Episode 2824 CWSA 04/29/25

I feel you've been good and so you deserve a podcast.

Yeah, it's going to be great.

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

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams because that's what it is.

But if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cuper mug or a glass of tanker tells 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 end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

But it happens now.

Go.

Sensational.

So, so good.

Well, there was uh some kind of an election in Canada and um I don't really care.

Does anybody care?

Let's take a vote in the comments.

Does anybody care about the election in Canada?

No.

Okay, moving on.

Um, apparently Amazon has decided to show the tariff costs in your cart before you pay for it.

But as Sean Davis pointed out on X, why don't they tell us what country it's being made from?

Wouldn't you like to know that?

Would you love to know what's being made in China?

Yes, you would.

So, it might be nice to know what the uh what the tariffs are adding to the cost, but on the other hand, it would also be really nice to know what country is this coming from.

That would be fun.

Speaking of Jeff Bezos, I guess Amazon is going to launch its uh project Kyper satellites according to USA Today.

So the uh they're going to launch what 27 satellites into low Earth orbit.

What is it for?

That that's missing in the story.

What are they going to use all those satellites for?

I assume they're going to compete for internet traffic with uh SpaceX's satellites.

Um they're going to deploy over 3,200 satellites eventually.

Is is the entire Earth going to be surrounded with satellites at one point?

Are are we going to dim the sun with so many satellites at some point?

Drone delivery.

You think it's about drone delivery?

Maybe.

Yeah, maybe.

Could be.

Um, speaking of shopping, um, the chat GPT Open AI is going to add shopping to its uh, AI app.

So, if you're in chat GPT, this is a story and wired.

Uh, you'll be able to search for things and it will pop up with recommendations and it will learn to uh, know your preferences.

And so, yeah, it could be competing with Starlink.

We don't know.

might be more than that, but uh would you shop with AI?

Because I I've tried to shop with AI and it's actually pretty good because it gives you links to the actual vendor, you know, it's it's not acting like Amazon.

Uh it would give you links to Amazon and other vendors.

I kind of like that.

So, I don't know how they're going to make their money.

So, they're not going to have sponsored ads, or at least they don't yet.

But don't you think it would be better to shop with an AI than to even go to Amazon?

Although, I got to say, uh, Amazon.com, the actual software, is probably the best software I've ever seen.

Have you ever stopped to think how incredible it is that Amazon.com works?

and it works really well and it's it's optimized and it's easy to easy to navigate.

Uh I'm always wowed by how good Amazon is with software.

Anyway, apparently uh IBM is going to invest $150 billion in the US to grow its manufacturing over five years.

So add that to the Trump tariff wins.

Um, apparently we've got quite a few uh companies now that are they're going to move their manufacturing to the US.

So that part of what Trump is trying to do seems to be working at least at some scale.

Speaking of Trump, he just signed an executive order to require truck drivers to speak English.

Um, now I didn't know that was a big problem that truck drivers didn't speak English, a lot of them, but apparently it is.

And it's not just a small problem.

Um, apparently that inability to speak English has led to a number of accidents.

I don't know if it's because they can't read street signs or what it is, but uh there is some thinking that there's massive danger that the truck drivers can't speak English.

So maybe that got fixed, although now there won't be enough truck drivers.

So that's a problem.

Um here's some fake news.

Listen to the fake news.

uh according to NPR uh some two anonymous sources.

Now, if I tell you it's NPR and it's two anonymous sources and the story is something that's negative about the Trump administration, is it real?

What What's your guess?

Is your guess that NPR with two anonymous sources and a negative story about the Trump administration?

Is there any chance that's real?

Well, it looks like it's not.

So, the claim was that some Doge workers got access to nuclear secrets, which apparently the authorities have said, "No, that's crazy.

Nobody got access to any nuclear secrets?

Of course not.

Um, here's some more fake news.

Uh, Trump is claiming he's already made 200 trade deals, but he won't specify.

He won't give any examples, so you can't check on him.

Does anybody think that Trump already made 200 trade deals?

Does anybody think that's even a little bit true?

So, some of the claims that Trump is making are just hilarious.

I saw um Scott Bassent was in a interview when he was asked about that.

Uh he was asked what about these 200 trade deals and uh Basent had to sort of talk around it because he he couldn't confirm it because it's obviously not true.

uh but he didn't want to, you know, go against his boss, so he just sort of weasle worded it and and talked around it.

Now, it might be, it could be true that a whole bunch of different uh countries have decided on some kind of framework or maybe decided on some small part of a deal and you know, Trump's calling those trade deals even though they're not comprehensive for each country.

So maybe he's talking about that, but it just looks like a madeup number to me.

I saw a uh a poll by Rasperson.

It's a poll on whether people trust polls.

Um apparently a majority, 51% either have not very much trust or no trust at all in major media polls.

How many of you trust major media polls?

especially about politics.

Do you think they're real?

I I had a conversation with one of my pollster friends, you know, he's been working in that industry forever.

And you know, when I said, "Yeah, everybody knows the the major polls are fake." Oh my goodness.

Did he not agree with that?

No, no, no.

But then I specified, "No, I'm talking about the political stuff.

the political stuff is obviously fake.

And uh he says, "No, I am completely wrong about that.

The political polls are very reliable." But here's a quote that I think is hilarious.

Uh this isn't Ras Rasmuson's uh reporting on this.

So after uh Trump won the the 2024 election, there was a Harris senior campaign adviser, this guy David Ploff, who admitted he was uh quote surprised that many public polls last year showed the that Harris was ahead of Trump because the Harris campaign's own internal polling never had her leading.

Have you seen the list of major media polls that said that Harris was ahead?

They were all fake.

They must have been because their internal polling never showed it.

And I don't think Trump's internal polling ever showed it.

And I don't think Rasmusa ever showed it.

But but all the rest of them like, "Oh yeah, yeah, she's up by two points.

No problem.

She's totally going to win." None of that was ever true.

Uh, so if if the only thing you knew was that the central adviser to Harris didn't believe the polls because their own poll that they paid for was not agreeing with them.

That's all you need to know to know that they were fake.

Um 48% of voters believe that the problem with the polls is that some pollsters were deliberately adjusting their numbers to support Harris while 35% think it was because they don't know how to accurately poll.

Do you think the problem is they don't know how to accurately poll?

No, that's not the problem.

I'm pretty sure they do know how to accurately poll because the internal pollster knew how.

Do you think only the internal polls know how to poll and all the external public ones don't?

No, they all know how to poll.

So, whatever you see that looks crooked, it's probably intentional.

So, here's a scary story.

Uh, apparently the University of Zurich had been running a uh secret project with AI bots on Reddit and they were trying to see if they could secretly uh manipulate Redditor's opinions.

They've been running it since November 2024.

Uh, I saw this on the Reddit lies account.

Uh, apparently the and it worked.

So, the bots, which would be just AI characters that are not real, that pretend to be real, said the bots were six times more likely to change the minds of Redditors than the baseline, often by leveraging misinformation.

So, all the bots did is lie.

And the and they were really successful at changing people's minds.

They just lied.

Then people thought, "Oh, okay.

Well, they changed their minds." But apparently they the they had personas but they used information about their targets uh for persuasion.

So they would know kind of what would work for each person.

They would figure that out and then they would change their minds.

Now if you can change people's minds with an AI bot, did those people have free will?

Because the thing that changed their mind was not their minds.

The thing that changed their mind was the AI.

So, what was it that caused them to have the opinions they had?

Was it their free will or was it the AI?

It's obviously the AI.

What causes anybody to have the views that they have?

Pretty much the news that they've seen and the information they've absorbed.

So, for the most part, we're very close to proving that free will is an illusion.

But I know every one of you hates when I say that.

But I will be right eventually.

Do you remember uh Crossfire Hurricane?

That was the project the FBI was running.

That was uh the fake Russia collusion hoax.

And there was a central character in that named Nelly Ore.

and she worked for a Fusion GPS and uh and she coordinated with her husband and she was a Justice Department official and uh she was she and he were really close to the origin of the Crossfire Hurricane Russia collusion hoax.

But apparently, according to Chuck Grassley, the FBI keeps uh hiding her involvement by overclassifying stuff.

So Grassly's mad at the FBI.

He says, "Stop stop overclassifying so we can find out what Nelly or was up to." Um, I've got a feeling that if we found out why she was up to, it wouldn't look good, but that's just a hunch.

Well, I saw that uh Tucker Carlson had a guest who claimed that uh $21 trillion is missing from government budgets over the years.

and uh that at least part of it, her name is Katherine Austin Fitz.

Um, she claims that some amount of that money is going to building massive underground cities in the United States and also under the oceans and that uh the these massive underground cities exist all over the United States and they're connected by underground pathways and I suppose you could also get to the underground, you know, below the ocean ones And okay, this is too dumb.

That that's the claim.

How many of you believe that there are uh let's see.

She thought there were 170.

That was her best estimate.

Just an estimate though.

Uh how many believe that the that the government used part of $21 trillion to build massive underground cities?

and she she speculates it's because of potential extinction events.

So there might be, you know, various things that would cause extinction and they're building a whole uh a whole civilization basically underground.

I'm going to say no.

I'm going to say nope.

I don't believe any part of that.

I do believe that there might be underground facilities, you know, in various places.

So, it's not like there's no underground facilities, but 170 of them all connected.

No, no, don't believe it.

Well, there's a new bill in Congress, hasn't been passed, but it's been uh introduced uh that would uh prevent members of Congress from doing insider trading, which they can do legally, but nobody else can.

Um, but the funny part is that the bill is called the Pelosi bill.

This stands for preventing elected leaders owning securities investments.

They they had to try pretty hard to make that sound like Pelosi, but that's pretty funny.

However, it guarantees that they'll never get any Democrat to vote for it because there's no Democrat that can vote for making Pelosi illegal.

So, I don't think it's going to going to pass.

Even with Republicans in charge, I don't think it's going to make it.

We'll see.

So there's a congressman named Shri Thanador Tanidar who uh is pushing for some impeachment of Trump.

Now you have to see the video of this guy because I don't think it's my imagination that the weirdest members of Congress are always the ones pushing impeachment.

Like they can always find somebody who's just so weird.

And this guy is like a little extra a little extra weird.

So you can take a look yourself, but um whenever you see a Democrat has introduced articles of impeachment, that's not going to be a regular guy.

That's going to be somebody weird looking.

According to the Wall Street Journal, 39% of executives in a recent survey said they'll uh decrease their recognation the recognition of pride this year.

So, I guess pride month is coming up in June and uh partly because the Trump administration's anti-DI efforts um companies are going to pull back on pride recognition or celebration I guess.

Now, uh, my take on this, I think I said the same thing last year, is that gays should just take the victory because I've never seen any segment of the country that has been so successful in improving their brand from, you know, being mocked or whatever it was when you were a kid to, wow, these guys are doing great.

You know, you've never gone to a neighborhood where somebody said, "Oh, uh, you better not go through that neighborhood because it's a it's a gay neighborhood.

It's a little too dangerous." That doesn't exist.

It's not a thing.

Yeah.

And you also have, you know, a lot of successful top level politicians, both Republican and Democrat, who are openly gay.

I think take the whim.

I think uh you know the LGBT crowd especially they've done the greatest job I've ever seen in improving their brand to the point where it's just irrelevant.

Like how many of you spend a lot of time thinking about it?

The the test is you don't really even think about it.

So take the win at some point.

um the whole pride month thing ends up working against you cuz it cuz it's a way to say you're different whereas the win is that everybody's the same meaning you know we're all different but we're all equal.

So I I just think the gay and lesbian community has won so hard that they should seriously consider whether they need a celebration.

They should just say we won.

You know, every everything turned out great.

You know, I've never heard of anybody.

When was the last time you heard of somebody not being hired because they were gay or lesbian?

I've never even heard of it.

I mean, I don't think it happens in 2025, does it?

Anyway, so take the win.

Good job.

Um, so we're still obsessing about the first 100 days of Trump.

It is the most ridiculous story.

All it is is a way for Democrats to have something to about because 100 days is not nearly enough to know if anything worked.

Now, of course, the Republicans were all saying, "But what about all those great executive orders and the border got closed?" And then the the Democrats will just say, "Yes, but what about the tariffs that are definitely not working?" As if they know how it's going to turn out.

Um maybe 100 months would be a good time to check in.

But 100 days doesn't make any sense at all as a time to check the progress of a president unless you are smart enough to say all right let's just look at the things where you can know how it turns out within a 100 days and that's not tariffs it's not the economy it's not the price of eggs it's not it's not Ukraine it's not Gaza it's none of those things but maybe in a 100 months you'll be able to look back and see how it turned out.

But this whole uh you know media obsession over a big round number.

Oh 100 is a it's a big round number.

We we should see how everything's happening within that 100 days.

Ridiculous.

Stop it.

Well, according to uh Christopher Rufo and this I guess there's a article in the City Journal, the professors at Princeton um are kind of getting at each other because they've uh they're so racist that uh one of the departments is now explicitly telling the faculty, quote, "We can't hire a white guy." Now, the the Democrats and the people hearing this story for the first time are going to say, "Are you kidding me?

In 2025, there's a, you know, an respectable entity, Princeton, that's saying out loud, like they're not even hiding it.

They're saying out loud, we won't hire a white guy." Well, may I give you my expertise as a white guy?

It's never been different.

It was around the late 80s or the beginning of the 90s when people started saying out loud with no hedging whatsoever, we can't hire a white guy.

I mean, it it destroyed two of my careers in the '9s.

It's the reason Dilbert was born because I couldn't succeed at a bank or at the phone company because they told me directly directly we can't hire a white guy and to act like somehow this isn't new.

This isn't new.

This is like a 35 year problem or 40 years or whatever the hell it is.

the the fact that people are just finding out about it tells you how bad it was that nobody could say it out loud in any public forum and if you did if you said it out loud in any public way people would think you're lying they would actually accuse you of lying I've been accused of lying about that so many times do you think I was lying when I say that I was told by my bosses directly you know with no No indirection whatsoever.

We can't we can't promote a white guy.

No, they said it directly.

And it was usually white guys who told me, right?

In one case, a white woman.

But to imagine this is something new.

Wow.

Well, let's check in on JB Pritsker and his hate speech.

Um, so he's got a lot to say about Republicans, but here he is once again doing the Nazi comparison.

Quote, "My family immigrated to this country from Ukraine when the Russians were killing Jews during the pilgrims," the governor continued.

And so what I feel anyway is that the dangers that my family experienced in Ukraine, the dangers that we saw in, you know, Nazi Germany, especially in the earliest days of Nazi Germany, are the dangers that we need to react to now.

If we don't, things will get much worse.

So Pritsker is directly saying that the Trump and Trump supporters are essentially Nazis.

And if you don't react to them now, uh, it'll be a full-blown Hitler situation.

Now, would you consider that a hate crime?

Because a well, a hate speech because hate speech is narrowly defined as something that would incite violence, you know, somewhat immediately.

Uh, do you think that this is technically legal because it doesn't incite specific violence specifically right away?

But it kind of does do it right away because if you really believe that Hitler was rising, you wouldn't delay, right?

You'd start putting swastikas on on Teslas, etc., which is what people are doing.

So, I would say that uh yeah, to me that looks like a speech, but that's just me.

I guess Kla Harris is scheduled to give a speech, which will I'm sure will also be full of hate.

And she she's going to do it for $25 uh per viewer.

I guess you got to pay to watch the stream.

How many people would pay $25 to watch a Kamla Harris speech?

And and I wonder is it is that all you have to pay?

Is it just $25 per stream or is there also a two drink minimum?

Oh, wait.

The two drink minimum only applies to Harris.

So, she'll have at least two drinks before she does her speech that you would have to pay $25 to say.

I I can't even imagine paying $25 to hear Kla Harris speak.

Now, it's for some group that's probably raising money for it.

I don't think it goes, sir.

But really, so I expect I expect some hate speech to come out of that.

Chuck Schumer, um, he's doing the projection thing that for some reason Democrats never recognize, so it works.

Um he started out by saying recently that the Republican agenda is billionaires win, American families lose.

Does that sound like projection?

Because immediately as soon as he said it, the X platform had pictures of him posing repeatedly with Alex Soros.

It's not like the Republicans have some kind of monopoly on billionaires.

I mean, how long have we been talking about billionaires distorting our system, you know, by their by their contributions primarily to Democrat things?

So, that's projection number one, that Republicans are the ones with the billionaires, completely completely ignoring the fact that Democrats are almost defined by their billionaires.

Then the western lensman account on uh X points out that in 2025 uh Chuck Schumer is saying that Trump wants to intimidate and threaten judges.

This is Chuck Schumer saying that Trump is trying to intimidate and threaten judges.

Does that sound familiar?

It should because in 2020 Chuck Schumer was threatening and intimidating the Supreme Court uh telling them that they would what inherit the whirlwind or something.

So that was projection.

So he's he's like the OG of threatening the courts and now he's saying that that's a Republican thing.

Um, and then uh he was asked if he's going to retire and he says he's not going to retire because quote, "I'm staying put because I've been able to unite my caucus in a very strong fight against Trump." So, what's missing in that frame?

He's been able to unite his caucus in a very strong fight against Trump.

There's no positive message.

Even Democrats have been telling other Democrats, "Can you at least suggest something positive?

You can't run a campaign that's just anti-Trump." But he is.

So, I think Schumer is the least effective communicator in on the Democrat side.

Uh, so John John Stewart was right when he said maybe Schumer is not the one you put in front of the camera.

But who do you put in front of the camera?

Bernie Sanders, AOC, the weird little guy who is uh got the articles of impeachment or Cy Booker sitting on steps.

They they don't have anybody who isn't scary or weird.

They need somebody who's not scary or weird.

According to investor Kyle Bass, who follows China pretty closely, the the China 10-year bond yield has just, you know, sunk through the floor.

Uh, but that doesn't that doesn't make sense if it were true that China's GDP was growing at 5.4%.

So the thinking is that the bond is giving a a little reveal that uh people don't trust that China is actually growing or at least growing at that rate.

So I don't know that that means that the entire economy is going to you know implode in China but it does suggest that whatever China is telling you about their economy might be totally fake and maybe always has been.

I don't know.

So I asked Grock and said that these low yields would be unusual for an economy that's supposedly growing in a robust way.

So very unusual.

So China is probably lying about their economy, but we don't know to what degree.

Well, as you know, Trump uh did an interview with The Atlantic, which is the probably the most anti-Trump publication in the world.

You know, they they don't hide it at all.

And that's where uh and that's where Jeffrey Goldberg works, etc.

And there's a quote that comes out of it about Pete Haggsath.

So allegedly Trump said, quote, "I think he's going to get it together." I had a talk with him, a positive talk, but I had a talk with him.

Now, let me ask you this.

If you knew that the Atlantic is the most anti-Trump entity, and you knew that Democrats are attacking Heg Seth in particular because they they think, you know, that there's a weakness there and they can get rid of him.

Do you think that Trump actually said this or would you have to hear it on audio or video with the full context to know that he said this?

And here's the big risk about doing a uh an interview with something like The Atlantic.

If they don't show you the whole context and the specific wording and what he was talking about, uh, it makes it look like Trump has lost confidence in Heg Seth and doesn't think that he has it together.

Now, that might be true, but you've noticed that Trump has never said anything like that anywhere else.

So, I didn't research it, but could you tell me is there any video or audio of Trump saying I think he's going to get it together?

Because I'll bet there isn't.

So, that that that's just my speculation.

If there is and and the the video or audio shows the full context, well, then I'm wrong.

But I wouldn't trust The Atlantic to have a quote that was both accurate and in context.

This is a little bit too on the nose.

Like it would be the most damaging thing you could put in an article.

If you were Haggath and you read this, you'd be going, "Oh I'm going to get fired.

I think he's going to get it together." That's what you say about somebody who's not going to be around very long.

And I don't know that he actually said that.

Anyway, um Megan Kelly had a uh fellow on her show who was recently fired for I think suspicion of leaking, but he said he didn't do it.

Um so his name is Colin Carroll and when he was asked about uh P Ath he said uh um on one sense that he was super focused and he was like great in a meeting that he saw but in other times he said at the same time I've seen the secretary in more internal meetings where he is super focused on like very in my opinion weird details and very agitated hated and kind of yelling and just nothing's good.

In other words, acting like nothing's good.

Now, how seriously should you take that?

So, it's on Megan Kelly's show.

She's very um very uh credible.

Uh but he's a recently fired guy.

If I could give you any advice about who to believe, don't believe anonymous sources.

And don't believe recently fired guys because almost every boss in the world could be described as somebody who was focusing on weird details and got very agitated and was yelling at stuff.

That's almost everybody or at least everybody at a high level of management.

So, you know, I I would put that in the h not not too credible.

I'm not saying he's wrong, but I'm saying that just in general, you shouldn't trust somebody who recently got fired by the person they're talking about.

That that's a good general rule.

Well, according to current estimates, um there are 1,200 alleged terrorists in the United States.

If you count the gang members, there about 400 of them are, you know, ISIS related or come from countries where ISIS has a little too much control.

So, they're sketchy.

But the rest are uh MS-13 and Trenda Orua, whatever the Venezuelan gang is.

1,200 of them and these were all led in during the Biden administration.

So, good job, Biden.

It it it really makes you wonder, was Biden even working for the United States?

I mean, a lot of stuff he did, it looked more like he was working to destroy the country, you know, just in terms of outcome.

Uh, so it's hard to even understand how we got to this place, but at least Trump's solving it.

I saw a video uh from it looked like it was tagged on something called Von Kuran.

I guess that's whoever got the video.

And there was this American substitute teacher who was describing his first day as a substitute teacher.

and he was talking about the quality of the students and what they knew.

And he said, quote, "I thought y'all was lying to me when y'all said that these kids didn't know nothing.

These kids don't know Like nothing.

Not a They don't know basic math, addition, subtraction, division, fractions, multiplication.

So, let me ask you this.

Is that more dangerous than the 1,200 terrorists?

It is.

If if we're if we're raising an entire generation of kids who can't read and do basic math, ultimately that's more dangerous for the country than even the 1,200 terrorists.

So, we've got a really big problem.

And I don't know how we got there except for the teachers unions.

I blame the teachers unions basically and maybe the solution is more choice in schools and at least things are moving in that direction.

But uh and then and then their substitute teacher uses language what like uh uh these kids didn't know nothing.

I'm pretty sure that what he meant is they don't know anything.

So, he's not their English teacher, apparently.

He's sounds like he's the math teacher.

I wouldn't let the math teacher teach them English.

So, maybe maybe there's two problems there, the the teachers and the kids.

Uh N.

Gingrich is giving us an update on the uh LA Palisades fire and he says four months ago the fire happened and 6,800 homes were destroyed in the LA area.

He says three months later only four permits have been issued to rebuild the community.

Only four.

It It's like California isn't even trying to be a functional state.

What the hell?

Only four permits.

Now, I heard somebody, you know, question whether his number was correct.

So, maybe there's some question about the data, but I'm pretty sure things are not going well.

So, and this is something where there was maximum attention.

There was maximum understanding that if we did things the way we always do them, it would be a disaster.

and that we had to cut some red tape and do things faster.

And a few things I think happened faster, like the cleanup, you know, the uh the EPA did their cleanup fast.

But I don't know I if it's really this bad, it's almost like there's nothing that Cal can do, right?

Well, let's see what else California is doing.

Oh, yeah.

Some California Democrats want to uh they're trying to pass some legislation to decriminalize welfare fraud that's under $25,000.

Why would you do that?

Why would you want to go out of your way when you have all these problems in California and the thing you decide you're going to work on is to make crime a little bit easier for the criminals.

That's what you choose to work on.

And apparently the bill would also protect fraudsters trying to scam under $950.

And again, I say there was nothing positive to work on.

The only thing you had to work on, like your top priority was to make it a little bit easier to be a criminal in California.

How is this even happening?

It doesn't even seem real.

It seems completely made up that anything could be this incompetent.

You know, in California, we'll be the only state that doesn't have gas for cars because the refineries.

We're not going to have insurance for homes.

We're not going to have gas for cars.

And we're going to make crime a lot easier to do.

How is this even possibly happening?

Well, it's Democrats, but is this what happens when too many Democrats get in power in a state?

Do do all the states just crumble under that level of stupidity?

I don't know.

Uh I saw Fox News and Jesse Waters was reporting that uh some new boxes from the Biden era have been found.

Um, and these are, you remember, Biden had a bunch of confidential boxes in his garage.

But, uh, and then there were some confidential boxes in the Penn Center, the Penn Biden Center, which Biden was part of.

But it turns out that even before those places were looked into, there were some other boxes that we now know got moved to Biden's lawyer's office in Boston.

Um, and since then they've been put under, you know, better better security.

But are you curious at all why there would be nine boxes that were pulled out from the many boxes that were discovered and, you know, apparently there was nothing too damning in the boxes that were discovered?

Don't you think the boxes that got moved to Biden's lawyer's office and were not disclosed until now, don't you think you'd like to know what's in those boxes?

Well, I would.

Sounds pretty bad.

But again, the Bidens will not be held responsible for anything.

All right, here's my favorite hoax.

The My favorite hoax is the Biden brains hoax.

the idea that the media had no idea that Biden was declining and the the Democrats who were, you know, clearly closer to Biden also had no idea.

They didn't even notice.

And they're actually trying to sell that to the public despite the fact that we all could see it without any expertise whatsoever.

But the newest newest one is Jim Clyburn and he says quote, "I was not around Joe Biden enough to tell you anything about his decline and he didn't think that any of us could evaluate him because we're not physicians.

Are you telling me that Jim Clyurn didn't talk to any Democrats who were aware that the Biden was declining?

They they didn't have any private conversations in which somebody said, "You know, Jim, uh just between us, uh Biden is, you know, he's lost his fast ball.

He was in a meeting and he was just mumbling and he fell asleep." Nobody, not not a single person.

So Jim Klyber is like the most connected Democrat you could possibly be, you know, with the the top level of Democrats.

And nobody mentioned it to him.

And he also never noticed it on TV when he watched him the way we did.

And then the media is acting like the problem was that the Democrats weren't telling the media.

This is the most outrageously hilarious hoax.

The Biden brain hoax.

Unfreaking believable.

And the question I always ask in these situations is how are the historians going to write this story?

Are historians going to say despite the fact that the public could tell that Biden was, you know, mentally degraded, um, he was allowed to finish his term?

or are they going to say it was a closely held secret then nobody could have possibly known and then when we found out you know that's when he was removed from you know running a second time but wow it makes you doubt all history doesn't it because history is going to record you know if if you have an AI and you're training your AI on the news and you just have your AI you know look at all the news reports that are happening right now, the AI would conclude that the media couldn't tell and the insiders didn't know.

And that's what history will look like.

Unbelievable.

Um, here's another unbelievable one.

Apparently, there was an aircraft carrier, one of our aircraft carrier in the Red Sea that was doing some kind of maneuver that was making a hard turn.

Now, if an aircraft carrier tries to make a hard turn, how hard can a aircraft carrier make a turn?

It's not like a sharp turn, right?

But apparently at the same time that the aircraft carrier was making this hard turn um and maybe it was because the hoodies were attacking or something.

We're not sure.

But somebody was bringing a Super Hornet fighter um a jet out of a you know out of a I don't know from one place to another and it slipped off and it fell off the aircraft carrier into the sea.

Now, I don't think China is too worried about our about our military prowess at the moment.

How could this story be true?

Do do you believe that number one, do you believe that an aircraft carrier could make a sharp enough turn that a jet wouldn't be able to somehow correct and it would just fly off the edge of the aircraft carrier?

And do you believe that nobody anticipated it and and and said to him, "Hey, just, you know, hold on your maneuver until we're done with this." There there's something about this story that doesn't even make sense.

But it's it's not really it's not really covering the Navy in glory.

Well, here's another story that's the least surprising.

Um, apparently in Iran where things keep blowing up and catching on fire mysteriously, uh, there's another factory that just blew up.

Um, and people are saying that it's a Iran drone factory.

Now, you might know that Iran is a big supplier of uh, drones to Russia because they have a tight connection.

And uh, somehow that drone factory just blew up.

Um, now who do you think did it?

Now, I saw online people saying, well, obviously that was Israel.

You know, they blew up their drone factory.

Um, and some some say that it was a drone that drone that blew up the drone factory.

But could it have been Ukraine?

Don't you think Ukraine would want to blow up Iran's drone factory so that Russia didn't get more drones?

I've got a feeling you had more than one country who wanted to blow up their drone factory.

If it was blown up by other people, I suppose there's a possibility that, you know, there were dangerous things in that factory and it blew up on its own.

But I do wonder how many drone factories there are in Iran.

And the thing I would look for is, do you think any other drone factories are going to mysteriously blow up in Iran?

because I think maybe there will be there might be another mysterious explosion of a drone factory.

Could happen.

I don't know why they had a drone factory above ground, by the way.

That was kind of just begging for an attack.

Um, Ukraine on Monday, yesterday, called for a permanent ceasefire because, you know, Russia had asked for a 3-day ceasefire, but the 3-day ceasefire was just because they have some 80th anniversary of victory day in Europe over Nazi Germany.

So, when Russia was asking for um three days of ceasefire, it wasn't about a peace deal.

it was just because they wanted to be doing something else for three days.

And then Ukraine, of course, is saying, well, why not make it permanent ceasefire?

So, it seems to me that both Ukraine and Russia are just pretending and they're they're not pretending very well that they want peace, but they're doing everything they can to make sure it doesn't happen.

So, it was kind of safe for Ukraine to say, why not a permanent ceasefire, but you know, that's not going to happen, but they can take credit for asking for it.

So, then Ukraine can act like they're the ones who are serious about peace, but obviously they're not.

Um, because they want Crimea and that's never going to happen.

So, they're not really serious about peace.

Um, and then there's a related story, Financial Times, that said that uh the US and Ukraine are getting really close to signing a minerals deal.

Do you think that's going to happen?

Cuz we're really close now.

Uh, I don't know.

I'd like to think that there's going to be a minerals deal, but I feel like everything that could make peace happen is going to be thwarted or sabotaged.

So, my best guess is we'll get really close to a mineral deal with Ukraine and then something will happen that mysteriously blows up that deal.

Feels like it, but we'll see.

I'd like to be wrong about that.

So, we'll see.

And then there's a story about all the North Korean um soldiers who are fighting for Russia.

Apparently, I didn't know this, uh Russia and North Korea have some kind of a military alliance that says that each would do the would join in a fight for the other if they were, you know, in a war.

So, I don't know if that's why it's happening.

Um, some people say that the North Koreans are practicing.

So, they're they're basically training their soldiers to know how to use drones and do modern warfare because they're getting ready to attack South Korea.

I don't know about that.

Um and and then some people are speculating, including me, um is Russia having a hard time recruiting because why would they even want Korean s North Korean soldiers?

Is it because they're better at fighting?

I don't know.

And why would North Korean soldiers I guess the ones we heard from didn't even know they were going to Ukraine.

So, it's not so much that they, you know, they decided to go to Ukraine.

They sort of didn't know they were going and they just ended up there.

Um, my best guess is that uh, you know, Russia would rather use the North Korean soldiers since they're basically just just fodder.

Uh, it's basically just a meat grinder at this point.

So the fewer Russians that get killed, the better for Russia.

And the more North Koreans that get killed, Russia doesn't care.

And if North Korea doesn't care, my guess is that Russia is paying North Korea.

So then North Korea is just doing it for profit, you know, more like a mercenaries.

So I don't think it's because they have a military agreement.

I don't think it's just to make sure that the people who go there are trained in modern warfare because I don't think they're sending their best troops or anything like that.

And most of them are just going to be ground up.

It's not like they're going to come back with skills.

They're going to come back completely damaged.

So, we're we're left to speculate what that's all about.

But I think it's just for money.

Um, and I guess uh Putin's guy Lavrov has uh added some demands for a peace deal that make it look very much like they're not interested in a peace deal.

So instead of starting where we're where we think we are, which is um Russia wants to keep the stuff, it's occupied, but that's all.

Now, Lavough is saying that even if it's not occupied, if it's what Russia wanted to keep, they get to keep it.

Now, that would very much be somebody who doesn't want peace.

So, you know, maybe there's some difference between what Putin wants and what Lavrov is saying, but it really looks like Russia's just playing Trump at this point.

So, I don't think there's much of any chance of a peace deal as of today.

I mean, I could change my mind tomorrow.

What do you think?

Do you think Ukraine and Russia have any chance of a peace deal?

Because it seems that Zalinski can't make a deal because if he did, he would be murdered by his own people.

And uh Putin doesn't need a deal cuz he's winning.

And uh apparently he can just grind away as long as he wants and get as much as he wants and you know he can make a deal anytime later.

So I'm going to I'm going to say that uh no peace deal.

All right.

Um apparently the US has struck more than uh according to the Washington Times has struck more than 800 Hoodi targets in Yemen in the past six weeks.

800 targets.

Um, but has it worked?

Well, according to this reporting from the Washington Times, um, the they've reduced Hoodi missile launches by 69%.

And, uh, attacks from Hoodi one-way drones down by 55%.

But the weirdest part of the story is that it suggests that Iran's support of the Hoodis is not part of our negotiation with Iran for a nuclear deal.

Do you believe that?

Do you believe that we're negotiating with Iran for a nuclear deal, but we're not throwing in the their support for the Hoodies?

Wouldn't that be the most obvious thing you throw into the deal?

It's like, okay, you got to stop supporting the hoodies ruining things in the Red Sea.

So, that doesn't make sense to me.

That should all be part of the same conversation.

But, uh, if we if we reduce the launches by 69%.

Can we ever get to the point where the Red Sea is safe enough?

Because wouldn't you have to reduce their attacks by I don't know 99% before the insurance companies would say yeah that looks safe enough we'll ensure your ship if you take it that direction and if you did even if you reduced it by 99% how long would it take them to reconstitute the resources if we stop bombing them I mean it looks like it's either a permanent war um or I don't understand why they're doing it because I don't I just don't know how you can get to the end.

Well, the uh House has passed some legislation called the Take It Down Act.

Um I guess uh Ted Cruz was the one who introduced it and it's um it makes it illegal to have revenge porn on u on the internet.

So if you have a revenge porn, the sites are going to have to take it down.

CBS News was reporting on this.

Now, here's the best part of this story.

It turns out it's bipartisan.

So, even though Ted Cruz is the one who introduced it, and I'm thinking, wait a minute, it's bipartisan and Ted Cruz introduced it.

Huh.

Did the Democrats finally learn not to oppose everything the Republicans are doing?

Because probably the Democrats had a conversation like, "All right, Republicans want to get rid of this revenge porn.

We're going to have to say we're really in favor of revenge porn now." So, I feel like Ted Cruz got the Democrats this close to a fullthroated endorsement of revenge porn just based on past experience.

Not really.

I'm just joking.

Well, the according to The Hill, the Trump administration is trying to limit the quote forever chemicals that companies discharge into the water.

Um, but there's some concern that maybe other deregulation will will work against that.

But I do like the fact that with the make America healthy again, the the focus on all the permanent pollution that's in our food and in our medicines and in our water and in our air are being looked at pretty critically.

So that seems like good news.

Uh, according to Newsmax, um, Trump administration is going to dismiss all the authors of National Climate Assessment.

Apparently, there are, and this is weird, there are 400 contributors or were, they're all they're all fired now, uh, to the six National Climate Assessment.

So, Congress mandates that that there's a climate assessment every year, I guess.

But the Trump administration has dismissed all the contributors.

So I guess I guess the Trump administration didn't need to prove anything about climate change.

All they did is just say, "All right, we don't need you.

You're done." Um, and probably that report was useless because it's too political.

Who would trust 400 contributors to the National Climate Assessment?

Do you think that there's even one of those contributors who might have contributed something and said, "You know what?

I think these climate models are BS." No.

Because in order to keep their jobs and to continue working in their field, they would all have to agree.

So if you know in advance that all the authors have to agree to one position, why do you need them?

Because you know exactly what they're going to say.

Oh, we're all going to be dead in 12 years.

The the oceans will be boiling.

You don't really need to pay them if you know that for political and career reasons, there's only one thing they can say.

You you could just say we will stipulate that all of you people who want to protect your careers are going to say that climate change is terrible and it's already too late but you really should get rid of all your I don't know all your gas vehicles or something.

So yeah, you don't really need to pay people to tell you what you know they're going to say.

Meanwhile, China apparently has a microwave gun that fires 10,000 shots non-stop at missiles and drones to knock them out of the air, according to interesting engineering.

And uh I guess it was hard to do technically, but and and it's not that big.

So I think it you could put it on a truck or something.

It's about that size.

And I'm thinking that the United States does not have such a weapon.

Because if we did, wouldn't we just park a few of them off of Yemen and just knock down every drone and every missile that came out of Yemen or at least anything that was headed toward the Red Sea.

So that kind of suggests we don't have that weapon, right?

Or somebody said that we do have something like it and it's deployed in the Philippines.

To which I say, but wouldn't you also have it outside of Yemen?

Because if you could knock down the missiles, you know, as soon as they're launched, seems like that'd be a pretty good model.

Unless you need like a hund of them, you know, in order to cover the coast, which might be the case, but uh we need that for Yemen.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's your news for the day.

Thanks for joining.

I'll see you on You.

Tube and X and Rumble same time tomorrow.

And I'm going to say a few words privately to the local subscribers, assuming my buttons work.

And the rest of you, thanks for joining.

I feel you've been good and so you

deserve a

podcast. Yeah, it's going to be

[Music]

great. Good morning everybody and

welcome to the highlight of human

civilization. It's called Coffee with

Scott Adams because that's what it is.

But if you'd like to take your

experience up to levels that nobody can

understand with their tiny shiny human

brains, all you need for that is a cuper

mug or a glass of tanker tells 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 end

of the day, the thing that makes

everything better. It's called the

simultaneous sip. But it happens now.

Go.

Sensational. So, so

good. Well, there was uh some kind of an

election in Canada and

um I don't really care. Does anybody

care? Let's take a vote in the comments.

Does anybody care about the election in

Canada?

No. Okay, moving

on. Um, apparently Amazon has decided to

show the tariff costs in your cart

before you pay for it. But as Sean Davis

pointed out on X, why don't they tell us

what country it's being made from?

Wouldn't you like to know that? Would

you love to know what's being made in

China?

Yes, you would. So, it might be nice to

know what the uh what the tariffs are

adding to the cost, but on the other

hand, it would also be really nice to

know what country is this coming from.

That would be

fun. Speaking of Jeff

Bezos, I guess Amazon is going to launch

its uh project Kyper satellites

according to USA Today. So the uh

they're going to launch what 27

satellites into low Earth

orbit. What is it

for? That that's missing in the story.

What are they going to use all those

satellites for? I assume they're going

to compete for internet traffic with uh

SpaceX's

satellites. Um they're going to deploy

over 3,200 satellites eventually. Is is

the entire Earth going to be surrounded

with satellites at one

point? Are are we going to dim the sun

with so many

satellites at some point? Drone

delivery. You think it's about drone

delivery? Maybe. Yeah, maybe. Could

be. Um, speaking of shopping, um, the

chat GPT Open AI is going to add

shopping to its uh, AI app. So, if

you're in chat GPT, this is a story and

wired. Uh, you'll be able to search for

things and it will pop up with

recommendations and it will learn to uh,

know your

preferences. And so, yeah, it could be

competing with Starlink. We don't know.

might be more than that, but uh would

you shop with AI? Because I I've tried

to shop with AI and it's actually pretty

good because it gives you links to the

actual vendor, you know, it's it's not

acting like Amazon. Uh it would give you

links to Amazon and other vendors. I

kind of like

that. So, I don't know how they're going

to make their money. So, they're not

going to have sponsored ads, or at least

they don't yet. But don't you think it

would be better to shop with an AI than

to even go to Amazon? Although, I got to

say, uh, Amazon.com, the actual

software, is probably the best software

I've ever

seen. Have you ever stopped to think how

incredible it is that Amazon.com works?

and it works really well and it's it's

optimized and it's easy to easy to

navigate. Uh I'm always wowed by how

good Amazon is with software.

Anyway, apparently uh IBM is going to

invest $150 billion in the US to grow

its manufacturing over five years. So

add that to the Trump tariff wins.

Um, apparently we've got quite a few uh

companies now that are they're going to

move their manufacturing to the US. So

that part of what Trump is trying to do

seems to be

working at least at some scale. Speaking

of Trump, he just signed an executive

order to require truck drivers to speak

English.

Um, now I didn't know that was a big

problem that truck drivers didn't speak

English, a lot of them, but apparently

it is. And it's not just a small

problem. Um, apparently that inability

to speak English has led to a number of

accidents. I don't know if it's because

they can't read street signs or what it

is, but uh there is some thinking that

there's massive danger that the truck

drivers can't speak English. So maybe

that got fixed, although now there won't

be enough truck

drivers. So that's a problem. Um here's

some fake news. Listen to the fake news.

uh according to

NPR uh

some two anonymous sources. Now, if I

tell you it's NPR and it's two anonymous

sources and the story is something

that's negative about the Trump

administration, is it

real? What What's your guess? Is your

guess that

NPR with two anonymous sources and a

negative story about the Trump

administration? Is there any chance

that's real? Well, it looks like it's

not. So, the claim was that some Doge

workers got access to nuclear

secrets, which apparently the

authorities have said, "No, that's

crazy. Nobody got access to any nuclear

secrets? Of course

not. Um, here's some more fake news. Uh,

Trump is claiming he's already made 200

trade deals, but he won't

specify. He won't give any examples, so

you can't check on

him. Does anybody think that Trump

already made 200 trade deals? Does

anybody think that's even a little bit

true?

So, some of the claims that Trump is

making are just hilarious. I saw um

Scott Bassent was in a interview when he

was asked about that. Uh he was asked

what about these 200 trade deals and uh

Basent had to sort of talk around it

because he he couldn't confirm it

because it's obviously not true. uh but

he didn't want to, you know, go against

his boss, so he just sort of weasle

worded it and and talked around it. Now,

it might be, it could be true that a

whole bunch of different uh countries

have decided on some kind of framework

or maybe decided on some small part of a

deal and you know, Trump's calling those

trade deals even though they're not

comprehensive for each country. So maybe

he's talking about that, but it just

looks like a madeup number to

me. I saw a uh a poll by

Rasperson. It's a poll on whether people

trust

polls. Um apparently a majority,

51% either have not very much trust or

no trust at all in major media polls.

How many of you trust major media polls?

especially about politics. Do you think

they're

real? I I had a conversation with one of

my pollster friends, you know, he's been

working in that industry forever. And

you know, when I said, "Yeah, everybody

knows the the major polls are fake." Oh

my goodness. Did he not agree with that?

No, no, no. But then I specified, "No,

I'm talking about the political stuff.

the political stuff is obviously fake.

And uh he says, "No, I am completely

wrong about that. The political polls

are very reliable." But here's a quote

that I think is hilarious. Uh this isn't

Ras Rasmuson's uh reporting on this. So

after uh Trump won the the 2024

election, there was a Harris senior

campaign adviser, this guy David Ploff,

who admitted he was uh quote surprised

that many public polls last year showed

the that Harris was ahead of Trump

because the Harris campaign's own

internal polling never had her leading.

Have you seen the list of major media

polls that said that Harris was ahead?

They were all fake. They must have been

because their internal polling never

showed it. And I don't think Trump's

internal polling ever showed it. And I

don't think Rasmusa ever showed

it. But but all the rest of them like,

"Oh yeah, yeah, she's up by two points.

No problem. She's totally going to win."

None of that was ever true.

Uh, so if if the only thing you knew was

that the central adviser to Harris

didn't believe the polls because their

own poll that they paid for was not

agreeing with

them. That's all you need to know to

know that they were fake.

Um 48% of voters believe that the

problem with the polls is that some

pollsters were deliberately adjusting

their numbers to support Harris while

35% think it was because they don't know

how to accurately

poll. Do you think the problem is they

don't know how to accurately poll? No,

that's not the problem.

I'm pretty sure they do know how to

accurately poll because the internal

pollster knew how. Do you think only the

internal polls know how to poll and all

the external public ones don't? No, they

all know how to poll. So, whatever you

see that looks crooked, it's probably

intentional. So, here's a scary story.

Uh, apparently the University of Zurich

had been running a uh secret project

with AI bots on Reddit and they were

trying to see if they could secretly uh

manipulate Redditor's opinions. They've

been running it since November

2024. Uh, I saw this on the Reddit lies

account. Uh, apparently the and it

worked. So, the bots, which would be

just AI characters that are not real,

that pretend to be real, said the bots

were six times more likely to change the

minds of Redditors than the baseline,

often by leveraging

misinformation. So, all the bots did is

lie. And the and they were really

successful at changing people's minds.

They just lied. Then people thought,

"Oh, okay. Well, they changed their

minds."

But apparently they the they had

personas but they used information about

their targets uh for persuasion. So they

would know kind of what would work for

each person. They would figure that out

and then they would change their minds.

Now if you can change people's minds

with an AI

bot, did those people have free

will? Because the thing that changed

their mind was not their minds. The

thing that changed their mind was the

AI. So, what was it that caused them to

have the opinions they had? Was it their

free

will or was it the

AI? It's obviously the AI. What causes

anybody to have the views that they

have? Pretty much the news that they've

seen and the information they've

absorbed. So, for the most part, we're

very close to proving that free will is

an illusion. But I know every one of you

hates when I say that. But I will be

right

eventually. Do you remember uh Crossfire

Hurricane? That was the project the FBI

was running. That was uh the fake Russia

collusion hoax. And there was a central

character in that named Nelly

Ore. and she worked for a Fusion GPS and

uh and she coordinated with her husband

and she was a Justice Department

official and uh she was she and he were

really close to the origin of the

Crossfire

Hurricane Russia collusion hoax. But

apparently, according to Chuck Grassley,

the FBI keeps uh hiding her involvement

by overclassifying stuff. So Grassly's

mad at the FBI. He says, "Stop stop

overclassifying so we can find out what

Nelly or was up to." Um, I've got a

feeling that if we found out why she was

up to, it wouldn't look good, but that's

just a

hunch. Well, I saw that uh Tucker

Carlson had a guest who claimed that uh

$21 trillion is missing from government

budgets over the years. and uh that at

least part of it, her name is Katherine

Austin Fitz.

Um, she claims that some amount of that

money is going to building massive

underground cities in the United States

and also under the

oceans and that uh the these massive

underground cities exist all over the

United States and they're connected by

underground pathways and I suppose you

could also get to the underground, you

know, below the ocean ones

And okay, this is too

dumb. That that's the claim. How many of

you believe that there are

uh let's see. She thought there were

170. That was her best estimate. Just an

estimate though. Uh how many believe

that the that the government used part

of $21

trillion to build massive underground

cities? and she she speculates it's

because of potential extinction events.

So there might be, you know, various

things that would cause extinction and

they're building a whole uh a whole

civilization basically

underground. I'm going to say

no. I'm going to say nope. I don't

believe any part of that. I do believe

that there might be underground

facilities, you know, in various places.

So, it's not like there's no underground

facilities, but 170 of them all

connected. No, no, don't believe it.

Well, there's a new bill in Congress,

hasn't been passed, but it's been uh

introduced uh that would uh prevent

members of Congress from doing insider

trading, which they can do legally, but

nobody else can. Um, but the funny part

is that the bill is called the Pelosi

bill. This stands for preventing elected

leaders owning securities investments.

They they had to try pretty hard to make

that sound like Pelosi, but that's

pretty

funny. However, it guarantees that

they'll never get any Democrat to vote

for it because there's no Democrat that

can vote for making Pelosi

illegal. So, I don't think it's going to

going to pass. Even with Republicans in

charge, I don't think it's going to make

it. We'll see.

So there's a congressman named

Shri Thanador

Tanidar who uh is pushing for some

impeachment of Trump. Now you have to

see the video of this

guy because I don't think it's my

imagination that the weirdest members of

Congress are always the ones pushing

impeachment. Like they can always find

somebody who's just so weird. And this

guy is like a little extra a little

extra weird. So you can take a look

yourself, but um whenever you see a

Democrat has introduced articles of

impeachment, that's not going to be a

regular guy. That's going to be somebody

weird looking. According to the Wall

Street Journal, 39% of executives in a

recent survey said they'll uh decrease

their recognation the recognition of

pride this year. So, I guess pride month

is coming up in June and uh partly

because the Trump administration's

anti-DI efforts

um companies are going to pull back on

pride recognition or celebration I

guess.

Now, uh, my take on this, I think I said

the same thing last year, is that gays

should just take the victory because

I've never seen any segment of the

country that has been so successful in

improving their brand from, you know,

being mocked or whatever it was when you

were a kid to, wow, these guys are doing

great.

You know, you've never gone to a

neighborhood where somebody said, "Oh,

uh, you better not go through that

neighborhood because it's a it's a gay

neighborhood. It's a little too

dangerous." That doesn't exist. It's not

a thing. Yeah. And you also have, you

know, a lot of successful top level

politicians, both Republican and

Democrat, who are openly gay. I think

take the whim.

I think uh you know the LGBT crowd

especially they've done the greatest job

I've ever seen in improving their brand

to the point where it's just irrelevant.

Like how many of you spend a lot of time

thinking about

it? The the test is you don't really

even think about it. So take the win at

some point.

um the whole pride month thing ends up

working against you cuz it cuz it's a

way to say you're

different whereas the win is that

everybody's the same meaning you know

we're all different but we're all equal.

So I I just think the gay and lesbian

community has won so hard that they

should seriously consider whether they

need a

celebration. They should just say we

won. You know, every everything turned

out great. You know, I've never heard of

anybody. When was the last time you

heard of somebody not being hired

because they were gay or lesbian? I've

never even heard of it. I mean, I don't

think it happens in 2025, does

it? Anyway, so take the win. Good job.

Um, so we're still obsessing about the

first 100 days of Trump. It is the most

ridiculous story. All it is is a way for

Democrats to have something to

about because 100 days is not nearly

enough to know if anything worked. Now,

of course, the Republicans were all

saying, "But what about all those great

executive orders and the border got

closed?" And then the the Democrats will

just say, "Yes, but what about the

tariffs that are definitely not

working?" As if they know how it's going

to turn out. Um maybe 100 months would

be a good time to check in. But 100 days

doesn't make any sense at all as a time

to check the progress of a president

unless you are smart enough to say all

right let's just look at the things

where you can know how it turns out

within a 100 days and that's not tariffs

it's not the economy it's not the price

of eggs it's not it's not Ukraine it's

not Gaza it's none of those things but

maybe in a 100 months you'll be able to

look back and see how it turned out. But

this whole uh you know media obsession

over a big round number. Oh 100 is a

it's a big round number. We we should

see how everything's happening within

that 100 days. Ridiculous. Stop it.

Well, according to uh Christopher Rufo

and this I guess there's a article in

the City Journal, the professors at

Princeton

um are kind of getting at each other

because they've uh they're so racist

that

uh one of the departments is now

explicitly telling the faculty, quote,

"We can't hire a white guy."

Now, the the Democrats and the people

hearing this story for the first time

are going to say, "Are you kidding me?

In

2025, there's a, you know, an

respectable entity, Princeton, that's

saying out loud, like they're not even

hiding it. They're saying out loud, we

won't hire a white

guy." Well, may I give you my expertise

as a white guy?

It's never been

different. It was around the late 80s or

the beginning of the 90s when people

started saying out loud with no hedging

whatsoever, we can't hire a white guy. I

mean, it it destroyed two of my careers

in the '9s. It's the reason Dilbert was

born because I couldn't succeed at a

bank or at the phone company because

they told me directly directly we can't

hire a white

guy and to act like somehow this isn't

new. This isn't new. This is like a 35

year problem or 40 years or whatever the

hell it is.

the the fact that people are just

finding out about it tells you how bad

it was that nobody could say it out loud

in any public forum and if you did if

you said it out loud in any public way

people would think you're lying they

would actually accuse you of lying I've

been accused of lying about that so many

times do you think I was lying when I

say that I was told by my bosses

directly you know with no No indirection

whatsoever. We can't we can't promote a

white

guy. No, they said it directly. And it

was usually white guys who told me,

right? In one case, a white

woman. But to imagine this is something

new.

Wow. Well, let's check in on JB Pritsker

and his hate speech. Um, so he's got a

lot to say about Republicans, but here

he is once again doing the Nazi

comparison. Quote, "My family immigrated

to this country from Ukraine when the

Russians were killing Jews during the

pilgrims," the governor continued. And

so what I feel anyway is that the

dangers that my family experienced in

Ukraine, the dangers that we saw in, you

know, Nazi Germany, especially in the

earliest days of Nazi Germany, are the

dangers that we need to react to now. If

we don't, things will get much

worse. So Pritsker is directly saying

that the Trump and Trump supporters are

essentially Nazis. And if you don't

react to them now,

uh, it'll be a full-blown Hitler

situation. Now, would you consider that

a hate crime? Because a well, a hate

speech because hate speech is narrowly

defined as something that would incite

violence, you know, somewhat

immediately. Uh, do you think that this

is technically legal because it doesn't

incite specific

violence specifically right

away? But it kind of does do it right

away because if you really believe that

Hitler was

rising, you wouldn't delay, right? You'd

start putting swastikas on on Teslas,

etc., which is what people are doing.

So, I would say that

uh yeah, to me that looks like a speech,

but that's just

me. I guess Kla Harris is scheduled to

give a speech, which will I'm sure will

also be full of

hate. And she she's going to do it for

$25

uh per viewer. I guess you got to pay to

watch the stream. How many people would

pay $25 to watch a Kamla Harris speech?

And and I wonder is it is that all you

have to pay? Is it just $25 per stream

or is there also a two drink

minimum? Oh, wait. The two drink minimum

only applies to Harris. So, she'll have

at least two drinks before she does her

speech that you would have to pay $25 to

say. I I can't even imagine paying $25

to hear Kla Harris speak.

Now, it's for some group that's probably

raising money for it. I don't think it

goes, sir. But

really, so I expect I expect some hate

speech to come out of that. Chuck

Schumer,

um, he's doing the projection thing that

for some reason Democrats never

recognize, so it works. Um he started

out by saying recently that the

Republican agenda is billionaires win,

American families lose. Does that sound

like

projection? Because immediately as soon

as he said it, the X platform had

pictures of him posing repeatedly with

Alex

Soros. It's not like the Republicans

have some kind of monopoly on

billionaires. I mean, how long have we

been talking about billionaires

distorting our system, you know, by

their by their contributions primarily

to Democrat things? So, that's

projection number one, that Republicans

are the ones with the

billionaires, completely completely

ignoring the fact that Democrats are

almost defined by their billionaires.

Then the western lensman account on uh X

points out that in 2025

uh Chuck Schumer is saying that Trump

wants to intimidate and threaten

judges. This is Chuck Schumer saying

that

Trump is trying to intimidate and

threaten judges. Does that sound

familiar?

It should because in 2020 Chuck Schumer

was threatening and intimidating the

Supreme Court uh telling them that they

would what inherit the whirlwind or

something. So that was

projection. So he's he's like the OG of

threatening the courts and now he's

saying that that's a Republican thing.

Um, and then uh he was asked if he's

going to retire and he says he's not

going to retire because quote, "I'm

staying put because I've been able to

unite my caucus in a very strong fight

against

Trump." So, what's missing in that

frame? He's been able to unite his

caucus in a very strong fight against

Trump.

There's no positive message. Even

Democrats have been telling other

Democrats, "Can you at least suggest

something positive? You can't run a

campaign that's just

anti-Trump." But he

is. So, I think Schumer is the least

effective communicator in on the

Democrat side. Uh, so John John Stewart

was right when he said maybe Schumer is

not the one you put in front of the

camera. But who do you put in front of

the camera? Bernie

Sanders,

AOC, the weird little guy who is uh got

the articles of

impeachment or Cy Booker sitting on

steps. They they don't have anybody who

isn't scary or weird.

They need somebody who's not scary or

weird. According to investor Kyle Bass,

who follows China pretty closely, the

the China 10-year bond yield has just,

you know, sunk through the floor. Uh,

but that doesn't that doesn't make sense

if it were true that China's GDP was

growing at 5.4%.

So the thinking is that the bond is

giving a a little reveal that uh people

don't trust that China is actually

growing or at least growing at that

rate. So I don't know that that means

that the entire economy is going to you

know implode in China but it does

suggest that whatever China is telling

you about their

economy might be totally fake and maybe

always has been. I don't know. So I

asked Grock and said that these low

yields would be unusual for an economy

that's supposedly growing in a robust

way. So very unusual. So China is

probably lying about their economy, but

we don't know to what

degree. Well, as you know, Trump

uh did an interview with The Atlantic,

which is the probably the most

anti-Trump publication in the world. You

know, they they don't hide it at all.

And that's where uh and that's where

Jeffrey Goldberg works, etc. And there's

a quote that comes out of it about Pete

Haggsath. So allegedly Trump said,

quote, "I think he's going to get it

together." I had a talk with him, a

positive talk, but I had a talk with

him. Now, let me ask you

this. If you knew that the Atlantic is

the most anti-Trump entity, and you knew

that Democrats are attacking Heg Seth in

particular because they they think, you

know, that there's a weakness there and

they can get rid of him.

Do you think that Trump actually said

this or would you have to hear it on

audio or video with the full context to

know that he said

this? And here's the big risk about

doing a uh an interview with something

like The Atlantic. If they don't show

you the whole context and the specific

wording and what he was talking about,

uh, it makes it look like Trump has lost

confidence in Heg Seth and doesn't think

that he has it

together. Now, that might be true, but

you've noticed that Trump has never said

anything like

that anywhere else.

So, I didn't research it, but could you

tell me is there any video or audio of

Trump saying I think he's going to get

it

together? Because I'll bet there

isn't. So, that that that's just my

speculation. If there is and and the the

video or audio shows the full context,

well, then I'm wrong.

But I wouldn't trust The

Atlantic to have a quote that was both

accurate and in context. This is a

little bit too on the nose. Like it

would be the most damaging thing you

could put in an article. If you were

Haggath and you read this, you'd be

going, "Oh I'm going to get fired.

I think he's going to get it together."

That's what you say about somebody who's

not going to be around very long. And I

don't know that he actually said

that. Anyway,

um Megan Kelly had a

uh fellow on her show who was recently

fired for I think suspicion of leaking,

but he said he didn't do it.

Um so his name is Colin Carroll and when

he was asked about uh P

Ath he said uh um on one sense that he

was super focused and he was like great

in a meeting that he saw but in other

times he said at the same time I've seen

the secretary in more internal meetings

where he is super focused on like very

in my opinion weird details and very

agitated hated and kind of yelling and

just nothing's good. In other words,

acting like nothing's

good.

Now, how seriously should you take that?

So, it's on Megan Kelly's show. She's

very um very uh

credible. Uh but he's a recently fired

guy. If I could give you any advice

about who to believe, don't believe

anonymous sources.

And don't believe recently fired

guys because almost every boss in the

world could be described as somebody who

was focusing on weird details and got

very agitated and was yelling at

stuff. That's almost everybody or at

least everybody at a high level of

management.

So, you know, I I would put that in the

h not not too

credible. I'm not saying he's

wrong, but I'm saying that just in

general, you shouldn't trust somebody

who recently got fired by the person

they're talking about. That that's a

good general rule.

Well, according to current estimates,

um there are 1,200 alleged terrorists in

the United States. If you count the gang

members, there about 400 of them are,

you know, ISIS related or come from

countries where ISIS has a little too

much control. So, they're sketchy. But

the rest are uh MS-13 and Trenda Orua,

whatever the Venezuelan gang is. 1,200

of them and these were all led in during

the Biden

administration. So, good job, Biden. It

it it really makes you

wonder, was Biden even working for the

United States? I mean, a lot of stuff he

did, it looked more like he was working

to destroy the country, you know, just

in terms of outcome.

Uh, so it's hard to even understand how

we got to this place, but at least

Trump's solving

it. I saw a video uh from it looked like

it was tagged on something called Von

Kuran. I guess that's whoever got the

video. And there was this American

substitute teacher who was describing

his first day as a substitute teacher.

and he was talking about the quality of

the students and what they knew. And he

said, quote, "I thought y'all was lying

to me when y'all said that these kids

didn't know nothing. These kids don't

know Like nothing. Not a They

don't know basic math, addition,

subtraction, division, fractions,

multiplication.

So, let me ask you this.

Is that more dangerous than the

1,200

terrorists? It

is. If if we're if we're raising an

entire generation of kids who can't read

and do basic math,

ultimately that's more dangerous for the

country than even the 1,200

terrorists. So, we've got a really big

problem. And I don't know how we got

there except for the teachers unions. I

blame the teachers unions

basically and maybe the solution is more

choice in schools and at least things

are moving in that direction. But

uh and then and then their substitute

teacher uses language what like uh uh

these kids didn't know nothing. I'm

pretty sure that what he meant is they

don't know anything.

So, he's not their English teacher,

apparently. He's sounds like he's the

math

teacher. I wouldn't let the math teacher

teach them English. So, maybe maybe

there's two problems there, the the

teachers and the kids. Uh N. Gingrich is

giving us an update on the uh LA

Palisades fire and he says four months

ago the fire happened and 6,800 homes

were destroyed in the LA area. He says

three months later only four permits

have been issued to rebuild the

community. Only

four. It It's like California isn't even

trying to be a functional state.

What the hell? Only four permits. Now, I

heard somebody, you know, question

whether his number was correct. So,

maybe there's some question about the

data, but I'm pretty sure things are not

going well.

So, and this is something where there

was maximum attention. There was maximum

understanding that if we did things the

way we always do them, it would be a

disaster. and that we had to cut some

red tape and do things faster. And a few

things I think happened faster, like the

cleanup, you know, the uh the EPA did

their cleanup fast. But I don't know I

if it's really this bad, it's almost

like there's nothing that Cal can do,

right? Well, let's see what else

California is doing. Oh, yeah. Some

California Democrats want to uh they're

trying to pass some legislation to

decriminalize welfare fraud that's under

$25,000. Why would you do that? Why

would you want to go out of your way

when you have all these problems in

California and the thing you decide

you're going to work on is to make crime

a little bit easier for the

criminals. That's what you choose to

work on. And apparently the bill would

also protect fraudsters trying to scam

under

$950. And again, I

say there was nothing positive to work

on. The only thing you had to work on,

like your top priority was to make it a

little bit easier to be a criminal in

California. How is this even happening?

It doesn't even seem real.

It seems completely made up that

anything could be this incompetent. You

know, in California, we'll be the only

state that doesn't have gas for cars

because the refineries. We're not going

to have insurance for homes. We're not

going to have gas for cars. And we're

going to make crime a lot easier to

do. How is this even possibly happening?

Well, it's

Democrats, but is this what happens when

too many Democrats get in power in a

state? Do do all the states just crumble

under that level of

stupidity? I don't

know. Uh I saw Fox News and Jesse Waters

was reporting that uh some new boxes

from the Biden era have been found.

Um, and these are, you remember, Biden

had a bunch of confidential boxes in his

garage. But, uh, and then there were

some confidential boxes in the Penn

Center, the Penn Biden Center, which

Biden was part of. But it turns out that

even before those places were looked

into, there were some other boxes that

we now know got moved to Biden's

lawyer's office in Boston. Um, and since

then they've been put under, you know,

better better

security. But are you curious at all why

there would be nine boxes that were

pulled out from the many boxes that were

discovered and, you know, apparently

there was nothing too damning in the

boxes that were discovered? Don't you

think the boxes that got moved to

Biden's lawyer's office and were not

disclosed until

now, don't you think you'd like to know

what's in those

boxes? Well, I would. Sounds pretty bad.

But again, the Bidens will not be held

responsible for

anything. All right, here's my favorite

hoax. The My favorite hoax is the Biden

brains hoax.

the idea that the media had no idea that

Biden was declining and the the

Democrats who were, you know, clearly

closer to Biden also had no idea. They

didn't even notice. And they're actually

trying to sell that to the

public despite the fact that we all

could see it without any expertise

whatsoever.

But the newest newest one is Jim

Clyburn and he says quote, "I was not

around Joe Biden enough to tell you

anything about his

decline and he didn't think that any of

us could evaluate him because we're not

physicians. Are you telling me that Jim

Clyurn didn't talk to any

Democrats who were aware that the Biden

was declining? They they didn't have any

private conversations in which somebody

said, "You know, Jim, uh just between

us, uh Biden is, you know, he's lost his

fast ball. He was in a meeting and he

was just mumbling and he fell asleep."

Nobody, not not a single person. So Jim

Klyber is like the most connected

Democrat you could possibly be, you

know, with the the top level of

Democrats. And nobody mentioned it to

him. And he also never noticed it on TV

when he watched him the way we did. And

then the media is acting like the

problem was that the Democrats weren't

telling the

media. This is the most outrageously

hilarious hoax. The Biden brain hoax.

Unfreaking believable. And the question

I always ask in these situations is how

are the historians going to write this

story? Are historians going to say

despite the fact that the public could

tell that Biden was, you know, mentally

degraded,

um, he was allowed to finish his

term? or are they going to say it was a

closely held secret then nobody could

have possibly known and then when we

found out you know that's when he was

removed from you know running a second

time but wow it makes you doubt all

history doesn't it because history is

going to

record you know if if you have an AI and

you're training your AI on the news and

you just have your AI you know look at

all the news reports that are happening

right now, the AI would

conclude that the media couldn't tell

and the insiders didn't

know. And that's what history will look

like.

Unbelievable.

Um, here's another unbelievable one.

Apparently, there was an aircraft

carrier, one of our aircraft carrier in

the Red Sea that was doing some kind of

maneuver that was making a hard turn.

Now, if an aircraft carrier tries to

make a hard

turn, how hard can a aircraft carrier

make a turn? It's not like a sharp turn,

right? But apparently at the same time

that the aircraft carrier was making

this hard turn

um and maybe it was because the hoodies

were attacking or something. We're not

sure. But somebody was bringing a Super

Hornet fighter um a jet out of a you

know out of a I don't know from one

place to another and it slipped

off and it fell off the aircraft carrier

into the

sea. Now, I don't think China is too

worried about our about our military

prowess at the

moment. How could this story be

true? Do do you believe that number one,

do you believe that an aircraft carrier

could make a sharp enough turn that a

jet wouldn't be able to somehow correct

and it would just fly off the edge of

the aircraft carrier?

And do you believe that nobody

anticipated it and and and said to him,

"Hey, just, you know, hold on your

maneuver until we're done with

this." There there's something about

this story that doesn't even make sense.

But it's it's not really it's not really

covering the Navy in

glory. Well, here's another story that's

the least surprising.

Um, apparently in Iran where things keep

blowing up and catching on fire

mysteriously,

uh, there's another factory that just

blew up. Um, and people are saying that

it's a Iran drone factory. Now, you

might know that Iran is a big supplier

of uh, drones to Russia because they

have a tight connection. And uh, somehow

that drone factory just blew up.

Um, now who do you think did it? Now, I

saw online people saying, well,

obviously that was Israel. You know,

they blew up their drone factory. Um,

and some some say that it was a drone

that drone that blew up the drone

factory. But could it have been

Ukraine? Don't you think Ukraine would

want to blow up Iran's drone factory so

that Russia didn't get more drones?

I've got a feeling you had more than one

country who wanted to blow up their

drone factory. If it was blown up by

other people, I suppose there's a

possibility that, you know, there were

dangerous things in that factory and it

blew up on its own. But I do wonder how

many drone factories there are in

Iran. And the thing I would look for is,

do you think any other drone factories

are going to mysteriously blow up in

Iran? because I think maybe there will

be there might be another mysterious

explosion of a drone factory. Could

happen. I don't know why they had a

drone factory above ground, by the way.

That was kind of just begging for an

attack.

Um, Ukraine on Monday,

yesterday, called for a permanent

ceasefire because, you know, Russia had

asked for a 3-day ceasefire, but the

3-day ceasefire was just because they

have some 80th anniversary of victory

day in Europe over Nazi Germany. So,

when Russia was asking for um three days

of ceasefire, it wasn't about a peace

deal. it was just because they wanted to

be doing something else for three

days. And then Ukraine, of course, is

saying, well, why not make it permanent

ceasefire? So, it seems to me that both

Ukraine and Russia are just

pretending and they're they're not

pretending very well that they want

peace, but they're doing everything they

can to make sure it doesn't happen. So,

it was kind of safe for Ukraine to say,

why not a permanent ceasefire, but you

know, that's not going to happen, but

they can take credit for asking for it.

So, then Ukraine can act like they're

the ones who are serious about peace,

but obviously they're

not. Um, because they want Crimea and

that's never going to happen. So,

they're not really serious about peace.

Um, and then there's a related story,

Financial Times, that said that uh the

US and Ukraine are getting really close

to signing a minerals

deal. Do you think that's going to

happen? Cuz we're really close

now. Uh, I don't know.

I'd like to think that there's going to

be a minerals deal, but I feel like

everything that could make peace happen

is going to be thwarted or

sabotaged. So, my best guess is we'll

get really close to a mineral deal with

Ukraine and then something will happen

that mysteriously blows up that

deal. Feels like it, but we'll see. I'd

like to be wrong about that. So, we'll

see. And then there's a story about all

the North Korean um soldiers who are

fighting for Russia. Apparently, I

didn't know this, uh Russia and North

Korea have some kind of a military

alliance that says that each would do

the would join in a fight for the other

if they were, you know, in a war. So, I

don't know if that's why it's happening.

Um, some people say that the North

Koreans are practicing. So, they're

they're basically training their

soldiers to know how to use drones and

do modern warfare because they're

getting ready to attack South Korea. I

don't know about that.

Um and and then some people are

speculating, including me, um is Russia

having a hard time

recruiting because why would they even

want Korean s North Korean soldiers? Is

it because they're better at fighting? I

don't know. And why would North Korean

soldiers I guess the ones we heard from

didn't even know they were going to

Ukraine. So, it's not so much that they,

you know, they decided to go to Ukraine.

They sort of didn't know they were going

and they just ended up there.

Um, my best

guess is that uh, you know, Russia would

rather use the North Korean soldiers

since they're basically just just

fodder. Uh, it's basically just a meat

grinder at this point. So the fewer

Russians that get killed, the better for

Russia. And the more North Koreans that

get killed, Russia doesn't care. And if

North Korea doesn't

care, my guess is that Russia is paying

North Korea. So then North Korea is just

doing it for profit, you know, more like

a mercenaries. So I don't think it's

because they have a military agreement.

I don't think it's just to make sure

that the people who go there are trained

in modern warfare because I don't think

they're sending their best troops or

anything like that. And most of them are

just going to be ground up. It's not

like they're going to come back with

skills. They're going to come back

completely

damaged.

So, we're we're left to speculate what

that's all

about. But I think it's just for money.

Um, and I guess uh Putin's guy Lavrov

has uh added some demands for a peace

deal that make it look very much like

they're not interested in a peace deal.

So instead of starting where we're where

we think we are, which is um Russia

wants to keep the stuff, it's occupied,

but that's all. Now, Lavough is saying

that even if it's not occupied, if it's

what Russia wanted to keep, they get to

keep it. Now, that would very much be

somebody who doesn't want

peace. So, you know, maybe there's some

difference between what Putin wants and

what Lavrov is saying, but it really

looks like

Russia's just playing Trump at this

point. So, I don't think there's much of

any chance of a peace deal as of today.

I mean, I could change my mind tomorrow.

What do you think? Do you think Ukraine

and Russia have any chance of a peace

deal? Because it seems that Zalinski

can't make a deal because if he did, he

would be murdered by his own people. And

uh Putin doesn't need a deal cuz he's

winning. And uh apparently he can just

grind away as long as he wants and get

as much as he wants and you know he can

make a deal anytime

later.

So I'm going to I'm going to say that

uh no peace

deal. All right. Um apparently the US

has struck more than

uh according to the Washington Times has

struck more than 800 Hoodi targets in

Yemen in the past six weeks. 800

targets. Um, but has it worked? Well,

according to this reporting from the

Washington Times,

um, the they've reduced Hoodi missile

launches by

69%. And, uh, attacks from Hoodi one-way

drones down by 55%.

But the weirdest part of the story is

that it suggests that Iran's support of

the Hoodis is not part of our

negotiation with Iran for a nuclear

deal. Do you believe that? Do you

believe that we're negotiating with Iran

for a nuclear deal, but we're not

throwing in the their support for the

Hoodies? Wouldn't that be the most

obvious thing you throw into the deal?

It's like, okay, you got to stop

supporting the

hoodies ruining things in the Red

Sea. So, that doesn't make sense to me.

That should all be part of the same

conversation. But, uh, if we if we

reduce the launches by

69%. Can we ever get to the point where

the Red Sea is safe

enough? Because wouldn't you have to

reduce their attacks by I don't know 99%

before the insurance companies would say

yeah that looks safe enough we'll ensure

your ship if you take it that

direction and if you did even if you

reduced it by

99% how long would it take them to

reconstitute the resources if we stop

bombing

them I mean it looks like it's either a

permanent war

um or I don't understand why they're

doing it because I don't I just don't

know how you can get to the

end. Well, the uh House has passed some

legislation called the Take It Down Act.

Um I guess uh Ted Cruz was the one who

introduced it and it's um it makes it

illegal to have revenge porn on u on the

internet. So if you have a revenge porn,

the sites are going to have to take it

down. CBS News was reporting on this.

Now, here's the best part of this story.

It turns out it's bipartisan. So, even

though Ted Cruz is the one who

introduced it, and I'm thinking, wait a

minute, it's bipartisan and Ted Cruz

introduced it. Huh. Did the Democrats

finally learn not to oppose everything

the Republicans are doing? Because

probably the Democrats had a

conversation like, "All right,

Republicans want to get rid of this

revenge porn. We're going to have to say

we're really in favor of revenge porn

now." So, I feel like Ted Cruz got the

Democrats this close to a fullthroated

endorsement of revenge

porn just based on past experience. Not

really. I'm just joking.

Well, the according to The Hill, the

Trump administration is trying to limit

the quote forever chemicals that

companies discharge into the water. Um,

but there's some concern that maybe

other deregulation will will work

against that. But I do like the fact

that with the make America healthy

again, the the focus on all the

permanent pollution that's in our food

and in our medicines and in our water

and in our air are being looked at

pretty critically. So that seems like

good

news. Uh, according to Newsmax, um,

Trump administration is going to dismiss

all the authors of National Climate

Assessment. Apparently, there are, and

this is weird, there are 400

contributors or were, they're all

they're all fired now, uh, to the six

National Climate Assessment. So,

Congress mandates

that that there's a climate assessment

every year, I guess.

But the Trump administration has

dismissed all the

contributors.

So I guess I guess the Trump

administration didn't need to prove

anything about climate change. All they

did is just say, "All right, we don't

need you. You're

done." Um, and probably that report was

useless because it's too political. Who

would trust 400 contributors to the

National Climate Assessment? Do you

think that there's even one of those

contributors who might have contributed

something and said, "You know what? I

think these climate models are

BS." No. Because in order to keep their

jobs and to continue working in their

field, they would all have to agree. So

if you know in advance that all the

authors have to agree to one position,

why do you need them? Because you know

exactly what they're going to say. Oh,

we're all going to be dead in 12 years.

The the oceans will be boiling. You

don't really need to pay them if you

know that for political and career

reasons, there's only one thing they can

say. You you could just say we will

stipulate that all of you people who

want to protect your careers are going

to say that climate change is terrible

and it's already too late but you really

should get rid of all your I don't know

all your gas vehicles or something. So

yeah, you don't really need to pay

people to tell you what you know they're

going to say.

Meanwhile, China apparently has a

microwave gun that fires 10,000 shots

non-stop at missiles and drones to knock

them out of the air, according to

interesting

engineering. And uh I guess it was hard

to do technically,

but and and it's not that big. So I

think it you could put it on a truck or

something. It's about that size. And I'm

thinking that the United States does not

have such a weapon. Because if we did,

wouldn't we just park a few of them off

of Yemen and just knock down every drone

and every missile that came out of Yemen

or at least anything that was headed

toward the Red

Sea. So that kind of suggests we don't

have that weapon,

right? Or somebody said that we do have

something like it and it's deployed in

the Philippines. To which I say, but

wouldn't you also have it outside of

Yemen? Because if you could knock down

the missiles, you know, as soon as

they're

launched, seems like that'd be a pretty

good model. Unless you need like a hund

of them, you know, in order to cover the

coast, which might be the

case, but uh we need that for Yemen. All

right, ladies and gentlemen, that's your

news for the day. Thanks for joining.

I'll see you on YouTube and X and Rumble

same time tomorrow. And I'm going to say

a few words privately to the local

subscribers,

assuming my buttons work. And the rest

of you, thanks for joining.