've invented anything you can't hack if you had access.

A lot of hacking involves somebody a physical person being led in to do a physical thing or an insider who just has access as an insider.

So whenever you've got insiders or the possibility of physical access, it just seems like you have a hackable situation.

It wouldn't matter if you're talking about election machines or ATMs or any other machine.

RFK Jr.

at the same meeting said that uh he's going to have an answer on the likely cause of the spike in autism by September.

Uh he points out that the autism rate when he was a kid was 1 in 10,000, but now it's 1 in 31.

Oh my god.

1 in 31.

I mean, I I've been sort of, you know, tracking this issue forever.

But one in 31, one in 31, there's clearly something in the air or the water or the food or the medicines or something clearly.

Um, but his promise that we'll know by September, you know, what is the likely cause of it?

I don't know about that.

Don't know about that.

because that would assume that we have the right kind of data.

Do you believe we have or or that we could have by September the right kind of data?

I'll tell you my my uh let's say my I don't want to say common sense but based on the totality of my experience working with data because I used to do that before I did this.

Um, I think there are too many variables.

It might be possible to tease out the right answer, but by September, I don't know.

It's pretty aggressive.

So, he might he might think he already knows the answer, and maybe there's a domain in which there is data if you just took the time to look at it.

So, I mean, uh, I have a high degree of trust that RFK Jr.

wouldn't say it unless he meant it and that he really believed that that we could do that.

So that would be a hell of a thing.

Just imagine that.

Uh honestly, that would be one of the greatest achievements in American history if he pulls that off.

Do you think he will?

He might.

He might pull that off.

By by far it would be the most useful thing anybody in the Kennedy family had ever done.

Would you agree with that?

That there would be nothing in the entire Kennedy legacy from, you know, the Cuban missile crisis, pick whatever you want.

That would be the most important thing that Annie Kennedy had ever done.

So, I'm rooting for him.

Rooting hard.

He also wants to get soda at the SNAP program so that poor people can't use your tax money on soda.

He wants to give fluoride out of the water.

Apparently, there's evidence that it lowers IQ.

And he wants to improve uh school lunches.

Those all sound pretty good to me.

Pretty good.

So, that's going on.

Um, according to uh just the news, they've got some uh good article there on there's some new declassified material about that Russia collusion hoax from long ago that Cash Patel just gave to Congress.

Now, I don't know how much of this is new and how much of it is sort of telling us what we already knew, but I didn't know about this.

So apparently uh Grock was asked to summarize it.

So here's what Grock said about it.

One of the documents uh contains handwritten notes by former CIA director John Brennan in July 2016.

So carefully note the date, July 2016.

And it details a briefing to uh Obama and senior officials.

Right.

So what Brennan knew in 2016, Obama knew because he got briefed and the senior officials did.

So they all knew this and it suggested that Hillary Clinton's campaign approved a plan to tie Trump to Russian interference in the election, allegedly to distract from her email scandal.

And the notes outlined the concerns about Russian knowledge of this strategy.

and indicate uh discussions within the intelligence community about its implications.

So in 2016, Brennan, Obama, and their closest top adviserss knew that Hillary Clinton was running an OP.

And the thing they were worried about is that Russia would find out about the OP.

Brain exploding.

Really, the thing they were worried about is that Russia would find out about the OP.

They weren't worried about the OP.

They weren't worried about an insurrection to remove or to change the election.

Uh, I don't even know what to say about that.

It's exactly what you thought it was.

From the very beginning, I said to myself, that John Brennan guy, there's something wrong there.

Does he really think the Russia collusion thing is real?

And the answer was apparently not.

Apparently not.

Um, and I won't get into the rest of it, but let's say some of the highlights are, uh, they knew that the Carter Page thing was they went too far and they knew this stuff was left out, um, trying to drag him in there.

Um, see, they knew that uh the case that they were trying to put together about General Flynn, they knew early on that there was no evidence that he had done anything whatsoever.

None.

And yet they talked about continuing it based on no evidence.

not a little bit of evidence, but based on none, they continued to say maybe they should keep looking, which suggests that they were just trying to jail him as opposed to worried about actually any crime.

Unfreakingbelievable.

So, that was exactly what you thought.

Um, yeah, there were there were notes from uh some FBI official expressing concern about the FBI's approach with Flynn suggesting internal unease about the investigation's tactics.

Yeah, there was a little unease about that.

There should have been.

In other news, the you remember the Central Park 5 story?

Um, I won't give you the whole background there, but you remember that long before Trump was in politics, he did a he did a uh he did a what do you call it?

A uh editorial.

No, a uh he he bought a page of the New York Times and said that the death penalty should be brought back.

Now, he didn't mention the Central Park 5, but the news assumed that that's what he meant, and they acted like he had uh essentially blamed them for being guilty when they were later cleared by the courts.

Now, when I say they were cleared by the courts, that doesn't mean that I know that they were guilty or innocent.

I wouldn't know.

I wasn't there.

But there but there was not evidence according to the court to convict them.

So the lawsuit is about what uh Trump said during a debate in 2024.

Um and the courts have ruled that the lawsuit can go forward because Trump said something about this situation during the debate that can be objectively determined to be false.

Now, that doesn't mean that you broke a law or anything, but it it suggests there's enough of a enough meat there to have a trial.

So, here's what Trump said when uh I guess it was Kamla brought up the Central Park 5.

Uh Trump said during the debate, quote, "They admitted they said they they plead guilty." Now, that never happened.

They never plead guilty.

Uh, and I said, 'Well, if they plead guilty, they badly hurt a person, killed a person, ultimately the person was not killed, but was badly injured.

Uh, and he said if and if they plead guilty and they pled were not guilty.

Anyway, so he was basically just riffing on it and uh it sounds like he didn't remember the details.

Um, can you be sued for defamation if you're just honestly wrong about the details of a thing that happened?

I think you have to have intent, don't you?

Or or if if it's not intent, you have to show some kind of uh some kind of seriousness about not defaming somebody.

basically some seriousness that you're trying to be accurate and you're not uh haphazardly just throwing things around.

I don't think they're going to be able to show that anything happened other than he remembered it wrong because it didn't sound like it did it doesn't even sound like his normal hyperbole.

It literally just sounds like he remembered it wrong.

So, I can't believe that he would lose that.

But again, lawsuits are endless.

The law affair.

Um, according to Sky News, Tom Clark is writing that the amount of electricity needed to power the world's data centers, mostly because of the AI load, uh, is expected to double in five years.

Do you think we're going to have twice as much electricity in five years?

Well, probably not.

Uh so what are we going to do?

I'm going to add my prediction to this.

I predict that there will be sufficient innovations in energy reduction for AI specifically.

In other words, they'll that the technologists will find ways to not need nearly as much energy for AI and that will be fine.

Do you know the uh law of slowmoving disasters?

It's called the Adams law of slowmoving disasters because I named it after myself.

It says that if you can see a disaster and everybody can see it.

It's not like some secret two people see it.

But if we can all see it, if we can all see the problem coming, we have a really good record of dealing with it.

Really good 100%.

We're still here.

So this would be, you know, on the border of an existential threat if we didn't have enough energy to run AI because even if you said Scott, we'll just turn off the AI and everything will be fine.

Well, then you lose to China and somebody else has AI and you know that's an existential threat.

So the fact that we have at least five years suggests to me that we'll be fine.

How?

I don't know specifically, but I I think I've told you I don't know maybe 10 different stories recently about some breakthrough or some potential breakthrough to lower the energy needed to do AI.

And then Deep Seek apparently found some workarounds too.

So, I think that if you just straight line how much energy we'll need, that's misleading because it's hard to know how many innovations will be in lowering energy need.

Um, Nagoya University discovered that they can instantly cure motion sickness with a 100 hertz sound.

Uh, which is well within, you know, normal hearing levels.

So, it wouldn't hurt you.

And apparently it's been tested.

So it's this is after you already have the uh motion sickness.

All all they do is strap on the headphones and play this sound and it just instantly takes away your motion sickness.

Now that's the claim.

Uh but there I get, you know, obviously they do some more testing, but wouldn't that be cool?

I I don't have motion sickness, but I've always I've always said uh I'm so lucky cuz how many times have you gotten in a car or a vehicle with somebody who does and you know they're not happy at all.

It's It's pretty common.

A lot of people have motion sickness.

So, even though I don't, this seems like a big deal to me if they could fix it with a sound because then you could just put it on your I don't know, put it on your phone and put your headphones in and instantly feel better.

Wow.

Uh there's a New York Post says there's some new footage, but it's from 2023 of another tic tacshaped UFO that's on military radar.

So, do you think they found another UFO that looks like a Tik Tok?

Tic Tac?

I don't know.

I'm going to say no.

Uh, I don't believe the Tic Tac stuff are UFOs.

I don't know what they are, but I'm going to guess anything but a UFO or at least anything but an alien ship.

They might be unidentified, but I don't think there are any alien ships that look like Tic Tacs.

Uh, I might be wrong.

You never know.

Um, the Trump administration is uh not going to crack down on the Nvidia's HTTO chip.

That's their advanced chip for AI.

And there was some thought that they would limit um their ability to sell it to China, for example.

China is a big market for these chips.

But uh apparently Nvidia was smart enough to develop a crippled version of the chip.

So there's a lesser powerful one that they've already developed that they would sell to China instead of the the best one for America.

So I guess that would be good enough as long as it's crippled.

Uh Trump doesn't have to block it.

And that's good because that's a gigantic market.

All right, ladies and gentlemen.

That's all I got for you today.

Uh I think we've solved everything from the economy to inflation to uh how to feel better by thinking about nature.

Uh I may have may have come close to solving some of your motion sickness.

All right.

Um very successful day I would say.

So, I'm going to talk to the local subscribers personally and the rest of you.

I'll see you tomorrow.

Same time, same place.

Thanks for joining on You.

Tube and Rumble and X.

Come back tomorrow.

We'll do it again.

Here, let's check the stock market. And

surprisingly, Bitcoin is up. The S&P 500

is up. Not a ton, but it's it's

up. Tesla's kind of flat, slightly

down. All right, let's get our comments

going and then we got a show for

you. You're going to love

it. All

[Music]

right. Almost

ready. There we

go. Good morning, everybody, and welcome

to the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.

You've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take this experience up to

levels that nobody can understand with

their tiny shiny human brains, all you

need for that is a cup of bugger, a

glass of tanker, chalice, a canteen

jugger, flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid. I

like coffee. And join me now for the

unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of

the day, the thing that makes everything

better. It's called the simultaneous

sip. That's right. Go.

Oh, thank you, Paul. Everything's

working

today. Good to

know. Well, I wonder if there's any

science that they could have saved some

money by asking me. Oh, here we go.

According to Sai Post, Bianca Sediano is

writing, there was a study published in

the journal of environmental

psychology and they found that simply

imagining natural environments can

reduce your stress and promote

relaxation more so than imagining an

urban setting. Uh-huh. That's right.

Imagining nature can make you feel

better than imagining an urban setting.

Huh. I wonder if there's any way they

could have gotten to that result faster

and with less expense. Anyway, anyway.

Oh, yeah. You could have asked me or you

could have asked anybody who's ever been

trained as a hypnotist because it's

lesson number one.

I think it's literally the first thing

we learned that if you make somebody

close their their eyes and imagine a

nature scene that their body will relax.

That literally I think it's the first

thing you learn. So yeah, you could have

uh just asked me about that next time.

Next time do

that. According to Zero Hedge, the House

has passed a a bill, which means it

hasn't passed the Senate yet, requiring

proof of citizenship to vote. So, it's

called the Safeguard American Voter

Eligibility Act or SAVE and it passed

with a little bit of margin. Yeah, even

four Democrats joined in. Interesting.

So, Chip Roy uh is the sponsor for this

and uh would amend the National Voter

Registration Act also to require states

to obtain proof of

citizenship in person from people

registering to vote. So, you better

bring your ID.

But if it even goes further and it

requires states to establish programs to

remove illegal immigrants from existing

voter roles and allows US citizens to

sue election officials who don't adhere

to the proof of citizenship

requirements. Oh, that's interesting.

So, it allows individuals to do the

suing.

Now, I saw somebody's comment that this

will never fly. Uh even if it gets

passed, the Supreme Court will knock it

down. Some say because the states have

uh I think what was described as an

ironclad control over how voting is

done. But I'm not so sure. I'm no

Supreme Court expert, but I it does seem

to me like the federal government

um in its role of protecting the

country, I mean, just as a national

defense issue, could require that the

only people who vote are American

citizens. So, other than that, I could

see that the states would have most of

the

control, but uh we'll see. Uh I don't

know what I don't know what the uh the

predicted fate of this is, whether it

gets completely passed by the Senate and

then whether it can survive a challenge.

So, but anyway, it's got some Democrats

on it. So, that's not the worst thing.

Um let's see what uh the view host,

Sunonny Hosten, says about this. Well,

uh, she says that requiring voter ID,

um, is bad for many blacks and women who

will not be able to

vote.

Um, I love how crazy she

sounds. Well, when I watch Sunny Hen, I

like looking at her eyes and her face as

she says things that probably every

person knows is the we we're

still looking for that one that one

person who doesn't know how to vote or

doesn't know how to get an ID but still

wants to vote. Now, I do believe there

are people who don't have IDs, but I

don't think they're clamoring to vote.

So, we're still looking for just one,

just one person who says, and you know

what would happen if one person came

forward and said, "I don't know how to

get ID, but I'd really like to vote."

What would happen? Whoever they were

talking to would tell them how to get an

ID and help them

vote. So, as soon as you find anybody

who's in that category, the first person

they talk to solves their problem. It's

like, "Oh, well, uh, just go down to the

DMV." Well, I don't know where the DMV

is. Oh, well, let me check. Okay, here's

the address of the DMV. Uh, just go down

there and get an appointment and get

your

ID. Um, but now the it's extended from

if you require ID, it used to be that it

was a way to suppress black vote, but

now it's extended to uh, divorced

women. Is there a big problem with

divorced women who want to vote but

they've got the wrong name last name on

some of their documents? Is

that Is that a big

problem? Can Can we see one example of

that, please? I think Hillary Clinton

weighed in on that, too. Still waiting

for that one person. Um, I'm going to

delegate this issue to the uh Department

of Imaginary

Concerns because if we can't find one

person in the real world, what would

that make that

issue? Imaginary. That's right. But it

is an imaginary concern to a lot of

citizens. So, we can't ignore it. We

should delegate it to the Department of

Imaginary

Concerns. Let's see what else we got

going on here. Uh over on MSNBC,

uh former Attorney General Eric Holder

um says that what's happening now with

Trump and his administration is quote

remarkably similar to kind of what

happened in Europe in the

30s. Uh and if you don't stand up and

fight now, it's going to be too late.

Um, it seems to me that the

drama, they only wrote one play. I mean,

if you're going to be a drama, you

should have more material than this. But

they only have one play, and it's called

Everything is Hiller. Uh, and everything

I see is Hiller, and all I want to talk

about is Hiller. And by the way, have I

mentioned

Hiller?

Um, now it seems to me that uh if you're

imagining

Hitler, but there is no Hitler and

there's nobody really acting like

Hitler, what would be the department

that that should be delegated to? I've

got an idea. Let's delegate it also to

the Department of Imaginary

Concerns. Let's see what else the

Democrats are up to. Um, Representative

Hakee

Jeff says that Donald Trump and the

extreme MAGA people are doing everything

they can to tank our economy. H, are

they are they doing everything they can

to tank the economy by negotiating trade

deals and lowering regulations and

lowering taxes and Yeah. That's that's

exactly what you do to tank an economy.

Uh, making energy more affordable,

lowering inflation. Yeah, that's how you

do it. Um, and it's going to drive us,

according to Jeffre, drive us toward

recession and gut the health care of the

American

people. So, it's going to gut the health

care of the American people. Now, I

could imagine at least two ways that

that could happen. Gutting the health

care of the American people. One would

be to do nothing and just keep the way

we're going because that would lead us

to a bankrupt country that couldn't pay

for health care or anything else. So the

path we were on guaranteed the end of

health care along with the end of the

country and the end of everything really

your life probably. Um but at the moment

there's no suggestion that the uh that

the Trump administration would do

anything to your health care um

benefits. So what would be the right

department to assign this imaginary

future concern? H oh I've got an idea.

How about the department of imaginary

concerns? Does anybody see a

pattern? the the biggest most effective

attacks from the Democrats all imaginary

everyone. It's not based on anything

that's happening in the real world. Uh

that's their best take. Here's some good

news. Uh activist Robbie Starbucks has

another big win. He got IBM to end their

DE DEI policies. Now, I would read you

the list of all the things that IBM

decided to stop doing. It was a whole

bunch of woke stuff like requiring uh

proper pronouns for people and stuff

like that. But the list was so

long. It just wouldn't work in this kind

of a podcast. So just take it from me.

Uh IBM was just massively

entangled. It it seems like they they

had wrapped this, you know, ball of

string called DEI around everything. and

uh unwrapping it is a pretty major

project. So, it's a whole bunch of

things had to be changed to unawwoke

IBM. But the good news is, and I'm going

to give IBM some credit for this, um,

that when they were confronted with, you

know, the, let's say, the argument and,

uh, the activism and Robbie Starbucks

uh, apparently very effective approach,

they decided to unwind it. And probably

there was a lot of volunteering of what

parts needed to be unwound. So, I'm

going to say uh my my standard for

judging people and my standard for

judging companies in this case is not if

they make a mistake or do something I

don't like or something doesn't work

out, but how do they deal with it? You

know, once you know you've messed up, do

you correct it? Do you ignore it? Do you

say it never happened? Um, this looks

like IBM fully

embracing that it wasn't a good idea and

then fully embracing the steps it would

take to unwind it and being somewhat

transparent about it. So, I'm going to

say uh IBM

A+ that you you've reached my highest

standard of ethical behavior. I would

never judge you that you once made a

mistake that you know I suppose if it

were you know you were a slaver or

something I would still judge you but

under the normal you know behavior of

companies

uh I judge the prior behavior to be

completely irrelevant. I judge the

current approach uh working with

Starbucks to do something productive. Um

A+ A+ good

job. I saw a report. I don't know how

confirmed this is, but uh somebody said

the New York Times had a story that the

White House is considering, they're just

considering

um using uh government money, your tax

dollars, to give $10,000 per year to

every person in

Greenland. Do you think Do you think

that's going to happen? So, somebody

must have calculated how much uh Denmark

is contributing and then figured out how

much could it cost if we were to

essentially outbid Denmark so that the

people of Greenland said, "Oh, I

wouldn't mind $10,000 a year. I wasn't

getting that much from

Denmark." Um, but I don't know if

Denmark is doing more than that. Maybe

they are. But what are there's something

like 60,000 people in all of Greenland.

So 10,000 times

uh 60,000 would be 600 million. So that

would cost us 600 million per year. Is

that something you want to you want to

do to have control of Greenland? I don't

know.

Um, when the story is that they're

considering it, I don't take that too

seriously cuz what the White House

should be doing is considering all the

possibilities. If they just have it on a

list of

possibilities, perfectly acceptable. Um,

it doesn't mean they're going to do it

and it doesn't mean it's the only thing

they're going to do. It doesn't mean

that we're going to do it with nothing

in return. you know, maybe there's some

rare earth minerals we could get return

or something like that. But, uh, I like

the fact that the White House would be

looking expansively at other options.

So, again, good job looking at the

options. Doesn't mean I'm in favor of

it. Um, I' I'd have to see a lot of

details to to know if it makes sense,

but uh I like the I just like the

noodling of it so that it's not, you

know, we've looked at all the options

basically. Meanwhile, Pegas reports a

big success the Panama Canal. So, he was

down there dealing with Panama and I

guess the deal involves

uh Panama hosting more American troops

so that we've got more military presence

there and that our military would be um

essentially a a guardian against China

ever having control over who goes

through or how much it costs for them to

go through. And then I guess Panama

agreed to end their um end their

contribution to the uh Belt and Road

initiative coming out of China. Their

contribution would be you know just

being part of the Belt and Road thing.

So that all looks like a big win. Um and

this would be if if this is a stable and

workable plan and it looks like it it

all looks pretty stable and workable.

Um, then this would be an example of

Trump making a first big

offer and then negotiating for something

in the middle that just makes everybody

happy because I don't think that Panama

loved being the potential of being

dominated by China. I don't think they

loved it.

Um, so and they know they can, you know,

deal with the United States and that our

military is not there to, you know,

conquer them. we're there to make sure

that we have access to the canal. So, if

that's the case, then that would be

another big win for Trump and his style

of negotiating where he goes big and

then he's got room to negotiate.

Um CNN is reporting that the uh the

consumer prices the inflation um it went

down you know a tiny bit in a month over

month but this is actually the first

time we've seen this since co a month

over month over drop month over month

drop so it's very unusual and uh they

say that the reason for it the big

driver because normally you'd expect it

to go up at this time of the year is gas

prices didn't go

up. So, energy

costs allowed

inflation to stay put and slightly

slightly go

down. Um, that's exactly what Trump

promised

us. That's exactly what he promised.

that he would loosen up all of the

energy sources and that when energy goes

down, inflation would be, you know,

impacted in every

domain. Now, I'm not sure that this is

100% because of Trump

changes, but it could be.

Um, yeah, it could be. So, we'll see.

That's good

news. uh Trump in along those same

lines, Trump is reversing uh a bunch of

Biden policies about Alaska and energy.

So this is the center square is

reporting this. Um so he's reinstating a

program to make a whole bunch of acres

up there in the uh Enoir region

available for oil and natural gas. Now I

guess he did that in his first

administration and Biden canceled it.

So, we'll see if uh the oil drilling

companies are willing to take the risk

that it gets cancelled again because I

suppose if you got another Democrat

president,

um things would look dicey. But at the

moment, um it looks like there's going

to be a bunch of changes that making it

easier to uh get energy out of that part

of the world, which could make a big

difference. Speaking of which, um,

according to Newsmax, Lee Barney's

reporting, um, there's a big drop in oil

prices from a year ago. The oil is 28%

lower than it was a year ago. And, uh,

and oil went down another 3% just

recently because of the fears of the uh,

trade

talks. So, oil going down is a pretty

big deal.

Um and so Brent oil is trading around

$64 per

barrel and um somebody somebody who

knows what they're talking about says

that by the end of

2026 by the end of next year we could be

at $55 per

barrel. So the

direction for

inflation looks pretty darn good, you

know. And and by the way, this is uh you

know, this would be a counterbalance to

whatever the tariff problem is. So if

you're going to have a tariff fight with

China, the very best environment you

could do it in is where inflation is

under control and there's a

gigantic probable lowering of energy

costs during the same period they're

negotiating.

So that would certainly take a lot of

sting out of any uh

tariffs. Um I mean it's going to affect

people differently. So the people were

most affected by the tariffs may not get

most of the benefit but at least on a

country level um that would be a pretty

strong negotiating

position. Um here's some some science

that's kind of cool. according to live

science rand Collier is writing that

there's a breakthrough to allow you to

physically manipulate 3D holograms so

that you could you know touch them and

and move them around with your hand. I'm

not sure if you could feel them. Um that

was a little unclear but you could

physically manipulate them. Um, now

apparently it's it's sort of in the

early experimental stage, but they've

created a

demonstration. So if they can do it in a

demonstration, it's probably pretty

real. Uh, assuming the demonstration is

not fake. It could be, but imagine

that. Now, what do you think would be

different if we could manipulate

holograms?

Do you think that people are going to

have a hologram

boyfriend? Because if you add AI to a

physically

manipulative manipulatable

hologram, it's even better than a robot

cuz you could just turn it off and it'll

go

away. But you could have like a a living

room boyfriend that's only in the living

room cuz that's where your 3D hologram

is. And you can make your boy your

boyfriend like, you know, only a few

inches tall in case you wanna, you know,

not be bothered too

much. I don't know.

Um, I still think there's some

possibility that the UFO sightings are

some kind of hologram.

Uh, I'm not going to commit to that, but

I let me broaden that to say one

possibility for the UFOs is that they're

somehow projected from somewhere else

and and they look like physical objects,

but maybe they're something like a

hologram. Uh, why? I don't know, but I

wouldn't rule it

out. According to

uh news reports uh well Trump is saying

this uh Mexico owes Texas uh like 1.3

million acre feet of water and uh he's

going to tariff Mexico if they don't pay

up. So apparently there's some kind of

long-term agreement 1944 treaty that

says that South Texas farmers get

certain amount of water uh that must

flow through te through uh

uh through Tijana area I think. And uh

so at the moment that's being cut off.

I'm not sure why, but uh Trump says if

they don't fix that really fast, he's

going to escalate with tariffs and maybe

even sanctions.

So, we'll

see.

Um, were you wondering if the Chinese

investors would panic before the

American

investors? Well, American investors,

according to today, they're just saying,

"H, our stock market's sold enough and

it's kind of stabilized." Now, that

doesn't mean it'll last to the end of

the day. I'm I'm not predicting anything

and I'm not predicting it won't, you

know, wildly jump around as there's more

negotiating. But if you want to know

what's happening in China, according to

Reuters, uh the government just told the

biggest money traders that they can't

they can't sell too many Chinese stocks

in a day or they'll shut them down.

So, if you're a big investor in China

and you were thinking, hm, this would be

a good time to sell all of my China

stock, you know, while you're a Chinese

company. Uh, China just told you, yeah,

if you do that, we're going to put you

out of

business. So, is China

panicked? Uh, and that's a pretty good

pretty good threat, isn't it? That will

put you out of business. So, it looks

like China can control the selling of

their stock market. Um, I guess you

shouldn't be too surprised by that, but

that would give uh in theory that would

put a bigger risk on the American side

because the Americans don't do that sort

of thing.

Uh and I guess uh US put that 125%

tariff on China and they just

reciprocated with 125% tariff. So we're

going to tariff each

other like crazy.

Um but according to AFP the US dollar

has dropped um kind of

hard uh dropping nearly 2% just uh last

day I guess uh at least against the

euro. So is that a big deal that the US

dollar has gotten

weaker 2%? I don't know. I suppose if it

keeps going it's a big deal.

Um, so anyway, the trade escalation

continues. Um, so we'll see how that

goes. Here, here's a story that's hard

to believe, but looks like it's true.

Um, the New York Post is reporting,

Ronnie Ray is writing about this that

uh, some time ago, I think it was during

the Biden administration, there was a

meeting between China and the US in

which China acknowledged its role in

years of cyber attacks against the

United States as retaliation over its

support for Taiwan.

Now, it's not surprising that it was

happening. It's surprising that the

Chinese said it just

directly, you know, a complete

confession uh right to the Americans in

a private

meeting. Now, that's kind of

mind-blowing, isn't it? That years of

cyber attacks, they're like, "Yeah, we

we've been cyber attacking you for years

over your Taiwan policy." Now the

obviously the implication is that you

can't stop us and that you know we have

this ability to hack you anytime we

want. So that is one scary kind of a

threat and you have to you have to throw

that threat into the tariff negotiations

as well.

Um, and to me, this is just one more one

more evidence that our our relationship

with China is an abusive

relationship. If it were a personal

relationship, you would say, "You need

to get out of that relationship. You

know that you're being abused over and

over, right?" Um, they're just cyber

hacking you and then bragging about it

and they're they've got trade policies

that are bad for you and they don't care

and they're stealing your IP every time

they can get near it. And if you try to

challenge them in court, there's no way

to challenge them. If that were a

personal

relationship, what would all of your

friends

recommend? They'd recommend you get out

of it.

So, we'll see what

happens. Uh, but here's some more risk.

According to the Epic Times, uh,

Yan, let me try to get his name right.

uh

Yan he's uh posting today that the uh

that they talked to an author the Epic

Times did and uh there's an author that

says that um China controls 95% of the

key components necessary for our generic

drugs. So if China were to shut down

export of those chemicals, our health

care system would basically

collapse. We just wouldn't be able to

make

drugs. So that's how dependent we are.

Now it seems to me that that looks more

and more like an abusive relationship.

It's like, well, there's an implied

threat that if you were to leave

me, bad things would happen. Oh, yes.

Bad bad bad things would happen. Your

your healthc care would

collapse and abusive

relationship. And uh that's I guess the

author of the book China RX is where

that came from.

Um, so here's what I think. So using

that same frame,

um, I do believe that we're in an

abusive

relationship. Uh, meaning that not only

are things, you know, unbalanced and

unfair, but like an abusive

relationship, you can't negotiate your

way to a better situation. If if you're

with somebody, let's say you're living

with somebody who's an abuser, have you

ever tried to negotiate with them? How'd

that work out? Doesn't work. There's no

such thing as as a

negotiation with an abuser. They're just

abusers. And China seems very intent on

continuing to be the abuser.

So I think our path with China is very

similar to the path that you would see

in an abusive personal relationship. You

can either put up with it because you

think the risk of not putting up with it

is too great. You know, you might lose

your healthcare, you might get cyber

attacked, they might take Taiwan 10

minutes later. Um all of our costs would

go up. I mean, these are real

serious seriously big problems.

So, what do you do? Stay in the abusive

relationship? Is that how you'd play it

if it were your personal relationship?

Because it's the same thing. If you

leave me, uh, I will hunt you down and

beat you up. Uh, you'll never get a job.

You'll be poor forever. Your children

will

starve. Sound

familiar? So, you can either put up with

that and it might even worsen over time

because why would the abuser fix

anything? because the abuser is happy.

Or you can risk everything to stop it.

You can risk

everything. That's what it's looking

like. So, our two

choices, you know, under a normal

situation, and I'll I'll take you to an

abnormal situation in a moment, but

under a normal situation, you either put

up with it forever and it just gets

worse. And that's what we were doing, or

you you risk everything. You risk

everything to get out of it. Trump is

pushing us to risk everything to get out

of

it. Is he wrong?

What's the thing that the Democrats hate

about

Trump? He's a bully. He's a strong man.

He's a dictator.

Right? But boy, do you need that

now. Cuz if you're in an abusive

relationship with someone

else, who do you call to help you get

out of it? You call somebody who's a

bigger bully. There's no other way

because you're not going to be able to

do it. You need a bigger bully. Trump's

a bigger

bully and we've never seen anybody like

it. Now, is it a good idea to risk

everything? I'm not even going to say

this. I'm just going to say those are

your choices. Suck it up and be abused

for the rest of whatever's left of the

United States, which might not last long

since China seems to have designs on

controlling the world. or you risk

everything. Doesn't mean you lose

everything. Doesn't mean you lose

everything because sometimes you can

scare a bully away, but you have to be

the bigger bully by

far.

So, how what do you do? So, th those are

two choices you don't want, right? And

it's really easy to do the do nothing

choice and

just put up with it and just it gets

worse but then you get used to it. You

just put up with it until your country

is

toast but you hope it's not today.

You're just trying to get through today

or you risk everything to put an end to

it. Now I have a hypothesis that the way

um and this wouldn't be for every single

person but if you don't have if you

don't have a direct trading relationship

with China in which case you would be

you know biased toward your own business

interests which would be fine. Um I

think how you see the situation of this

abusive

relationship is

that you would handle it the same way

you would do it in person.

In other words, if you're the kind of

person who says, "God, I I'm just going

to put up with the abuse," then you're

probably the same person who says, "Why

can't we just, you know, get along with

China?" You know, just sort of do what

we were doing before and keep asking if

they'll do

better. That's probably what you would

do in your personal relationship because

that would be your your level of risk

for that sort of thing. But there are

other people who would say, "You know

what? I've reached the end of my

patience. I'm going to risk everything.

Might he kill me?

Yes. But it's it's better than this

life. It's better than this life. And

there are a lot of you like that. How

many of you have dealt with a

bully the only way you

can? Some of you. How many of you have

been in an abusive relationship and

said, "You know what? I'm gonna walk out

of here with my bare

feet because I'm done. I'm just

done." That's some of

you. So, it's just a hypothesis, but

I'll bet you the way you would deal with

a with an abusive relationship in person

has a lot to do with how you're looking

at this China situation. Uh, I'll bet

there's a pretty good ven diagram

overlap. And so I'm going to offer you a

trap

door, an escape. I'm going to offer you

another option, one that's not on the

table right now. So this is the

hypnotist take.

So, if if I were in charge, uh I would

use my hypnosis background to say, "All

right, if you only have two choices, put

up with the abuse or risk everything to

get away, how could you invent some new

options that just don't seem to

exist?" And I'll give you a couple. One

option would be to negotiate with China

and say, "Here's the deal, China.

We'd like to treat you more like a peer

and treat you with complete

respect. So you have you have a take on

trade that you think whatever you're

doing is fair. We think it's not. Let's

negotiate in

public. Let's put all of your trade

practices in the public domain. Maybe

the UN, maybe some other kind of public

um you know public structure. and we're

going to show what it is that you have

been doing and then we're going to tell

you what we think would be a fair

situation. Will you negotiate with us in

public? What what are they going to say?

They're going to say no. And then you

keep at it. No. Let's do this in public

because China, we don't want to be your

enemy. We want a good trade deal. If you

can't do it in public, that's going to

say a lot. We're gonna we're gonna put

all of our terms in public. Everything

we want, we're going to publicize. We're

going to explain why. And we're going to

tell you what the context is. Will you

do the

same?

And put them in a position where they

simply have to defend their position.

Because right now, if you say China,

China is giving us bad trade deals. Uh,

maybe somebody knows what a tariff is,

maybe they don't. Maybe some people know

how bad the theft of IP property is,

maybe they don't. Maybe people know that

if you went to China and tried to use

their justice system to fix, let's say,

an IP

theft, you wouldn't even get a phone

call returned. There's no process at

all.

Um, and so and if you looked at other

restrictions and other risks and if you

looked at the surveillance that they do

of any American who goes over there, you

can't even bring your phone. I mean,

imagine a country where you can't even

bring your phone or your laptop because

there's a 100% chance they're going to

hack into it. Imagine dealing with a

company that if you u make a product is

successful but you're making it in

China. The very first thing they're

going to do is steal it and they're

going to make that same product um you

know they're going to run the factory

all night to make more of the fake one

than you're paying them to make the real

one. And then they're going to compete

with you and you're going to say, "Hey,

it looks like you just ran my own

factory that I was paying you to make my

stuff. It looks like you just ran it for

extra hours and then put it on Amazon

and you're just competing with me with

my own stuff against me." And you know

what China would say? Take it up with

our courts that don't return your phone

calls ever. Not sometimes. Ever. There's

no path.

So, how many people know

that? How many people know how unsafe it

is to do business in

China? Well, some people know it. Let's

do it in public. Let's put it all in

public. Now, if they if they uh fight

the idea of doing it in public, that

would be kind of embarrassing. And it

would also sort of force us to be the

ones who described their practices in

public without their defense. They

wouldn't have any defense to it. Here's

another

one. So, we could do that, but we could

also do the following. We could tell

China, "China, I think we've been uh

maybe unnecessarily

um disrespectful to you.

Wait for it. Just wait for it. We We've

been a little bit insulting and we've

been a little bit

disrespectful. And I think that we've

been trying to get you to change

um in ways that you don't want to

change. And we're not the boss of you,

China. China is a great nation with a

gray future and a gray history. And

China should be allowed to be China.

So this would be the let China be China

um approach and you say to them we think

you should be China and just be be China

any way you want to be China. Just

continue to be exactly like you are.

However, we'd like to announce that our

long-term uh position is to do a

friendly

friendly,

respectful unwinding of all association

with China. We'd like to unwind all of

our business, but some of it's going to

take years, such as the pharmaceuticals

and the drugs business, and some of it

might happen a little faster. But

there's no offense. We're going to do

this with complete respect. We agree

that your position is one that you can

take. So rather than trying to embarrass

you or bully you or negotiate you into a

compromised position that you don't want

to do, we think that was a big mistake

because it didn't it didn't really

understand the power and the interests

of China. And from now on, we'd like to

let China be China

alone without

us. And if you don't mind, we'll

continue buying things from you where it

makes sense. But we're going to unwind

as much of the business as possible as

quickly as possible in the friendliest

way possible. So we'd like to remain

good um let's say good relations but

without any trade because let's China

let China be China. China is an

aggressive tough um highly respected

country and if you would like to be

China without any without any push back

from the rest of the world we accept

that. So, we accept your terms and we

hope you don't mind if we unwind

completely.

So, two possibilities that are not on

the table. Negotiate in

public or agree to a friendly,

completely

respectful, complete unwinding of

business over

time. So, that's that's how a hypnotist

would approach it. So you'd give them

some options that are were never on the

table. Because if you deal with the

options that are on the table, you're

going to get the same result everybody

ever got, which is, do you want to do a

deal?

No, we don't have to. Uh, but please,

no, but it's bad for us. We know. But

it's so it's super good for you. For you

while being bad for us. Do you

understand that? Yeah, we got it.

You can't live in that

frame. You You have to change the frame.

So if China wants to be China, let's let

China be China. We don't need to change

them. All right, let's get back to

America here. Um I'm loving watching the

the news people explain why they were so

bad at doing their jobs. And the best

example, of course, is the uh the

Biden's uh Biden brain situation where

they pretended they couldn't notice. So

now we've got Chris

Saliza, who used to be on CNN. He's not

anymore, but he was he was what I'd call

a anti-Trump specialist. I used to talk

about him all the time in the first term

in the first election. And uh he said

that the reason that uh he didn't cover

the Biden brain story was it wasn't any

kind of intentional activism

um he said we simply didn't push hard

enough to get around the smoke screen

from the Biden

people. What smokeokesc screen?

you and I and everybody with a

television set could see Biden was

falling apart from I think I think I

started saying it in 2019 and I wasn't

alone. There were plenty of other people

saying

uh what are we seeing there? That that

doesn't look right. And then they

started hiding him. I don't think that

could have been any more obvious. and

they, you know, his schedule was

basically, uh, the schedule is he's not

doing any work today. He's going to go

to the beach again. It could not have

been more obvious to everybody watching.

And you're telling me that the only

people who couldn't

notice were the people who quote didn't

push hard enough to get through the

smoke

screen. the the fact that the the news

is trying to blame the

insiders for protecting them is

unbelievable. I mean, I wonder how much

of this they believe on their own. Like

in their own minds, do they think that's

true or or do they know that it's like a

ridiculous

rationalization? I don't know.

So, uh, Trump had a, uh, cabinet meeting

yesterday and, uh, I saw a summary by

Insurrection Barbie on Acts about, uh,

some of the good news out there and

there was some news, some pretty big

news. So, Brooke Rollins um, talked

about the, uh, the terrible position

that the Biden left the farmers in. Um

she explained that there's been a 30%

increase in input costs and that the

previous administration left them with a

$50 billion trade deficit even though

that that was zero when Biden took

office.

$50 billion deficit when it started at

zero. Uh and so they're working on

overcoming those issues. So basically

the Biden administration with Biden's

broken brain um just let our food

supply just be in tatters by the by the

time he was done and the Trump

administration is working hard to fix

that. Brook Rollins appears to be a

superstar in the administration. So

that's looking good. Then Tulsi Gabbard

had some updates which were all

individually interesting um especially

about things like um

RFK files and the JFK assassination

files. Those are being prepped for

release. I don't know when, but that's

interesting. But the most interesting

part and this is from Tulsi Gabbard. So

this is your government talking. So this

is not podcaster.

This is not some rogue person with an

opinion. This is your government. Your

sitting government says that the

electronic voting machines have been

vulnerable to hackers for a very long

time and uh that they've been vulnerable

to exploitation and manipulation of

election results and uh they're

continuing to investigate.

That's the government saying that that

voting machines were vulnerable and have

been for a very long time. And I think

there was something said about they were

not even designed to modern cyber

security

standards. Now that does not mean that

they've identified any problems with

other elections. So, one of the

questions you can say, but wait, the

voting machine people have sued people

who said that there were problems.

They've sued people who said there were

specific problems, like there was a

specific

manipulation. That's not what Tulsi

Gabbard is saying. Tulsi Gabbard is

saying that by their their nature, by

their design, uh they would have some

vulnerabilities. So,

um it's not about a specific

claim. Uh and uh and she puts it in the

context of working toward Trump's goal

of having a paper ballot, you know, kind

of a same day election because if you

don't if you don't debunk the safety of

voting machines, it's going to be hard

to talk anybody into getting rid of

them. So, to me, that's a big deal. It's

a really big deal. Now, how long have I

been telling you that there's no way to

protect, you know, a cyber device like

that? To me, it just seems obvious. you

you wouldn't have to be some expert in

cyber security to know that these older

machines that have been hacked by

hackers in a in a variety of you know

different

forums. You wouldn't have to know the

specifics if you knew anything about

technology. You would say I don't think

they've invented anything you can't hack

if you had access. A lot of hacking

involves somebody a physical person

being led in to do a physical thing or

an insider who just has access as an

insider. So whenever you've got insiders

or the possibility of physical

access, it just seems like you have a

hackable situation. It wouldn't matter

if you're talking about election

machines or ATMs or any other

machine. RFK Jr. at the same meeting

said that uh he's going to have an

answer on the likely cause of the spike

in autism by

September. Uh he points out that the

autism rate when he was a kid was 1 in

10,000, but now it's 1 in

31. Oh my

god. 1 in

31. I mean, I I've been sort of, you

know, tracking this issue forever.

But one in

31, one in

31, there's clearly

something in the air or the water or the

food or the medicines or something

clearly. Um, but his promise that we'll

know by September, you know, what is the

likely cause of it? I don't know about

that. Don't know about that.

because that would assume that we have

the right kind of data. Do you believe

we have or or that we could have by

September the right kind of

data? I'll tell you my my uh let's say

my I don't want to say common sense but

based on the totality of my experience

working with data because I used to do

that before I did this. Um, I think

there are too many

variables. It might be possible to tease

out the right answer, but by

September, I don't know. It's pretty

aggressive. So, he might he might think

he already knows the answer, and maybe

there's a domain in which there is data

if you just took the time to look at it.

So, I mean, uh, I have a high degree of

trust that RFK Jr. wouldn't say it

unless he meant it and that he really

believed that that we could do that. So

that would be a hell of a thing. Just

imagine

that. Uh honestly, that would be one of

the greatest achievements in American

history if he pulls that off. Do you

think he will? He might. He might pull

that off. By by far it would be the most

useful thing anybody in the Kennedy

family had ever done. Would you agree

with that? That there would be nothing

in the entire Kennedy legacy from, you

know, the Cuban missile crisis, pick

whatever you want. That would be the

most important thing that Annie Kennedy

had ever

done. So, I'm rooting for him. Rooting

hard. He also wants to get soda at the

SNAP program so that poor people can't

use your tax money on soda. He wants to

give fluoride out of the water.

Apparently, there's evidence that it

lowers IQ. And he wants to improve uh

school

lunches. Those all sound pretty good to

me. Pretty

good. So, that's going on.

Um, according to uh just the news,

they've got some uh good article there

on there's some new declassified

material about that Russia collusion

hoax from long ago that Cash Patel just

gave to Congress. Now, I don't know how

much of this is

new and how much of it is sort of

telling us what we already knew, but I

didn't know about this. So apparently uh

Grock was asked to summarize it. So

here's what Grock said about it. One of

the documents uh contains handwritten

notes by former CIA director John

Brennan in July

2016. So carefully note the date, July

2016. And it details a briefing to uh

Obama and senior officials. Right. So

what Brennan knew in

2016, Obama knew because he got briefed

and the senior officials did. So they

all knew this and it suggested that

Hillary Clinton's campaign approved a

plan to tie Trump to Russian

interference in the election, allegedly

to distract from her email

scandal. And the notes outlined the

concerns about Russian knowledge of this

strategy.

and indicate uh discussions within the

intelligence community about its

implications. So in

2016, Brennan, Obama, and their closest

top adviserss knew that Hillary Clinton

was running an OP. And the thing they

were worried about is that Russia would

find out about the

OP. Brain exploding.

Really, the thing they were worried

about is that Russia would find out

about the

OP. They weren't worried about the

OP. They weren't worried about an

insurrection to

remove or to change the

election. Uh, I don't even know what to

say about that. It's exactly what you

thought it was. From the very beginning,

I said to myself, that John Brennan guy,

there's something wrong

there. Does he really think the Russia

collusion thing is real? And the answer

was apparently not. Apparently not.

Um, and I won't get into the rest of it,

but let's say some of the highlights

are, uh, they knew that the Carter Page

thing was they went too far and they

knew this stuff was left out, um, trying

to drag him in there.

Um, see, they knew that uh the case that

they were trying to put together about

General Flynn, they knew early on that

there was no evidence that he had done

anything

whatsoever. None. And yet they talked

about continuing it based on no

evidence.

not a little bit of evidence, but based

on none, they continued to say maybe

they should keep looking, which suggests

that they were just trying to jail him

as opposed to worried about actually any

crime.

Unfreakingbelievable. So, that was

exactly what you thought.

Um, yeah, there were there were notes

from uh some FBI official expressing

concern about the FBI's approach with

Flynn suggesting internal unease about

the investigation's

tactics. Yeah, there was a little unease

about that. There should have

been. In other news, the you remember

the Central Park 5 story? Um, I won't

give you the whole background there, but

you remember that long before Trump was

in politics, he did a he did a

uh he did a what do you call it? A uh

editorial. No, a uh he he bought a page

of the New York Times and said that the

death penalty should be brought back.

Now, he didn't mention the Central Park

5, but the news assumed that that's what

he meant, and they acted like he had uh

essentially blamed them for being guilty

when they were later cleared by the

courts. Now, when I say they were

cleared by the courts, that doesn't mean

that I know that they were guilty or

innocent. I wouldn't know. I wasn't

there. But there but there was not

evidence according to the court to

convict them.

So the lawsuit is about what uh Trump

said during a debate in

2024.

Um and the courts have ruled that the

lawsuit can go forward because Trump

said something about this situation

during the debate that can be

objectively determined to be false.

Now, that doesn't mean that you broke a

law or anything, but it it suggests

there's enough of a enough meat there to

have a

trial. So, here's what Trump said when

uh I guess it was Kamla brought up the

Central Park 5. Uh Trump said during the

debate, quote, "They admitted they said

they they plead guilty." Now, that never

happened. They never plead guilty. Uh,

and I said, 'Well, if they plead guilty,

they badly hurt a person, killed a

person, ultimately the person was not

killed, but was badly injured. Uh, and

he said if and if they plead guilty and

they pled were not guilty. Anyway, so he

was basically just riffing on it and uh

it sounds like he didn't remember the

details.

Um, can you be sued for

defamation if you're just honestly wrong

about the details of a thing that

happened? I think you have to have

intent, don't you? Or or if if it's not

intent, you have to

show some kind of uh some kind of

seriousness about not defaming somebody.

basically some seriousness that you're

trying to be accurate and you're not uh

haphazardly just throwing things

around. I don't think they're going to

be able to

show that anything happened other than

he remembered it

wrong because it didn't sound like it

did it doesn't even sound like his

normal hyperbole. It literally just

sounds like he remembered it wrong.

So, I can't believe that he would lose

that. But

again, lawsuits are endless. The law

affair. Um, according to Sky News, Tom

Clark is writing that the amount of

electricity needed to power the world's

data centers, mostly because of the AI

load, uh, is expected to double in five

years. Do you think we're going to have

twice as much electricity in five years?

Well, probably not.

Uh so what are we going to do? I'm going

to add my prediction to this. I predict

that there will be sufficient

innovations in energy

reduction for AI specifically. In other

words, they'll that the technologists

will find

ways to not need nearly as much energy

for AI and that will be fine. Do you

know the uh law of slowmoving disasters?

It's called the Adams law of slowmoving

disasters because I named it after

myself. It says that if you can see a

disaster and everybody can see it. It's

not like some secret two people see it.

But if we can all see it, if we can all

see the problem

coming, we have a really good record of

dealing with it. Really good 100%. We're

still here. So this would be, you know,

on the border of an existential threat

if we didn't have enough energy to run

AI because even if you said Scott, we'll

just turn off the AI and everything will

be fine. Well, then you lose to China

and somebody else has AI and you know

that's an existential threat. So the

fact that we have at least five years

suggests to me that we'll be fine. How?

I don't know specifically, but I I think

I've told you I don't know maybe 10

different stories recently about some

breakthrough or some potential

breakthrough to lower the energy needed

to do AI. And then Deep Seek apparently

found some workarounds too. So, I think

that if you just straight line how much

energy we'll need, that's misleading

because it's hard to know how many

innovations will be in lowering energy

need. Um, Nagoya

University discovered that they can

instantly cure motion sickness with a

100 hertz sound. Uh, which is well

within, you know, normal hearing levels.

So, it wouldn't hurt you. And apparently

it's been tested. So it's this is after

you already have the uh motion sickness.

All all they do is strap on the

headphones and play this sound and it

just instantly takes away your motion

sickness. Now that's the claim. Uh but

there I get, you know, obviously they do

some more testing, but wouldn't that be

cool? I I don't have motion sickness,

but I've always I've always said uh I'm

so lucky cuz how many times have you

gotten in a car or a vehicle with

somebody who does and you know they're

not happy at all. It's It's pretty

common. A lot of people have motion

sickness. So, even though I don't, this

seems like a big deal to me if they

could fix it with a sound because then

you could just put it on your I don't

know, put it on your phone and put your

headphones in and instantly feel better.

Wow. Uh there's a New York Post says

there's some new footage, but it's from

2023 of another tic tacshaped UFO that's

on military radar.

So, do you think they found another UFO

that looks like a Tik

Tok? Tic Tac? I don't know. I'm going to

say no. Uh, I don't believe the Tic

Tac stuff are UFOs. I don't know what

they are, but I'm going to guess

anything but a UFO or at least anything

but an alien ship. They might be

unidentified, but I don't think there

are any alien ships that look like Tic

Tacs. Uh, I might be wrong. You never

know. Um, the Trump administration is

uh not going to crack down on the

Nvidia's HTTO chip. That's their

advanced chip for AI. And there was some

thought that they would limit

um their ability to sell it to China,

for example. China is a big market for

these chips. But uh apparently Nvidia

was smart enough to develop a crippled

version of the chip. So there's a lesser

powerful one that they've already

developed that they would sell to China

instead of the the best one for America.

So I guess that would be good enough as

long as it's crippled. Uh Trump doesn't

have to block it. And that's good

because that's a gigantic market. All

right, ladies and gentlemen. That's all

I got for you today. Uh I think we've

solved everything from the economy to

inflation to uh how to feel better by

thinking about nature. Uh I may have may

have come close to solving some of your

motion

sickness. All right.

Um very successful day I would say. So,

I'm going to talk to the local

subscribers personally and the rest of

you. I'll see you tomorrow. Same time,

same place. Thanks for joining on

YouTube and Rumble and

X. Come back tomorrow. We'll do it

again.