Episode 2868 CWSA 06/14/25

Everybody, let's get our comments working and then we got something.

You're ready for it?

Yeah.

You ready for it?

Here we go.

Good morning everybody and welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams.

And uh you probably never had a better time.

But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that no one could even understand with their tiny shiny human brains.

Well, for that you're going to need a copper mug or a glass, a tank or shelves or sign, 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 hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

It happens.

That's right.

Right now, go.

You'll always remember where you were when you took your first simultaneous sip.

Okay.

You were in front of your computer.

All right.

Being that it is Saturday, uh immediately after the podcast will be a spaces event.

That's the audio only event on X and Owen Gregorian will be hosting that.

You can find that on his uh X feed.

Owen Gregorian.

Just search for him, you'll find it.

Well, happy Flag Day and happy Trump's birthday and happy Mega King Day and happy what else is it?

Um, World War II victory day.

Did I leave anything out?

Uh, happy gay pride month.

Um, any other birthdays?

Does anybody else have a birthday I can toss in there?

We got a lot going on.

Well, apparently the Trump military parade will be at 6:30 p.m.

Eastern time.

So, plenty of time to watch it.

And it turns out that there will be more horses than tanks.

I I was worried that uh the parade would be a substantial part of the military and maybe be a target or something, but it doesn't look like that.

It's a a smaller spectacle than I imagined.

So, when all of you heard it was going to be a military parade, what did you imagine?

because I imagined a bunch of missiles, you know, like uh Kim Jong-un does, you know, those are the missiles.

U but apparently there are no missiles.

So here's here's what uh one chart I saw this morning said uh 6700 soldiers, which is not a lot, but it's not a little.

So, you know, good good chunk of soldiers.

31 tanks, uh, 28 Bradley fighters, 16 Blackhawk helicopters, one Douglas C47, whatever that is.

There will be eight marching bands, uh, 34 horses, and one dog.

I can't wait to to see the dog.

There's just one dog.

Yeah.

So, we got 34 horses and only 31 tanks.

So, the good news is it's not uh it's not meant to be overwhelmingly military.

It's it looks like it's just about the right amount.

Um if you had too much, it would look like you're trying to be a dictator.

If you don't have enough, it would look like you're weak.

So, this might be just, you know, the right amount for Flag Day.

So, I'll say got that right.

Uh, but today is also no Kings Day according to who who decided that that is no kings day.

Well, we'll talk about that who's behind it.

But, um, apparently for No Kings Day, the idea is that it's sort of a protest movement to Trump's military parade because a military parade makes the Democrats think of dictators, which makes them think of kings, which makes them want to say no kings.

So, it's a anti-Trump sort of national event.

Um, apparently Whimo has announced that they will not be serving the area where the no kings will be um having their their day in Los Angeles.

Uh, instead they're going to shut down service.

So instead of ordering a Whimo, there's going to be way more walking than they expected.

Yeah, I'll say it twice.

There's going to be way more walking.

All right, so uh here's what General Flynn said about the event, the no kings event.

Um, I'll just read you why you posted, right?

So, General Flynn, uh, I've been in the intelligence game long enough to know a scop when I see one.

The no king's protests aren't spontaneous.

They're part of a broader strategy to undermine President Trump's administration.

The NOS's involved, Indivisible, Churla, Union, Del Bario, and others are part of a network of nearly 200 organizations, many of which have ties to the Democratic Party's activist wing.

Uh he says the FBI is sniffing around with director Cash Patel probing the funding behind the recent anti-ICE riots in LA.

Uh why?

Because when protests turn into looting and arson, it's not about free speech.

It's about intent to destabilize.

Now, so that's General Flynn who knows what he's talking about.

um believes that the protests are meant to destabilize the country.

They're not really, you know, an anti-Trump per se.

Um I told you the other day uh that um Chris Cuomo um you believe that China is be behind the funding of the of the anti-immigration stuff anyway.

and maybe this too.

So why would China do that?

Because the more protests and unrests there are in the United States, the better it is for China.

According to China, I guess Mayor Adams of New York City, no relation, according to the New York Post, he's going to deploy thousands of cops uh for the no king's day.

He wants to make sure that uh the outside agitators are handled because he expects a lot of outside agitators.

Now, I always wonder if you're if you're one of these uh groups that fund some big, you know, fake fake protest like this is party or thinking that there will always be outside agitators and you don't have to invite them or are they invited or are they, you know, known to be on your list of invitees?

So you don't have to do anything special.

You're always going to get somebody who'll do something violent.

I always wonder, do they plan the violent ones or do they just know that if you do a big event, violent people always show up?

So kind of a mystery there.

Well, the uh all the protests will be overshadowed by whatever happens in Israel and Iran.

And as you know probably by now, Israel is still going after Iranian um nuclear and military well missile sites in particular but military sites still going after scientists and uh I've got an open question because one of the one of the stories about this war which may or may not be 100% true is that Mossad does this super clever trick.

We don't know the details to get the generals to go to the same room and stay in that room long enough for a missile to go through the wall and kill all of them.

Now, the part they're not telling us is how do they get them all to go to the same room when obviously they would know that might be dangerous.

And did it involve AI?

Because we're we're sort of that place.

All right.

Imagine if you will that the first thing that uh Israel does is shuts down whatever private secure communication um the generals had.

So let's say that's you know first thing they do is just shut that down.

But they don't turn off their cell phones.

And I Yeah, I'm just speculating.

This is this is just imaginary.

But now imagine that Israel did a deep fake using AI of one of the uh you know generals saying uh our skewer communications are down.

Uh meet me at this room.

and they think, "Oh, I'm just meeting one general, so I better go." And let's say it's a voicemail, so there's no interaction.

So if you sent a message when you knew I would go to voicemail and it sounded exactly like your boss who who happened to be a general and he said our secure communications have been taken down but meet me at that place we always go to you know that room or whatever.

Would you go?

Well, you might.

So, I'm just I'll make this an open question.

Um, is this the first time that AI has been used to get people to to do do something they wouldn't have normally done, go to one room at the same time uh so that they could be attacked?

I don't know.

But MSAD is not telling us their secret trick for getting them all in the same room.

and keeping them there.

Um, we're we're also seeing what I call the dumpification strategy, which I think works.

Now, the dumpification strategy is you keep taking out the uh the top generals until you get down to a general who's not very good at being a general, and that's the last person in charge.

because it seems to me that it's rare to get, you know, some really gifted military genius aggressive general.

And by the time you get to like the 20th best general, they're not that good, are they?

You know, maybe they're more loyal than they are experienced.

So, I think part of Israel's strategy is to just get rid of all the smart ones.

Uh, General Millie, be nice.

If you get rid of all the the smart ones, um, you don't have to get rid of the rest because it wouldn't be able to do much.

So, I think that's happening.

Some people are saying that Iran is the weakest it's been in however many decades.

Do you think that's true?

Do you think Iran is at its weakest?

Its proxies have largely been decapitated, you know, like Hezbollah, etc.

So, that that part is true.

Their air defense seems to be entirely gone.

Um, but they do have still a little bite.

uh they've got an economy that at least for now Israel is uh allowing their oil industry to stay intact because obviously they could take it out if they want to and they might.

You know, there there's a point at which they might do that.

We're not there yet.

Um so is Iran its weakest ever?

uh economies probably a little bit uh shaken by it, but they still have their oil business, which is a lot of what they do.

Um and they still have a gazillion missiles to send at Israel.

And um at the moment, I would imagine their best nuclear stuff is still intact because it's so far underground.

Now, one of the mysteries is I saw a news report that said that um America has these, you know, bunker buster miss uh bombs that Israel does not.

But even if we gave them the bombs, they would have no uh aircraft to deliver them because they don't have the bombers.

They have mostly fighters.

So, but at the same time, I saw a report that said that Israel could take out those uh, you know, deeply buried uh, underground facilities in Iran, but they would use some different technique.

Now, do you believe that?

I asked Grock how Israel could do it uh if they didn't have the bunker busters and it basically gave a lot of suggestions, but they were all low odds of success.

So Grock doesn't know any way Israel could do that.

And I'm even wondering if our bunker busters could do it cuz I may have read it wrong, but isn't there uh their biggest remaining underground facility, isn't it something like 50 miles underground?

Like no matter how big your bunker buster was, there's still a limit, right?

I mean, you can't bunker bust absolutely everything that's underground, can you?

Maybe you can.

You know, maybe it causes such an earthquake that, you know, even the internal stuff collapses.

I don't know.

So, one of my questions is um can Israel effectively take out these, you know, facilities?

I would think that if they got rid of whatever Iranian uh military were guarding it because they could, you know, bomb anything that's external that if they could get to the doorway and penetrate the doorway, there's probably a way to do that, right?

Just penetrate the doorways.

Um, seems like you could kind of kill everybody who's in there if there's anybody in there.

I mean, there might not be any people in there.

Might only be assets.

So, bit of a mystery whether Israel could uh take care of the deeply buried stuff.

I don't know.

Anyway, uh the Ayatollah Ali Kami, did I say that correctly?

Um he's like 85 years old and he's the architect of everything that Iran is at the moment.

Meaning, you know, he put together the proxies.

I mean, maybe he didn't start it, but yeah, he was the the person who formed Iran into the country it is right now.

Now, imagine being that guy where you had all these big plans for Iran to be the, you know, the big dog in a neighborhood and it looked like it was working.

You know, you were getting all these proxies and Hezbollah was armed to the teeth and, you know, you had you had just all kinds of things going on that made you look like you were in charge.

And then you're 85 and you watch Israel take all of that away from you like a little bit at a time.

Well, there goes Hezbollah.

Well, there goes the head if you're military and the backup guy and the backup guy and the backup guy.

Well, there goes, you know, your international trade.

Um, at the at the moment they still have the oil facilities, but who knows?

So, imagine being in his head.

Do you think there's any chance that that guy can say, "You know what?

Um, you've taken everything I've had and what I really want is revenge, but what's good for my country is if I just make peace." No way.

Right.

So, poor Iran is under attack, but they really have the one person in the entire world who has no chance, no chance of making peace.

So, he's going to go down with a ship, don't you think?

And the ship is this country.

And Israel's not really going to have any choice.

They're either going to have to, you know, take over and tip over the whole country or they're going to have to let it reform into the same uh the same risk it was before.

And I don't think they're going to do that.

So, um, it looks to me like the Supreme Leader will be circling the drain and taking his entire country with him because I doubt he can separate his country's well-being from his own.

So, that's a problem.

The uh, Wall Street Journal points out that that we don't know how successful uh, Israel's raid is.

Um, you know, I mentioned that uh they haven't gotten through the blast doors yet of the the big Ford enrichment site.

Um, and if they don't do that, it will feel like they did not succeed.

So, one of the biggest goals is not accomplished.

It might be later, but at the moment, no.

Um, there's also something called a pickaxe mountain that apparently uh that also hasn't been destroyed because that's underground.

Um, also this is from still from the Wall Street Journal.

The uh top top top nuclear engineer is still alive.

So apparently there's some MIT educated nuclear engineer who is the head of it all who is successfully alive so far.

So if Israel stopped today, there would be two nuclear facilities that we don't know much about because they're deep underground and the head of all of it would still be alive.

So, how long would it take them to reconstitute?

Wouldn't be that long?

Um, but on the plus side for Israel, uh, Iran would know by now that its entire national security structure has been penetrated by MSAD.

So if you were Iran, you couldn't trust anyone because the uh I'm assuming that all the assets that Israel has that make that allows them to do all the internal stuff that they're doing in Iran like smuggling in missiles and stuff like that or smuggling in drones as part of their attack.

Those are Iranians, right?

It's not like there are Jewish people pretending to be Iranian citizens.

I doubt I I assume it would be Iranian citizens who for whatever reason u have decided to side with Israel instead of their own country.

But there must be more than a few of them.

And I assume that they oppose their own leadership.

I guess I mean by definition so Israel has a number of cities under attack.

I don't know the number but uh Tel Aviv as one of them and uh some say that Iran tried to attack the equivalent of uh Israel's Pentagon.

Um, I haven't heard if they if they got any of it.

And apparently reportedly the US is aiding and shooting down some of the missiles.

So, doesn't that make us directly part of the war?

Or do we say, "Oh, no, no, shooting down missiles is not really part of the war.

We're just, you know, on the sidelines watching and sometimes we shoot down a missile, but we're not part of it.

I don't know.

I guess we're getting away with that sort of.

Meanwhile, um I told you this before, but uh John Fedman, Senator Fedman, he's uh he's calling for the US to supply quote anything Israel needs for their attack or their war, I guess.

Um so, Fedman is more staunchly for Israel than just about anybody else.

Now, does that include bunker buster bombers?

Would uh would Fedman be in favor of the US joining with not only our bunker busters, but flying, you know, because our own pilots would have to fly the bombers.

Israel doesn't have the bombers.

Would he be in favor of that?

because that would be I think he would be by the way but uh that would be pretty radical position for a Democrat very pro-war and my my question is this who would be better off if America gets dragged further into that war?

Is there anybody who would be better off?

Would Iran be better off?

No.

No.

Iran does not want America to be more involved in the war because we have more offensive, you know, weapons than Israel does.

Does um America want us to be more involved in the war?

Well, some do, but I would I would think that by a majority, Americans would not be not want to be involved or more involved because we're, you know, at at the very least we're helping them to shoot down missiles.

So, I don't think America or Iran would like it.

But you're probably thinking to yourself, well, Israel obviously would like it, you know, if America joined in a full force way.

But I'm not sure because Israel has shown itself so capable that with the one exception of can they get to that underground stuff, you know, do they really have a way to do it without our direct help?

If they can, then wouldn't even Israel be better off if the United States stays out of it?

Because if you were if you're Israel, don't you want to send a credible threat to, you know, future future threats?

In other words, there might be a future where Iran is once again a threat.

Do you want them to think, "Oh, America will stop them from attacking, you know, they're they're America's little puppy.

They they can't put up an attack unless America says yes and America's, you know, bing at it." I think Israel is better off if it looks like they can make their own decisions free of American constraints and if they have enough military might that they don't need any American help whatsoever they they can absolutely dominate Iran without any American direct help you know except shooting down a few missiles.

So, I would argue that we're in a weird situation where there is no country on earth that benefits by the US getting more dragged into the war.

Not either side.

I think both sides would say, "Yeah, maybe stay out." just, you know, again, I'm speculating because I can't read the minds of the Israeli leadership, but it kind of looks like, you know, if if you had asked Israel before they started bombing, do you want America involved?

They might have said yes because, you know, it looked like a stronger force.

But now that they've been so successful uh without our direct allegedly direct involvement at this point I feel like they would say you know what we can we can take care of this.

So it could be nobody wants us to be more involved which would be good.

Um however, Iranian officials according to just the news uh they are saying that uh the US should be held quote fully accountable for the recent escalations uh because we're a quote backer of Israel.

So we're going to get blamed either way.

But will we be attacked?

which is the important thing.

Um, at the moment there's some kind of cyber attack that's making some shelves empty at Whole Foods, but we don't know who the attacker is.

It doesn't mean it's Iran.

It could be just some uh blackmail attacker.

So, we're not seeing any obvious attack by Iran on American assets at the moment, but uh that might happen.

Uh because Iran has threatened to hit some military bases within reach.

Um so Mossad allegedly smuggled in all these uh these exploding drones into Iran ahead of the attack.

So MSNBC is even sort of touting that uh success.

And I told you before that whenever Israel does a a military event of any kind that there there there's immediately immediately there's some story of amazing competence like oh my god how did they pull that off and that took a lot of planning and that show was smart they made those pagers explode or whatever it was.

So the the legend that's being formed now is that the MSAD smuggled in a bunch of drones so that they were local when the shooting started so that the drones didn't have to go too far to destroy some I think the air air defenses.

I think that's what they went after.

Um, but that's a to that's a kind of story that um I don't fully trust because it's it's a you know it's a little bit on the nose.

It's like, okay, I get it.

You're all you're all military geniuses and you're adversaries are not.

Um, and maybe it's true.

It might might be 100% true, but either way, it creates a uh a feeling within Iran that they're totally penetrated.

And that has got to be really, you know, a problem when you're trying to figure out how to respond because you wouldn't know who to trust.

These uh MSAD agents, are they Jewish?

You know, was was there were there a bunch of uh Israeli MSAD agents who were somehow within Iran and were doing all this stuff with these explosive drones and then they got away?

Or were they Iranian citizens that had been co-opted to do this one way or the other?

I don't know.

So um and then uh on X data Republican is asking this question that others are asking too the uh postmillennials asking it as well.

Um after seeing what these MSAD agents did because they could get the drones right next to the assets that were going to attack.

Um, why are we allowing China to own farmland next military bases in the United States?

Because it seems like we're putting ourselves at the same risk that Iran was, which is if China has figured out how to get a bunch of drones that they're hiding on the farmland that's right next to our military bases.

um you know, is that a risk that we could take?

Well, uh there's a map that uh I see an X all the time that shows these fairly enormous Chinese land holdings in in all the various states.

And I wonder if that's the scale because if that's the scale, it's really frightening.

But if it's not um you know it might be a totally illegitimate uh graph.

I don't know.

I don't trust it.

But if it's real, it does suggest that there's Chinese um owned farmland right next to a lot of our bases.

And that's not no risk.

That's definitely a greater risk.

I don't know if the right I don't know enough about this to know if the right answer is to, you know, deny China ownership of these places they they bought.

Um but it does seem like a pretty big risk.

Anyway, um so apparently President Trump told uh uh Bash that uh the people the people that the US was negotiating with with Iran are all dead.

So my question is this.

Wouldn't that be a big coincidence if all the negotiators were coincidentally dead?

Cuz they're not generals, right?

Um now, all right.

So, here here's the kind of up comment that you need to quit.

All right.

Justin account says, "Scott's rare blind spot is thinking everybody is basically American, just different language and food." Now, that's obviously a dumb comment, cuz you know that I don't think that.

And you're talking about me instead of to me.

Remember, this is a two-way communication.

If you think I missed something, as in did you know this, you could easily say that.

But um you sound like a Democrat.

Have you noticed that the Democrats I if I'm if I'm debating with a Republican, a Republican will say, you know, you're not aware of this or maybe maybe you should incorporate this into your model.

When I when I deal with a Democrat, they imagine I have character flaws and this is how they treat everybody.

They treat Trump and everybody the same.

They imagine a bunch of character flaws that they can somehow see that are invisible to other people and that those character flaws tell you everything you need to know about policy or opinion.

That that is so Democrat to go to to imagine that you have some kind of weird, you know, insight into my internal thoughts and that my internal thoughts are all messed up.

How would you know?

You you would know nothing.

All right.

But uh Trump says the negotiators are all dead, which makes me assume that the Israelis targeted them.

Now, what if they did?

Because they did, it's not like they targeted, you know, every member of the um the leadership because they were mostly going after the military people, but did they do the military people plus the negotiators because they knew that if any of the negotiators stayed alive, uh Trump would try to negotiate with them?

It's kind of clever in a brutal way.

I I feel like I feel like Trump is suggesting that Israel killed the negotiators just to make sure there was nobody to negotiate with.

Do you think that's what happened?

It looks like it.

We'll never know, but it looks like it.

Anyway, uh in other news, you know, the the poor Senator Alex Padilla, you know, he tried to make news by uh talking out at that Christy Gnome event, but then the uh security took him out.

Well, it was sort of like the drama.

I call the Democrats drama.

It was like they all got their new script.

And they're like, "Okay, we're done with the Maryland dad." That didn't work out as well as we hoped.

We're moving on to if they can arrest a senator.

Oh my god.

If they can arrest a senator, imagine imagine what they can do to you.

And then they would all take turns trying to see who could who could act like it was the worst by their attitude.

not by anything they said.

Right.

Um, by the way, uh, CNN had a security expert on on to talk about that take down of Senator Padilla.

And the uh security guy said on CNN that the security did a good job and that they did what they should do, which is they saw a uh an unknown threat and without any violence whatsoever, they neutralized it.

So, and they did it quickly and they did it efficiently.

So, I watched it and I thought to myself, "Yeah, actually that's looks like good work." Um, and I think I said that, but uh, MSNBC's Nicole Wallace called it one of the bleakest days of her entire anchoring career.

How many of you think that the uh the temporary handcuffing of one senator who was causing trouble and nobody recognized, how many of you think that was one of the bleakest days of her entire anchoring career?

Do you think she took it a little too far?

Well, the uh the game we're playing is that the dramcrats have to almost compete with each other to see who can make it sound like it was worse.

Oh my god, if they could take down a senator, what will they do to me next?

Oh, well, once you realize that the entire game is uh drama theater and when they get a new script, they all have to adapt to it.

It's like, oh god.

Oh no, the Maryland dad.

No.

Okay, we're done with him.

Uh, do you have the new new script?

Okay, new script.

Uh, Alex Padilla, Senator.

Oh, Senator.

Oh.

Anyway, according to the New York Post, um there was some kind of USID bribery for contract scheme that got busted and it was a $550 million bribery scheme.

Now, the bribery was only, I think, a million dollars, which is still a lot of bribery, but uh one uh individual is charged with getting a $1 million bribe in return for directing USID money to specific consulting companies, Apprio and Vistant.

Now, does that sound like exactly what you thought was going on with these NOS's?

Um, I won't say I always know it.

Uh I'll just say that uh recently it became obvious and uh uh Elon Musk has uh indicated this might be just the you know the top of the iceberg but that uh the USID thing was just a perfect money laundering situation that nobody was watching you know there was there was nobody in charge it looked like and the entire thing was about people rece receiving large amounts of money from the government and then redirecting that money.

Now, how does that not go wrong?

you're you're really just begging for money laundering and corruption and theft and that you know why would anybody direct a contract anywhere unless they were getting a huge bribe and they could easily hide the bribe in the you know the web of NOS's connected to other NOS.

So, of course, um, and I think we're going to be shocked by the size of the the fraud, you know, um, we may never get to the bottom of it, but my god, the the amount that our government was sending to people who were sending to people who were sending to people, uh, it's just crazy.

And there was just no control.

Speaking of crazy, um, remember how we used to laugh and say if a if a news story started with a Florida man because Florida was, you know, it seemed like Florida was being a little ridiculous for a while, a Florida man and then there would be some crazy thing that Florida man did.

Well, California's got a version of that now.

So, now we've got a representative, uh, Norma Torres, Democrat, um, and she just said that President Trump needs to reimburse Los Angeles for the anti-ICE riots.

What?

So, so Trump is supposed to be responsible financially, meaning the government for the anti-government protests.

As if they don't have financial backers.

Don't you think the financial backers of the protest should be paying for any uh extra expense?

May maybe that's the treatment.

Maybe maybe if you were uh financially backing a protest and the protest created a extra expense, you know, police expense and clean up of graffiti and repairs and stuff.

Maybe the people who funded it would be on the hook for that.

H I'm loving this idea even as I'm having it.

because that would be pretty expensive.

Now, the people who are funding it apparently are billionaires in China in some case.

So, it'd be hard to get to them, but uh they should be paying for it.

Even the increase in police, they should be paying for all that.

So, we'll see.

Meanwhile, um the Postmillennials reporting that uh a judge has blocked uh the Trump administration's executive order.

How many times have you heard this?

A federal a a judge has blocked the Trump administration executive order and then fill in the blank.

It's like there's a hundred of them.

Um, and this one is for citizenship verification in federal elections.

So, um, Trump's executive order had a few things in it, but one of them was that you had to check ID and make sure somebody was a citizen before they could vote.

And a judge has blocked that.

Now the reason is that uh the reason given anyway is that the constitution does not give the president that authority.

Now the argument that's coming from the Trump administration why they do have that authority is weak because their argument is that it's just common sense that you check IDs.

Well, it is.

It is common sense that you just check IDs and make some make sure somebody's a citizen, but you don't have the constitutional authority to mandate that common sense.

So, unfortunately, the judge, I think, has the right, you know, the right decision in terms of the law there.

there's no authority that would support uh that executive order, but we'll see.

I don't think it's done.

I think uh there's going to be more more appeals to that.

So So maybe there's more to come.

We'll see.

Well, in the uh what I call the photo op competition where the uh anti-ICE people are trying to get the best photograph.

They did pull ahead with that uh Senator Padilla thing, but we've already forgotten it.

So, it's it's closer to a tie again.

But here's According to the Hill.

Here's the the most exciting thing that happened in the uh uh the anti-ICE protests that I call the photo op competition.

Uh one Marine detained one guy temporarily and then handed him over to Homeland Security.

Now, apparently the Marines can't arrest anybody, but they can temporarily detain somebody and then turn them over to, you know, non-military authority, which is what they did.

So, the best we got in the photo op competition, and I didn't even see a photo, was one Marine detaining one guy temporarily.

That's the best I got.

that one Marine detaining one guy temporarily.

Um, and most of these Marines, if not all of them, are there to protect federal property and personnel.

So, so in theory there there shouldn't be too many photograph of that.

Anyway, um there's a uh survey that the college fix is writing about in which they tried to see how many colleges got rid of DEI versus just rebranded it and kept it.

Um, and they found, this is very unscientific, but they found 87 schools simply renamed their DEI offices and kept them.

But 78 schools, it looks like they got rid of DEI, you know, as they were legally obligated to do.

Now, um, of the ones who got rid of DEI, they tended to be located in Republican strongholds, as we call them.

So, roughly the same number cheated, actually more, uh, and renamed their DEI offices compared to those that closed.

It makes me wonder how those colleges that kept it are certified.

Is there any There's no federal government certification, right?

They can't descertify a college because it seems like you'd want to know that.

Like if you were interviewing a graduate from one of those colleges, wouldn't you rather know if they kept their DEI office and renamed it or if they got rid of it?

I'd kind of want to know that because it would tell me what I'm getting with the graduate.

All right.

But I don't think the government has much uh leverage there.

Um apparently according to CBS News, uh Barbie Maker and Mattel and Open AI have formed a uh some kind of agreement to develop AI powered toys.

Do you think that's a good idea?

Do you want your child to have AI powered toys?

Well, on one hand, it's inevitable and it's legal and you know, of course, it's coming.

On the other hand, does it seem to you that your child would be raised by his own toys?

Because if your toys can talk to you and they have some form of intelligence, they will be programmed so that at least the child version of them is as helpful as possible.

So will your dolls tell you to brush your teeth?

Will your GI Joe tell you?

I mean, that's probably not Mattel, but will your Barbie tell you um that you only have five more minutes before you have to head off to school?

Because you you might I mean this literally.

Um those of you have kids, you've you've uh probably experienced that you have a lot of you have a lot of uh influence over the child when they're young, when they're very young.

But the minute they go to school, the school is raising your kid because whatever it is you're giving them at home um gets harder and harder and whatever they're picking up at school is stickier and stickier.

So in effect, you raise your kids for the first, you know, six years and then they go to school and then I'd say the state the state raises them.

Now, you can do as much as you want when they come home, but there's just something about that going to school experience and that the peer peer association that uh effectively the the state and your peer their peers are raising them.

Don't you think that's going to happen with toys?

if they have AI, your toys will actually raise your kid because that's where they'll get all their tips and encouragement and compliments and things that parents forget to do, you know, even their love maybe.

So, it's inevitable, but a little bit unpredictable.

Well, uh, according to NBC News, there's, uh, some Philadelphia postal workers who were charged with stealing 80 million in US Treasury checks.

Now, they they didn't manage to get them all cashed through some, you know, third party mechanism, but they did cash 11 million of them.

Um, so the US postal workers were just looking for, you know, these uh government checks and whatever they found them, they just stole them.

Now, how many times have I told you that if you have a situation where it's possible for fraud that over time you always get it?

Well, here's one of those situations.

Now, they didn't get away with it, but they got away with it after I mean they they got away with stealing $80 million before they got caught.

Um, and then in a related story, New York Post, there's the an ex Illinois house speaker who was the longest serving legislative leader in US history was sentenced in a corruption case.

So, are you surprised that the longest serving legislative leader in the US was involved in corruption?

No.

You should not be surprised by that because in my opinion, if you were to list all the legislative leaders by how long they've been in office, the corruption would be perfectly aligned with how long they've been in office.

Because you know why they stay in office until they're 100 years old?

To cover up their corruption.

Is it a coincidence that it's an ex Illinois house speaker?

Because I feel like if this person had still been in power that maybe there never would have been any investigation.

So I think and this is just the Scott Adams opinion that when you see somebody like Schumer or you know any any of the ones who are way too old to still be in office even Joe Biden that the reason that they stay in office of Nancy Pelosi is because they have to maintain power so they don't get prosecuted.

Now, there obviously there would be exceptions to this rule, but I'll bet there's a really direct correlation between how old you are, how long you've been in office, and how corrupt you are.

I'll bet it's connected.

I'd be surprised if it's not.

All right.

So, here's a uh here's a new study.

I want you to see if this study was necessary or is it could they have just asked me?

Could they have just asked Scott?

All right.

So, according to the conversation, um, premenstrual dysphoria dysphoric disorders, uh, do they harm relationships or not?

Right?

So, that's a question.

And this premenstrual dysphoric disorder has the following um symptoms, right?

It affects uh 2% of people who menstruate.

Um I'm going to call them women.

People who menstruate, mostly women.

I mean, not all of them.

Um, so do you think that if somebody had the following uh predictable symptoms that would affect the relationship?

Uh, brain fog, stomach cramps, bloating, mood swings, anger, sadness, low self-worth, anxiety, and even thoughts of self harm.

Now, if your partner exhibited those symptoms, do you think your relationship would be as good as if they didn't?

All right, you're way ahead of me.

Yeah, I don't think they needed to study this.

Um because if you're having this many symptoms, that definitely is affecting your relationship.

There there's no way around that.

So, yes, they did not need to study this.

They could have just asked Scott.

Well, speaking of Scott, um we are at the end of my prepared notes and that means that it's time for the spaces that will be led by Owen Gregorian.

So, a few minutes after uh I'm done with this, I'm just going to say a few words privately to the local subscribers in a moment, but uh as soon as I'm done with this, uh spaces will fire up and just go to X and search for Owen Gregorian or you can look for my uh feed on X and you'll see the link to go to the spaces event.

All right, thanks for joining everyone.

Hope to see you tomorrow.

And in 30 seconds, I'll be private with the local supporters.

Happy Flag Day.

Everybody,

let's get our comments working and then

we got something. You're ready for it?

Yeah. You ready for it?

Here we go.

[Music]

Good morning everybody and welcome to

Coffee with Scott Adams.

And uh you probably never had a better

time. But if you'd like to take this

experience up to levels that no one

could even understand with their tiny

shiny human brains.

Well, for that you're going to need a

copper mug or a glass, a tank or shelves

or sign, 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 hit of the day,

the thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip. It

happens. That's right. Right now, go.

You'll always remember where you were

when you took your first simultaneous

sip.

Okay. You were in front of your

computer.

All right. Being that it is Saturday,

uh immediately after the podcast will be

a spaces event. That's the audio only

event on X and Owen Gregorian will be

hosting that. You can find that on his

uh X feed. Owen Gregorian. Just search

for him, you'll find it.

Well, happy Flag Day

and happy Trump's birthday

and happy Mega King Day

and happy what else is it? Um, World War

II victory day.

Did I leave anything out? Uh, happy

gay pride month.

Um,

any other birthdays?

Does anybody else have a birthday I can

toss in there?

We got a lot going on.

Well, apparently the Trump military

parade will be at 6:30 p.m. Eastern

time. So, plenty of time to watch it.

And it turns out that there will be more

horses than tanks.

I I was worried that uh the parade would

be a substantial part of the military

and maybe be a target or something, but

it doesn't look like that. It's a a

smaller spectacle than I imagined.

So, when all of you heard it was going

to be a military parade, what did you

imagine?

because I imagined a bunch of missiles,

you know, like uh Kim Jong-un does, you

know, those are the missiles.

U but apparently there are no missiles.

So here's here's what uh one chart I saw

this morning said uh 6700 soldiers,

which is not a lot, but it's not a

little. So, you know, good good chunk of

soldiers. 31 tanks, uh, 28 Bradley

fighters, 16 Blackhawk helicopters,

one Douglas C47,

whatever that is.

There will be eight marching bands, uh,

34 horses, and one dog.

I can't wait to to see the dog. There's

just one dog.

Yeah. So, we got 34 horses

and only 31 tanks.

So, the good news is it's not uh

it's not meant to be overwhelmingly

military. It's it looks like it's just

about the right amount.

Um if you had too much,

it would look like you're trying to be a

dictator. If you don't have enough, it

would look like you're weak. So, this

might be just, you know, the right

amount for Flag Day.

So, I'll say got that right. Uh, but

today is also no Kings Day

according to

who

who decided that that is no kings day.

Well, we'll talk about that who's behind

it. But, um, apparently for No Kings

Day, the idea is that it's sort of a

protest movement to Trump's military

parade because a military parade makes

the Democrats think of dictators,

which makes them think of kings, which

makes them want to say no kings. So,

it's a anti-Trump

sort of national event.

Um, apparently Whimo

has announced that they will not be

serving the area where the no kings will

be um having their their day in Los

Angeles.

Uh, instead they're going to shut down

service.

So instead of ordering a Whimo,

there's going to be way more walking

than they expected.

Yeah, I'll say it twice. There's going

to be way more walking.

All right, so uh here's what General

Flynn

said about

the event, the no kings event. Um, I'll

just read you why you posted, right? So,

General Flynn,

uh, I've been in the intelligence game

long enough to know a scop when I see

one. The no king's protests aren't

spontaneous. They're part of a broader

strategy to undermine President Trump's

administration.

The NOS's involved, Indivisible, Churla,

Union, Del Bario, and others are part of

a network of nearly 200 organizations,

many of which have ties to the

Democratic Party's activist wing.

Uh he says the FBI is sniffing around

with director Cash Patel probing the

funding behind the recent anti-ICE riots

in LA. Uh why? Because when protests

turn into looting and arson, it's not

about free speech. It's about intent to

destabilize.

Now, so that's General Flynn who knows

what he's talking about.

um believes that the protests are meant

to destabilize the country. They're not

really, you know, an anti-Trump per se.

Um I told you the other day

uh that um Chris Cuomo

um you believe that China is be behind

the funding of the of the

anti-immigration stuff anyway. and maybe

this too. So why would China do that?

Because the more protests and unrests

there are in the United States, the

better it is for China. According to

China, I guess Mayor Adams of New York

City, no relation, according to the New

York Post,

he's going to deploy thousands of cops

uh for the no king's day. He wants to

make sure that uh the outside agitators

are handled because he expects a lot of

outside agitators.

Now,

I always wonder if you're if you're one

of these uh groups that fund some big,

you know, fake fake protest like this

is party or thinking that there will

always be outside agitators and you

don't have to invite them or are they

invited

or are they, you know, known to be on

your list of invitees?

So you don't have to do anything

special. You're always going to get

somebody who'll do something violent. I

always wonder, do they plan the violent

ones or do they just know that if you do

a big event, violent people always show

up? So kind of a mystery there.

Well, the uh all the protests will be

overshadowed by whatever happens in

Israel and Iran.

And as you know probably by now, Israel

is still going after Iranian um nuclear

and military well missile sites in

particular but military sites still

going after scientists

and uh I've got an open question because

one of the one of the stories about this

war which may or may not be 100% true is

that

Mossad does this super clever trick. We

don't know the details to get the

generals to go to the same room and stay

in that room long enough for a missile

to go through the wall and kill all of

them. Now, the part they're not telling

us is how do they get them all to go to

the same room

when obviously they would know that

might be dangerous.

And

did it involve AI?

Because we're we're sort of that place.

All right. Imagine if you will

that the first thing that uh Israel does

is shuts down whatever private secure

communication

um the generals had. So let's say that's

you know first thing they do is just

shut that down. But they don't turn off

their cell phones.

And I Yeah, I'm just speculating. This

is this is just imaginary.

But now imagine that Israel did a deep

fake using AI

of one of the uh you know generals

saying uh our skewer communications are

down. Uh meet me at this room. and they

think, "Oh, I'm just meeting one

general, so I better go." And let's say

it's a voicemail, so there's no

interaction.

So if you sent a message when you knew I

would go to voicemail and it sounded

exactly like your boss who who happened

to be a general and he said our secure

communications have been taken down but

meet me at that place we always go to

you know that room or whatever. Would

you go?

Well, you might. So, I'm just I'll make

this an open question.

Um, is this the first time that AI has

been used to get people to

to do do something they wouldn't have

normally done, go to one room at the

same time uh so that they could be

attacked? I don't know. But MSAD is not

telling us their secret trick for

getting them all in the same room. and

keeping them there. Um, we're we're also

seeing what I call the dumpification

strategy,

which I think works. Now, the

dumpification strategy is you keep

taking out the uh the top generals

until you get down to a general who's

not very good at being a general, and

that's the last person in charge.

because it seems to me that it's rare to

get, you know, some really gifted

military genius aggressive general. And

by the time you get to like the 20th

best general,

they're not that good, are they? You

know, maybe they're more loyal than they

are experienced.

So, I think part of Israel's strategy is

to just get rid of all the smart ones.

Uh,

General Millie, be nice.

If you get rid of all the the smart

ones,

um, you don't have to get rid of the

rest because it wouldn't be able to do

much. So, I think that's happening. Some

people are saying that Iran is the

weakest it's been in however many

decades. Do you think that's true? Do

you think Iran is at its weakest? Its

proxies have largely been decapitated,

you know, like Hezbollah, etc. So, that

that part is true. Their air defense

seems to be entirely gone.

Um, but they do have still a little

bite.

uh they've got an economy that at least

for now

Israel is uh allowing their oil industry

to stay intact because obviously they

could take it out if they want to and

they might. You know, there there's a

point at which they might do that. We're

not there yet.

Um so is Iran its weakest ever?

uh economies probably

a little bit uh shaken by it, but they

still have their oil business, which is

a lot of what they do. Um and they still

have a gazillion missiles to send at

Israel.

And

um at the moment, I would imagine their

best nuclear stuff is still intact

because it's so far underground. Now,

one of the mysteries is I saw a news

report that said that um America has

these, you know, bunker buster miss uh

bombs that Israel does not.

But even if we gave them the bombs, they

would have no uh aircraft to deliver

them because they don't have the

bombers. They have mostly fighters.

So,

but at the same time, I saw a report

that said that Israel could take out

those uh, you know, deeply buried uh,

underground

facilities in Iran, but they would use

some different technique.

Now, do you believe that? I asked Grock

how Israel could do it

uh if they didn't have the bunker

busters and it basically

gave a lot of suggestions, but they were

all low odds of success.

So Grock doesn't know any way Israel

could do that. And I'm even wondering if

our bunker busters could do it cuz I may

have read it wrong, but isn't there uh

their biggest remaining underground

facility, isn't it something like 50

miles underground?

Like no matter how big your bunker

buster was, there's still a limit,

right? I mean, you can't bunker bust

absolutely everything that's

underground,

can you? Maybe you can. You know, maybe

it causes such an earthquake that, you

know, even the internal stuff collapses.

I don't know.

So,

one of my questions is

um can Israel effectively take out

these, you know, facilities? I would

think that if they got rid of whatever

Iranian

uh military were guarding it because

they could, you know, bomb anything

that's external

that if they could get to the doorway

and penetrate the doorway,

there's probably a way to do that,

right? Just penetrate the doorways.

Um, seems like you could

kind of kill everybody who's in there if

there's anybody in there. I mean, there

might not be any people in there. Might

only be assets.

So, bit of a mystery whether Israel

could uh take care of the deeply buried

stuff. I don't know.

Anyway, uh the Ayatollah Ali Kami,

did I say that correctly? Um he's like

85 years old

and he's the architect of everything

that Iran is at the moment.

Meaning, you know, he put together the

proxies. I mean, maybe he didn't start

it, but yeah, he was the the person who

formed Iran into the country it is right

now. Now, imagine being that guy

where you had all these big plans for

Iran to be the, you know, the big dog in

a neighborhood and it looked like it was

working. You know, you were getting all

these proxies and Hezbollah was armed to

the teeth and, you know, you had you had

just all kinds of things going on that

made you look like you were in charge.

And then you're 85

and you watch Israel take all of that

away from you like a little bit at a

time. Well, there goes Hezbollah.

Well, there goes the head if you're

military and the backup guy and the

backup guy and the backup guy.

Well, there goes, you know, your

international

trade.

Um, at the at the moment they still have

the oil facilities, but who knows? So,

imagine being in his head.

Do you think there's any chance that

that guy can say, "You know what? Um,

you've taken everything I've had and

what I really want is revenge, but

what's good for my country is if I just

make peace."

No way. Right. So, poor Iran is under

attack, but they really have the one

person in the entire world who has no

chance, no chance of making peace. So,

he's going to go down with a ship, don't

you think? And the ship is this country.

And Israel's not really going to have

any choice. They're either going to have

to, you know, take over and tip over the

whole country or they're going to have

to let it reform into the same uh the

same risk it was before. And I don't

think they're going to do that.

So,

um, it looks to me like the Supreme

Leader will be circling the drain and

taking his entire country with him

because I doubt he can separate

his country's well-being from his own.

So, that's a problem.

The uh, Wall Street Journal points out

that that we don't know how successful

uh, Israel's raid is.

Um, you know, I mentioned that uh they

haven't gotten through the blast doors

yet of the the big Ford enrichment site.

Um, and if they don't do that, it will

feel like they did not succeed. So, one

of the biggest goals is not

accomplished. It might be later, but at

the moment, no. Um, there's also

something called a pickaxe mountain

that apparently uh that also hasn't been

destroyed because that's underground.

Um, also this is from still from the

Wall Street Journal. The uh top top top

nuclear engineer is still alive. So

apparently there's some MIT educated

nuclear engineer who is the head of it

all who is successfully

alive so far.

So if Israel stopped today,

there would be two nuclear facilities

that we don't know much about because

they're deep underground and the head of

all of it

would still be alive.

So, how long would it take them to

reconstitute?

[Music]

Wouldn't be that long?

Um,

but on the plus side for Israel,

uh, Iran would know by now that its

entire national security structure has

been penetrated by MSAD.

So if you were Iran, you couldn't trust

anyone

because the uh I'm assuming that all the

assets that Israel has that make that

allows them to do all the internal stuff

that they're doing in Iran like

smuggling in missiles and stuff like

that or smuggling in drones as part of

their attack.

Those are Iranians, right? It's not like

there are Jewish people pretending to be

Iranian citizens.

I doubt I I assume it would be Iranian

citizens who for whatever reason u have

decided to side with Israel instead of

their own country.

But there must be more than a few of

them. And I assume that they oppose

their own leadership. I guess I mean by

definition

so Israel has a number of cities under

attack. I don't know the number but uh

Tel Aviv as one of them and uh

some say that Iran tried to attack the

equivalent of uh Israel's Pentagon. Um,

I haven't heard if they if they got any

of it.

And apparently reportedly the US is

aiding and shooting down some of the

missiles.

So, doesn't that make us directly part

of the war? Or do we say, "Oh, no, no,

shooting down missiles is not really

part of the war.

We're just, you know, on the sidelines

watching and sometimes we shoot down a

missile, but we're not part of it. I

don't know. I guess we're getting away

with that sort of. Meanwhile,

um I told you this before, but uh John

Fedman, Senator Fedman, he's uh he's

calling for the US to supply quote

anything Israel needs for their attack

or their war, I guess. Um so, Fedman is

more staunchly for Israel than just

about anybody else. Now, does that

include bunker buster bombers?

Would uh would Fedman be in favor of the

US joining with not only our bunker

busters, but flying, you know, because

our own pilots would have to fly the

bombers. Israel doesn't have the

bombers.

Would he be in favor of that?

because that would be I think he would

be by the way but uh that would be

pretty radical position for a Democrat

very pro-war

and my my question is this who would be

better off if America gets dragged

further into that war? Is there anybody

who would be better off? Would Iran be

better off? No. No. Iran does not want

America to be more involved in the war

because we have more offensive, you

know, weapons than Israel does. Does

um America

want us to be more involved in the war?

Well, some do, but I would I would think

that by a majority, Americans would not

be not want to be involved or more

involved because we're, you know, at at

the very least we're helping them to

shoot down missiles.

So, I don't think America or Iran would

like it. But you're probably thinking to

yourself, well, Israel obviously would

like it, you know, if America joined in

a full force way. But I'm not sure

because Israel has shown itself so

capable

that with the one exception of can they

get to that underground stuff, you know,

do they really have a way to do it

without our direct help? If they can,

then wouldn't even Israel be better off

if the United States stays out of it?

Because if you were if you're Israel,

don't you want to send a credible threat

to, you know, future

future threats? In other words, there

might be a future where Iran is once

again a threat.

Do you want them to think, "Oh, America

will stop them from attacking, you know,

they're they're America's little puppy.

They they can't put up an attack unless

America says yes and America's, you

know, bing at it."

I think Israel is better off if it looks

like they can make their own decisions

free of American constraints

and if they have enough military might

that they don't need any American help

whatsoever they they can absolutely

dominate Iran without any American

direct help you know except shooting

down a few missiles.

So, I would argue that we're in a weird

situation where there is no country on

earth that benefits by the US getting

more dragged into the war. Not either

side. I think both sides would say,

"Yeah, maybe stay out."

just, you know, again, I'm speculating

because I can't read the minds of the

Israeli leadership, but it kind of looks

like, you know, if if you had asked

Israel before they started bombing, do

you want America involved?

They might have said yes because, you

know, it looked like a stronger force.

But now that they've been so successful

uh without our direct

allegedly direct involvement

at this point I feel like they would say

you know what we can we can take care of

this. So it could be nobody wants us to

be more involved which would be good.

Um however, Iranian officials

according to just the news uh they are

saying that uh the US should be held

quote fully accountable for the recent

escalations

uh because we're a quote backer of

Israel.

So we're going to get blamed either way.

But will we be attacked?

which is the important thing. Um, at the

moment there's some kind of cyber attack

that's making some shelves empty at

Whole Foods, but we don't know who the

attacker is. It doesn't mean it's Iran.

It could be just some uh blackmail

attacker.

So,

we're not seeing any obvious attack by

Iran on American assets at the moment,

but uh that might happen.

Uh because Iran has threatened to hit

some military bases within reach.

Um

so Mossad allegedly smuggled in all

these uh these exploding drones into

Iran ahead of the attack. So MSNBC is

even

sort of touting that uh success.

And I told you before that whenever

Israel does a a military

event of any kind that there there

there's immediately immediately there's

some story of amazing competence like oh

my god how did they pull that off and

that took a lot of planning and that

show was smart they made those pagers

explode or whatever it was. So the the

legend that's being formed now is that

the MSAD smuggled in a bunch of drones

so that they were local when the

shooting started so that the drones

didn't have to go too far to destroy

some I think the air air defenses. I

think that's what they went after.

Um, but that's a to that's a kind of

story

that um I don't fully trust because it's

it's a you know it's a little bit on the

nose. It's like, okay, I get it. You're

all you're all military geniuses and

you're adversaries are not. Um,

and maybe it's true. It might might be

100% true, but either way, it creates a

uh a feeling within Iran that they're

totally penetrated.

And that has got to be really,

you know, a problem when you're trying

to figure out how to respond because you

wouldn't know who to trust. These uh

MSAD agents,

are they Jewish?

You know, was was there were there a

bunch of uh Israeli

MSAD agents who were somehow within Iran

and were doing all this stuff with these

explosive drones and then they got away?

Or were they Iranian citizens

that had been co-opted to do this one

way or the other?

I don't know.

So um

and then uh on X data Republican is

asking this question that others are

asking too the uh postmillennials asking

it as well. Um after seeing what these

MSAD agents did because they could get

the drones right next to the assets that

were going to attack.

Um, why are we allowing China to own

farmland next military bases in the

United States?

Because it seems like we're putting

ourselves at the same risk that Iran

was, which is if China has figured out

how to get a bunch of drones that

they're hiding on the farmland that's

right next to our military bases.

um

you know, is that a risk that we could

take? Well,

uh there's a map that uh I see an X all

the time that shows these fairly

enormous Chinese land holdings in in all

the various states. And

I wonder if that's the scale

because if that's the scale, it's really

frightening. But if it's not um you know

it might be a totally illegitimate uh

graph. I don't know. I don't trust it.

But if it's real, it does suggest that

there's Chinese um owned farmland right

next to a lot of our bases.

And

that's not no risk. That's definitely a

greater risk. I don't know if the right

I don't know enough about this to know

if the right answer is to,

you know, deny China ownership of these

places they they bought.

Um

but it does seem like a pretty big risk.

Anyway,

um so apparently President Trump

told uh uh Bash

that uh the people the people that the

US was negotiating with with Iran are

all dead.

So my question is this.

Wouldn't that be a big coincidence

if all the negotiators

were coincidentally dead? Cuz they're

not generals, right?

Um

[Music]

now, all right. So, here here's the kind

of up comment that you need to

quit.

All right. Justin account says, "Scott's

rare blind spot is thinking everybody is

basically American, just different

language and food." Now, that's

obviously a dumb comment,

cuz you know that I don't think that.

And you're talking about me instead of

to me. Remember, this is a two-way

communication. If you think I missed

something, as in did you know this, you

could easily say that. But um you sound

like a Democrat.

Have you noticed that the Democrats I if

I'm if I'm debating with a Republican,

a Republican will say, you know,

you're not aware of this or maybe maybe

you should incorporate this into your

model.

When I when I deal with a Democrat,

they imagine I have character flaws and

this is how they treat everybody. They

treat Trump and everybody the same. They

imagine a bunch of character flaws that

they can somehow see that are invisible

to other people and that those character

flaws tell you everything you need to

know about policy or opinion.

That that is so Democrat

to go to to imagine that you have some

kind of weird, you know, insight into my

internal thoughts and that my internal

thoughts are all messed up.

How would you know?

You you would know nothing. All right.

But uh Trump says the negotiators are

all dead, which makes me assume that the

Israelis targeted them.

Now, what if they did?

Because they did, it's not like they

targeted, you know, every member of the

um the leadership because they were

mostly going after the military people,

but did they do the military people

plus the negotiators

because they knew that if any of the

negotiators stayed alive, uh Trump would

try to negotiate with them?

It's kind of clever in a brutal way. I I

feel like

I feel like Trump is suggesting that

Israel killed the negotiators

just to make sure there was nobody to

negotiate with.

Do you think that's what happened? It

looks like it. We'll never know, but it

looks like it.

Anyway, uh in other news, you know, the

the poor Senator Alex Padilla,

you know, he tried to make news by uh

talking out at that Christy Gnome event,

but then the uh security took him out.

Well, it was sort of like the drama. I

call the Democrats drama. It was like

they all got their new script. And

they're like, "Okay, we're done with the

Maryland dad." That didn't work out as

well as we hoped. We're moving on to if

they can arrest a senator. Oh my god. If

they can arrest a senator, imagine

imagine what they can do to you. And

then they would all take turns trying to

see who could who could act like it was

the worst by their attitude. not by

anything they said. Right. Um, by the

way, uh, CNN had a security expert on on

to talk about that take down of Senator

Padilla. And the uh security guy said on

CNN that the security did a good job and

that they did what they should do, which

is they saw a uh an unknown threat

and without any violence whatsoever,

they neutralized it. So, and they did it

quickly

and they did it efficiently.

So, I watched it and I thought to

myself, "Yeah, actually that's looks

like good work." Um, and I think I said

that, but uh, MSNBC's Nicole Wallace

called it one of the bleakest days of

her entire anchoring career.

How many of you think that the uh the

temporary handcuffing of one senator who

was causing trouble and nobody

recognized, how many of you think that

was one of the bleakest days of her

entire anchoring career?

Do you think she took it a little too

far?

Well, the uh the game we're playing is

that the dramcrats

have to almost compete with each other

to see who can make it sound like it was

worse. Oh my god, if they could take

down a senator,

what will they do to me next?

Oh,

well, once you realize that the entire

game is uh drama theater and when they

get a new script, they all have to adapt

to it. It's like, oh god. Oh no, the

Maryland dad. No. Okay, we're done with

him. Uh, do you have the new new script?

Okay, new script. Uh, Alex Padilla,

Senator. Oh, Senator. Oh.

Anyway,

according to the New York Post,

um there was some kind of USID bribery

for contract scheme that got busted and

it was a $550 million bribery scheme.

Now, the bribery was only, I think, a

million dollars, which is still a lot of

bribery,

but uh one uh individual is charged with

getting a $1 million bribe in return for

directing USID money to specific

consulting companies, Apprio and

Vistant. Now, does that sound like

exactly what you thought was going on

with these NOS's?

Um, I won't say I always know it.

Uh I'll just say that uh recently it

became obvious and uh uh Elon Musk has

uh indicated this might be just the you

know the top of the iceberg but that uh

the USID thing was just a perfect money

laundering

situation that nobody was watching you

know there was there was nobody in

charge it looked like and the entire

thing was about people rece receiving

large amounts of money from the

government and then redirecting that

money.

Now, how does that not go wrong?

you're you're really just begging for

money laundering and corruption and

theft and that you know why would

anybody direct a contract anywhere

unless they were getting a huge bribe

and they could easily hide the bribe in

the you know the web of NOS's connected

to other NOS.

So, of course,

um, and I think we're going to be

shocked

by the size of the the fraud, you know,

um, we may never get to the bottom of

it, but my god, the the amount that our

government was sending to people who

were sending to people who were sending

to people,

uh, it's just crazy. And there was just

no control.

Speaking of crazy,

um,

remember how we used to laugh and say if

a if a news story started with a Florida

man

because Florida was, you know, it seemed

like Florida was being a little

ridiculous for a while, a Florida man

and then there would be some crazy thing

that Florida man did. Well, California's

got a version of that now. So, now we've

got a representative, uh, Norma Torres,

Democrat,

um, and she just said that President

Trump needs to reimburse Los Angeles for

the anti-ICE riots.

What? So, so Trump is supposed to be

responsible financially,

meaning the government for the

anti-government protests.

As if they don't have financial backers.

Don't you think the financial backers of

the protest should be paying for any uh

extra expense?

May maybe that's the treatment. Maybe

maybe if you were uh financially backing

a protest and the protest created a

extra expense, you know, police expense

and clean up of graffiti and repairs and

stuff. Maybe the people who funded it

would be on the hook for that.

[Music]

H

I'm loving this idea even as I'm having

it.

because

that would be pretty expensive. Now, the

people who are funding it apparently are

billionaires in China in some case. So,

it'd be hard to get to them, but uh they

should be paying for it. Even the

increase in police, they should be

paying for all that.

So, we'll see.

Meanwhile,

um the Postmillennials reporting that uh

a judge has blocked

uh the Trump administration's executive

order. How many times have you heard

this? A federal a a judge has blocked

the Trump administration executive order

and then fill in the blank. It's like

there's a hundred of them. Um, and this

one is for citizenship verification in

federal elections.

So,

um, Trump's executive order had a few

things in it, but one of them was that

you had to check ID and make sure

somebody was a citizen before they could

vote. And a judge has blocked that. Now

the reason

is that uh the reason given anyway is

that the constitution does not give the

president that authority.

Now the argument that's coming from the

Trump administration why they do have

that authority is weak

because their argument is that it's just

common sense that you check IDs. Well,

it is. It is common sense that you just

check IDs and make some make sure

somebody's a citizen, but you don't have

the constitutional authority

to mandate that common sense. So,

unfortunately,

the judge, I think, has the right, you

know, the right decision in terms of the

law there. there's no authority that

would support uh that executive order,

but we'll see. I don't think it's done.

I think uh there's going to be more more

appeals to that.

So So maybe there's more to come. We'll

see.

Well, in the uh what I call the photo op

competition where the uh anti-ICE people

are trying to get the best photograph.

They did pull ahead with that uh Senator

Padilla thing, but we've already

forgotten it. So, it's it's closer to a

tie again. But here's According to the

Hill. Here's the the most exciting thing

that happened in the uh uh the anti-ICE

protests that I call the photo op

competition. Uh one Marine

detained one guy temporarily

and then handed him over to Homeland

Security. Now, apparently the Marines

can't arrest anybody, but they can

temporarily detain somebody and then

turn them over to, you know,

non-military authority, which is what

they did. So, the best we got in the

photo op competition, and I didn't even

see a photo, was one Marine detaining

one guy temporarily.

That's the best I got. that one Marine

detaining one guy temporarily.

Um, and most of these Marines, if not

all of them, are there to protect

federal property and personnel. So, so

in theory there there shouldn't be too

many photograph of that.

Anyway,

um

there's a uh survey that the college fix

is writing about in which they tried to

see how many colleges got rid of DEI

versus just rebranded it and kept it.

Um, and they found, this is very

unscientific, but they found 87 schools

simply renamed their DEI offices and

kept them. But 78

schools,

it looks like they got rid of DEI, you

know, as they were legally obligated to

do. Now, um, of the ones who got rid of

DEI, they tended to be located in

Republican strongholds, as we call them.

So, roughly the same number cheated,

actually more, uh, and renamed their DEI

offices compared to those that closed.

It makes me wonder how those colleges

that kept it are certified.

Is there any There's no federal

government certification, right? They

can't descertify a college because it

seems like you'd want to know that. Like

if you were interviewing a graduate from

one of those colleges, wouldn't you

rather know

if they kept their DEI office and

renamed it or if they got rid of it? I'd

kind of want to know that because it

would tell me what I'm getting with the

graduate.

All right. But I don't think the

government has much uh leverage there.

Um apparently according to CBS News, uh

Barbie Maker and Mattel and Open AI have

formed a uh some kind of agreement to

develop AI powered toys. Do you think

that's a good idea?

Do you want your child to have AI

powered toys?

Well, on one hand, it's inevitable and

it's legal and you know, of course, it's

coming. On the other hand,

does it seem to you that your child

would be raised by his own toys?

Because if your toys can talk to you and

they have some form of intelligence,

they will be programmed so that at least

the child version of them is as helpful

as possible.

So will your dolls tell you to brush

your teeth?

Will your GI Joe tell you? I mean,

that's probably not Mattel, but will

your Barbie tell you

um that you only have five more minutes

before you have to head off to school?

Because you you might

I mean this literally.

Um those of you have kids, you've you've

uh probably experienced that you have a

lot of you have a lot of uh influence

over the child when they're young, when

they're very young.

But the minute they go to school,

the school is raising your kid

because whatever it is you're giving

them at home

um gets harder and harder and whatever

they're picking up at school is stickier

and stickier. So in effect, you raise

your kids for the first, you know, six

years and then they go to school and

then I'd say the state the state raises

them. Now, you can do as much as you

want when they come home, but there's

just something about that going to

school experience and that the peer peer

association

that uh effectively the the state and

your peer their peers are raising them.

Don't you think that's going to happen

with toys? if they have AI, your toys

will actually raise your kid because

that's where they'll get all their tips

and encouragement and compliments and

things that parents forget to do, you

know, even their love maybe.

So, it's inevitable,

but

a little bit unpredictable.

Well, uh, according to NBC News,

there's, uh, some Philadelphia postal

workers who were charged with stealing

80 million in US Treasury checks.

Now, they they didn't manage to get them

all cashed through some, you know, third

party mechanism, but they did cash 11

million of them.

Um,

so the US postal workers were just

looking for, you know, these uh

government checks and whatever they

found them, they just stole them.

Now, how many times have I told you that

if you have a situation where it's

possible for fraud that over time you

always get it? Well, here's one of those

situations. Now, they didn't get away

with it, but they got away with it

after I mean they they got away with

stealing $80 million

before they got caught.

Um, and then in a related story, New

York Post, there's the an ex Illinois

house speaker

who was the longest serving legislative

leader in US history was sentenced in a

corruption case.

So,

are you surprised that the longest

serving legislative leader in the US was

involved in corruption?

No. You should not be surprised by that

because in my opinion, if you were to

list all the legislative leaders by how

long they've been in office, the

corruption would be perfectly aligned

with how long they've been in office.

Because you know why they stay in office

until they're 100 years old?

To cover up their corruption.

Is it a coincidence that it's an ex

Illinois house speaker?

Because I feel like if this person had

still been in power that maybe there

never would have been any investigation.

So I think and this is just the Scott

Adams opinion that when you see somebody

like Schumer or you know any any of the

ones who are way too old to still be in

office even Joe Biden that the reason

that they stay in office of Nancy Pelosi

is because they have to maintain power

so they don't get prosecuted.

Now, there obviously there would be

exceptions to this rule, but I'll bet

there's a really direct correlation

between how old you are, how long you've

been in office, and how corrupt you are.

I'll bet it's connected.

I'd be surprised if it's not.

All right. So, here's a uh here's a new

study. I want you to see if this study

was necessary or is it could they have

just asked me? Could they have just

asked Scott? All right. So, according to

the conversation,

um, premenstrual dysphoria

dysphoric disorders,

uh, do they harm relationships or not?

Right? So, that's a question. And this

premenstrual dysphoric disorder has the

following um symptoms, right? It affects

uh 2% of people who menstruate.

Um I'm going to call them women.

People who menstruate,

mostly women. I mean, not all of them.

Um,

so do you think that if somebody had the

following uh predictable symptoms that

would affect the relationship?

Uh, brain fog, stomach cramps, bloating,

mood swings, anger, sadness, low

self-worth, anxiety, and even thoughts

of self harm.

Now, if your partner exhibited those

symptoms, do you think your relationship

would be as good as if they didn't?

All right, you're way ahead of me. Yeah,

I don't think they needed to study this.

Um because if you're having this many

symptoms, that definitely is affecting

your relationship. There there's no way

around that. So, yes, they did not need

to study this. They could have just

asked Scott.

Well, speaking of Scott,

um we are at the end of my prepared

notes and that means that it's time for

the spaces that will be led by Owen

Gregorian. So, a few minutes after uh

I'm done with this, I'm just going to

say a few words privately to the local

subscribers in a moment, but uh as soon

as I'm done with this, uh spaces will

fire up and just go to X and search for

Owen Gregorian or you can look for my uh

feed on X and you'll see the link to go

to the spaces event. All right,

thanks for joining everyone. Hope to see

you tomorrow. And in 30 seconds, I'll be

private with the local supporters. Happy

Flag Day.