Episode 2823 CWSA 04/28/25

We'll get serious.

All right.

Don't check your stocks.

They're neither up nor down.

They're kind of moving sideways.

Nothing to see there.

Let me get my comments going and then we'll put on a show.

The show you deserve, even if you don't.

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

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better time.

But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains, all you need is a cuper mug or a glass of tank or chalice in a canteen jug or 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 makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip and it's going to happen right now.

Go.

Perfect.

That's just what I needed.

Well, in Texas, somebody uh 3D printed a Starbucks.

Um it's one of those big 3D printers that does concrete walls and it's just a little drive-thru, so there's no internal seating, so it's a small one.

Um, but uh how long before robots can make the coffee?

Oh, turns out that's my next story.

Global coffee report says that uh AI robots will soon be making your morning coffee.

Maybe.

Don't you want that?

Wouldn't you love to tell your robot to make you a fancy coffee?

You know, the reason most people don't make a fancy coffee for themselves is it's just way too much work and time and pain in the ass and you got to clean up and all that.

But if your robot did all of that, I'd make my robot make me some serious coffee.

It'd be the best coffee you ever saw.

So, that's coming.

My little uh local mall in my town had a coffee robot for a while and it looked like it was more demonstration.

It was before AI.

It was a few years ago.

Um, and I remember I tried it once, but I accidentally ordered the wrong thing.

But once the robot starts making the thing, you can't really stop it.

So, I had to stand there for what seemed like 10 minutes while this stupid robot made me a cup of coffee.

That was the wrong thing.

And then I just paid for it and threw it away.

So, it wasn't a perfect robot coffee making experience.

I think it'll get better with AI.

Um, I don't know if it's still the case, but early this morning, the lights and the electricity were off in Portugal, Spain, and a big part of France.

Now, I don't think they know exactly why.

I assume it's not cyber some kind of cyber crime because I don't know who would go after Portugal, Spain, and parts of France.

That'd be a weird target.

But, uh, they're dealing with that.

And it kind of reminds you how fragile uh civilization is that there was probably my guess is there's one piece of equipment that went bad and it took three countries out of the end of civilization.

So we'll keep an eye on that and see see what the hell is going on with that.

That's pretty scary.

Well, the brighter side of news is reporting that um the attention economy is turning into the intention economy, which I had not been exposed to before.

So attention is all your social media where they're trying to get your attention because if they have your attention, you look at advertising and then they win.

But with AI, they're going to move to an intention, meaning they're going to figure out what it is you're likely to want, maybe before you even know it.

And so, they'll be looking at your intentions to give you what you want.

You can uh say goodbye to your illusion of free will because once your AI gets good enough to know what you want and it starts giving it to you before you even knew you wanted it, why would you even make decisions?

Cuz it's going to be right.

You know, every now and then you might have to correct.

It's like, well, no, I don't have time for that cup of coffee.

You were going to make me a robot.

But uh the intention economy has way more ramifications than just how they sell advertisements.

The ramification is that we come to understand that free will is an illusion.

It's a big deal, but I know you're not ready for that yet.

Popular Mechanics has a story that says that somebody somehow found a chemical fingerprint on Stone Edge.

Do you believe they found a a fingerprint on Stone Edge?

I'm not sure I even believe the first part of the story, but according to them, uh, if they're right, it means that the giant stones came from a different place than they've been telling us for years.

In other words, the whole stone end story was kind of BS.

That's what they're thinking.

But this reminded me that um if you watch enough You.

Tube stories about ancient civilizations, which I do, um did you know that all over the world there were civilizations that could move gigantic rocks?

So there are pyramids pretty much in uh I don't know just all over the world.

So there you got them in Asia and Central America and South America and you've got them in the Middle East.

So apparently there were all these different civilizations who could move gigantic rocks and none of them remember how to do it.

None of them.

So the the only way I can explain that is that they never knew in the first place that because nobody drew a picture of it.

You know, even if they didn't have written language, somebody would have made a picture, right?

and carved it on a cave wall or something.

But uh no, all these civilizations were able to move gigantic rocks somehow without being connected to each other.

Did they individually figure out how to do it?

So individually all these primitive civilizations figured out how to move gigantic rocks, but then our modern civilization doesn't know how to do it.

How is that possible?

The only explanation I can come up with is that there used to be a some kind of advanced civilization that didn't survive.

Unless those are the aliens and they're they're under the ocean hiding from us maybe.

But uh I'm definitely down for the there must have been a ancient advanced civilization that affected all of those different cultures and somehow helped them move big rocks but never taught them how.

That's the only thing that makes sense to me.

Well, Trump is causing more trouble.

Gateway pundits reporting that uh um he mentioned that we should jail the autopen guy, whoever it was who was making the autopen sign things for Biden.

Now, that might be a little uh extreme, but here's what Trump said.

He goes, "Also, why did the autopen give Schiff a pardon?

Biden knew nothing about it.

Who operated the autopen?

That is the biggest question being asked in DC.

Is it?

I don't know.

They almost destroyed our country.

They should all be in jail, Trump said on True Social.

Now, how is it even remotely possible that the autopen did all of the signing for Biden and we don't know who was in charge of the autopen?

Now, you might say, "Well, Biden was in charge.

He just said use the autopen." Well, maybe.

But with all these uh tell all behind the scene books, there's not a single book, there's not a whistleblower, there's not a single witness who knows who operated the autopen.

And it couldn't have been that many people, right?

I would imagine that there's exactly probably one person who can actually make the machine do what it needs to do and they have to get an order from somebody.

So, there's probably one person who's just a tech, but somebody told the tech what to do.

How in the world do we not know that yet?

The only way that makes sense is if we did know who it was, it would be a gigantic scandal.

I I can't imagine to be any other reason because otherwise even the Democrats would say, "Oh, it's no big deal.

Uh, it was Biden's chief of staff and the chief of staff only did it when Biden okayed it.

And then I'd say, "Oh, okay.

That's a reasonably good good explanation." But they don't have any explanation.

So, does that mean multiple people were getting the autopen guy to do the autopen thing?

Whatever the answer is here, Trump is definitely on to something.

There's something that's being hidden.

And it's more than the fact that the auto pen signed a lot of things for Biden.

We really need to know who was behind that.

I wonder if we ever will.

Well, uh the May's account on X uh has a good uh good report here about um how the fake news works.

So, uh May says the the mainstream media feeds off its own dishonest reporting working together to divide the country and make people angry.

And he says, for example, uh the New York Times put out a headline claiming that Trump was going to end funding for Narcan.

Narcan is the thing that has saved your life if you have a fentinyl overdose or opioid overdose.

And but that was never true.

Uh the details were buried in the article.

What was true is that they wanted to reorganize the group that made the Narcan available.

So, it would still be available.

It would just be housed in a different organization.

So, rather than correct that, uh Rachel Maddo on MSNBC tells her viewers that Trump is taking away Narcan and then she has uh Jamie Raskin on later uh to confirm it.

So, they've got fake news and then they bring on uh another liar, the designated liar.

Jamie Rascin is one of the uh Democrats I call the designated liars because the designated liars will do things that the normal rep normal Democrats won't, right?

So, if you want to tell a really big lie, you know, one that's easy to debunk, Rascin will do it.

Um, Schiff will do it.

Swallwell would do it.

Um, but most of the normal Democrats don't want to say something that's so easily debunked.

So, they have designated liars.

I've never seen anything like it.

They're literally the designated liars.

Anyway, so this is sort of like a instant wrap-up smear.

Uh, do you remember when Nancy Pelosi was explaining the wrap-up smear where you leak to the you leak to a reporter that somebody did something bad and it might not be true, but then when the reporter writes the story, then you say, "Oh, look, it's in the New York Times, so don't trust me.

It's in the New York Times." But really, it's only in the New York Times because you told them to write the story and they believed it.

That's a wrap-up smear.

So, this is an example of that, but happening in real time.

Do you know the author Malcolm Gladwell?

Um, he he looks like one of those uh what do you call it?

Uh, dandelions.

You know, when a dandelion goes bad and it's got that, you know, big crazy white hair, he kind of looks like a big dandelion.

Anyway, um he he was uh he's getting a little more political and he's suggesting that somebody like Oprah could really help us out in politics.

And the example uh was that Oprah could ask Elon Musk if he didn't want to be seen as a Nazi, why didn't he give a Nazi salute?

What?

What?

Are you kidding?

I thought it was only the dumbest Democrats who believe that Musk gave a Nazi salute.

Let me say it as as you know clearly as I can.

Anybody who thinks anybody anybody who thinks that Elon Musk intentionally got on the stage after winning everything, you know, the election was won and everything was good.

You actually believe that he got on the stage and gave a Nazi salute?

That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life.

You're you're an idiot if you thought that was true even for a second.

And you know, I would see interviews on the street where there'd be some, you know, 20some who believed that there was a Nazi salute and I'd say to myself, "Oh, well, you know, a lowinformation voter just believe what they're told." But Malcolm Gladwell is entering the fight like he's one of the educated, you know, well-intentioned smart guys.

How in the world could you be that dumb?

I mean, this isn't one you have to research.

You just have to ask yourself, really?

Really?

You think that Elon Musk decided that it'd be a good idea to give a Nazi salute or or even that you think that he would want to do that?

So dumb.

I mean, that's like seriously seriously dumb.

Like at a level that's hard to even understand.

So I think the the Musk and Nazi salute hoax, it's the new fine people hoax.

The fine people hoax was the same thing.

Did you really think that the sitting president complimented neo-Nazis in a public speech?

Really?

That you thought there was some chance that happened in the real world?

It didn't.

The opposite happened.

But how dumb did you have to be to believe that the fine people hoax was ever real?

And again, how dumb do you have to be to believe that Trump that Mus gave a Nazi salute or even was, you know, in that frame of mind that that would even make sense in any world.

I don't even understand this one.

I mean, that's that's stupidity at a level that's almost mind-boggling.

But maybe it's more about persuasion.

I don't know.

You know, maybe they're just hypnotized.

It could be a TDS story more than an intelligence story.

But if if your intelligence can't let you see past that illusion, your intelligence is not very highowered.

That is really really dumb.

Um Mike Benz had a good observation about David Brooks.

He was uh he was on one of the shows and uh remember how when Trump did anything that wasn't uh let's say uh perfectly copacetic, they would say no one's above the law.

And then now we've got these judges who were helping the illegal immigrants um get, you know, try to escape, which would be very illegal.

uh instead of saying no one's above the law and it makes perfect sense to to arrest the judges because they broke the law, now it's turned into well, it might be illegal, but it's heroic really.

So if Trump does it, it it's just a case of no one's above the law, so it's cut and dried.

Goes to jail.

But if and that would be based on allegations, not anything he actually did.

Um, but the moment a judge does something that's deeply illegal, helping an helping a, you know, an immigrant um, who's not here legally get away, that that turns into a heroic moment.

So, good catch, Mike Benz.

Well, remember when Cy Booker did that uh um filibuster thing where he talked for many hours and nobody knew what he nobody knew what his point was and it was the biggest waste of time, but he got some attention.

Well, now Cy Booker and uh Hakee Jeff is the Democrat leader.

Uh they've decided to hold an anti-Trump sitin on the Capitol steps.

Now, that was yesterday.

I don't know if they're still there.

I'm not sure how long a sit in lasts.

Um, but Just the News was reporting this and I was thinking, what exactly were they trying to accomplish by sitting on the steps and and what was that conversation like?

All right.

All right.

Trump is winning everywhere.

We've got to change the conversation to the leaders of the Democrat party are sitting on steps.

At what point did that sound like a good idea?

Like we could turn things around if we sit on steps and then people will come talk to us because we're sitting on steps.

Did I tell you it's going to it's going to be a long time?

We're going to sit on those steps for a long time.

Yeah.

Yeah.

We finally got a we got a strategy.

What is wrong with the Democrats?

That's their strategy to go sit on some steps.

You never see Republicans stooped to anything that stupid.

Anyway, so here's a summary of what I see happening in the news and politics.

Um, Trump has given us the following proposition.

He hasn't said it in these words, but he's very clear about what he wants.

Uh, Trump would say if you asked him, he said, "We need to make a long-term structural change to our economy to survive." a long-term structural change.

Now, some of that would be Doge, but a lot of that would be the tariffs, uh, which should lead to negotiations, we hope.

Now, those would be long-term structural changes.

So, if you have a president who's proposing that we do long-term structural changes, what does the media do, the Democrats?

We need to obsess over the first 100 days because a 100 is a big round number.

For the for the last several days, the Democrats have just been all over his first 100 days.

His first 100 days.

Why?

Because a 100 is a big round number.

It doesn't make any sense.

It's like sitting on the steps of the capital.

Well, let's talk about the importance of the number 100.

it doesn't really have any importance, especially if we're doing a long-term structural change.

Yes, but let's obsess about it and we'll run some polls.

So, the media research center did a poll and found out that ABC, NBC, and CBS um had 92% negative coverage of Trump.

92% negative coverage of Trump.

So, if they had 92% negative coverage, what do you suppose they found when they did a poll to to find out if Trump's plans are popular?

So, the news told people that almost everything Trump did was a mistake.

And then they did a poll to ask the opinion of the public.

Where where do you think the public got their opinion from?

The public didn't do their own research.

They got their opinion from the news.

And if the news is 92% negative, which is a pretty good indication it's just biased and uh not real news, of course the public's going to have a low opinion of his first 100 days.

Of course they will.

And then they they sell that to us as it all makes sense.

Now, if you didn't know that the news was 92% negative on Trump, you would look at the polls and you'd say, "Whoa, looks like the public has really, you know, turned on Trump." Nothing like that happened.

And and pollster Mark Mitchell of Rasmusen Reports, he did a deeper dive, which I won't get into.

you should look at his account on X, but he did a little summary of the of the idea that Trump is less popular and uh he said, "Okay, here's the most important takeaway from all of my posts today." So, he posted on this quite a bit.

Trump approval drop is a scop.

And according to Mitchell, his policies are popular and will remain popular.

Biden was a failed president and Trump is polling mostly like Obama.

Now, which of the major uh major news entities said to you, "Well, it looks like, you know, Trump's taking a dip in popularity, but it's not really that different than Obama." That's kind of important, right?

Now, would I say that Obama's first 100 days were critical?

Not really.

Nobody nobody's first 100 days really matter too much.

Is there is there any president who's ever been judged, you know, by history on their first 100 days?

Never.

They're they're only judged on the entire body of work.

So why in the world are we obsessing about the one thing that we know no historian is going to care about in 10 minutes?

Like when he gets to 120 days, nobody's even gonna care about the first 100 days.

But uh yeah, so Mark Mitchell says it's a scup.

Sounds about right.

All right.

You wonder how dumb the Democrats are.

Well, when you watch uh Bernie Sanders and AOC go out in their oligarchy tour.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I might be the first person who said to you when I heard about that, uh that's going to be a huge fail because most people don't even know what oligarch means.

And time goes by and then the Democrats themselves are saying uh Bernie AOC people don't know what an oligarch is.

So Senator uh Alisa Slutkin is one of those people who's criticizing Bernie and AOC for for talking about oligarchs.

But here's her suggestion for improving the messaging.

Are you ready for this?

She said, "Instead of saying oligarchs, you should say kings that Trump wants to be or or his his cronies want to be kings." Now, that is so dumb.

So dumb.

That has no persuasive power whatsoever.

And then I saw Chuck Schumer, he tried that out uh on some interview.

He's like, "They want to be kings." And I just said to myself, how many kings can you have?

Can you have multiple kings?

And if you have multiple kings in the same country, wouldn't that be the same as no king at all?

Cuz how can you have multiple kings?

This is so dumb.

It's like there's nobody who knows even the least bit about communication or persuasion who who's guiding these poor Democrats.

But oh my god, kings is an improvement over oligarch.

No, the entire the entire approach needs to be changed.

It's not that they use the wrong word.

You know what is it that the the Democrats always say when they make giant mistakes?

When the Democrats make gigantic mistakes that have lasted a long time, do they ever say, "Wow, you know, we should just retool this and stop doing that gigantic mistake thing." No, they always tell you it's about how they messaged it.

And that's what's happening again.

They're they're trying to say, "If we'd only picked the right word, you know, this could have been a genius move.

If we'd picked the right word." No, there's no right word.

the entire approach is just So there's no word that fixes that.

So that's funny.

And then Bernie pushes back.

He goes, "Well, gee," as he he was asked about in an interview.

He said, "We had 36,000 people in LA and 34,000 in Colorado.

We had 30,000 people in Folsam, California." He goes, "I I think the American people are not quite as dumb as Miss Ms.

Slottton thinks they are." To which I say, Bernie, you didn't even answer the question.

The reason people showed up is because of star power.

It had nothing to do with whether you were saying oligarch or king.

Do you think there was anybody who said, "Hey, look, Bernie and AOC are going to talk." And then their their mate or their boyfriend or girlfriend says, "But are they going to talk about oligarchs or kings?" Because I I know what a king is.

I don't know what an oligarch is.

No, they just said, "Is it Bernie?

Is it AOC?" Oh, they're celebrities.

Okay, I'll go watch because I don't like Trump.

So, every every part of this is stupid.

Just almost mind-bogglingly stupid.

And it's it's wonderful to watch.

You've probably seen all the uh the interviews on the street.

There's been a bunch of them where somebody will go up to one of the Tesla protesters or Democrats protesting and they'll say, "Why are you protesting?" And they'll say stuff like, "Trump is a monster and Trump is a dictator and Trump is Hiller." And then then somebody will follow up and say, "Can you give me an example in which Trump is a fascist or a dictator or, you know, can you give me a policy you don't like?" and they're always stumped.

They don't have any idea what they don't like.

They actually are on the streets protesting and they can't give you any details about what it is they're protesting against.

Now, you might say, "Well, those are very entertaining, but I feel like Republicans could do a lot more with that." Um, I don't know exactly how.

You'd have to experiment with it a little bit.

But I would love for the these street interviews and maybe even other interviews.

Uh whenever the press is talking, you know, let's say the right leaning press, whenever the right leaning press is talking to the Democrats, I'd like to see that they had a list of maybe 10 questions to see if the Democrats could answer them.

So here's one of the questions.

If tariffs and trade barriers are so bad, why does China and every other country insist on having them?

That's an unanswerable question because the the real answer that Democrats can't get near is that these countries have been taking advantage of us and we should stop them from taking advantage of us and so Trump is using tariffs to negotiate until they stop taking advantage of us.

Now, I had a uh back and forth with a probably a Democrat, I can't tell, on X today, and they don't seem to understand that if we don't put tariffs on these other countries that we will just be the victim of tariffs like we have been, and that we're just giving our money away.

They don't seem to understand that concept.

Is that really that hard?

But they don't.

Um here's another one.

How do you know that the tariff situation won't work out?

How do you know?

Because they act like it's already a fact that the tariffs have destroyed the country.

That's not even close to true.

I don't know how they'll work out either.

But if you're telling me that you know now how everything works out with tariffs, well, that's just stupid because they're they're at the beginning part of negotiating and the first part Trump has gotten everything he wanted, which is the full attention of the other countries.

They've made it their one of their top priorities because they have to.

And if you were to judge how it's going so far, I'd give it an A+.

But there's still a possibility that, you know, it goes off the rails, we don't get a deal, you know, we have shortages and then our, you know, our businesses have to close.

That's possible, but we don't know that.

And certainly there's enough time to write the ship and get some deals or get the framework of some deals before any of those bad things happen or at least, you know, the bulk of the bad things.

So, how in the world can you say that the tariffs have not worked?

It's way too early.

It It's just stupid to imagine that you know how it turns out in 4 months or maybe end a year.

How about this one?

The people who say that Doge was a big mistake.

How would you know that?

I mean it could turn out to be not successful.

But how do you know after the first few weeks when maybe there was a little uh you know a little bit of uncertainty about how things were going?

How do you know they didn't adjust?

How do you know they didn't move to your beloved scalpel system and make sure that the normal elected officials were appointed are the ones who make the actual cut decisions?

How do you know?

How do you know which of their claims are going to prove out?

Some of them won't, but some of them will.

How do you know if they'll if they're going to save more money than they've saved already?

because not only have they, you know, taken a taken a whack at a number of the uh expenses and corruption, but they've put in place a system, a system of sort of permanent doge, which in theory should prevent some of the worst excesses from coming back while they chop away at new things that they find all the time.

How could you possibly know if Doge work?

It's way too early.

Now, if you said I don't know that it'll work, well, that's reasonable.

If you said there's not uh confirmed evidence that Doge worked, I'd say that's true.

But to say that, you know, it didn't work and won't work, where's that coming from?

You don't have any inside knowledge about what's happening in any of these, you know, government entities.

Here's another question for Democrats.

If everything is broken and wrong and Trump has destroyed the economy, why is the stock market so strong and employment looks good?

Th those would be the two things that would always go bad if the economy were heading in the toilet.

So why aren't they?

The the stock market's sort of the same as it was a year ago.

No big deal.

And employment looks pretty good.

So, how do you explain that?

So, there should be some kind of like 10 questions to ask Democrats um to see how well they understand anything.

Anyway, I think if Democrats understood the issues, they would they would have different opinions.

Uh here's another fake news, but sort of sort of true, but fake.

Uh I guess the Trump administration deported some parent, I think a mother, uh maybe more than one who had children and then the mother decided that she would take her children who were born in this country and therefore are citizens that although she was not a citizen and she had a deportation order, she would take her children with her back to uh Honduras I think in one case and that causes the Democrats to say you deported children, which Rubio has to explain.

Uh, no, we deported an illegal alien and she decided to take her children because why wouldn't she?

Why wouldn't she?

Of course, she's going to take her children.

That's not that's not our decision.

We didn't make the children leave.

We just made the mother leave.

So, there's that.

And also we should mention that's the same way we treat criminals in the United States.

When you send a parent to jail, they don't get to take their kids.

But if they could, some of them would, don't you think?

If somebody had a baby and let's say they're a mother, uh if they had the option of taking their baby to jail with them, again, there was some facility that would allow that to be safe, they probably would.

But we wouldn't be putting children in jail.

That would be the mother's decision.

Anyway, Scott Bent is agreeing with uh Trump that China actually is talking to us about trade, but they're a little bit shy about what that looks like or who they're actually talking to.

Um but uh there's a significant disagreement about whether there's any actual progress.

Um, do you think there's progress in the conversations with China?

My guess is there might be a few things where we think, oh, that opened up a door or something, but I feel like we're probably pretty far away from any kind of a deal with China.

Partly because it's such a, you know, big complicated thing and partly because it's China.

But, uh, apparently we're having some kind of conversation with them.

It's better than nothing.

According to Axios, Trump is looking to bail out American farmers if they get too damaged by the uh tariffs and trade war because uh you don't want to lose your farmers.

So, I don't know if there'll be other industries that Trump will try to save, but that's going to get really expensive really quickly, isn't it?

If if Trump does some kind of a major spending thing to save certain industries so they can keep the trade war going, it's going to be really expensive at the same time that they're looking at the budget.

I don't know how that's going to work.

Well, Trump has uh according to Zero Edge, he's floating this idea of eliminating income taxes for people who make under $200,000 a year and instead using the bonanza of tariff income to make up the difference.

I don't think that's going to happen.

To me, that sounds like total So, if I if I could be honest, I don't think there's the slightest chance that people under 200 who earn under 200,000 are going to have no income tax and and we're going to make up the difference with tariff income.

Now, it might be good persuasion to make people feel good and, you know, maybe it helps him politically, but no, that's not going to happen in and there's no world in which that happens.

I don't think so.

You can mock me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's any chance that happened.

So, according to the Hill, the the House isn't the House of Representatives now working on the budget bill, which is not as easy as you think because they've got all these different committees.

So there'll be five House committees and they'll they'll all go look at every part of the bill and it's the the big funding bill that gives that has all all Trump's priorities in it.

And they're going to try to uh uh they've been asked to remove $1.5 trillion in spending.

Do you think the House is going to find $1.5 trillion to remove from the budget?

Again, there's no chance of that at all.

My my best guess is that they'll remove nothing and that the budget will be bigger than it was last time.

I don't think there's any chance of that.

How ridiculous.

And I saw that David Saxs was um talking on the all-in pod about how he was hoping that the Doge savings and especially where Doge found there was some corruption that the when the house gets down to the nuts and bolts, they will uh protect all of the Doge savings and they'll protect the whatever Doge did to get rid of the corruption.

you know that they'll, you know, get rid of entities and that sort of thing.

To which I say, uh, we got a problem here.

Congress has a system for adding corruption.

Adding corruption.

And that system is they negotiate with each other.

And one senator will say, well, you know, if you give me this funding for my state, um, I'll vote for you for your funding for this other thing.

So that's a mechanism or a system for adding corruption or at least adding spending that you didn't want which I would call corruption.

What is our system for getting rid of corruption?

There isn't one.

If we had a system for getting rid of corruption, it would already be used.

There's no such thing as a system for getting rid of corruption.

So when David Sach says um he's worried that the Doge savings and the the uh corruption recommendations won't be taken seriously.

That's the only thing that could happen because there is no system for removing corruption once it gets to the house.

It's only in the ad corruption system.

It's not in the minus corruption system.

So, if you had to guess what's going to happen with the budget reconciliation, it's going to look like every other year.

They won't be able to cut anything because it'll always be somebody who's got some blackmail or, you know, they're doing some horse trading or something.

They won't be able to cut anything.

Now, when I say anything, you know, maybe there'll be some little around the edges minor thing, but basically the budget's going to be the same amount it always was.

They're going to run out of time.

Thomas Massie is going to do social media posts saying he's not going to vote for it because they had plenty of time to cut it, but they didn't cut anything important.

And we're just going to kick the can down the road until we become bankrupt.

That's the plan.

because there's no other plan.

There's no other system in place that could ever cut 1.5 trillion from the budget.

We don't have anything that could do that.

The House can't do that and it's in the House and Doge is not in the House.

So even if Doge could do it, it's not their domain now.

It's in the House and I guess the uh Senate was only trying to get rid of $4 billion.

So they So you have to get both the House and the Senate to agree on the budget.

The House is trying to get rid of 1.5 trillion and the Senate where they're even more corrupt is like well maybe 4 billion which would be basically a rounding.

You know you could get rid of four billion just by sneezing on it.

So, if I had to guess, we will have less than a $5 billion cut and we will be running as fast as we can into a um into a debt crisis and nothing useful will happen in the House.

Nothing.

There will be no no decrease in corruption, no decrease in ridiculous spending, no nothing because we have no system that could bring us to a better place.

If you look at it as a system as opposed to a goal, the goal is to save 1.5 trillion.

But there's no system to do that.

None.

Now, if I'm wrong, somebody tell me what exactly would be the system that would do that.

And what and why didn't that system ever do it before?

It's because it doesn't exist.

We don't have a system that could possibly get us to a better place on the budget.

So that's what to expect.

Um gee, I wonder if there will be any diversions that happen so that we're not thinking about how bad Congress is and and the budget.

Oh yeah.

So, the House Subcommittee is going to hold a hearing on drone sightings after reports about those new New Jersey skies.

Now, when was the last time you worried about the drones over New Jersey?

I don't remember worrying about it for a long time because Trump said, "Oh, don't worry.

It's all, you know, it's all approved.

We don't know exactly the details, but there's nothing weird going on there.

It's not any foreign entity.

It's not a it's not a UFO." But suddenly the House Subcommittee needs to do a deep dive into those drones.

And once again, it's going to be stories about possible UFOs and UAPs and and it's going to divert us again.

So exactly at the right time they need a diversion.

Well, there it is.

I don't know if it's intentional, but it seems weirdly coincidental that the diversion happens at the same time they need it.

Um, here's another thing that's making me laugh.

The uh the Democrats consider themselves the resistance.

Have you noticed that?

So, a lot of people who are Democrats, especially the political ones, consider themselves part of quote the resistance.

Have we ever had that before?

In the history of US politics, has anybody ever called themselves the resistance?

Because that framing is dangerous because it'd be one thing to say we're the opposition party and then I say, "Oh, I get it.

You would like your policies to be, you know, more persuasive than the other policies." But as soon as you say you're the resistance, doesn't that sound like the French resistance during World War II?

You know, literally battling Hitler, resistance is a is a military term in my view.

As soon as you say resistance, everything's on the table, including violence.

But if you just said we're the party out of power and so we're trying to get back in power, I'd say, "Oh, normal." Um, and apparently their the resistance is uh coordinating some of the colleges, the Ivy League colleges that Trump is going after for being racists.

Um, so some of the leaders of the most prestigious colleges, the Ivy Leagues, etc.

They're sort of informally getting together and calling themselves the resistance.

Now, unfortunately, it sounds too cool to be part of the resistance.

So, you're going to get a lot of Democrats who say, "Oo, uh, I wouldn't be interested in being the party out of power, but could I be part of the resistance because I can't wait to tell my lover that we'll have better sex?" Um, and I completely get that.

So, I remember when I got cancelled, and some of you were wondering why I wasn't so unhappy about it.

It's because when I got cancelled, the bad guys, as I'll call them, they cast me in the role of the resistance.

So, I didn't plan it, but you know, every time I see a meme that uses my face and, you know, has some reference to why I got cancelled, I think to myself, wow, I actually became like Chay Goa.

Yeah.

At least my image.

So, I'm an image of the resistance.

And it's the resistance against DEI and CRT and racism against uh white men, basically.

So, I never really minded getting cancelled.

It was a pain in the ass, but in terms of how I felt about it, it just made me feel like I was part of the resistance.

And then I felt that's kind of cool.

It's kind of cool that people recognize me as, you know, an image of the resistance.

So, it's a very dangerous term because people want to be in it.

Now, let's talk about those uh colleges.

Now, of course, what Trump wants them to do is be less anti-Semitic and less DEI.

And the colleges are pushing for free speech.

Now, what is the dividing line between free speech, which would be somebody saying something bad about Israel, versus hate speech, where maybe there's a risk somebody gets hurt.

So, I want to uh and I've been listening to Gr Glenn Greenwald on this because he's he's just so good at explaining his point of view.

So, I think Greenwald is uh I don't want to try to capture his opinion because I might get it wrong, but the basic idea is he's real pro- free of speech and that would include free speech about Israel.

And so when he sees uh the colleges or or if he sees the Trump administration trying to squash just the Israel talk but not squashing talk about other countries, then he says reasonably, um why are we just picking out this one special group of people?

And I have an answer for that.

Um, so I asked Grock to define hate speech because hate speech is illegal and free speech is legal and that's the way it should be.

But here's uh here's hate speech.

Uh, Grock says hate speech is typically defined as expression that incites violence, discrimination or hostility against individuals or groups based on protected characteristics like race, religion, gender or sexuality.

Then it says free speech uh includes a broad range of expressions um and it could be offensive but it wouldn't it wouldn't activate anybody for any violence.

So hate speech is only restrict restricted if it incites imminent lawlessness.

That's a Grock definition.

And they say context matters.

This is also Grock.

Um a statement might be free speech in one setting.

for example, if you're just talking privately to a friend, but it might be considered hate speech if he did it in public.

So, that makes sense.

Um, but let's let's take one example of something that's happened with the Democrats and see if you think this is just offensive or it's inspiring people to lawlessness.

So, this is Governor Pritsker, Democrat Governor JB Pritsker.

Um and he said in a speech he was calling for mass demonstrations and urging people to quote rise up against Trump declaring that quote republicans must not know a moment of peace.

Is that free speech?

Or did he target Republicans for activities that would seem lawless?

Because if you don't allow me a moment of peace, as in I can't walk on the sidewalk without being accosted, that's hate speech to me, isn't it?

Now, I would I would also add that the anti-semitic stuff that's happening on the campuses, there's something different about the anti-Jewish speech versus the anti-alonian speech.

You know, I can say bad things all day long about the British, but nobody would even imagine that that would cause any violence.

And I could say pretty tough things about the British.

But if I said tough things about the Jewish population, the next thing you know, somebody's pushing, next thing you know, there's violence.

So to imagine the same that free speech about the Jewish population anywhere is the same as free speech about every other group which I think is close to Greenwald's point of view but I don't want to I don't want to characterize his point of view because he does it so much better.

Um, it seems to me that you can't treat everybody the same because the the Jews have a situation where there's a identifiable group who wants to wipe them out, but the British don't have that.

Well, you might argue that they do, but since there's nobody trying to wipe out the British except maybe by population change, um, it's not going to lead to anything.

There's no way that that becomes anything um dangerous.

But it wouldn't take much anti-semitism before Jewish students don't feel safe walking to classes.

Likewise, Governor Prrisker, it doesn't take much speech before you wouldn't want to wear a um Trump 2028 hat and go in public.

It's already too dangerous.

So if the speech that Democrats are using against Republicans make it unsafe to walk down the street and it they do isn't that hate speech because it directly leads to violence and I would say the same about uh the Jewish students that it doesn't seem to me that it's just turning into words like oh I have a preference.

It looks like it pretty directly turns into something more than words.

So, um, and I would say the same is true of DEI and CRT.

So, that's the reason I got cancelled, right?

So, I got cancelled because I consider CRT and DEI to be hate speech.

The the whole point of CRT and DEI is that uh white males like me have stolen stuff from other Americans and uh we damn well better give it back.

That's dangerous.

That gets you killed.

So to me, CRT and DEI and ESG even are a hate speech because it does activate people to say, you know what, I could slap this guy around in public and nobody would care because we're all mad at them and they stole all of our stuff and made us create the country and then stole everything.

That's completely different from saying the French are rude, right?

If I say the French are rude, nobody's going to go punch a Frenchman.

completely different.

So I would throw the anti-semitism into the same category as DEI and the same category as Governor Prrisker saying that Republicans must not know a moment of peace.

To me, those are all three hate speech and and uh worthy of being at least discouraged if not made outright illegal.

I think they are illegal.

But so uh Smirkish on CNN, I've told you before this Mirkanish is his own man.

And even though he's on CNN, he uh he's notably been common sensical, which seems uh you know, notable.

Um but he was slamming the Trump Hitler comparison and he was saying that if you keep comparing Trump to Hitler and you keep comparing his followers to Hitler um that it's going to lead to assassination attempts and he points out that if you look at assassination attempts in the past it was almost always in the context of this kind of speech.

So when a president get you know ever with whenever there was ever a attempt on a president there was always somebody saying that president was Hitler like Reagan.

Um I I think uh JFK I don't know the details but probably somebody was saying that we're all going to die or something if if Kennedy gets elected.

So good for him.

Um and he quoted uh he this is uh Smirkish he said anyone with the slightest understanding of history knows the comparison is dumb you know comparing to Hiller um and it's ugly and it's potentially dangerous.

Now if it's potentially dangerous and it's speech it's hate speech that's what it is.

So even Smirkish is agreeing that the Trump is Musk gave a Nazi salute.

This is hate speech.

You should go right to jail.

No, probably not right to jail, but we should certainly figure out a way to stop it.

Um, so the Daily Caller was reporting on that.

Uh, according to uh a number of people who looked at CNN's latest ratings, apparently they're in full collapse.

So the uh Caitlyn Collins show in the evening and Abby Phillips show uh got fewer than 500,000 viewers in prime time and uh they're well below 100,000 for viewers under 55.

Now that sounds bad, doesn't it?

that CNN's ratings continue to plunge and they're they're down below a lot of podcasts.

Sounds bad, but here's what you're forgetting.

Their DEI scores are excellent.

Their DEI is excellent.

So, it's not all bad, right?

So, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that uh Gaza is running out of food and water and medicine.

Um, so of course there's a move to try to get more food and food and water into the uh affected areas, but it's kind of complicated in ways that I wasn't aware of.

So, you would think that this would be easy, right?

Why don't we feed the people who are starving?

We have food.

It's not for lack of food.

It's for lack of distribution.

So if you have the food and the people want the food and you know where the people are, how do you know solve that?

Well, turns out that if the Israeli government um directly distributed the food, then they would be considered uh occupiers because that would mean they control the food for the local population, which would be an argument that they're occupiers.

But if international units provide the food and all Israel does is maybe, you know, add a little security for the international people, then uh it looks like somebody else is feeding them.

So it's not, you know, it's not under the total control of Israel, even though it sort of is.

So there's a there's a problem there because it's the the Israelis don't want Hamas to get fed and they don't want it to go on forever, but they don't want to be the ones who are bringing the food in.

So, they're talking about a pilot plan in which there'd be a um private American companies would be involved in the aid and they would have a humanitarian zone so that uh anybody who wanted more food and water could leave wherever they are and go to the safe zone where there's food and water.

Now, I don't know if they have to stay there or they can just get it and take it back with them.

That's a little unclear, but this is the idea that it always had to be.

We always had to get to the point where obviously, you know, the the long-term plan is to depopulate Gaza, obviously.

And the best way to do it and again best does not include any moral or ethical dimensions just what works and what doesn't work is to say if you want food and water you got to leave and you got to go over here and then from here we might ship you to another country.

So I think what you're seeing is something that's suggesting the endgame.

And the endgame is the only way you're going to survive is if you get out of Gaza and uh and we filter you so so there's not too many Hamas people sneaking out.

So I think that's where it's going to end up.

Some kind of a safe zone where you got to leave to get the food.

And and again I'm not judging it uh in terms of moral or ethical or anything else.

I'm just describing it.

It just seems likely that's where it's going.

Um, apparently, uh, Putin has suggested a a ceasefire, a ceasefire, um, in Ukraine.

Now, this came soon after um a Ukrainian commander, there's a video of a Ukrainian military commander saying that if Silinski gave up Crimea and all that uh other land uh in a peace deal, um that he will quote regret any negotiations or territorial concessions.

Now, when a military guy who has been on the front lines says that the leader will regret, what does that sound like to you?

Hate speech.

He's going to kill him.

So, remember I said it's impossible to understand what Zinski is up to.

Like, he's not acting like somebody who wants peace.

So, why would he act that way?

Because he's not going to win the war.

And my speculation was that he didn't have a way to survive the peace.

And that's getting more and more clear because apparently there are enough Ukrainians who would say, "If you give away our land after all this fighting, you know, all this blood we spilled, if you just give it away, we're going to kill you." They don't have to say the actual words, but it looks pretty obvious they would not survive the peace.

And so um not surviving the peace uh makes Putin say, "Hey, how about a how about a ceasefire?" So Putin is so good at this uh the persuasion part that once he realizes that Zalinski can't do anything, he can't move toward peace, then Putin can because it won't happen.

So he'll say, "How how about a ceasefire?

And then Zilinski will say uh uh uh is it going to lead to a deal?

Yes.

It'll be the first step toward uh we keep Crimea and all the places that we occupied.

And then Zilinski is going to have to say forget your ceasefire and fire some drones.

So, and then it's going to look like maybe Putin's the one who wants peace and Zilinski doesn't.

probably neither of them want peace.

Um I think Putin may be just waiting for the US to get uninvolved and then he can have his way with the country.

He's getting pretty close to it.

Um now I'd like to make one comment.

Uh I believe that I had the best take on Zalinski that he couldn't survive the peace and that's the only way to explain what we were seeing.

And yet, to Douglas Murray's um point, I've never been to Ukraine.

So, I guess I got lucky in that one.

All right.

Well, Data Republican and the New York Post are reporting that uh Hunter Biden was using USA ID money uh for Barisma back in those days when he was on the board.

So in 2014 he um one of the Burisma guys was personally thanking Hunter.

We've got his emails now for their support and getting the USA ID to fund some giant project for Berisma.

So and then there's some indication that Hunter had some uh influence on the USA ID.

So it's exactly what you thought.

the the top Democrats had influence over USA aid and they could open it like a piggy bank and make a sprinkle of money in their direction.

And so that's what Hunter was doing.

He was just taking money and giving it to the people who were paying him.

So that's exactly what you thought it was.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I have for you this morning.

I'm going to say hi to the uh locals people privately, but uh hope I didn't bum you out.

Maybe I did.

I don't know.

Um the rest of you I'll see tomorrow, same time, same place.

If you're on You.

Tube or Rumble or X, see you later.

And if you're on locals, I'll see you in privately in 30 seconds.

We'll get

serious. All right. Don't check your

stocks. They're neither up nor down.

They're kind of moving

sideways. Nothing to see

there. Let me get my comments going and

then we'll put on a show. The show you

deserve, even if you don't.

[Music]

[Music]

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take this experience up to

levels that nobody can even understand

with their tiny shiny human brains, all

you need is a cuper mug or a glass of

tank or chalice in a canteen jug or

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 makes everything

better. It's called the simultaneous sip

and it's going to happen right now. Go.

Perfect. That's just what I

needed. Well, in Texas, somebody uh 3D

printed a Starbucks. Um it's one of

those big 3D printers that does concrete

walls and it's just a little drive-thru,

so there's no internal seating, so it's

a small one. Um, but uh how long before

robots can make the coffee? Oh, turns

out that's my next story. Global coffee

report says that uh AI robots will soon

be making your morning coffee.

Maybe. Don't you want that? Wouldn't you

love to tell your robot to make you a

fancy coffee?

You know, the reason most people don't

make a fancy coffee for themselves is

it's just way too much work and time and

pain in the ass and you got to clean up

and all that. But if your robot did all

of that, I'd make my robot make me some

serious coffee. It'd be the best coffee

you ever saw. So, that's coming. My

little uh local mall in my town had a

coffee robot for a while and it looked

like it was more demonstration. It was

before AI. It was a few years ago. Um,

and I remember I tried it once, but I

accidentally ordered the wrong thing.

But once the robot starts making the

thing, you can't really stop

it. So, I had to stand there for what

seemed like 10 minutes while this stupid

robot made me a cup of coffee. That was

the wrong thing. And then I just paid

for it and threw it away. So, it wasn't

a perfect robot coffee making

experience. I think it'll get better

with AI. Um, I don't know if it's still

the case, but early this morning, the

lights and the electricity were off in

Portugal, Spain, and a big part of

France. Now, I don't think they know

exactly why. I assume it's not

cyber some kind of cyber crime because I

don't know who would go after Portugal,

Spain, and parts of France. That'd be a

weird target. But, uh, they're dealing

with that. And it kind of reminds you

how fragile

uh civilization is that there was

probably my guess is there's one piece

of equipment that went bad and it took

three countries out of the end of

civilization. So we'll keep an eye on

that and see see what the hell is going

on with that. That's pretty scary.

Well, the brighter side of news is

reporting that

um the attention economy is turning into

the intention economy, which I had not

been exposed to before. So attention is

all your social media where they're

trying to get your attention because if

they have your attention, you look at

advertising and then they win. But with

AI, they're going to move to an

intention, meaning they're going to

figure out what it is you're likely to

want, maybe before you even know it. And

so, they'll be looking at your

intentions to give you what you want.

You can uh say goodbye to your illusion

of free will because once your AI gets

good enough to know what you want and it

starts giving it to you before you even

knew you wanted it, why would you even

make decisions? Cuz it's going to be

right. You know, every now and then you

might have to correct. It's like, well,

no, I don't have time for that cup of

coffee. You were going to make me a

robot. But uh the intention economy has

way more ramifications than just how

they sell

advertisements. The ramification is that

we come to understand that free will is

an

illusion. It's a big deal, but I know

you're not ready for that

yet. Popular Mechanics has a story that

says that somebody somehow found a

chemical fingerprint on Stone Edge. Do

you believe they found a a fingerprint

on Stone

Edge? I'm not sure I even believe the

first part of the story, but according

to them, uh, if they're right, it means

that the giant stones came from a

different place than they've been

telling us for years. In other words,

the whole stone end story was kind of

BS. That's what they're thinking. But

this reminded me that um if you watch

enough YouTube stories about ancient

civilizations, which I do, um did you

know that all over the world there were

civilizations that could move gigantic

rocks? So there are

pyramids pretty much in uh I don't know

just all over the world. So there you

got them in Asia and Central America and

South America and you've got them in the

Middle East. So apparently there were

all these different civilizations who

could move gigantic

rocks and none of them remember how to

do it. None of

them. So the the only way I can explain

that is that they never knew in the

first place that because nobody drew a

picture of it. You know, even if they

didn't have written language, somebody

would have made a picture, right? and

carved it on a cave wall or something.

But uh no, all these

civilizations were able to move gigantic

rocks somehow without being connected to

each other. Did they individually figure

out how to do it? So individually all

these primitive civilizations figured

out how to move gigantic rocks, but then

our modern civilization doesn't know how

to do it. How is that possible?

The only explanation I can come up with

is that there used to be a some kind of

advanced civilization that didn't

survive. Unless those are the aliens and

they're they're under the ocean hiding

from us maybe. But uh I'm definitely

down for the there must have been a

ancient advanced civilization that

affected all of those different cultures

and somehow helped them move big

rocks but never taught them how. That's

the only thing that makes sense to

me. Well, Trump is causing more trouble.

Gateway pundits reporting that uh um he

mentioned that we should jail the

autopen guy, whoever it was who was

making the autopen sign things for

Biden. Now, that might be a little uh

extreme, but here's what Trump said. He

goes, "Also, why did the autopen give

Schiff a pardon? Biden knew nothing

about it. Who operated the autopen? That

is the biggest question being asked in

DC. Is it? I don't know. They almost

destroyed our country. They should all

be in jail, Trump said on True Social.

Now, how is it even remotely

possible that the autopen did all of the

signing for Biden and we don't know who

was in charge of the autopen? Now, you

might say, "Well, Biden was in charge.

He just said use the autopen." Well,

maybe. But with all these uh tell all

behind the scene books, there's not a

single book, there's not a

whistleblower, there's not a single

witness who knows who operated the

autopen. And it couldn't have been that

many people, right? I would imagine that

there's

exactly probably one person who can

actually make the machine do what it

needs to do and they have to get an

order from somebody. So, there's

probably one person who's just a

tech, but somebody told the tech what to

do. How in the world do we not know that

yet? The only way that makes sense is if

we did know who it was, it would be a

gigantic

scandal. I I can't imagine to be any

other reason because otherwise even the

Democrats would say, "Oh, it's no big

deal. Uh, it was Biden's chief of staff

and the chief of staff only did it when

Biden okayed it. And then I'd say, "Oh,

okay. That's a reasonably good good

explanation." But they don't have any

explanation. So, does that mean multiple

people were getting the autopen guy to

do the autopen thing? Whatever the

answer is here, Trump is definitely on

to something. There's something that's

being hidden. And it's more than the

fact that the auto pen signed a lot of

things for Biden. We really need to know

who was behind that. I wonder if we ever

will. Well, uh the May's account on X uh

has a good uh good report here about um

how the fake news works. So, uh May says

the the mainstream media feeds off its

own dishonest reporting working together

to divide the country and make people

angry. And he says, for example, uh the

New York

Times put out a headline claiming that

Trump was going to end funding for

Narcan. Narcan is the thing that has

saved your life if you have a fentinyl

overdose or opioid

overdose. And but that was never true.

Uh the details were buried in the

article. What was true is that they

wanted to reorganize the group that made

the Narcan available. So, it would still

be available. It would just be housed in

a different

organization. So, rather than correct

that, uh Rachel Maddo on MSNBC tells her

viewers that Trump is taking away Narcan

and then she has uh Jamie Raskin on

later uh to confirm it.

So, they've got fake news and then they

bring on uh another liar, the designated

liar. Jamie Rascin is one of the uh

Democrats I call the designated liars

because the designated liars will do

things that the normal rep normal

Democrats won't, right? So, if you want

to tell a really big lie, you know, one

that's easy to debunk, Rascin will do

it. Um, Schiff will do it. Swallwell

would do it. Um, but most of the normal

Democrats don't want to say something

that's so easily debunked. So, they have

designated liars. I've never seen

anything like it. They're literally the

designated

liars. Anyway, so this is sort of like a

instant wrap-up smear. Uh, do you

remember when Nancy Pelosi was

explaining the wrap-up smear where you

leak to the you leak to a reporter that

somebody did something bad and it might

not be true, but then when the reporter

writes the story, then you say, "Oh,

look, it's in the New York Times, so

don't trust me. It's in the New York

Times." But really, it's only in the New

York Times because you told them to

write the story and they believed it.

That's a wrap-up smear. So, this is an

example of that, but happening in real

time. Do you know the author Malcolm

Gladwell? Um, he he looks like one of

those

uh what do you call it? Uh, dandelions.

You know, when a dandelion goes bad and

it's got that, you know, big crazy white

hair, he kind of looks like a big

dandelion. Anyway, um he he was uh he's

getting a little more political and he's

suggesting that somebody like Oprah

could really help us out in politics.

And the example

uh was that Oprah could ask Elon Musk if

he didn't want to be seen as a Nazi, why

didn't he give a Nazi

salute?

What?

What? Are you kidding? I thought it was

only the dumbest Democrats who believe

that Musk gave a Nazi salute. Let me say

it as as you know clearly as I

can. Anybody who thinks anybody anybody

who thinks that Elon Musk intentionally

got on the stage after winning

everything, you know, the election was

won and everything was good. You

actually believe that he got on the

stage and gave a Nazi

salute? That is the dumbest

thing I've ever heard in my life. You're

you're an idiot if you thought that was

true even for a second. And you know, I

would see interviews on the street where

there'd be some, you know, 20some who

believed that there was a Nazi salute

and I'd say to myself, "Oh, well, you

know, a lowinformation voter just

believe what they're told." But Malcolm

Gladwell is entering the fight like he's

one of the educated, you know,

well-intentioned smart guys. How in the

world could you be that dumb? I

mean, this isn't one you have to

research. You just have to ask yourself,

really? Really? You think that Elon

Musk decided that it'd be a good idea to

give a Nazi salute or or even that you

think that he would want to do that? So

dumb. I mean, that's like seriously

seriously dumb. Like at a level that's

hard to even

understand. So I think the the Musk and

Nazi salute hoax, it's the new fine

people hoax. The fine people hoax was

the same thing. Did you really think

that the sitting

president complimented neo-Nazis in a

public speech? Really? That you thought

there was some chance that happened in

the real world? It didn't. The opposite

happened. But how dumb did you

have to be to believe that the fine

people hoax was ever real? And again,

how dumb do you have to be to

believe that Trump that Mus gave a Nazi

salute or even was, you know, in that

frame of mind that that would even make

sense in any

world. I don't even understand this one.

I mean, that's that's stupidity at a

level

that's almost

mind-boggling. But maybe it's more about

persuasion. I don't know. You know,

maybe they're just hypnotized.

It could be a TDS story more than an

intelligence story. But if if your

intelligence can't let you see past that

illusion, your intelligence is not very

highowered. That is really really

dumb. Um Mike Benz had a good

observation about David Brooks. He was

uh he was on one of the shows and uh

remember how when Trump did anything

that wasn't uh let's say uh perfectly

copacetic, they would say no one's above

the law. And then now we've got these

judges who were helping the illegal

immigrants um get, you know, try to

escape, which would be very illegal. uh

instead of saying no one's above the law

and it makes perfect sense to to arrest

the judges because they broke the law,

now it's turned into well, it might be

illegal, but it's

heroic

really. So if Trump does

it, it it's just a case of no one's

above the law, so it's cut and dried.

Goes to

jail. But if and that would be based on

allegations, not anything he actually

did. Um, but the moment a judge does

something that's deeply illegal, helping

an helping a, you know, an immigrant um,

who's not here legally get

away, that that turns into a heroic

moment. So, good catch, Mike Benz. Well,

remember when Cy Booker did that uh

um filibuster thing where he talked for

many hours and nobody knew what he

nobody knew what his point was and it

was the biggest waste of time, but he

got some attention. Well, now Cy Booker

and uh Hakee Jeff is the Democrat

leader. Uh they've decided to hold an

anti-Trump sitin on the Capitol steps.

Now, that was yesterday. I don't know if

they're still there. I'm not sure how

long a sit in lasts. Um, but Just the

News was reporting this and I was

thinking, what exactly were they trying

to accomplish by sitting on the

steps and and what was that conversation

like? All right. All right. Trump is

winning everywhere. We've got to change

the conversation to the leaders of the

Democrat party are sitting on

steps. At what point did that sound like

a good

idea? Like we could turn things around

if we sit on steps and then people will

come talk to us because we're sitting on

steps. Did I tell you it's going to it's

going to be a long time? We're going to

sit on those steps for a long time.

Yeah. Yeah. We finally got a we got a

strategy. What is wrong with the

Democrats? That's their strategy to go

sit on some steps. You never see

Republicans stooped to anything that

stupid.

Anyway, so here's a summary of what I

see happening in the news and politics.

Um, Trump has given us the following

proposition. He hasn't said it in these

words, but he's very clear about what he

wants. Uh, Trump would say if you asked

him, he said, "We need to make a

long-term structural change to our

economy to survive." a long-term

structural change. Now, some of that

would be Doge, but a lot of that would

be the tariffs, uh, which should lead to

negotiations, we hope. Now, those would

be long-term structural changes. So, if

you have a president who's proposing

that we do long-term structural changes,

what does the media do, the Democrats?

We need to obsess over the first 100

days because a 100 is a big round

number. For the for the last several

days, the Democrats have just been all

over his first 100 days. His first 100

days. Why? Because a 100 is a big round

number. It doesn't make any sense. It's

like sitting on the steps of the

capital. Well, let's talk about the

importance of the number 100. it doesn't

really have any importance, especially

if we're doing a long-term structural

change. Yes, but let's obsess about it

and we'll run some polls. So, the media

research center did a poll and found out

that ABC, NBC, and CBS um had 92%

negative coverage of Trump. 92% negative

coverage of Trump.

So, if they had 92% negative coverage,

what do you suppose they found when they

did a

poll to to find out if Trump's plans are

popular? So, the news told people that

almost everything Trump did was a

mistake. And then they did a poll to ask

the opinion of the public. Where where

do you think the public got their

opinion from? The public didn't do their

own

research. They got their opinion from

the news. And if the news is 92%

negative, which is a pretty good

indication it's just biased and uh not

real news, of course the public's going

to have a low opinion of his first 100

days. Of course they will. And then they

they sell that to us as it all makes

sense. Now, if you didn't know that the

news was 92% negative on Trump, you

would look at the polls and you'd say,

"Whoa, looks like the public has really,

you know, turned on Trump." Nothing like

that happened. And and pollster Mark

Mitchell of Rasmusen Reports, he did a

deeper dive, which I won't get into. you

should look at his account on X, but he

did a little summary of the of the idea

that Trump is less popular and uh he

said, "Okay, here's the most important

takeaway from all of my posts today."

So, he posted on this quite a bit. Trump

approval drop is a

scop. And according to Mitchell, his

policies are popular and will remain

popular. Biden was a failed president

and Trump is polling mostly like

Obama. Now, which of the major uh major

news entities said to you, "Well, it

looks like, you know, Trump's taking a

dip in popularity, but it's not really

that different than

Obama." That's kind of important, right?

Now, would I say that Obama's first 100

days were critical? Not really. Nobody

nobody's first 100 days really matter

too much. Is there is there any

president who's ever been judged, you

know, by history on their first 100

days? Never. They're they're only judged

on the entire body of work. So why in

the world are we obsessing about the one

thing that we know no historian is going

to care about in 10 minutes? Like when

he gets to 120 days, nobody's even gonna

care about the first 100

days. But uh yeah, so Mark Mitchell says

it's a scup. Sounds about right. All

right. You wonder how dumb the Democrats

are. Well, when you watch uh Bernie

Sanders and AOC go out in their

oligarchy

tour. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but

I might be the first person who said to

you when I heard about that, uh that's

going to be a huge fail because most

people don't even know what oligarch

means.

And time goes by and then the Democrats

themselves are saying uh Bernie AOC

people don't know what an oligarch is.

So Senator uh Alisa Slutkin is one of

those people who's criticizing Bernie

and AOC for for talking about

oligarchs. But here's her suggestion for

improving the messaging. Are you ready

for this? She said, "Instead of saying

oligarchs, you should say

kings that Trump wants to be or or his

his cronies want to be

kings." Now, that is so

dumb. So dumb. That has no persuasive

power whatsoever. And then I saw Chuck

Schumer, he tried that out uh on some

interview. He's like, "They want to be

kings." And I just said to myself, how

many kings can you have? Can you have

multiple kings? And if you have multiple

kings in the same country, wouldn't that

be the same as no king at all? Cuz how

can you have multiple

kings? This is so

dumb. It's like there's nobody who knows

even the least bit about

communication or persuasion who who's

guiding these poor Democrats. But oh my

god, kings is an improvement over

oligarch. No, the entire the entire

approach needs to be changed. It's not

that they use the wrong word. You know

what is it that the the Democrats always

say when they make giant mistakes? When

the Democrats make gigantic mistakes

that have lasted a long time, do they

ever say, "Wow, you know, we should just

retool this and stop doing that gigantic

mistake thing." No, they always tell you

it's about how they messaged it. And

that's what's happening again. They're

they're trying to say, "If we'd only

picked the right word, you know, this

could have been a genius move. If we'd

picked the right word." No, there's no

right word. the entire approach is just

So there's no word that fixes

that. So that's

funny. And then Bernie pushes back. He

goes, "Well, gee," as he he was asked

about in an interview. He said, "We had

36,000 people in LA and 34,000 in

Colorado. We had 30,000 people in

Folsam, California." He goes, "I I think

the American people are not quite as

dumb as Miss Ms. Slottton thinks they

are." To which I say, Bernie, you didn't

even answer the question. The reason

people showed up is because of star

power. It had nothing to do with whether

you were saying oligarch or

king. Do you think there was anybody who

said, "Hey, look, Bernie and AOC are

going to talk." And then their their

mate or their boyfriend or girlfriend

says, "But are they going to talk about

oligarchs or kings?" Because I I know

what a king is. I don't know what an

oligarch is. No, they just said, "Is it

Bernie? Is it AOC?" Oh, they're

celebrities. Okay, I'll go watch because

I don't like

Trump. So, every every part of this is

stupid. Just almost mind-bogglingly

stupid. And it's it's wonderful to

watch. You've probably seen all the uh

the interviews on the street. There's

been a bunch of them where somebody will

go up to one of the Tesla protesters or

Democrats protesting and they'll say,

"Why are you protesting?" And they'll

say stuff like, "Trump is a monster and

Trump is a dictator and Trump is

Hiller." And then then somebody will

follow up and say, "Can you give me an

example in which Trump is a fascist or a

dictator or, you know, can you give me a

policy you don't like?" and they're

always

stumped. They don't have any idea what

they don't like. They actually are on

the streets protesting and they can't

give you any details about what it is

they're protesting against. Now, you

might say, "Well, those are very

entertaining, but I feel like

Republicans could do a lot more with

that." Um, I don't know exactly how.

You'd have to experiment with it a

little bit. But I would love for the

these street interviews and maybe even

other interviews. Uh whenever the press

is talking, you know, let's say the

right leaning press, whenever the right

leaning press is talking to the

Democrats, I'd like to see that they had

a list of maybe 10 questions to see if

the Democrats could answer them. So

here's one of the questions. If tariffs

and trade barriers are so bad, why does

China and every other country insist on

having them?

That's an unanswerable

question because the the real answer

that Democrats can't get near is that

these countries have been taking

advantage of us and we should stop them

from taking advantage of us and so Trump

is using tariffs to negotiate until they

stop taking advantage of us. Now, I had

a uh back and forth with a probably a

Democrat, I can't tell, on X today, and

they don't seem to

understand that if we don't put tariffs

on these other

countries that we will just be the

victim of tariffs like we have been, and

that we're just giving our money away.

They don't seem to understand that

concept. Is that really that hard? But

they don't. Um here's another one. How

do you know that the tariff situation

won't work

out? How do you know? Because they act

like it's already a fact that the

tariffs have destroyed the

country. That's not even close to true.

I don't know how they'll work out

either. But if you're telling me that

you know now how everything works out

with tariffs, well, that's just stupid

because they're they're at the beginning

part of

negotiating and the first part Trump has

gotten everything he wanted, which is

the full attention of the other

countries. They've made it their one of

their top priorities because they have

to. And if you were to judge how it's

going so far, I'd give it an A+.

But there's still a possibility that,

you know, it goes off the rails, we

don't get a deal, you know, we have

shortages and then our, you know, our

businesses have to close. That's

possible, but we don't know that. And

certainly there's enough time to write

the ship and get some deals or get the

framework of some deals before any of

those bad things happen or at least, you

know, the bulk of the bad things. So,

how in the world can you say that the

tariffs have not worked? It's way too

early. It It's just stupid to imagine

that you know how it turns out in 4

months or maybe end a

year. How about this one? The people who

say that Doge was a big mistake. How

would you know that? I mean it could

turn out to be not successful. But how

do you know after the first few weeks

when maybe there was a little uh you

know a little bit of uncertainty about

how things were going? How do you know

they didn't

adjust? How do you know they didn't move

to your beloved scalpel system and make

sure that the normal elected officials

were appointed are the ones who make the

actual cut decisions? How do you know?

How do you know which of their claims

are going to prove out? Some of them

won't, but some of them will. How do you

know if they'll if they're going to save

more money than they've saved already?

because not only have they, you know,

taken a taken a whack at a number of the

uh expenses and corruption, but they've

put in place a system, a system of sort

of permanent doge, which in theory

should prevent some of the worst

excesses from coming back while they

chop away at new things that they find

all the time. How could you possibly

know if Doge work? It's way too

early. Now, if you said I don't know

that it'll work, well, that's

reasonable. If you said there's not uh

confirmed evidence that Doge worked, I'd

say that's true. But to say that, you

know, it didn't work and won't work,

where's that coming from? You don't have

any inside knowledge about what's

happening in any of these, you know,

government

entities. Here's another question for

Democrats. If everything is broken and

wrong and Trump has destroyed the

economy, why is the stock market so

strong and employment looks

good? Th those would be the two things

that would always go bad if the economy

were heading in the toilet. So why

aren't

they? The the stock market's sort of the

same as it was a year ago. No big deal.

And employment looks pretty good.

So, how do you explain

that? So, there should be some kind of

like 10 questions to ask Democrats um to

see how well they understand

anything. Anyway, I think if Democrats

understood the issues, they would they

would have different

opinions. Uh here's another fake news,

but sort of sort of true, but fake. Uh I

guess the Trump administration deported

some parent, I think a mother, uh maybe

more than one who had children and then

the mother decided that she would take

her children who were born in this

country and therefore are citizens that

although she was not a citizen and she

had a deportation order, she would take

her children with her back to uh

Honduras I think in one case and that

causes the Democrats to say you deported

children, which Rubio has to explain.

Uh, no, we deported an illegal alien and

she decided to take her children because

why wouldn't she? Why wouldn't she? Of

course, she's going to take her

children. That's not that's not our

decision. We didn't make the children

leave. We just made the mother leave.

So, there's that. And also we should

mention that's the same way we treat

criminals in the United States. When you

send a parent to

jail, they don't get to take their

kids. But if they could, some of them

would, don't you think? If somebody had

a baby and let's say they're a mother,

uh if they had the option of taking

their baby to jail with them, again,

there was some facility that would allow

that to be safe, they probably would.

But we wouldn't be putting children in

jail. That would be the mother's

decision. Anyway, Scott Bent is agreeing

with uh Trump that China actually is

talking to us about trade, but they're a

little bit shy about what that looks

like or who they're actually talking to.

[Music]

Um but uh there's a significant

disagreement about whether there's any

actual

progress. Um, do you think there's

progress in the conversations with

China? My guess is there might be a few

things where we think, oh, that opened

up a door or something, but I feel like

we're probably pretty far away from any

kind of a deal with China. Partly

because it's such a, you know, big

complicated thing and partly because

it's China. But, uh, apparently we're

having some kind of conversation with

them. It's better than nothing.

According to Axios, Trump is looking to

bail out American farmers if they get

too damaged by the uh tariffs and trade

war because uh you don't want to lose

your farmers. So, I don't know if

there'll be other industries that Trump

will try to save, but that's going to

get really expensive really quickly,

isn't it? If if Trump does some kind of

a major spending thing to save certain

industries so they can keep the trade

war

going, it's going to be really expensive

at the same time that they're looking at

the budget. I don't know how that's

going to work.

Well, Trump has uh according to Zero

Edge, he's floating this idea of

eliminating income taxes for people who

make under $200,000 a year and instead

using the bonanza of tariff income to

make up the

difference. I don't think that's going

to happen. To me, that sounds like total

So, if I if I could be

honest, I don't think there's the

slightest chance that people under 200

who earn under 200,000 are going to have

no income tax and and we're going to

make up the difference with tariff

income. Now, it might be good persuasion

to make people feel good and, you know,

maybe it helps him politically, but no,

that's not going to happen in and

there's no world in which that happens.

I don't think so. You can mock me if I'm

wrong, but I don't think there's any

chance that

happened. So, according to the Hill, the

the House isn't the House of

Representatives now working on the

budget bill, which is not as easy as you

think because they've got all these

different committees. So there'll be

five House committees and they'll

they'll all go look at every part of the

bill and it's the the big funding bill

that gives that has all all Trump's

priorities in it. And they're going to

try to

uh uh they've been asked to remove $1.5

trillion in

spending. Do you think the House is

going to find $1.5 trillion to remove

from the budget? Again, there's no

chance of that at

all. My my best guess is that they'll

remove nothing and that the budget will

be bigger than it was last time. I don't

think there's any chance of that. How

ridiculous. And I saw that David Saxs

was um talking on the all-in pod about

how he was hoping that the Doge savings

and especially where Doge found there

was some corruption that the when the

house gets down to the nuts and bolts,

they will uh protect all of the Doge

savings and they'll protect the whatever

Doge did to get rid of the corruption.

you know that they'll, you know, get rid

of entities and that sort of thing. To

which I say, uh, we got a problem

here. Congress has a system for adding

corruption. Adding corruption. And that

system is they negotiate with each

other. And one senator will say, well,

you know, if you give me this funding

for my state,

um, I'll vote for you for your funding

for this other thing. So that's a

mechanism or a system for adding

corruption or at least adding spending

that you didn't want which I would call

corruption. What is our system for

getting rid of

corruption? There isn't

one. If we had a system for getting rid

of

corruption, it would already be used.

There's no such thing as a system for

getting rid of corruption. So when David

Sach says um he's worried that the Doge

savings and the the uh corruption

recommendations won't be taken

seriously. That's the only thing that

could happen because there is no system

for removing corruption once it gets to

the house. It's only in the ad

corruption system. It's not in the minus

corruption system.

So, if you had to guess what's going to

happen with the budget

reconciliation, it's going to look like

every other year. They won't be able to

cut anything because it'll always be

somebody who's got some blackmail or,

you know, they're doing some horse

trading or something. They won't be able

to cut anything. Now, when I say

anything, you know, maybe there'll be

some little around the edges minor

thing, but basically the budget's going

to be the same amount it always was.

They're going to run out of time. Thomas

Massie is going to do social media posts

saying he's not going to vote for it

because they had plenty of time to cut

it, but they didn't cut anything

important. And we're just going to kick

the can down the road until we become

bankrupt. That's the plan. because

there's no other plan. There's no other

system in place that could ever cut 1.5

trillion from the budget. We don't have

anything that could do that. The House

can't do that and it's in the House and

Doge is not in the House. So even if

Doge could do it, it's not their domain

now. It's in the House and I guess the

uh Senate was only trying to get rid of

$4

billion. So they So you have to get both

the House and the Senate to agree on the

budget. The House is trying to get rid

of 1.5 trillion and the Senate where

they're even more

corrupt is like well maybe 4 billion

which would be basically a rounding. You

know you could get rid of four billion

just by sneezing on it.

So, if I had to

guess, we will have less than a $5

billion cut and we will be running as

fast as we can into a um into a debt

crisis and nothing useful will happen in

the House. Nothing. There will be no no

decrease in corruption, no decrease in

ridiculous

spending, no

nothing because we have no system that

could bring us to a better place. If you

look at it as a system as opposed to a

goal, the goal is to save 1.5 trillion.

But there's no system to do that. None.

Now, if I'm wrong, somebody tell me what

exactly would be the system that would

do that.

And what and why didn't that system ever

do it before? It's because it doesn't

exist. We don't have a system that could

possibly get us to a better place on the

budget. So that's what to

expect. Um gee, I wonder if there will

be any diversions that happen so that

we're not thinking about how bad

Congress is and and the budget. Oh yeah.

So, the House Subcommittee is going to

hold a hearing on drone sightings after

reports about those new New Jersey

skies. Now, when was the last time you

worried about the drones over New

Jersey? I don't remember worrying about

it for a long time because Trump said,

"Oh, don't worry. It's all, you know,

it's all approved. We don't know exactly

the details, but there's nothing weird

going on there. It's not any foreign

entity. It's not a it's not a UFO." But

suddenly the House Subcommittee needs to

do a deep dive into those

drones. And once again, it's going to be

stories about possible UFOs and UAPs and

and it's going to divert us again. So

exactly at the right time they need a

diversion. Well, there it is. I don't

know if it's intentional, but it seems

weirdly coincidental that the diversion

happens at the same time they need it.

Um, here's another thing that's making

me laugh. The uh the Democrats consider

themselves the resistance. Have you

noticed that? So, a lot of people who

are Democrats, especially the political

ones, consider themselves part of quote

the

resistance. Have we ever had that

before? In the history of US politics,

has anybody ever called themselves the

resistance? Because that

framing is

dangerous because it'd be one thing to

say we're the opposition party and then

I say, "Oh, I get it. You would like

your policies to be, you know, more

persuasive than the other policies." But

as soon as you say you're the

resistance, doesn't that sound like the

French resistance during World War II?

You know, literally battling Hitler,

resistance is a is a military term in my

view. As soon as you say resistance,

everything's on the table, including

violence. But if you just said we're the

party out of power and so we're trying

to get back in power, I'd say, "Oh,

normal."

Um, and apparently their the resistance

is uh coordinating some of the colleges,

the Ivy League colleges that Trump is

going after for being

racists. Um, so some of the leaders of

the most prestigious

colleges, the Ivy Leagues,

etc. They're sort of informally getting

together and calling themselves the

resistance.

Now, unfortunately, it sounds too cool

to be part of the resistance. So, you're

going to get a lot of Democrats who say,

"Oo,

uh, I wouldn't be interested in being

the party out of power, but could I be

part of the resistance because I can't

wait to tell my lover that we'll have

better

sex?" Um, and I completely get that. So,

I remember when I got

cancelled, and some of you were

wondering why I wasn't so unhappy about

it. It's because when I got cancelled,

the bad guys, as I'll call them, they

cast me in the role of the resistance.

So, I didn't plan it, but you know,

every time I see a meme that uses my

face and, you know, has some reference

to why I got cancelled, I think to

myself, wow, I actually became like Chay

Goa. Yeah. At least my

image. So, I'm an image of the

resistance. And it's the resistance

against DEI and CRT and racism against

uh white men, basically.

So, I never really minded getting

cancelled. It was a pain in the ass, but

in terms of how I felt about it, it just

made me feel like I was part of the

resistance. And then I felt that's kind

of cool. It's kind of cool that people

recognize me as, you know, an image of

the

resistance. So, it's a very dangerous

term because people want to be in

it. Now, let's talk about those uh

colleges. Now, of course, what Trump

wants them to do is be less

anti-Semitic and less DEI. And the

colleges are pushing for free

speech. Now, what is the dividing line

between free speech, which would be

somebody saying something bad about

Israel, versus hate speech, where maybe

there's a risk somebody gets hurt.

So, I want to uh and I've been listening

to Gr Glenn Greenwald on this because

he's he's just so good at explaining his

point of view. So, I think Greenwald is

uh I don't want to try to capture his

opinion because I might get it wrong,

but the basic idea is he's real pro-

free of speech and that would include

free speech about Israel. And so when he

sees uh the colleges or or if he sees

the Trump administration trying to

squash just the Israel talk but not

squashing talk about other countries,

then he says reasonably, um why are we

just picking out this one special group

of people? And I have an answer for

that. Um, so I asked Grock to define

hate speech because hate speech is

illegal and free speech is legal and

that's the way it should be. But here's

uh here's hate speech. Uh, Grock says

hate speech is typically defined as

expression that incites violence,

discrimination or hostility against

individuals or groups based on protected

characteristics like race, religion,

gender or sexuality.

Then it says free

speech uh includes a broad range of

expressions

um and it could be offensive but it

wouldn't it wouldn't activate anybody

for any violence. So hate speech is only

restrict restricted if it incites

imminent

lawlessness. That's a Grock definition.

And they say context matters. This is

also Grock. Um a statement might be free

speech in one setting. for example, if

you're just talking privately to a

friend, but it might be considered hate

speech if he did it in public. So, that

makes sense. Um, but let's let's take

one example of something that's happened

with the Democrats and see if you think

this is just

offensive or it's inspiring people to

lawlessness. So, this is Governor

Pritsker, Democrat Governor JB Pritsker.

Um and he said in a speech he was

calling for mass demonstrations and

urging people to quote rise up against

Trump declaring that quote republicans

must not know a moment of

peace. Is that free speech? Or did he

target

Republicans for activities that would

seem

lawless? Because if you don't allow me a

moment of peace, as in I can't walk on

the sidewalk without being

accosted, that's hate speech to me,

isn't it? Now, I would I would also add

that the anti-semitic stuff that's

happening on the

campuses, there's something different

about the anti-Jewish speech versus the

anti-alonian speech. You know, I can say

bad things all day long about the

British, but nobody would even imagine

that that would cause any violence. And

I could say pretty tough things about

the

British. But if I said tough things

about the Jewish population, the next

thing you know, somebody's pushing, next

thing you know, there's violence. So to

imagine the same that free speech about

the Jewish population anywhere is the

same as free speech about every other

group which I think is close to

Greenwald's point of view but I don't

want to I don't want to characterize his

point of view because he does it so much

better.

Um, it seems to me that you can't treat

everybody the

same because the the Jews have a

situation where there's a identifiable

group who wants to wipe them

out, but the British don't have that.

Well, you might argue that they do,

but since there's nobody trying to wipe

out the British except maybe by

population change,

um, it's not going to lead to anything.

There's no way that that becomes

anything um dangerous. But it wouldn't

take much

anti-semitism

before Jewish students don't feel safe

walking to classes.

Likewise, Governor Prrisker, it doesn't

take much speech before you wouldn't

want to wear a um Trump 2028 hat and go

in public. It's already too dangerous.

So if the speech that Democrats are

using against

Republicans make it unsafe to walk down

the street and it they do isn't that

hate speech because it directly leads to

violence and I would say the same about

uh the Jewish students that it doesn't

seem to me that it's just turning into

words like oh I have a preference. It

looks like it pretty directly turns into

something more than words. So,

um, and I would say the same is true of

DEI and

CRT. So, that's the reason I got

cancelled, right? So, I got cancelled

because I consider CRT and DEI to be

hate speech.

The the whole point of CRT and DEI is

that uh white males like me have stolen

stuff from other Americans and uh we

damn well better give it back. That's

dangerous. That gets you killed. So to

me, CRT and DEI and ESG even are a hate

speech because it does activate people

to say, you know what, I could slap this

guy around in public and nobody would

care because we're all mad at them and

they stole all of our stuff and made us

create the country and then stole

everything. That's completely different

from saying the French are rude, right?

If I say the French are rude, nobody's

going to go punch a Frenchman.

completely different. So I would throw

the anti-semitism into the same category

as DEI and the same category as Governor

Prrisker saying that Republicans must

not know a moment of peace. To me, those

are all three hate speech and and uh

worthy of being at least discouraged if

not made outright illegal. I think they

are illegal. But so uh Smirkish on CNN,

I've told you before this Mirkanish is

his own man. And even though he's on

CNN, he uh he's

notably been common

sensical, which seems uh you know,

notable. Um but he was slamming the

Trump Hitler comparison and he was

saying that if you keep comparing Trump

to Hitler and you keep comparing his

followers to Hitler um that it's going

to lead to assassination attempts and he

points out that if you look at

assassination attempts in the past it

was almost always in the context of this

kind of speech. So when a president get

you know ever with whenever there was

ever a attempt on a president there was

always somebody saying that president

was Hitler like

Reagan. Um I I think uh JFK I don't know

the details but probably somebody was

saying that we're all going to die or

something if if Kennedy gets

elected. So good for him.

Um and he quoted uh he this is uh

Smirkish he said anyone with the

slightest understanding of history knows

the comparison is dumb you know

comparing to Hiller um and it's ugly and

it's potentially

dangerous. Now if it's potentially

dangerous and it's speech it's hate

speech that's what it is. So even

Smirkish is agreeing that the Trump is

Musk gave a Nazi salute. This is hate

speech. You should go right to jail. No,

probably not right to jail, but we

should certainly figure out a way to

stop

it.

Um, so the Daily Caller was reporting on

that.

Uh, according to uh a number of people

who looked at CNN's latest ratings,

apparently they're in full collapse. So

the uh Caitlyn Collins show in the

evening and Abby Phillips show uh got

fewer than 500,000 viewers in prime time

and uh they're well below 100,000 for

viewers under

55. Now that sounds bad, doesn't it?

that CNN's ratings continue to plunge

and they're they're down below a lot of

podcasts. Sounds bad, but here's what

you're

forgetting. Their DEI scores are

excellent. Their DEI is

excellent. So, it's not all bad, right?

So, the Wall Street Journal is reporting

that uh Gaza is running out of food and

water and medicine. Um, so of course

there's a move to try to get more food

and food and water into the uh affected

areas, but it's kind of complicated in

ways that I wasn't aware of. So, you

would think that this would be easy,

right? Why don't we feed the people who

are starving?

We have food. It's not for lack of food.

It's for lack of

distribution. So if you have the food

and the people want the food and you

know where the people are, how do you

know solve that?

Well, turns out that if the Israeli

government

um directly distributed the

food, then they would be considered uh

occupiers because that would mean they

control the food for the local

population, which would be an argument

that they're occupiers.

But if international units provide the

food and all Israel does is maybe, you

know, add a little security for the

international people, then uh it looks

like somebody else is feeding them. So

it's not, you know, it's not under the

total control of Israel, even though it

sort of is.

So there's a there's a problem there

because it's the the Israelis don't want

Hamas to get fed and they don't want it

to go on

forever, but they don't want to be the

ones who are bringing the food in.

So, they're talking about a pilot plan

in which there'd be a um private

American companies would be involved in

the aid and they would have a

humanitarian zone so that uh anybody who

wanted more food and water could leave

wherever they are and go to the safe

zone where there's food and water. Now,

I don't know if they have to stay there

or they can just get it and take it back

with them. That's a little unclear, but

this is the idea that it always had to

be. We always had to get to the point

where

obviously, you know, the the long-term

plan is to depopulate Gaza, obviously.

And the best way to do it and again best

does not include any moral or ethical

dimensions just what works and what

doesn't work is to say if you want food

and water you got to leave and you got

to go over here and then from here we

might ship you to another country. So I

think what you're seeing is something

that's suggesting the endgame. And the

endgame is the only way you're going to

survive is if you get out of Gaza and uh

and we filter you so so there's not too

many Hamas people sneaking out. So I

think that's where it's going to end up.

Some kind of a safe zone where you got

to leave to get the food. And and again

I'm not judging it uh in terms of moral

or ethical or anything else. I'm just

describing it. It just seems likely

that's where it's

going.

Um, apparently, uh,

Putin has suggested a a

ceasefire, a ceasefire,

um, in Ukraine.

Now, this came soon after

um a Ukrainian commander, there's a

video of a Ukrainian military commander

saying that if Silinski gave up Crimea

and all that uh other land uh in a peace

deal, um that he will quote regret any

negotiations or territorial concessions.

Now, when a military guy who has been on

the front lines says that the leader

will regret, what does that sound like

to you? Hate speech. He's going to kill

him. So, remember I said it's impossible

to understand what Zinski is up to.

Like, he's not acting like somebody who

wants peace. So, why would he act that

way? Because he's not going to win the

war. And my speculation was that he

didn't have a way to survive the peace.

And that's getting more and more clear

because apparently there are enough

Ukrainians who would say, "If you give

away our land after all this fighting,

you know, all this blood we spilled, if

you just give it away, we're going to

kill you." They don't have to say the

actual words, but it looks pretty

obvious they would not survive the

peace. And so um not surviving the peace

uh makes Putin say, "Hey, how about a

how about a

ceasefire?" So Putin is so good at this

uh the persuasion part that once he

realizes that Zalinski can't do

anything, he can't move toward peace,

then Putin can because it won't happen.

So he'll say, "How how about a

ceasefire?

And then Zilinski will say

uh uh uh is it going to lead to a deal?

Yes. It'll be the first step toward uh

we keep Crimea and all the places that

we occupied. And then Zilinski is going

to have to say forget your ceasefire and

fire some

drones. So, and then it's going to look

like maybe Putin's the one who wants

peace and Zilinski doesn't.

probably neither of them want peace. Um

I think Putin may be just waiting for

the US to get uninvolved and then he can

have his way with the country. He's

getting pretty close to

it. Um now I'd like to make one

comment. Uh I believe that I had the

best take on

Zalinski that he couldn't survive the

peace and that's the only way to explain

what we were seeing. And

yet, to Douglas Murray's um point, I've

never been to

Ukraine. So, I guess I got lucky in that

one. All right. Well, Data Republican

and the New York Post are reporting that

uh Hunter Biden was using USA ID money

uh for Barisma back in those days when

he was on the board. So in 2014 he um

one of the Burisma guys was personally

thanking Hunter. We've got his emails

now for their support and getting the

USA ID to fund some giant project for

Berisma. So and then there's some

indication that Hunter had some uh

influence on the USA ID. So it's exactly

what you thought. the the top Democrats

had influence over USA aid and they

could open it like a piggy bank and make

a sprinkle of money in their direction.

And so that's what Hunter was doing. He

was just taking money and giving it to

the people who were paying him. So

that's exactly what you thought it

was. All right, ladies and gentlemen,

that's all I have for you this morning.

I'm going to say hi to the uh locals

people privately, but uh hope I didn't

bum you

out. Maybe I did. I don't know. Um the

rest of you I'll see tomorrow, same

time, same place. If you're on YouTube

or Rumble or X, see you later. And if

you're on locals, I'll see you in

privately in 30 seconds.