Episode 2900 CWSA 07/17/25

Come on in.

It's time for your favorite part of the day.

Come on in here.

Get in here.

I'm checking our stocks and looks like stocks are up a little bit.

All right, good for us if you have stocks.

All right, let me get my comments going and then we got a show.

Don't want to miss anything.

Come on.

There we go.

So, looks like I can't do this upside down and I can't do it right side up because it's got a cord in the way.

How will I make this work?

Like that will not be defeated.

Oh, Jean, stay awake.

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

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

But if you'd like to try desperately Oh, my phone fell over.

to elevate this experience to levels that no one can understand with their tiny shiny human brains.

All you need for that is a cuper mongra glass of tanker chelerstein a canteen jugger flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now for the unparalle pleasure the dopamine end of the day the thing that makes everything better it's called the simultaneous sip exactly So good.

So, so good.

Well, let's uh check the world of science to see if we can save them any money.

Um, oh yeah, here's one.

Uh according to Cornell University, Sarah Magnus Sharp is writing that uh they did some studies and found out that the secret to keeping your New Year's resolution is that you have to like the process as much as the goal.

H the process as much as the goal.

Huh?

Does that sound familiar at all?

Yes.

If you don't like this system, you're not going to get to the goal.

A perfect example of that is exercise.

If you choose an exercise that you hate, you're not going to get in shape.

Not a chance.

But let's say you follow the disgraced cartoonist advice and you find some exercise that you enjoy and you reward yourself for it.

I I used to like going to the gym cuz I like the social element of it and I would give myself a healthy snack when I was done and I was addicted to the process.

So yes, the reason that some people achieve their goals is that they enjoy the process.

The atomic habits guy wrote about this.

Well, yes, the atomic habits guy wrote about a few things that I also wrote about first, which he admits.

He gives me he does give me credit for stuff in his book.

Anyway, uh let's see if uh science has any more surprises for us.

Oh, here uh Eric Dolan is writing about um there were psychedelic retreats for people with uh PTSD.

And they found that if they did psychedelics um it helped them with their PTSD.

Now, does that story sound familiar?

At least once a week, there's a new study where somebody gave somebody some psychedelics and discovered that it helped their their mental situation greatly.

It either solved their depression or their be PTSD or some other major mental problems.

Have you ever seen a story about uh you know people responsibly using hallucinogens where it didn't work?

I feel like it works every time they test it.

No matter what the domain is, as long as it's something about mental health, it helps every time.

Every person every time.

Now there must be there must be situations where it goes wrong for some people.

So don't take any don't get any medical advice from me.

I'm just noting that every time this story is in the news has the same ending.

Yeah, it was a big difference.

Something should something should happen.

If we uh we could replace I believe all therapy with uh AI as your therapist just telling you to uh responsibly take some hallucinogens.

Maybe maybe that's all you need.

Um I saw a post by Wall Street apes on X.

They showed a video of there's some company in San Francisco.

I don't know what company that'sing a little robot uh on wheels, you know, not not the kind that looks like a person, but a little robot on wheels for delivering stuff in urban environments.

And they're testing it, this doesn't seem real, but I think it is.

They're testing it in LA um to see if they can deliver things on the sidewalk, but they they had to do a test where they put mannequins on the sidewalk like uh like homeless people who had passed down from fentinel.

And then they they had to test the robot to see if it would go around the bodies the homeless people lying on the sidewalks.

And uh I think it did, but uh we're just assuming from the video that what they were testing was if the robots could go around the humans.

What we didn't see is if they're testing the robot to kill the humans and then go around them.

I don't know.

I don't know.

We just saw the bodies.

We don't know how they died, but it might be the first step in the robots destroying all humanity.

Speaking of that, Perplexity, the AI company that I've said good things about in the past, it's uh it's a hot little AI company.

Um I don't know if it will survive because it's not one of the top three.

If you're not in the top three, I don't know if the government will even let you be successful.

So maybe Apple will buy them or something.

But Perplexity has rolled out its own browser called Comet.

And I saw one report on Tech Radar by John Anthony Dodto who tested it and he was impressed.

Now the reason that an AI company would want to make its own uh browser is so the browser could act as your agent and do a bunch of stuff while you're doing whatever you want to do.

So, um, as, uh, John Anthony points out in his article that when you first start using it, um, it doesn't seem like it's a big time saver because you tell it to do something and then you sit there and watch to make sure it did it.

So, it takes about, you know, it's not really that much of a timesaver because you're prevented from doing something else because you're watching to make sure it worked.

But as he points out, you eventually reach a point where you realize, wait a minute, this usually works.

So, I'll just tell it to make some reservations or whatever, whatever you're telling it to do, and I'll do some work on something else in the meantime.

And apparently, that is a big wow experience because when you get back to it and it did what you wanted, you saved a lot of time.

Now, here's my take.

I've been saying this for probably 20 years or more in public and people always fight me on this and you will fight me too.

So get ready to fight me.

Here's what I believe.

I believe that uh humans want to maintain privacy as much as possible.

So far we're on the same page.

Everybody likes privacy mostly about themselves.

We don't care about privacy for other people, but we like it for ourselves.

Um, but in order to use and really get all the benefit from these AI agents, they're going to need to have your passwords and they're going to need to know all about you because the things that you want them to do, such as making reservations or whatever, it's going to require a lot of knowledge about you.

you know, your name, your address, in some cases, maybe your social security number if you're telling it to deal with something financial or banking or whatever.

How many of you would feel comfortable giving your own AI if they told you, "Oh, it's totally secure.

We'll never look at it at the company level." How many of you would feel comfortable with an AI that has your password for anything important?

Maybe for making restaurant reservations, maybe.

But would you let it have access to your bank?

Because if you did, think of all the time you would save.

I would love an AI that had access to my bank cuz I'm continually signing up for, you know, things that are autopay or debugging some problem with my bank or the there's a credit card that got stolen.

Just always I'm just always dealing with bank and IRS stuff.

How many of you would trust your AI to have access to all of that stuff?

The answer is none of you, not a single one of you, and certainly not me, would feel comfortable with it.

Now, here's the part that I've been predicting.

We'll all get over it.

We'll get over it.

Once you realize that privacy was always an illusion, you're going to let it go.

It's always been an illusion.

The only thing that protects your privacy in a world where the government can get access to anything that they want, they only need to have a reason.

And it doesn't have to be even a good reason.

It could be a reason they made up because they're lawfaring you.

So you don't have any privacy.

The only thing you do you have that protects you is your boringness.

Have you heard me say this before?

The only protection you have is being boring and not being interesting to the government, not being interesting to hackers, not being interested to people at, you know, banks and other places that have access to your private information.

The only reason that all of you have not been victimized is that you're boring.

There there is somebody who could get access to everything you have, the government.

Uh they just need a reason.

As long as you're boring, no reason.

But the moment you do a freak off, you know, sort of Diddy style, well, suddenly they're they're accessing your phones and your computers and talking to everybody who ever know knew you.

You don't have privacy.

You don't even have a little bit of privacy.

You have zero privacy.

You only have the right to be boring.

That's it.

Nothing else.

So, I'm not saying that you should give up your privacy.

And I'm not saying I would enjoy it if it happened if I lost mine.

Wouldn't like it at all.

But uh I bet you once we realize that privacy went away a long time ago or maybe you never had it that uh you'll just say yeah I don't really have any serious privacy cuz my government can get whatever they want if not hackers but I can use these AI agents to make my life 10 times easier.

So I think people will just get over privacy.

That's my prediction.

And again, I'm not saying you should or that you'll like it.

I'm just predicting that's where it will go.

Well, Soft Bank, the company is Soft.

Bank.

Um, according to digital trends, Trevor Moog is writing that uh they've developed AI agents to make each worker like a thousand armed deity.

So the head of Soft Bank, um, Son Mayashi Masa Yoshi, uh, he said that they now have this technology that would allow you that that would allow the AI to make its own agents and you could have potentially one person could have, you know, a million AI agents doing stuff for you.

Um, but I say I don't believe this is a fruitful direction because if you had one AI agent and you told it to make some hotel reservations, it wouldn't be a big burden on you to check and make sure it did it right and then correct whatever wasn't right.

But if you had a million agents that were doing things on your behalf or even a hundred, how in the world would you supervise all that?

And would you feel comfortable that if you didn't supervise it, the AI was going to go and do it correctly, the way you want, and not cause you any problems?

I don't know.

I feel like there will be a natural limit to how many AI agents anybody will ever want working on their behalf because you got to check their work all the time.

So maybe three might be your limit.

Not a million.

Well, Delta Airlines, according to Fortune magazine, Arena Yanova is writing, they're eliminating set prices for their flights in favor of having the AI determine how much you personally will pay for a ticket.

And apparently, this is already being uh it's rolled out and it's being tested on a small percentage of their customers.

To which I asked the question on X and everybody had the same answer.

How much would you be happy to find out that the price you were paying for your airline ticket at Delta was determined by the AI figuring out the most you were willing to pay?

I can't think of anything that would make me hate the company more than that.

Can you?

Because how would the AI determine how much you're willing to pay?

What does it know about you?

Let me give you an example.

Let's say your uh one of your parents is elderly and you're making frequent flights to spend time with them.

Wouldn't Delta figure out that this person is going to book those frequent flights because there's obviously something on the other end that's important to that person.

And so they raise the price for you to see your dying parents.

Now, it wouldn't know it's doing that.

It would just say, "I feel like this person's going to pay a little more for a ticket because they fly a lot.

So, there must be something on the other end of that flight that they really care about." How in the world could it could it possibly charge me more than other people for whatever it is I want where I wouldn't want to go in with a machine gun and kill everybody at their company.

Don't do that, by the way.

That's not a That is not a call to violence.

Uh, oh my god.

I really can't think of a worse a worse idea, but we'll see.

They swear they're going to roll it out.

All right.

Uh, Trump announced yesterday that they're cutting federal funding for California's ridiculous high-speed rail project.

They had uh billions of dollars um approved, but it managed to build basically no high-speed rail at all.

And I said to myself, well, that'll teach California because once that federal funding is cut, there's no way they're going to keep wasting this money.

But then I looked at the context and the entire project is currently estimated to cost $128 billion to build California's highspeed rail.

I didn't even know they were still working on it.

Did anybody know that?

I thought that project was killed a long time ago.

But the amount that the uh and that's the estimate is four times the original estimated price of 33 billion.

So it went from I think we could do this for 33 billion to I don't know but we might be able to get it done for 128 billion.

And you learn that after you start.

That's like every project I did in my corporate days.

it was my job to uh evaluate vendors for various technology purchases that we needed.

And so I'd, you know, go out for a bid.

Uh I'd ask companies to bid on it.

All right, we need to replace this internal storage device.

And then all the companies would bid.

And then I would take the low bid of the best company that was qualified to do it.

And I would take it to my boss and I'd say, "Here's the one that's the lowest bid for this exact thing that we want." And then what would happen after I signed the deal every time?

What would happen as soon as you sign it or maybe as soon as you install it, you immediately learn that you needed to spend more for something that hadn't been mentioned.

And so on day one, your your lowpriced vendor, the one that had the lowest price, surprises you with, "Oh, well, it looks like we specified something that's a little underpowered for what you need." But no problem if you just pay more.

you could have the better model and then it's too late to start all over again and you don't want to tell your boss that you screwed up.

What are you going to do?

Well, the vendor knows exactly what you're going to do.

You're going to pay the higher price.

So in the real world, things do go the way that this high-speed rail went, which is somebody bid, I could get that done for 33 billion.

And then probably the moment it was improved, the people who said they could do it for 33 billion, started doing probably was lots of different entities, but about every one of the entities said, "All right, yes, totally.

Yep.

Uh, our portion would only cost a billion." Well, unless you want to go all the way down to state, which is what you want.

Well, that would be two billion.

And then all the other people involved do the same thing.

So, well, now that it's all approved, I got to admit, we're taking a closer look and we probably can't do it for that price, but for twice that price, we can totally get it done.

So, that's the way of the world.

Everything gets approved at an artificially low price and then the bad people creep it up.

But apparently the federal amount was only 4 billion.

So if we think it'll cost 128 billion and Trump only took away 4 billion, it shouldn't make any difference at all to whether it gets built.

I mean it's such a small percentage.

But we'll see.

I expect nothing to happen.

But uh do other countries have the same problem where they can't get stuff done?

Well, turns out that the UAE is planning to build an underwater bullet train which doesn't exist anywhere.

So they would connect um Dubai and Mumbai.

So from Dubai to Mumbai there would be this cool underwater train experience high-speed train and they would make it so that the the underwater view is amazing so that you're looking at amazing underwater stuff as you go.

So that's what the UAE is doing.

How does the UAE get something done like that?

Because it feels like in the Middle East that things are getting done.

Um, maybe not that big city of M or whatever is Saudi Arabia.

I think Saudi Arabia is having that cost overrun thing too, building their big futuristic city.

But we'll see.

We'll see if the UAE can do what California cannot do times 10.

Um, if you watched the Shan Ryan broadcast podcast with uh Gavin Newsome, you saw that Gavin Newsome was angry at Trump for among other things uh giving him the nickname new scum.

And the problem that new that that Gavin Newsome has with his nickname new scum is that uh he has children and the children get bullied at school and they get called new scum too.

Now I am very much opposed to this situation where you call Gavin Newsome new scum uh but it has a you know downhill impact on the children being bullied and I think you need something to distinguish the two because you don't want the the father and the children to be suffering under the same nickname.

So, what I recommend is that Gavin be called old scum and maybe his children would just be new scum.

Sort of like Junior.

No, I'm against bullying.

That's just a joke.

But is kind of funny.

New scum and old scum.

If I were his kids, I don't know how old they are.

I think they're probably teens.

If I were his teenage kids and people were calling me new scum, I would insist that my father be referred to as old scum because it would be funny to me.

All right.

Well, apparently there's a a new poll of Democrat congressional people approval and uh the job approval according to the New York Post, Victor Navas writing about this, they they've hit a uh a new all-time low.

So, they're now at uh 19% only 19% of registered voters approve of the way Democrats in Congress are handling their job.

That's a Quinnipiac University poll.

19%.

Is that the lowest it's ever been?

It feels like it, right?

Um, newer scum.

New scum and newer scum.

That's pretty funny.

Uh, so I'm going to predict that Democrat congressional approval will hit single digits.

So, you know, something something below 10.

If they're doubts of 19, I don't know if there's a bottom for this.

So, we'll see.

Well, Newsmax is reporting that Columbia University is trying to address the problem that the uh the Trump administration is withholding something like 400 million in federal funds because they say Colombia is not doing enough to fight anti-semitism.

So, Colombia has decided to try to get their $400 million back by agreeing to a bunch of uh requirements placed on them for fighting anti-semitism.

And I said to myself, well, what what are they asking them to do?

Well, here's a list um of things they're going to do.

They're going to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-semitism.

So, so they won't have as much ambiguity about what is and what isn't.

They will accept that uh that organization's definition of anti-semitism.

Now, what would that be?

What would their definition be?

um their definition would be that uh some critiques of Israel the country as a Jewish state might cross a line into anti-semitism.

They gave some examples.

So if you were to publicly deny the well or privately I guess deny the Jewish people's right to self-determination, you would be anti-semitic.

Their right to self-determination.

What what does that even mean?

What what would it mean to deny somebody's right to self-determination?

Doesn't everybody sort of have that right a little bit?

I don't even know what it means.

So that'd be trouble.

Um or claiming so it would be anti-semitic according to this definition if you claim that the existence of Israel is a racist endeavor.

So don't do that.

Um, and if you compare the current Israeli policies with that of the Nazis, um, that would be considered anti-semitic.

So, you can't call Israel Nazis.

Um, but just to be clear, you can still call everybody else a Nazi.

Um, you can call Trump a Nazi, you can call me a Nazi, you can call everybody a Nazi, but you cannot call um your Israeli policies Nazi.

Now, here is something you need to know.

I I talk about this a lot actually, but I'll put it in this context as well.

Whoever controls the definition of words controls you.

Let me say that again.

Whoever controls the definition of words, in this case, anti-semitism, controls you because they can decide, well, according to my definition, you just did something illegal, so you go to jail or you get kicked out or whatever the penalty is.

So whenever you see this, we've decided this this one organization will be in charge of the definition of the word.

You don't want to be in that situation.

You you want to be able to have the right to use words the way you would like them to mean.

And if other people have a different definition for it, well, you can fight it out, you know, verbally.

But uh if you let somebody else decide what your definitions of words are, they are in charge of you.

So I would suggest that uh Israel is making a step in the in the wrong direction because they're one of their biggest complaints is that the anti-semites say Israel has too much control in the United States.

Well, they're talking about this now.

Now, it's not the country of Israel.

In this case, it's the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which I'm sure is a fine organization.

I have no problem with it whatsoever.

And obviously, if they if they have the option of being in control of the definition, of course, they'd want that.

You know, why wouldn't they?

You should want it, too.

We should all want to be in charge of the definitions because that puts you in charge of everything.

But um they're working with so Colombia is also working with the Anti-Defam League and there what else are they doing?

Um they're going to appoint a coordinator to ensure compliance with whatever civil rights acts.

Sounds good.

And they're going to allow they're going to work with the Anti-Defamation League to create training on anti-semitism.

So, a little bit like the definition thing.

So, if Colombia um delegates the training materials to the Anti-Defamation League, they're really putting the Anti-Defamation League in charge of some important stuff.

So, I feel as though um this may be one step forward, two steps back.

Um it's good to try to battle anti-semitism.

So, I'm all in on that.

Um, but if the way you're doing it is you're putting in some organization's definition of what what would allow you to be kicked out of school or jailed or punished or cancelled or whatever.

Um, that's a horrible idea and you I would imagine that for the people who are, you know, paying attention at some level that's beyond what the average public is paying attention that this would make them even more angry about what they would see as Jewish control of America.

Now, um, since I don't go to Colombia, I don't really have a dog in this fight, but it looks like the thing that the, uh, Trump administration is requiring of them to get on the right side of anti-semitism probably will make it worse.

I think it would make it worse.

So, I'm going to blame not Colombia for this, but whoever is making Colombia do it, which is the Trump administration.

So bad on the Trump administration for putting somebody else in charge of definitions of words.

Um, according to an ex user called cartoons hater, must be a cartoonist, I don't know.

Um, she she talks about how being in the old days, not too long ago, being a good dancer used to be something that men tried to do.

So apparently men at one point tried to be good dancers because they thought it would attract women.

And it was I remember when I was younger that was one of the main things that people said is that uh yeah just learn to dance and then you'll have all these women.

But according to cartoons hater that dancing is now a social activity that is uncommon.

Did you know that?

Did you know that dancing is no longer as big a deal as it used to be?

I didn't know that.

I I assume it was always the same.

Um, but in the current day when men dance, in quotes, dance, they either do slow dances or they barely move.

So back in the 80s, you know, people would try to be doing disco and they'd have, you know, John Travolta moves and stuff and uh people were trying to figure out why, what changed that men don't dance anymore.

And somebody said it's because dancing looks gay, maybe, but also that if you didn't dance very well, somebody with a a phone is going to take a video of you and humiliate you in public.

to which I thought that might be that might be true.

But I think in general just men are not trying as hard.

Men are not just not trying to even attract women.

Um and we'll we'll talk about that a little bit more.

Victor Davis Hansen has an article in the postmillennial talking about this Tik Tok influencer who says that women are stealing salads at restaurants when when the order is up for some order to go.

Uh the Tik Tok influencer say women are stealing salads of what they think would be maybe some guy that they could f date in the future.

And then they use Linked.

In to stalk the real owner and contact them and say, "Oh, I'm sorry.

It appears I accidentally got your salad." And it's a way for women to somewhat casually meet a man.

Now, first of all, I don't believe anything about this story.

I do not believe that that happened more than one time in the entire world.

There may have been one person who once stole a salad or got one accidentally and thought, "Oh, I think I'll contact this person." Maybe one person ever.

So, I do not believe this is any kind of a trend.

Um, but it does speak to the fact that, you know, the regular dating apps and all that stuff are not working, dances not working, dating apps are not working.

And uh and uh some people are complaining that uh men don't approach women anymore and ask them on dates.

Is that something you've heard?

I I've heard this.

I've heard it from uh single women.

They say that men just don't approach them.

They just don't.

They used to, but they don't.

Now, why do you think that is?

Let let me fill you in on what why men don't approach women.

Are you ready?

It only works for handsome people who are tall and have most of their hair or are in good shape at least.

If you're a really good-looking guy, you can walk up to anybody and they'll be like, "Maybe." If you're not a good-looking guy, which would be 95% of the public, you can't walk up to a stranger and get a good reaction because the only thing they have to go on is your dumb opening line, which is always dumb, and what you look like.

It doesn't work.

Why do you think people uh put photos on dating apps that don't look anything like they actually look?

is because if they walked up to you in person, you'd say, "No thanks." So, dating is mostly trickery.

You know, trying to fool somebody into being attracted without them knowing that's what you were doing.

So, I would say that if you're not among the 5% tall and handsome guys that the only way you're going to attract women is to not approach them, but rather be talented as something in a public way.

If you can be rich and successful in a public way, you will attract all the female attention that you've ever wanted.

If you can't show that you have something going on, that you're good at this sport or good at making money or good at something, um you're not going to attract anybody.

So, dancing doesn't work, dating apps don't work, walking up to women doesn't work.

But if you got something going on, women will come up to you.

And in my limited dating experience over my lifetime, um I've never been confused about whether a woman was interested in me because they show it so obviously.

Is that your experience men that when a woman is interested in you, you you know it you know it so easily.

It's never a surprise, is it?

So anyway, um, according to Daniel Greenfield, he's writing that one in three Americans feel lonely every week and one in five feel lonely every day.

And less than half of households are headed by married couples now and 63% of single people are not looking for a relationship.

And th this next one is the thing that blows my mind.

The majority of Gen Z didn't date as teenagers.

They didn't date.

Almost twothirds of the young generation didn't date at all as teenagers.

I wonder what that used to be.

Well, well, so things are bad there.

Um, according to Nick Noly on Braaybar News, uh, during the first half of 2025, reruns of the old Gunsmoke TV show in black and white from what, the 60s, um, reruns of that earned more streaming minutes than any of the, um, any of the Disney syndicate movies.

So, I have to confess that recently I sampled some old Gunsmoke TV show on Netflix, I guess.

And the reason was that all modern content is terrible.

And I discovered that looking at really, really old content is kind of fascinating.

It it's not entertaining in the traditional modern way, but it's absolutely fascinating to just see the old sets and you know the way they did things, the way they talked and uh how how rapidly they developed a story instead of making you watch two gay people make out forever so that you can know, okay, I got it.

I got it.

They like each other.

I got it.

Okay, I got it.

So the old stuff would just skip everything that was boring and just give you like a tight little story.

The modern stuff usually has some director who's got power and the director says, "Oh no, we we need a good 10 minutes of these gay people making out cuz otherwise how will the audience know how much they like each other?" So the old days was much better content even though even the even the old comedies I was watching like New Hart.

I watched New Hart the original old very old black and white because I remember laughing hysterically at it when I was a young child.

There are not even any jokes in that thing by modern standards.

There's not a single joke and it's a comedy.

Now, that's fascinating to me to find out what used to be funny, but you wouldn't you would not laugh once.

You could watch I think I watched about several episodes in a row.

Not one laugh, but yet fascinating to see how they made it in the old days.

I liked watching it, but no jokes that you would recognize by today's standards.

Well, Trump has signed something called the Halt Fentinel Act.

It's going to permanently classify all fentinyl related substances as schedule one and it gives the law enforcement some tools to work on that.

That's good.

I don't know if that'll make any difference.

And separately, um you know that uh China has agreed to do more on fentinel because they've got a permanent um tariff on them.

Trump is put an extra 20% tariff on China because of fentinel.

They weren't doing enough to stop the flow into the US, the precursor flow.

So, China's, you know, done some things and arrested some people and acted like they're doing something about it.

Now, like I said about Trump monetizing the Ukraine war, instead of solving it, he said, "Well, all right.

If you Europeans really want this war to go on, how about we just sell you weapons and we make a profit?

So he monetizes the Ukraine Russia war, which I have to admit is kind of kind of smart, just monetizing it.

And then you could wait as long as you want.

Like you your whole uh your whole who wants to blink first is totally answered.

Well, we're not going to blink.

We're making money.

We'll just keep making money.

If you guys want to keep fighting, go ahead.

Um, but now he's Trump has monetized fentinol because we assume that China won't do enough to stop the flow because they probably want it to keep going.

But we'll just keep charging them 20% extra tariff.

So, do I want the fentinel trade to be stopped?

Yes, of course.

But if you know you can't stop it, why not monetize it?

Now, Trump could never say that out loud that he's just monetizing the horrific fentinel trade because it's killing people like crazy.

But if your option is it's going to happen anyway, you might as well monetize it.

There there's something about that that I hate and I love at the same time.

I just love the fact that Trump keeps finding ways to monetize our problems.

If he can't solve them, you might as well monetize them.

Charge other countries for it.

Okay.

Well, if you're watching the uh drama with Fed Chair Jerome Powell and Trump wants him to quit.

He thought about firing him, but he says he's not going to fire him, which the markets liked because they thought the idea of Powell getting fired for what would be, you know, no legitimate cause at this point would be a bad move.

Uh, so Fed, so if Trump ever wanted to do that, he's he says he's backed off it or he never thought about it.

I don't know which, but he says he won't do it.

Now, the exception would be if they found some male feasance or corruption or something that we don't know about, and then there would be a reason to do it, and then he could do it.

Um, but one of the reasons, the potential reasons might be that the Fed is building a new headquarters and I guess it was like 2.5 billion dollars they needed just for renovations and some of it looked a little extreme.

So, Bill PTE um he's the head of uh federal housing, director of federal housing.

Um he's uh volunteered to take a tour of the construction project because he's an expert on construction.

That's his background.

And to uh let us know if there's anything that looks corrupt there.

As in, how could you possibly spend $2.5 billion just renovating?

I mean, if you were building it from scratch, maybe, but renovating 2.5 billion and uh that would be an interesting idea.

So, if Trump agrees to that, I guess Trump could probably authorize that.

Um, you might see Bill Py doing a tour of the headquarters construction project and letting us know if uh Jerome Powell should be fired.

Now, as far as I can tell, Jerome Powell would never spend a day in that new headquarters, right?

Because his term is over in May, no matter what.

And uh I can't imagine they'd be done with this project by May.

So, it doesn't seem like he's building this um you know, this project for his own consumption.

But there might be something going wrong here in terms of who got the contracts or just essentially managing the project correctly.

There may be poor management here.

So Bill Py might find enough to uh make a move there.

Give give Trump enough ammunition to make a move.

And by the way, if you're not following the career of Bill PTE, you really should pay attention because I'm going to tell you right now, he could be one of your future presidents.

If if you're not already keyed into that idea, start paying attention.

He he has the full talent stack and uh he's clearly, you know, highly uh you know, America first super patriot and he doesn't need the job.

You know, he's very successful in his his life.

He doesn't need the work.

Uh but he's putting in, you know, serious serious work into making our country better.

So keep an eye on Bill PE.

He has the entire talent and stack to take it as far as he wants.

I don't know how far he wants, but he could go as far as he wants.

Um, let's see.

I asked, uh, today is the day that there's a national protest against Trump, right?

Um, that is the day, July 17th.

They should be doing some national multi-ity protest generic.

Now, this would be a paid professionally organized protest.

It's not organic and so we really shouldn't care about it at all except have fun mocking it.

But I asked on X yesterday, what would be a name for these protests that are not organic?

You know, they're just Democrat funded um trouble.

Uh, I started with the idea of pro pesters.

Instead of protesters with a letter T, it would be pester with a a P as in puppy.

So, protorers, but number of people had uh a bunch of other uh suggestions, so you might want to look at those.

They're on my X feed.

Well, the Department of Justice fired uh James Comey's daughter.

Um she was an attorney who worked for the Southern District of New York, I believe, and she handled the Epstein case and the Galain Maxwell case and the Diddy case.

There's no word as to why she was fired, but one assumes it's just some kind of a revengey thing on top of she would be maybe, you know, anti- mega and maybe if you were in her crosshairs, you would not get a fair trial.

I don't know what the reasons were, but um it's not a big surprise, right?

It's not the biggest surprise in the world that she got fired.

And I don't think we need any reasons.

Do you care?

U obviously uh there's a political element to that.

Well, the estimates for how much the Trump tariffs might bring in and remember they're not entirely paid by the foreign countries.

Um they might pay for some of it, but uh it's paid by the companies in the US who are importing.

Um but the estimate is that it will bring in $300 billion in tariff revenue to the government by the end of the year.

Now what if um it turns out that it can make I don't know half a trillion dollars a year just on on nothing but tariffs.

Suddenly you're starting to look like you're balancing the budget.

I think there's still a billion and a half, no a trillion and a half left that they would still need to cover, but uh you you're gooseing the economy.

You're making some cuts to the budget.

We'll talk about that in a minute.

Uh and you're adding tariff revenue.

So Trump is thinking he might be able to get the the budget balanced within his term.

Do you believe that?

You know, I think there were lots of things we didn't believe about tariffs that are turning out to be Trump was right.

So, I'd hate to say you can't do it, but it's quite a stretch to get the the budget balance.

Maybe there's nobody else who I think could come close.

So maybe um the former chief of staff to first lady Jill Biden was uh interviewed by the congressional people who were looking into the autopen stuff and he took the fifth.

He refused to answer questions uh about whether the White House concealed Joe Biden's broken brain or not.

So, let's uh let's do an update of all the frauds and hoaxes that we've uncovered from the Democrats.

Now, I'm not going to say the Republicans are totally innocent of all bad behavior.

But here are just the ones from the Democrat side of things.

We have learned that the NOS were mostly fraudulent money laundering situations.

Now, there would be some Republicans involved there, too, but the ones we hear about seem to be all Democrat badness.

So, learning the immense fraud of the NOS's that that are getting unwound at this point, that's huge.

Then we know that our protests which we used to believe were organic like Black Lives Matter and we now know that those are just a sort of a hoax fake you know organized protests.

So we know that now.

Now, we've got uh the FBI is looking into the Crossfire hurricane thing, which was the idea that Trump colluded with Russia, which we know now was just a hoax perpetrated by the Hillary campaign.

And uh the effort is to find out if there's a case that can be made against Obama and Brennan and the top people in the FBI.

And of course, there's already enough information that largely guarantees that it was a plot, which is maybe one of the worst things that's ever happened in this country.

Then there's the autopan and Biden's brain and how that was all hidden.

That's one of the worst things we've ever seen.

Then there was all the lawfare against Trump.

And yes, I understand that there was a jury and he was found guilty of some things, but nobody reasonable thinks that anybody else would have been even brought to trial on any of that stuff.

So, the lawfare against Trump, Democrat plot uncovered.

Then there was the uh fine people hoax that the media contributed to.

Um, and Biden actually ran his campaign on the fine people hoax.

Uh, then there was the January 6th insurrection hoax, which the entire country doesn't know as a hoax yet, but obviously was.

The hoax part is uh not that there were, you know, agents or provocators in the audience.

There might have been, but I've never been really interested in that part.

The part I'm interested in is that the news never talked to anybody who was a protester to ask them why they were protesting.

The most basic thing you would want to know about that story.

Cuz if you ask them, they would not say, not any of them, well, we know Trump lost, but we wanted to install him like a dictator anyway.

Not a single person thought that.

They thought that Biden cheated and they wanted to slow things down to find out if that were the case.

So that turned into, you know, massively jailing MAGA people and using against Trump.

Um, so that's one of the worst hoaxes in American history.

Then there was climate change hoax, which I think at this point you could definitely call a hoax.

Um, there was a Hunter Biden laptop thing, the cover up of the Hunter of the Biden crime family activities.

Nothing ever went anywhere on that.

Um, and now we've got what Trump calls the Epstein hoax.

Um, the now Epstein of course was a real person who did real bad things.

So that part's not a hoax.

The hoax is that the reason that uh Trump and company are not giving you more information about it is that they're covering up something and maybe it's something about Trump himself.

Now, that part's a hoax.

The the part about Trump, there's no evidence that he was involved other than he knew Jeffrey Epstein until he decided that he had to part ways with him.

Um, and then look at the fake news.

We've learned in the Trump era that the news was really not even trying to be real.

It wasn't even trying to be real.

And I don't think everybody knew that.

So, when you put all these together, it it's the most um criminal looking activities I've ever seen in my life.

So the the Democrat party appears to be just a criminal organization.

Now clearly there are also Republicans who break laws and you know sometimes in big ways but I don't know of any major stories that would blame the Republicans of breaking some major laws that are real.

I mean if if there are those stories they're usually hoaxes themselves.

So, it's unbelievable that we consider this some kind of a political contest.

One side are criminals top to bottom.

They're just criminals.

And you know, they've got these upstanding jobs and stuff, but to me it looks like a organized criminal enterprise, the Democrat party.

And I mean that with no hyperbole.

I I gave you the examples, right?

If if you simply accepted that most of the things I listed that that we we do know that the Democrats were involved with if most of it's true and most of it's true of course it looks like a criminal enterprise.

I don't know that you could do the same thing with the Republicans.

Could you make the same case that the Republicans are basically a criminal enterprise?

I don't feel like you could.

When we talk about Republicans, it's usually something like um they're fighting with each other about something.

It It's not that they've organized a multi-year gigantic organized hoax.

I don't see that.

It's only one side that seems to be doing that.

Well, here's a semifake news that NPR and PBS funding has been cut by the Senate.

Now, of course, the House would have to uh approve of the tweaks that the Senate made, but we assume that will happen.

So, the Congress will pull back 9 billion in funding, federal funding that would have gone to NPR and PBS.

Now, the part of it that's fake news is that I think most people assume that's where all the funding comes from, but I think the reality is um it's it's a somewhat smallalish percentage of their total operation.

So, it doesn't mean NPR and PBS will go away.

Probably just means they'll work harder on their private fundraising, my guess.

Um, President Trump apparently sidstepped some Epstein questions on his latest spray, they call it.

Um, some um, some reporter, CNN reporter asked whether he'd consider appointing a special counsel to look into the Epstein stuff.

And I think he's not opposed to it, but maybe he didn't weigh in on it.

But he does say he wants people to move on from that story.

And he says that uh the people demanding the Jeffrey Epstein files be released are quote stupid and foolish.

Now what's interesting about that is that he's describing about half of his supporters as stupid and foolish.

Now, I'm not one of them, meaning that I've not demanded that they release more because I'm satisfied that we elect people whose job it is to tell us if there's something we need to see.

And I like those people.

And I think that if they decided we shouldn't see something, I'm okay with that.

I don't feel like I'm the backseat driver where if uh Dan Bonino says, "No, there's nothing here to see." I don't feel like I need to dig into it personally.

Didn't we hire Trump to hire people, you know, to appoint people and hire people who would get what we want done?

So, there's no guarantee that there isn't some dirty stuff in there that we'd like to see and we should see, but uh I don't think it's stupid or foolish to ask for it.

Um so, so Trump is trying to turn this into another Democrat hoax and only part of it is a hoax.

The hoax is the part that the reason he doesn't want to release things is cuz he's involved.

But suppose they got a uh some kind of special counsel to look into it.

Would you be satisfied with whatever the special counsel came up with?

Because what would happen if the CIA said, "Here's the deal, special counsel.

It's a state secret and you're not allowed to tell anybody." Could the special counsel say, "Well, I'm special counsel.

You can't tell me that.

I'm going to do it anyway." I don't know.

I don't know if a special counsel would get us everything we need to know.

Elon Musk is still on this and he asked Grock on X.

He said, "Uh, there was a leak of cell phone tracking data on the island, Epstein's Island, and he asked Grock, can you correlate that with the individuals who visited the island?" uh and then assess the probability that those who went to Epstein Island um despite having planes of their own did so purely to save gas.

And Grock said the flight logs show Bill Clinton visited Little St.

James 12 plus times.

Prince Andrew was there multiple times.

Alan Dersowitz, Kevin Alan Dersitz was the lawyer.

Kevin Spacy, Chris Tucker, they have all been there.

and Trump flew on the plane seven times, but he never went to the island.

Um, so and then there were a bunch of devices that were logged and hypothetically you could find out who who was using their cell phone on the island to confirm that they were there.

Now, if Bill Clinton went to Little St.

jams 12 times.

Do you have any question whatsoever whatsoever about what he did while he was there?

Do you really believe that Bill Clinton went to Little St.

James without his wife 12 times and that he went there because he liked the beach or he liked hanging out with his friend?

really.

There's actually no other reason that he would have gone there 12 times, unless he was doing some stuff that maybe you wouldn't want to know.

So, I'm wondering if Bill Clinton is the reason that these files are not fully disclosed.

Do you think it's Bill Clinton?

It might be because he would be certainly somebody that the entire Democrat um machine would want to protect because it would be a way of protecting Hillary at the same time and you know sort of protecting the Democrats in general.

But I feel like if if we know that Bill Clinton went to the island 12 times and then nothing is being released to us, as in nothing happened, come on.

Let's be serious.

At the very least, they're covering up for Bill Clinton.

Would you agree?

Whatever else they're covering up for, I don't know.

But if you're telling me that they're not covering up for the guy who went there 12 times with then his wife 12 times.

I mean, let's be serious.

Of course, he was involved in things he doesn't want you to know about.

I mean, I feel like it's just screamingly obvious.

the people who were on Epstein's plane like Trump, I I feel, you know, there's there's no direct evidence that he did anything illegal on the plane.

And I guess they lived in about the same place and traveled back to New York City a lot.

So sometimes it was just I don't know just easier or wanted to hang out with his friend or whatever.

I don't know.

Um but what we know from Durowitz is that there was no client list per se.

Remember Durowitz was Epstein's lawyer.

So he knows more than we do.

Uh he knows the names of the accused.

So there are people who have not been named who have been accused.

He says that Trump is definitely not accused.

There's nothing about Trump there.

That's an accusation in the files.

and he believes that the CIA were not involved with Epstein because Epstein would have mentioned it to his lawyer who was Nurowitz if he wanted to have the best leniency to which I say really do you believe that the CIA would agree that he was working that they were working with Epstein if the topic was underage children.

I don't think so.

I think that if the CIA were involved in that operation that uh if Epstein gave up the CIA and said, "Oh, you know, uh not only is Epstein himself doing these illegal underage women things, but the CIA is part of the operation." Do you think he would throw the CIA under the bus and say, "Yeah, they're trafficking children." if they were.

I'm not saying they were, but if they were, so I'm not buying um Duruitit's explanation on this.

I'm not buying the explanation that if he was working with the CIA, he would have mentioned it.

You would mention it if you were working with the CIA to spy on Russia, well then you would mention it.

Or to get secrets from China, well then you would definitely mention it to your lawyer.

But if the context is, did you do some of the worst things that the public can imagine, sex trafficking of minors, do you think that even Epstein would give up the CIA?

Because it seems like they would have to kill him if he did.

Well, and then um I guess I would take some some factchecking on this next point I'm going to make.

Did Dersuit say that Epstein was not involved with an intelligence entity because he would have told Dersowitz so he could get a better deal.

But would that include if he worked with MSAD?

If if Epstein had worked with MSAD, and I don't know that he did, but if he did, how would that get him a better plea deal in the United States?

That doesn't seem connected, does it?

So, can Dersuit really say, "Well," and he didn't say this, but could he say, "I know he wasn't working with MSAD or MI6 or the Saudis because he would have mentioned it to be his lawyer so he could get a better deal." How would you get a better deal if you were working for the intelligence agency of another country?

That would be the opposite of getting a good deal, right?

Yeah.

So, I feel like Durowitz is finding some clever ways to say that Epstein didn't have that uh intelligence contact, but it doesn't sound believable.

So, judge for yourself.

All right.

Um, and then Mike Benz, who's also on the case here with the Epstein story, he notes that there is a normal and routine thing that the press does and the CIA does when somebody is um alleged to have worked with them.

Apparently, there's a database that you can search for somebody's name to find out if they work for the CIA.

Now I think only the CIA has access to it.

But it's fairly routine that people get blamed as being an CIA asset.

So the CIA also doesn't know, you know, at some levels of management, they don't even know who's working there because there's so many secrets.

So, they have a system where if there's something in the news that says some character works for the CIA, they can type that person's name into their database and then they could make a statement later saying no, he's not ours.

Or if it is theirs, they can say uh no comment.

And uh Mike Benz has some way that he can check to find out that there has been no name search for Jeffrey Epstein despite it being the main question that's been in the news for years.

And he's having trouble believing that this research was never done because it's the most routine thing you would do.

And since it's such a high-profile case, of course you would do it on this one.

But the evidence is it wasn't done.

Why would that be?

Well, we can only think of one reason.

Um Trump was meeting with the crown prince of Bahrain who really looked like he liked Trump.

You know, they were sitting together in the Oval Office and whenever Trump turned to him, he would have this big smile on his face and you know, he laughed at his jokes and stuff.

So, he looks like he's getting along with Trump well, but uh Trump answered questions about all manner of things.

And he said uh that the press should be focusing on Biden and the autopen, not the Epstein stuff.

All right, here's the thing.

When Trump tries so hard to tell us that we should not talk about Epstein, isn't he winking as hard as you can?

Yes, there are secrets there.

I know the secrets.

I'm not going to tell you.

And I'm not even going to tell you why I can't tell you.

Let's just please move on.

So when I when I agree with that strategy of moving on, people say, "Oh, you're covering up for the what are you doing?

You're covering up for the pedos." No, I'm simply saying that if we'll never know the real answer, we should default to a process you're comfortable with.

A process that I'm comfortable with is that we elected people to make these decisions for us.

And apparently Trump has made the decision for us that we're not going to see much more even though he's he acts like he's open to it.

I don't think we'll see more.

whatever it is that he's uh covering up and obviously he's covering up something is important and we hired him to make the important decisions for us.

We did not hire him to tell us everything that he knows because there would be lots of topics where he knows things you're not supposed to know.

So, so that's my summary.

If we can't know for sure and we can't, what's the real story?

The only thing you can be comfortable with is who's in charge of deciding if you know.

And it's Trump.

I'm comfortable knowing that he's lying.

Can anybody else say the same thing?

I know he's lying.

He's obviously lying.

It could not be more obvious.

it it's so obvious that he's lying that it makes it feel like he wants us to know he's lying because it's easier for me to move on if I know he's lying, right?

Because if I know he's he said that he's decided to keep it from me and the and the public, then I say, "Well, that's your decision.

You you get to make that decision and then I'm willing to move on." Would justice be served?

Probably not.

Um, Trump also has this new phrase he uses a lot that the US was considered a dead country before he got in.

Nothing was happening and now it's the hottest country.

That is good persuasion.

He says it a lot, so it's really sinking in.

So, he's persuading other countries that might want to invest with the US or get on board with us.

He's uh he's he's persuading them with his hypnosis that uh we're not like we used to be and now it's you know the US is the place to invest and the one to follow and the one that's doing all the good stuff and there's some basis for that.

So it's not like it's a crazy thing to say.

So I love his persuasion on that from dead to hottest.

Uh, let's compare that to one of the stars of the Democrat party, Stacy Abrams, who is now calling Trump an autocrat.

All right, compare these two persuasions.

The US went from a dead country to the hottest country.

Okay, that's just A+ because everybody knows what dead means.

Everybody knows what hottest means.

And there's there's enough basis that people could say, "Yeah, I can see that.

I I see why you're saying that." But when Stacy Abrams says Trump is an autocrat, why don't you go do an interview on the street and ask people if they know what an autocrat is?

If they do, give them question number two.

Do you know what an oligarch is?

Probably not.

Number three, what does it mean to be an authoritarian?

Uh maybe a third of the country knows what that means.

What about the Plutocrats?

Yeah.

What about the Plutocrats?

Why is it that the Democrats have no sense whatsoever of what a regular human being would be persuaded by?

Penrats.

That's funny.

Autopenrats.

Well, Trump says that Coca-Cola has agreed with his suggestion to make America healthy again by removing what they were using for sugar and putting in real cane sugar.

So, I guess that's for the non-diet version of Coke.

But uh I was not aware that whatever Coca-Cola was using instead of real cane sugar, I was not aware that it's dangerous and that real cane sugar would be healthy.

So I don't understand that story at all.

But if RFK Jr.

agrees that this would make that drink healthier.

All right.

Okay.

But I do like when Trump brags about successes because that that feeds into his we're the hottest country and everything's going right.

And I love it when he does that.

I love it when Trump is a salesperson for the country, which is a lot like being a salesperson for his own um his own administration.

He should be doing that and he should be talking it up like crazy and nobody does it better.

He He is the best salesperson I've ever seen and he's selling the country.

He's doing a good job.

But meanwhile, in the Palisades where there was that big fire, um apparently nothing's happening to rebuild basically.

Um rebuilding after the fire is almost nothing.

And they're think it would take four years to get things approved and rebuilt.

Four years.

and all of it because California is a bureaucratic red tape woke mess.

Um, apparently there's some real movement on this Russia collusion hoax investigation that the FBI and I assume the DOJ DOJ are doing.

So, I was reading in Real Clear Investigations, Paul Sperry was writing that uh there's been meetings and there's new information on Russia gate.

Um, new documents have been released.

There's a new secret 200page congressional audit.

Um, I feel like this is looking like something might happen.

As in the idea that the Democrats organized a RICO criminal attempt to lawfare and uh disgrace Trump and get him out of the uh get him out of the government and get him out of the election.

It looks like that it's all documented.

So, you know, unlike the Epstein thing where there's there's nothing to look at, we just have a lot of assumptions and speculation.

It looks like this whole Russia hoax thing, there's going to be memos and handwritten memos and a whole chain of command where you can see the entire um the entire criminal enterprise.

So, I don't know how far this could go, but is there a possibility that Brennan would be put in jail?

There is.

Yeah, there is.

It would be tough.

I think the odds are way against it, but it's possible.

So, if I were John Brennan, I'd be worried a lot.

Um, we, you know, we get new inflation numbers in the country on a regular basis.

Just got some that look kind of good.

But would you be surprised to learn that economists say that our inflation data is all Does that surprise anybody that the data that they use to figure out if our prices went up?

So, part of it is a a labor um shortage.

So the way they check prices is have a little army of people call certain places and say what are you charging for this or that and then they compile it.

When they don't have the information they estimate it.

They estimate it.

How exactly would you estimate the price of a thing without checking any base source?

You just make it up, right?

So, it sounds to me like some of the inflation numbers are literally just pulled out of somebody's ass.

So, I think the administration in charge probably can make that inflation number just about anything they want.

Um, because it's sort of made up and based on assumptions and stuff.

And of course, what I say when I when we find out that the inflation numbers are probably BS, I say wait until you find out about the climate models.

Wait until you find out how many estimates are in the climate models.

If you're worried about the inflation numbers not being perfectly accurate, oh, way do you find out about temperature?

Yeah, there are some estimates there.

Um, Zoran Mandani had a meeting with a bunch of uh uh important business CEOs and uh they were asking him about you know his use of the phrase globalize the inifat which is taken commonly as a cult of violence toward Israel and Jewish people.

And uh Mandani claimed that for him the slogan is not uh was not about that violence but it reflects a protest against what he called the Israeli occupation of Gaza and not an endorsement of violence.

So he says he'll still be in favor of the idea uh of that he's opposed to the occupation of Gaza as he would call it but he does not endorse anything about it that is violence.

Now remember what I said about whoever gets to decide what the definition of something is is in charge.

So here is Zoron trying to make us accept his definition of what um globaliz inifat means.

If he can get us to accept that definition, then he probably has a good chance of getting elected and it looks like he's winning.

But do you do you buy that?

How many of you think that um that that phrase is sort of innocent and it's only talking about the occupation?

It's not really believable.

So I don't think that he has the power to redefine that.

So it means that at the moment he's not in charge of you because you still have your own definition and you would be willing to use it in public if he had to but he's trying to redefine it to get power over you and so far not successful.

And uh then I was then he was asked about whether he still supports defunding the police, which is something he had said in the past.

And he decided to avoid the question.

Avoid the question.

How in the world would all these top CEOs like Jamie Diamond and, you know, a bunch of people like that, how in the world are they going to back this guy?

Well, we don't know if they will or or not, but um apparently a bunch of outofstate people are donating to Mom Donny's campaign.

He's got 350,000 since his primary win from out of state.

Now, he gets also instate, but that's a lot.

And I'm wondering if Republicans are donating to him.

Are there any Republicans who are so Mckavelian that they say to themselves, you know, if we let the Communist completely destroy New York City, um the Democrat party will be dead for a generation?

Is there any Republican with enough money that they actually think that?

It's like, well, you know, I don't want to destroy New York City, but they apparently want to destroy themselves.

So, we'll just give them the tools to do it and then nobody will vote for a Democrat ever again.

Maybe.

I don't know.

Well, Adam Schiff, who used to say no one is above the law, now says that Trump's attacks on Schiff are uh more dangerous than ever because it involves the law.

So, Adam Schiff, who apparently broke the law when it came to saying what uh what was his primary residence because he had two primary residents, which is not a thing.

It's illegal.

But he's saying the real problem is Trump's abuse of law, not the fact that he broke it in the most obvious way, allegedly.

Um, according to the Wall Street Journal, vigilante groups are taking control of Russia's streets because so many of their police officers have been shipped to the war.

Now, the way the story reads, the reason so many police officers in Russia have been sent to the uh war is because it pays better to be a soldier than it does to be a police officer.

To which I say, how much more does it pay that you would go into a meat grinder where you can't walk outside without a drone killing you?

What What police officer would give up their police job to voluntarily go to the front lines of the Ukraine Russia war that's just grinding up all the humans?

I don't know about this story.

I believe the vigilante groups and I believe that there may be not enough cops, but I don't believe that the cops were mostly leaving for the high pay of being killed on the front lines.

That doesn't seem doesn't seem likely, does it?

All right, people.

That's all I got for now.

Sorry I went long.

I'm going to say a few words privately to the local subscribers who I call Beloved and the rest of you.

Thanks for joining and I will see you again tomorrow.

Same time, same place.

Locals coming at you privately.

Uh, if this

Come on in. It's time for your favorite

part of the day. Come on in here. Get in

here. I'm checking our stocks

and looks like stocks are up a little

bit. All right,

good for us if you have stocks. All

right, let me get my comments going and

then we got a show.

Don't want to miss anything.

Come on. There we go.

So, looks like I can't do this upside

down and I can't do it right side up

because it's got a cord in the way. How

will I make this work? Like that

will not be defeated.

Oh, Jean, stay awake.

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to try desperately Oh, my

phone fell over. to elevate this

experience to levels that no one can

understand with their tiny shiny human

brains.

All you need for that is

a cuper mongra glass of tanker

chelerstein a canteen jugger flask a

vessel of any kind fill it with your

favorite liquid I like coffee and join

me now for the unparalle pleasure the

dopamine end of the day the thing that

makes everything better it's called the

simultaneous sip exactly

So good. So, so good.

Well, let's uh check the world of

science to see if we can save them any

money.

Um, oh yeah, here's one. Uh according to

Cornell University, Sarah Magnus Sharp

is writing that uh they did some studies

and found out that the secret to keeping

your New Year's resolution

is that you have to like the process

as much as the goal.

H the process as much as the goal. Huh?

Does that sound familiar at all? Yes. If

you don't like this system, you're not

going to get to the goal.

A perfect example of that is exercise.

If you choose an exercise that you hate,

you're not going to get in shape. Not a

chance. But let's say

you follow the disgraced cartoonist

advice and you find some exercise that

you enjoy and you reward yourself for

it. I I used to like going to the gym

cuz I like the social element of it and

I would give myself a healthy snack when

I was done and I was addicted to the

process. So yes, the reason that some

people achieve their goals is that they

enjoy the process.

The atomic habits guy wrote about this.

Well, yes, the atomic habits guy wrote

about a few things that I also wrote

about first,

which he admits. He gives me he does

give me credit for stuff in his book.

Anyway,

uh let's see if uh science has any more

surprises for us. Oh, here uh Eric Dolan

is writing about um there were

psychedelic retreats for people with uh

PTSD.

And they found that if they did

psychedelics

um it helped them with their PTSD.

Now, does that story sound familiar?

At least once a week, there's a new

study where somebody gave somebody some

psychedelics and discovered that it

helped their their mental situation

greatly. It either solved their

depression or their be PTSD or some

other major mental problems. Have you

ever seen a story

about uh you know people responsibly

using hallucinogens

where it didn't work? I feel like it

works every time they test it. No matter

what the domain is, as long as it's

something about mental health, it helps

every time. Every person every time. Now

there must be there must be situations

where it goes wrong for some people. So

don't take any don't get any medical

advice from me. I'm just noting that

every time this story is in the news has

the same ending. Yeah, it was a big

difference. Something should something

should happen.

If we uh we could replace I believe all

therapy

with uh AI as your therapist just

telling you to uh responsibly take some

hallucinogens.

Maybe maybe that's all you need.

Um

I saw a post by Wall Street apes on X.

They showed a video of there's some

company in San Francisco. I don't know

what company that'sing a little robot

uh on wheels, you know, not not the kind

that looks like a person, but a little

robot on wheels for delivering stuff in

urban environments. And they're testing

it,

this doesn't seem real, but I think it

is. They're testing it in LA

um to see if they can deliver things on

the sidewalk, but they they had to do a

test where they put mannequins on the

sidewalk like uh like homeless people

who had passed down from fentinel.

And then they they had to test the robot

to see if it would go around the bodies

the homeless people lying on the

sidewalks.

And uh I think it did,

but uh we're just assuming

from the video that what they were

testing was if the robots could go

around the humans. What we didn't see is

if they're testing the robot to kill the

humans and then go around them. I don't

know. I don't know. We just saw the

bodies. We don't know how they died, but

it might be the first step in the robots

destroying all humanity. Speaking of

that, Perplexity, the AI company that

I've said good things about in the past,

it's uh it's a hot little AI company. Um

I don't know if it will survive because

it's not one of the top three. If you're

not in the top three, I don't know if

the government will even let you be

successful. So maybe Apple will buy them

or something. But Perplexity has rolled

out its own browser called Comet.

And I saw one report on Tech Radar by

John Anthony Dodto who tested it and he

was impressed. Now the reason that an AI

company would want to make its own uh

browser is so the browser could act as

your agent and do a bunch of stuff while

you're doing whatever you want to do.

So,

um, as, uh, John Anthony points out in

his article that when you first start

using it, um, it doesn't seem like it's

a big time saver because you tell it to

do something and then you sit there and

watch to make sure it did it. So, it

takes about, you know, it's not really

that much of a timesaver because you're

prevented from doing something else

because you're watching to make sure it

worked. But as he points out, you

eventually reach a point where you

realize, wait a minute, this usually

works. So, I'll just tell it to make

some reservations or whatever, whatever

you're telling it to do, and I'll do

some work on something else in the

meantime. And apparently, that is a big

wow experience because when you get back

to it and it did what you wanted, you

saved a lot of time. Now, here's my

take.

I've been saying this for

probably

20 years or more in public and people

always fight me on this and you will

fight me too. So get ready to fight me.

Here's what I believe. I believe that uh

humans want to maintain privacy as much

as possible. So far we're on the same

page. Everybody likes privacy mostly

about themselves.

We don't care about privacy for other

people, but we like it for ourselves.

Um, but in order to use and really get

all the benefit from these AI agents,

they're going to need to have your

passwords

and they're going to need to know all

about you because the things that you

want them to do, such as making

reservations or whatever, it's going to

require a lot of knowledge about you.

you know, your name, your address, in

some cases, maybe your social security

number if you're telling it to deal with

something financial or banking or

whatever. How many of you would feel

comfortable giving your own AI if they

told you, "Oh, it's totally secure.

We'll never look at it at the company

level." How many of you would feel

comfortable with an AI that has your

password for anything important?

Maybe for making restaurant

reservations,

maybe. But would you let it have access

to your bank?

Because if you did, think of all the

time you would save. I would love an AI

that had access to my bank cuz I'm

continually signing up for, you know,

things that are autopay or debugging

some problem with my bank or the there's

a credit card that got stolen. Just

always I'm just always dealing with bank

and IRS stuff. How many of you would

trust your AI to have access to all of

that stuff?

The answer is none of you, not a single

one of you, and certainly not me, would

feel comfortable with it. Now,

here's the part that I've been

predicting.

We'll all get over it. We'll get over

it. Once you realize that privacy was

always an illusion,

you're going to let it go. It's always

been an illusion. The only thing that

protects your privacy in a world where

the government can get access to

anything that they want, they only need

to have a reason. And it doesn't have to

be even a good reason. It could be a

reason they made up because they're

lawfaring you. So you don't have any

privacy. The only thing you do you have

that protects you is your boringness.

Have you heard me say this before? The

only protection you have is being boring

and not being interesting to the

government, not being interesting to

hackers, not being interested to people

at, you know, banks and other places

that have access to your private

information.

The only reason that all of you have not

been victimized

is that you're boring.

There there is somebody who could get

access to everything you have, the

government. Uh they just need a reason.

As long as you're boring, no reason. But

the moment you do a freak off, you know,

sort of Diddy style, well, suddenly

they're they're accessing your phones

and your computers and talking to

everybody who ever know knew you. You

don't have privacy.

You don't even have a little bit of

privacy. You have zero privacy. You only

have the right to be boring. That's it.

Nothing else.

So, I'm not saying that you should give

up your privacy. And I'm not saying I

would enjoy it if it happened if I lost

mine. Wouldn't like it at all. But uh I

bet you once we realize that privacy

went away a long time ago or maybe you

never had it that uh you'll just say

yeah I don't really have any serious

privacy cuz my government can get

whatever they want if not hackers but I

can use these AI agents to make my life

10 times easier. So I think people will

just get over privacy. That's my

prediction. And again, I'm not saying

you should or that you'll like it. I'm

just predicting that's where it will go.

Well, Soft Bank, the company is

SoftBank. Um, according to digital

trends, Trevor Moog is writing that uh

they've developed AI agents to make each

worker like a thousand armed deity.

So the head of Soft Bank, um, Son

Mayashi

Masa Yoshi, uh, he said that they now

have this technology

that would allow you that that would

allow the AI to make its own agents and

you could have potentially one person

could have, you know, a million AI

agents doing stuff for you.

Um,

but I say I don't believe this is a

fruitful direction because if you had

one AI agent and you told it to make

some hotel reservations, it wouldn't be

a big burden on you to check and make

sure it did it right and then correct

whatever wasn't right.

But if you had a million agents that

were doing things on your behalf or even

a hundred, how in the world would you

supervise all that? And would you feel

comfortable that if you didn't supervise

it, the AI was going to go and do it

correctly, the way you want, and not

cause you any problems? I don't know. I

feel like there will be a natural limit

to how many AI agents anybody will ever

want working on their behalf because you

got to check their work all the time. So

maybe

three might be your limit. Not a

million.

Well, Delta Airlines, according to

Fortune magazine, Arena Yanova is

writing, they're eliminating set prices

for their flights in favor of having the

AI determine how much you personally

will pay for a ticket. And apparently,

this is already being uh it's rolled out

and it's being tested on a small

percentage of their customers. To which

I asked the question on X and everybody

had the same answer.

How much would you be happy to find out

that the price you were paying for your

airline ticket at Delta was determined

by the AI figuring out the most you were

willing to pay?

I can't think of anything that would

make me hate the company more than that.

Can you? Because how would the AI

determine how much you're willing to

pay? What does it know about you?

Let me give you an example. Let's say

your

uh one of your parents is elderly and

you're making frequent flights to spend

time with them.

Wouldn't Delta figure out that this

person is going to book those frequent

flights because there's obviously

something on the other end that's

important to that person. And so they

raise the price for you to see your

dying parents.

Now, it wouldn't know it's doing that.

It would just say, "I feel like this

person's going to pay a little more for

a ticket because they fly a lot. So,

there must be something on the other end

of that flight that they really care

about." How in the world could it could

it possibly charge me more than other

people for whatever it is I want where I

wouldn't want to go in with a machine

gun and kill everybody at their company.

Don't do that, by the way. That's not a

That is not a call to violence.

Uh, oh my god. I really can't think of a

worse a worse idea,

but we'll see. They swear they're going

to roll it out.

All right. Uh, Trump announced yesterday

that they're cutting federal funding for

California's ridiculous high-speed rail

project. They had uh billions of dollars

um approved, but it managed to build

basically no high-speed rail at all. And

I said to myself, well, that'll teach

California because once that federal

funding is cut, there's no way they're

going to keep wasting this money. But

then I looked at the context

and the entire project is currently

estimated to cost $128 billion to build

California's highspeed rail. I didn't

even know they were still working on it.

Did anybody know that? I thought that

project was killed a long time ago.

But the amount that the uh and that's

the estimate is four times the original

estimated price of 33 billion. So it

went from I think we could do this for

33 billion to I don't know but we might

be able to get it done for 128 billion.

And you learn that after you start.

That's like every project I did in my

corporate days.

it was my job to uh evaluate vendors for

various technology purchases that we

needed. And so I'd, you know, go out for

a bid. Uh I'd ask companies to bid on

it. All right, we need to replace this

internal storage device. And then all

the companies would bid. And then I

would take the low bid of the best

company that was qualified to do it. And

I would take it to my boss and I'd say,

"Here's the one that's the lowest bid

for this exact thing that we want." And

then what would happen after I signed

the deal every time? What would happen

as soon as you sign it or maybe as soon

as you install it, you immediately learn

that you needed to spend more for

something that hadn't been mentioned.

And so on day one, your your lowpriced

vendor, the one that had the lowest

price, surprises you with, "Oh, well, it

looks like we specified something that's

a little underpowered for what you

need." But no problem if you just pay

more. you could have the better model

and then it's too late to start all over

again and you don't want to tell your

boss that you screwed up. What are you

going to do? Well, the vendor knows

exactly what you're going to do. You're

going to pay the higher price. So in the

real world, things do go the way that

this high-speed rail went, which is

somebody bid, I could get that done for

33 billion. And then probably the moment

it was improved, the people who said

they could do it for 33 billion, started

doing probably was lots of different

entities, but about every one of the

entities said, "All right, yes, totally.

Yep. Uh, our portion would only cost a

billion." Well, unless you want to go

all the way down to state, which is what

you want. Well, that would be two

billion. And then all the other people

involved do the same thing. So, well,

now that it's all approved, I got to

admit, we're taking a closer look and we

probably can't do it for that price, but

for twice that price, we can totally get

it done.

So, that's the way of the world.

Everything gets approved at an

artificially low price and then the bad

people creep it up. But apparently the

federal amount was only 4 billion. So if

we think it'll cost 128 billion and

Trump only took away 4 billion, it

shouldn't make any difference at all to

whether it gets built. I mean it's such

a small percentage. But we'll see. I

expect nothing to happen. But uh do

other countries have the same problem

where they can't get stuff done? Well,

turns out that the UAE is planning to

build an underwater bullet train which

doesn't exist anywhere. So they would

connect um Dubai and Mumbai. So from

Dubai to Mumbai there would be this cool

underwater train experience high-speed

train and they would make it so that the

the underwater view is amazing so that

you're looking at amazing underwater

stuff as you go. So that's what the UAE

is doing.

How does the UAE get something done like

that? Because it feels like in the

Middle East that things are getting

done.

Um, maybe not that big city of M or

whatever is Saudi Arabia. I think Saudi

Arabia is having that cost overrun thing

too, building their big futuristic city.

But we'll see. We'll see if the UAE can

do what California cannot do times 10.

Um, if you watched the Shan Ryan

broadcast podcast with uh Gavin Newsome,

you saw that Gavin Newsome was angry at

Trump for among other things uh giving

him the nickname new scum.

And the problem that new that that Gavin

Newsome has with his nickname new scum

is that uh he has children and the

children get bullied at school and they

get called new scum too.

Now I am very much opposed

to this situation where you call Gavin

Newsome new scum uh but it has a you

know downhill impact on the children

being bullied and I think you need

something to distinguish

the two because you don't want the the

father and the children to be suffering

under the same nickname. So, what I

recommend is that Gavin be called old

scum and maybe his children would just

be new scum. Sort of like Junior.

No, I'm against bullying.

That's just a joke. But is kind of

funny. New scum and old scum.

If I were his kids, I don't know how old

they are. I think they're probably

teens.

If I were his teenage kids and people

were calling me new scum, I would insist

that my father be referred to as old

scum

because it would be funny to me.

All right. Well, apparently there's a a

new poll of Democrat congressional

people approval and uh the job approval

according to the New York Post, Victor

Navas writing about this, they they've

hit a uh a new all-time low. So, they're

now at uh 19%

only 19% of registered voters approve of

the way Democrats in Congress are

handling their job. That's a Quinnipiac

University poll. 19%.

Is that the lowest it's ever been?

It feels like it, right? Um, newer scum.

New scum and newer scum. That's pretty

funny. Uh,

so I'm going to predict that Democrat

congressional approval will hit single

digits.

So, you know, something something below

10.

If they're doubts of 19, I don't know if

there's a bottom for this. So, we'll

see.

Well, Newsmax is reporting that Columbia

University is trying to address the

problem that the uh the Trump

administration is withholding something

like 400 million in federal funds

because they say Colombia is not doing

enough to fight anti-semitism.

So, Colombia has decided to try to get

their $400 million back by agreeing to a

bunch of uh requirements placed on them

for fighting anti-semitism.

And I said to myself, well, what what

are they asking them to do? Well, here's

a list um of things they're going to do.

They're going to adopt the International

Holocaust Remembrance Alliance

definition of anti-semitism.

So, so they won't have as much ambiguity

about what is and what isn't. They will

accept that uh that organization's

definition of anti-semitism.

Now, what would that be? What would

their definition be? um their definition

would be that uh some critiques of

Israel the country as a Jewish state

might cross a line into anti-semitism.

They gave some examples.

So if you were to publicly deny the well

or privately I guess deny the Jewish

people's right to self-determination,

you would be anti-semitic.

Their right to self-determination.

What what does that even mean? What what

would it mean to deny somebody's right

to self-determination?

Doesn't everybody sort of have that

right a little bit? I don't even know

what it means. So that'd be trouble. Um

or claiming so it would be anti-semitic

according to this definition if you

claim that the existence of Israel is a

racist endeavor.

So don't do that.

Um,

and if you compare the current Israeli

policies with that of the Nazis,

um, that would be considered

anti-semitic.

So, you can't call Israel Nazis.

Um, but just to be clear, you can still

call everybody else a Nazi. Um, you can

call Trump a Nazi, you can call me a

Nazi, you can call everybody a Nazi, but

you cannot call um your Israeli policies

Nazi.

Now, here is something you need to know.

I I talk about this a lot actually, but

I'll put it in this context as well.

Whoever controls the definition of words

controls you.

Let me say that again. Whoever controls

the definition of words, in this case,

anti-semitism,

controls you because they can decide,

well, according to my definition, you

just did something illegal, so you go to

jail or you get kicked out or whatever

the penalty is.

So

whenever you see this, we've decided

this this one organization will be in

charge of the definition of the word.

You don't want to be in that situation.

You you want to be able to have the

right to use words the way you would

like them to mean. And if other people

have a different definition for it,

well, you can fight it out, you know,

verbally. But uh if you let somebody

else decide what your definitions of

words are, they are in charge of you. So

I would suggest that uh Israel is making

a step in the in the wrong direction

because they're one of their biggest

complaints is that the anti-semites say

Israel has too much control in the

United States.

Well, they're talking about this

now. Now, it's not the country of

Israel. In this case, it's the

International Holocaust Remembrance

Alliance, which I'm sure is a fine

organization. I have no problem with it

whatsoever. And obviously, if they if

they have the option of being in control

of the definition, of course, they'd

want that. You know, why wouldn't they?

You should want it, too. We should all

want to be in charge of the definitions

because that puts you in charge of

everything.

But um they're working with so Colombia

is also working with the Anti-Defam

League

and there what else are they doing? Um

they're going to appoint a coordinator

to ensure compliance with whatever civil

rights acts. Sounds good. And they're

going to allow they're going to work

with the Anti-Defamation League to

create training on anti-semitism.

So, a little bit like the definition

thing. So, if Colombia um delegates the

training materials to the

Anti-Defamation League, they're really

putting the Anti-Defamation League in

charge of

some important stuff.

So, I feel as though

um this may be one step forward, two

steps back.

Um it's good to try to battle

anti-semitism.

So, I'm all in on that. Um, but if the

way you're doing it is you're putting in

some organization's definition of what

what would allow you to be kicked out of

school or jailed or punished or

cancelled or whatever. Um, that's a

horrible idea and you I would imagine

that for the people who are, you know,

paying attention at some level that's

beyond what the average public is paying

attention that this would make them even

more angry about what they would see as

Jewish control of America.

Now,

um, since I don't go to Colombia, I

don't really have a dog in this fight,

but it looks like the thing that the,

uh, Trump administration is requiring of

them to get on the right side of

anti-semitism probably will make it

worse.

I think it would make it worse. So, I'm

going to blame not Colombia for this,

but whoever is making Colombia do it,

which is the Trump administration.

So bad on the Trump administration

for putting somebody else in charge of

definitions of words.

Um, according to an ex user called

cartoons hater, must be a cartoonist, I

don't know. Um, she she talks about how

being in the old days, not too long ago,

being a good dancer used to be something

that men tried to do. So apparently men

at one point tried to be good dancers

because they thought it would attract

women. And it was I remember when I was

younger that was one of the main things

that people said is that uh yeah just

learn to dance and then you'll have all

these women. But according to cartoons

hater that dancing is now a social

activity that is uncommon. Did you know

that? Did you know that dancing is no

longer as big a deal as it used to be? I

didn't know that. I I assume it was

always the same. Um, but in the current

day when men dance, in quotes, dance,

they either do slow dances or they

barely move. So back in the 80s, you

know, people would try to be doing disco

and they'd have, you know, John Travolta

moves and stuff and uh people were

trying to figure out why, what changed

that men don't dance anymore. And

somebody said it's because dancing looks

gay, maybe,

but also that if you didn't dance very

well, somebody with a a phone is going

to take a video of you and humiliate you

in public. to which I thought that might

be that might be true. But I think in

general just men are not trying as hard.

Men are not just not trying to even

attract women. Um

and we'll we'll talk about that a little

bit more. Victor Davis Hansen has an

article in the postmillennial talking

about this Tik Tok influencer

who says that women are stealing salads

at restaurants when when the order is up

for some order to go. Uh the Tik Tok

influencer say women are stealing salads

of what they think would be maybe some

guy that they could f date in the

future. And then they use LinkedIn to

stalk the real owner and contact them

and say, "Oh, I'm sorry. It appears I

accidentally got your salad." And it's a

way for women to somewhat casually meet

a man.

Now, first of all, I don't believe

anything about this story. I do not

believe that that happened more than one

time in the entire world. There may have

been one person who once stole a salad

or got one accidentally and thought,

"Oh, I think I'll contact this person."

Maybe one person ever. So, I do not

believe this is any kind of a trend.

Um,

but it does speak to the fact that, you

know, the regular dating apps and all

that stuff are not working, dances not

working, dating apps are not working.

And uh

and uh some people are complaining

that uh men don't approach women anymore

and ask them on dates. Is that something

you've heard? I I've heard this. I've

heard it from uh single women. They say

that men just don't approach them. They

just don't. They used to, but they

don't. Now, why do you think that is?

Let let me fill you in on what why men

don't approach women. Are you ready?

It only works for handsome people who

are tall and have most of their hair or

are in good shape at least.

If you're a really good-looking guy, you

can walk up to anybody and they'll be

like, "Maybe."

If you're not a good-looking guy, which

would be 95% of the public, you can't

walk up to a stranger and get a good

reaction because the only thing they

have to go on is your dumb opening line,

which is always dumb, and what you look

like. It doesn't work.

Why do you think people uh put photos on

dating apps that don't look anything

like they actually look? is because if

they walked up to you in person, you'd

say, "No thanks."

So, dating is mostly trickery. You know,

trying to fool somebody into being

attracted without them knowing that's

what you were doing.

So, I would say that if you're not among

the 5% tall and handsome guys that the

only way you're going to attract women

is to not approach them, but rather be

talented as something in a public way.

If you can be rich and successful in a

public way, you will attract all the

female attention that you've ever

wanted.

If you can't show that you have

something going on, that you're good at

this sport or good at making money or

good at something, um you're not going

to attract anybody.

So, dancing doesn't work, dating apps

don't work, walking up to women doesn't

work. But if you got something going on,

women will come up to you. And in my

limited dating experience over my

lifetime,

um I've never been confused about

whether a woman was interested in me

because they show it so obviously.

Is that your experience men that when a

woman is interested in you, you you know

it you know it so easily. It's never a

surprise, is it?

So anyway,

um, according to Daniel Greenfield, he's

writing that one in three Americans feel

lonely every week and one in five feel

lonely every day. And less than half of

households are headed by married couples

now and 63% of single people are not

looking for a relationship.

And th this next one is the thing that

blows my mind. The majority of Gen Z

didn't date as teenagers.

They didn't date. Almost twothirds of

the young generation didn't date at all

as teenagers.

I wonder what that used to be.

Well,

well, so things are bad there.

Um, according to Nick Noly on Braaybar

News, uh, during the first half of 2025,

reruns of the old Gunsmoke TV show in

black and white from what, the 60s, um,

reruns of that earned more streaming

minutes than any of the, um, any of the

Disney syndicate movies.

So, I have to confess that recently I

sampled some old Gunsmoke TV show on

Netflix, I guess. And the reason was

that all modern content is terrible. And

I discovered that looking at really,

really old content is kind of

fascinating. It it's not entertaining

in the traditional modern way, but it's

absolutely fascinating to just see the

old sets and you know the way they did

things, the way they talked and uh how

how rapidly they developed a story

instead of making you watch two gay

people make out forever so that you can

know, okay, I got it. I got it. They

like each other. I got it. Okay, I got

it. So the old stuff would just skip

everything that was boring and just give

you like a tight little story. The

modern stuff usually has some director

who's got power and the director says,

"Oh no, we we need a good 10 minutes of

these gay people making out cuz

otherwise how will the audience know how

much they like each other?" So the old

days was much better content even though

even the even the old comedies I was

watching like New Hart. I watched New

Hart the original old very old black and

white

because I remember laughing hysterically

at it when I was a young child. There

are not even any jokes in that thing by

modern standards. There's not a single

joke and it's a comedy. Now, that's

fascinating to me to find out what used

to be funny, but you wouldn't you would

not laugh once. You could watch I think

I watched about several episodes in a

row. Not one laugh, but yet fascinating

to see how they made it in the old days.

I liked watching it, but no jokes that

you would recognize by today's

standards. Well, Trump has signed

something called the Halt Fentinel Act.

It's going to permanently classify all

fentinyl related substances as schedule

one and it gives the law enforcement

some tools to work on that. That's good.

I don't know if that'll make any

difference. And separately,

um you know that uh China has agreed to

do more on fentinel because they've got

a permanent um tariff on them. Trump is

put an extra 20% tariff on China because

of fentinel. They weren't doing enough

to stop the flow into the US, the

precursor flow.

So, China's, you know, done some things

and arrested some people and acted like

they're doing something about it. Now,

like I said about Trump monetizing the

Ukraine war, instead of solving it, he

said, "Well, all right. If you Europeans

really want this war to go on, how about

we just sell you weapons and we make a

profit? So he monetizes the Ukraine

Russia war, which I have to admit

is kind of kind of smart,

just monetizing it. And then you could

wait as long as you want. Like you your

whole uh your whole who wants to blink

first is totally answered. Well, we're

not going to blink. We're making money.

We'll just keep making money. If you

guys want to keep fighting, go ahead.

Um, but now he's

Trump has monetized fentinol

because we assume that China won't do

enough to stop the flow because they

probably want it to keep going. But

we'll just keep charging them 20% extra

tariff.

So, do I want the fentinel trade to be

stopped? Yes, of course. But if you know

you can't stop it,

why not monetize it?

Now, Trump could never say that out loud

that he's just monetizing the horrific

fentinel trade because it's killing

people like crazy. But if your option is

it's going to happen anyway,

you might as well monetize it. There

there's something about that

that I hate and I love at the same time.

I just love the fact that Trump keeps

finding ways to monetize our problems.

If he can't solve them,

you might as well monetize them. Charge

other countries for it. Okay.

Well, if you're watching the uh drama

with Fed Chair Jerome Powell and Trump

wants him to quit. He thought about

firing him, but he says he's not going

to fire him, which the markets liked

because they thought the idea of Powell

getting fired for what would be, you

know, no legitimate cause at this point

would be a bad move. Uh, so Fed, so if

Trump ever wanted to do that, he's he

says he's backed off it or he never

thought about it. I don't know which,

but he says he won't do it. Now, the

exception would be if they found some

male feasance or corruption or something

that we don't know about, and then there

would be a reason to do it, and then he

could do it.

Um, but one of the reasons, the

potential reasons might be that the Fed

is building a new headquarters and I

guess it was like 2.5 billion dollars

they needed just for renovations and

some of it looked a little extreme. So,

Bill PTE um he's the head of uh federal

housing, director of federal housing. Um

he's uh volunteered to take a tour of

the construction project because he's an

expert on construction. That's his

background. And to uh let us know if

there's anything that looks corrupt

there. As in, how could you possibly

spend $2.5 billion

just renovating?

I mean, if you were building it from

scratch, maybe, but renovating 2.5

billion and uh that would be an

interesting idea. So, if Trump agrees to

that, I guess Trump could probably

authorize that. Um, you might see Bill

Py doing a tour of the headquarters

construction project and letting us know

if uh Jerome Powell should be fired.

Now, as far as I can tell, Jerome Powell

would never spend a day in that new

headquarters, right? Because his term is

over in May, no matter what. And uh I

can't imagine they'd be done with this

project by May. So, it doesn't seem like

he's building this

um you know, this project for his own

consumption.

But there might be something going wrong

here in terms of who got the contracts

or just essentially managing the project

correctly. There may be poor management

here.

So Bill Py might find enough to uh make

a move there. Give give Trump enough

ammunition to make a move. And by the

way, if you're not following the career

of Bill PTE, you really should pay

attention because I'm going to tell you

right now, he could be one of your

future presidents.

If if you're not already keyed into that

idea, start paying attention. He he has

the full talent stack and uh he's

clearly,

you know, highly uh you know, America

first super patriot and he doesn't need

the job. You know, he's very successful

in his his life. He doesn't need the

work. Uh but he's putting in, you know,

serious serious work into making our

country better. So keep an eye on Bill

PE. He has the entire talent and stack

to take it as far as he wants. I don't

know how far he wants, but he could go

as far as he wants.

Um,

let's see. I asked, uh, today is the day

that there's a national protest against

Trump, right?

Um,

that is the day, July 17th. They should

be doing some national multi-ity protest

generic. Now, this would be a paid

professionally organized protest. It's

not organic and so we really shouldn't

care about it at all except have fun

mocking it. But I asked on X yesterday,

what would be a name for these protests

that are not organic? You know, they're

just Democrat funded um trouble. Uh, I

started with the idea of pro pesters.

Instead of protesters

with a letter T, it would be pester with

a a P as in puppy. So, protorers,

but number of people had uh a bunch of

other uh suggestions, so you might want

to look at those. They're on my X feed.

Well, the Department of Justice fired uh

James Comey's daughter. Um she was an

attorney who worked for the Southern

District of New York, I believe, and she

handled the Epstein case and the Galain

Maxwell case and the Diddy case. There's

no word as to why she was fired, but one

assumes it's just some kind of a

revengey thing on top of she would be

maybe, you know, anti- mega and maybe if

you were in her crosshairs,

you would not get a fair trial. I don't

know what the reasons were, but um

it's not a big surprise, right? It's not

the biggest surprise in the world that

she got fired. And I don't think we need

any reasons. Do you care? U obviously uh

there's a political element to that.

Well, the estimates for how much the

Trump tariffs might bring in and

remember they're not entirely paid by

the foreign countries. Um they might pay

for some of it, but uh it's paid by the

companies in the US who are importing.

Um but the estimate is that it will

bring in $300 billion in tariff revenue

to the government by the end of the

year. Now what if

um it turns out that it can make I don't

know half a trillion dollars a year just

on on nothing but tariffs.

Suddenly

you're starting to look like you're

balancing the budget. I think there's

still a billion and a half, no a

trillion and a half left that they would

still need to cover, but uh you you're

gooseing the economy. You're making some

cuts to the budget. We'll talk about

that in a minute. Uh and you're adding

tariff revenue. So Trump is thinking he

might be able to get the the budget

balanced within his term. Do you believe

that?

You know, I think there were lots of

things we didn't believe about tariffs

that are turning out to be Trump was

right. So, I'd hate to say you can't do

it,

but it's quite a stretch to get the the

budget balance. Maybe there's nobody

else who I think could come close. So

maybe

um the former chief of staff to first

lady Jill Biden was uh interviewed by

the congressional people who were

looking into the autopen stuff and he

took the fifth. He refused to answer

questions uh about whether the White

House concealed Joe Biden's broken brain

or not.

So,

let's uh let's do an update of all the

frauds and hoaxes that we've uncovered

from the Democrats. Now, I'm not going

to say the Republicans are totally

innocent of all bad behavior.

But here are just the ones from the

Democrat side of things.

We have learned that the NOS were mostly

fraudulent money laundering situations.

Now, there would be some Republicans

involved there, too, but the ones we

hear about seem to be all Democrat

badness. So, learning the immense

fraud of the NOS's that that are getting

unwound at this point, that's huge. Then

we know that our protests which we used

to believe were organic like Black Lives

Matter and we now know that those are

just a sort of a hoax

fake you know organized protests. So we

know that now. Now, we've got uh the FBI

is looking into the Crossfire hurricane

thing, which was the idea that Trump

colluded with Russia, which we know now

was just a hoax perpetrated by the

Hillary campaign. And uh the effort is

to find out if there's a case that can

be made against Obama and Brennan and

the top people in the FBI. And of

course, there's already enough

information that largely guarantees

that it was a plot, which is maybe one

of the worst things that's ever happened

in this country.

Then there's the autopan and Biden's

brain and how that was all hidden.

That's one of the worst things we've

ever seen. Then there was all the

lawfare against Trump. And yes, I

understand that there was a jury and he

was found guilty of some things, but

nobody reasonable thinks that anybody

else would have been even brought to

trial on any of that stuff. So, the

lawfare against Trump,

Democrat plot uncovered. Then there was

the uh fine people hoax that the media

contributed to. Um, and Biden actually

ran his campaign on the fine people

hoax.

Uh, then there was the January 6th

insurrection hoax, which the entire

country doesn't know as a hoax yet, but

obviously was. The hoax part is uh not

that there were, you know, agents or

provocators in the audience. There might

have been, but I've never been really

interested in that part. The part I'm

interested in is that the news never

talked to anybody who was a protester to

ask them why they were protesting.

The most basic thing you would want to

know about that story. Cuz if you ask

them, they would not say, not any of

them, well, we know Trump lost, but we

wanted to install him like a dictator

anyway. Not a single person thought

that. They thought that Biden cheated

and they wanted to slow things down to

find out if that were the case.

So that turned into, you know, massively

jailing MAGA people and using against

Trump. Um, so that's one of the worst

hoaxes in American history. Then there

was climate change hoax, which I think

at this point you could definitely call

a hoax. Um, there was a Hunter Biden

laptop thing, the cover up of the Hunter

of the Biden crime family activities.

Nothing ever went anywhere on that. Um,

and now we've got what Trump calls the

Epstein hoax.

Um, the now Epstein of course was a real

person who did real bad things. So that

part's not a hoax. The hoax is that the

reason that uh Trump and company are not

giving you more information about it is

that they're covering up something and

maybe it's something about Trump

himself. Now, that part's a hoax. The

the part about Trump, there's no

evidence that he was involved other than

he knew Jeffrey Epstein until he decided

that he had to part ways with him.

Um,

and then look at the fake news. We've

learned in the Trump era that the news

was really not even trying to be real.

It wasn't even trying to be real. And I

don't think everybody knew that. So,

when you put all these together,

it it's the most

um criminal looking activities I've ever

seen in my life. So the the Democrat

party appears to be just a criminal

organization.

Now clearly there are also Republicans

who break laws and you know sometimes in

big ways but I don't know of any major

stories

that would blame the Republicans of

breaking some major laws that are real.

I mean if if there are those stories

they're usually hoaxes themselves. So,

it's unbelievable that we consider this

some kind of a political contest. One

side are criminals top to bottom.

They're just criminals.

And you know, they've got these

upstanding jobs and stuff, but to me it

looks like a organized criminal

enterprise, the Democrat party. And I

mean that with no hyperbole. I I gave

you the examples, right? If if you

simply accepted that most of the things

I listed that that we we do know that

the Democrats were involved with if most

of it's true and most of it's true of

course

it looks like a criminal enterprise. I

don't know that you could do the same

thing with the Republicans. Could you

make the same case that the Republicans

are basically a criminal enterprise? I

don't feel like you could. When we talk

about Republicans,

it's usually something like

um they're fighting with each other

about something.

It It's not that they've organized a

multi-year gigantic organized hoax. I

don't see that. It's only one side that

seems to be doing that.

Well, here's a semifake news that NPR

and PBS funding has been cut by the

Senate. Now, of course, the House would

have to uh approve of the tweaks that

the Senate made, but we assume that will

happen. So, the Congress will pull back

9 billion in funding, federal funding

that would have gone to NPR and PBS.

Now, the part of it that's fake news is

that I think most people assume that's

where all the funding comes from, but I

think the reality is

um it's it's a somewhat smallalish

percentage of their total operation. So,

it doesn't mean NPR and PBS will go

away. Probably just means they'll work

harder on their private fundraising, my

guess.

Um,

President Trump apparently sidstepped

some Epstein questions on his latest

spray, they call it. Um,

some um, some reporter, CNN reporter

asked whether he'd consider appointing a

special counsel to look into the Epstein

stuff. And I think he's not opposed to

it, but maybe he didn't weigh in on it.

But he does say he wants people to move

on from that story. And he says that uh

the people demanding the Jeffrey Epstein

files be released are quote stupid and

foolish.

Now what's interesting about that is

that he's describing about half of his

supporters

as stupid and foolish. Now, I'm not one

of them, meaning that I've not demanded

that they release more because I'm

satisfied that we elect people whose job

it is to tell us if there's something we

need to see. And I like those people.

And I think that if they decided we

shouldn't see something,

I'm okay with that. I don't feel like

I'm the backseat driver where if uh Dan

Bonino says, "No, there's nothing here

to see." I don't feel like I need to dig

into it personally.

Didn't we hire Trump to hire people, you

know, to appoint people and hire people

who would get what we want done?

So,

there's no guarantee that there isn't

some dirty stuff in there that we'd like

to see and we should see, but uh I don't

think it's stupid or foolish to ask for

it.

Um

so, so Trump is trying to turn this into

another Democrat hoax and only part of

it is a hoax. The hoax is the part that

the reason he doesn't want to release

things is cuz he's involved. But suppose

they got a uh some kind of special

counsel to look into it. Would you be

satisfied with whatever the special

counsel came up with? Because what would

happen if the CIA said, "Here's the

deal, special counsel. It's a state

secret and you're not allowed to tell

anybody." Could the special counsel say,

"Well, I'm special counsel. You can't

tell me that. I'm going to do it

anyway." I don't know. I don't know if a

special counsel would get us everything

we need to know.

Elon Musk is still on this and he asked

Grock on X. He said, "Uh, there was a

leak of cell phone tracking data on the

island, Epstein's Island, and he asked

Grock, can you correlate that with the

individuals who visited the island?"

uh and then assess the probability that

those who went to Epstein Island

um despite having planes of their own

did so purely to save gas.

And Grock said the flight logs show Bill

Clinton visited Little St. James 12 plus

times. Prince Andrew was there multiple

times. Alan Dersowitz, Kevin Alan

Dersitz was the lawyer. Kevin Spacy,

Chris Tucker, they have all been there.

and Trump flew on the plane seven times,

but he never went to the island.

Um,

so and then there were a bunch of

devices that were logged and

hypothetically

you could find out who who was using

their cell phone on the island to

confirm that they were there. Now, if

Bill Clinton went to Little St. jams 12

times. Do you have any question

whatsoever whatsoever about what he did

while he was there?

Do you really believe that Bill Clinton

went to Little St. James without his

wife 12 times

and that he went there because he liked

the beach

or he liked hanging out with his friend?

really.

There's actually no other reason that he

would have gone there 12 times, unless

he was doing some stuff that maybe you

wouldn't want to know. So, I'm wondering

if Bill Clinton is the reason that these

files are not fully disclosed.

Do you think it's Bill Clinton?

It might be because he would be

certainly somebody that the entire

Democrat um machine would want to

protect because it would be a way of

protecting Hillary at the same time and

you know sort of protecting the

Democrats in general. But I feel like

if if we know that Bill Clinton went to

the island 12 times and then nothing is

being released to us, as in nothing

happened,

come on.

Let's be serious.

At the very least, they're covering up

for Bill Clinton. Would you agree?

Whatever else they're covering up for, I

don't know. But if you're telling me

that they're not covering up for the guy

who went there 12 times with then his

wife 12 times.

I mean, let's be serious.

Of course, he was involved in things he

doesn't want you to know about. I mean,

I feel like it's just screamingly

obvious.

the people who were on Epstein's plane

like Trump, I I feel, you know, there's

there's no direct evidence that he did

anything illegal on the plane. And I

guess they lived in about the same place

and traveled back to New York City a

lot. So sometimes it was just I don't

know just easier or wanted to hang out

with his friend or whatever. I don't

know.

Um

but what we know from Durowitz is that

there was no client list per se.

Remember Durowitz was Epstein's lawyer.

So he knows more than we do. Uh he knows

the names of the accused. So there are

people who have not been named who have

been accused. He says that Trump is

definitely not accused. There's nothing

about Trump there. That's an accusation

in the files. and

he believes that the CIA were not

involved with Epstein because Epstein

would have mentioned it to his lawyer

who was Nurowitz if he wanted to have

the best leniency

to which I say really

do you believe that the CIA

would agree that he was working that

they were working with Epstein if the

topic was underage children.

I don't think so. I think that if the

CIA were involved in that operation

that uh if Epstein gave up the CIA and

said, "Oh, you know, uh not only is

Epstein himself doing these illegal

underage women things, but the CIA is

part of the operation."

Do you think he would throw the CIA

under the bus and say, "Yeah, they're

trafficking children." if they were. I'm

not saying they were, but if they were,

so I'm not buying um Duruitit's

explanation on this. I'm not buying the

explanation that if he was working with

the CIA, he would have mentioned it. You

would mention it if you were working

with the CIA to spy on Russia, well then

you would mention it. Or to get secrets

from China, well then you would

definitely mention it to your lawyer.

But if the context is, did you do some

of the worst things that the public can

imagine, sex trafficking of minors, do

you think that even Epstein would give

up the CIA?

Because it seems like they would have to

kill him if he did.

Well,

and then um I guess I would take some

some factchecking on this next point I'm

going to make. Did Dersuit say that

Epstein was not involved with an

intelligence entity because he would

have told Dersowitz so he could get a

better deal. But would that include if

he worked with MSAD?

If if Epstein had worked with MSAD, and

I don't know that he did, but if he did,

how would that get him a better plea

deal in the United States?

That doesn't seem connected, does it?

So, can Dersuit really say, "Well," and

he didn't say this, but could he say, "I

know he wasn't working with MSAD or MI6

or the Saudis because he would have

mentioned it to be his lawyer so he

could get a better deal." How would you

get a better deal if you were working

for the intelligence agency of another

country?

That would be the opposite of getting a

good deal,

right?

Yeah. So, I feel like Durowitz is

finding some clever ways

to say that Epstein didn't have that uh

intelligence contact,

but it doesn't sound believable.

So,

judge for yourself.

All right. Um, and then Mike Benz, who's

also on the case here with the Epstein

story, he notes that there is a normal

and routine thing that the press does

and the CIA does when somebody is um

alleged to have worked with them.

Apparently, there's a database that you

can search for somebody's name to find

out if they work for the CIA. Now I

think only the CIA has access to it. But

it's fairly routine that people get

blamed as being an CIA asset. So the CIA

also doesn't know, you know, at some

levels of management, they don't even

know who's working there because there's

so many secrets. So, they have a system

where if there's something in the news

that says some character works for the

CIA, they can type that person's name

into their database and then they could

make a statement later saying no, he's

not ours. Or if it is theirs, they can

say uh no comment.

And uh Mike Benz has some way that he

can check to find out that there has

been no name search for Jeffrey Epstein

despite it being the main question

that's been in the news for years.

And he's having trouble believing that

this research was never done because

it's the most routine thing you would

do. And since it's such a high-profile

case, of course you would do it on this

one. But the evidence is

it wasn't done. Why would that be?

Well, we can only think of one reason.

Um Trump was meeting with the crown

prince of Bahrain who really looked like

he liked Trump. You know, they were

sitting together in the Oval Office and

whenever Trump turned to him, he would

have this big smile on his face and you

know, he laughed at his jokes and stuff.

So, he looks like he's getting along

with Trump well, but uh Trump answered

questions about all manner of things.

And he said uh that the press should be

focusing on Biden and the autopen, not

the Epstein stuff. All right, here's the

thing.

When Trump tries so hard to tell us that

we should not talk about Epstein,

isn't he winking as hard as you can?

Yes, there are secrets there. I know the

secrets. I'm not going to tell you. And

I'm not even going to tell you why I

can't tell you. Let's just please move

on. So when I when I agree with that

strategy

of moving on, people say, "Oh, you're

covering up for the what are you doing?

You're covering up for the pedos." No,

I'm simply saying that if we'll never

know the real answer, we should default

to a process you're comfortable with. A

process that I'm comfortable with is

that we elected people to make these

decisions for us. And apparently Trump

has made the decision for us that we're

not going to see much more even though

he's he acts like he's open to it. I

don't think we'll see more.

whatever it is that he's uh covering up

and obviously he's covering up something

is important and we hired him to make

the important decisions for us. We did

not hire him to tell us everything that

he knows because there would be lots of

topics where he knows things you're not

supposed to know. So,

so that's my summary.

If we can't know for sure and we can't,

what's the real story? The only thing

you can be comfortable with is who's in

charge of deciding if you know. And it's

Trump. I'm comfortable knowing that he's

lying.

Can anybody else say the same thing? I

know he's lying. He's obviously lying.

It could not be more obvious. it it's so

obvious that he's lying that it makes it

feel like he wants us to know he's lying

because it's easier for me to move on if

I know he's lying,

right? Because if I know he's he said

that he's decided to keep it from me and

the and the public, then I say, "Well,

that's your decision.

You you get to make that decision and

then I'm willing to move on." Would

justice be served? Probably not.

Um, Trump also has this new phrase he

uses a lot that the US was considered a

dead country before he got in. Nothing

was happening and now it's the hottest

country. That is good persuasion. He

says it a lot, so it's really sinking

in. So, he's persuading other countries

that might want to invest with the US or

get on board with us. He's uh he's he's

persuading them with his hypnosis that

uh we're not like we used to be and now

it's you know the US is the place to

invest and the one to follow and the one

that's doing all the good stuff and

there's some basis for that. So it's not

like it's a crazy thing to say. So I

love his persuasion on that from dead to

hottest.

Uh, let's compare that to one of the

stars of the Democrat party, Stacy

Abrams, who is now calling Trump an

autocrat.

All right, compare these two

persuasions. The US went from a dead

country to the hottest country. Okay,

that's just A+

because everybody knows what dead means.

Everybody knows what hottest means. And

there's there's enough basis that people

could say, "Yeah, I can see that. I I

see why you're saying that." But when

Stacy Abrams says Trump is an autocrat,

why don't you go do an interview on the

street and ask people if they know what

an autocrat is? If they do, give them

question number two. Do you know what an

oligarch is? Probably not.

Number three, what does it mean to be an

authoritarian?

Uh maybe a third of the country knows

what that means. What about the

Plutocrats? Yeah. What about the

Plutocrats?

Why is it that the Democrats have no

sense whatsoever of what a regular human

being would be persuaded by?

Penrats. That's funny. Autopenrats.

Well, Trump says that Coca-Cola has

agreed with his suggestion to make

America healthy again by removing what

they were using for sugar and putting in

real cane sugar. So, I guess that's for

the non-diet version of Coke. But uh I

was not aware

that whatever Coca-Cola was using

instead of real cane sugar, I was not

aware that it's dangerous

and that real cane sugar would be

healthy.

So I don't understand that story at all.

But if RFK Jr. agrees that this would

make that drink healthier.

All right.

Okay. But I do like when Trump brags

about successes because that that feeds

into his we're the hottest country and

everything's going right. And I love it

when he does that. I love it when Trump

is a salesperson for the country, which

is a lot like being a salesperson for

his own um his own administration. He

should be doing that and he should be

talking it up like crazy and nobody does

it better. He He is the best salesperson

I've ever seen and he's selling the

country. He's doing a good job.

But meanwhile, in the Palisades where

there was that big fire, um apparently

nothing's happening to rebuild

basically. Um rebuilding after the fire

is almost nothing. And they're think it

would take four years to get things

approved and rebuilt. Four years. and

all of it because California is a

bureaucratic red tape woke mess.

Um,

apparently there's some real movement on

this Russia collusion hoax investigation

that the FBI and I assume the DOJ DOJ

are doing. So, I was reading in Real

Clear Investigations,

Paul Sperry was writing that uh there's

been meetings and there's new

information on Russia gate. Um, new

documents have been released. There's a

new secret 200page congressional audit.

Um, I feel like this is looking like

something might happen. As in the idea

that the Democrats organized

a RICO criminal attempt to lawfare and

uh disgrace Trump and get him out of the

uh get him out of the government and get

him out of the election. It looks like

that it's all documented.

So, you know, unlike the Epstein thing

where there's there's nothing to look

at,

we just have a lot of assumptions and

speculation. It looks like this whole

Russia hoax thing, there's going to be

memos and handwritten memos and a whole

chain of command where you can see the

entire um the entire criminal

enterprise.

So,

I don't know how far this could go, but

is there a possibility that Brennan

would be put in jail?

There is.

Yeah, there is. It would be tough.

I think the odds are way against it, but

it's possible. So, if I were John

Brennan, I'd be worried a lot.

Um,

we, you know, we get new inflation

numbers in the country on a regular

basis. Just got some that look kind of

good. But would you be surprised to

learn

that economists say that our inflation

data is all

Does that surprise anybody that the data

that they use to figure out if our

prices went up? So, part of it is a a

labor um shortage. So the way they check

prices is have a little army of people

call certain places and say what are you

charging for this or that and then they

compile it. When they don't have the

information they estimate it.

They estimate it. How exactly would you

estimate the price of a thing without

checking any base source?

You just make it up, right?

So, it sounds to me like some of the

inflation numbers are literally just

pulled out of somebody's ass. So,

I think the administration in charge

probably can make that inflation number

just about anything they want. Um,

because it's sort of made up and based

on assumptions and stuff. And of course,

what I say when I when we find out that

the inflation numbers are probably BS, I

say wait until you find out about the

climate models.

Wait until you find out how many

estimates are in the climate models.

If you're worried about the inflation

numbers not being perfectly accurate,

oh, way do you find out about

temperature?

Yeah, there are some estimates there.

Um, Zoran Mandani

had a meeting with a bunch of uh uh

important business CEOs

and uh they were asking him about you

know his use of the phrase globalize the

inifat

which is taken commonly as a cult of

violence toward Israel and Jewish

people. And uh Mandani claimed that for

him the slogan is not uh was not about

that violence but it reflects a protest

against what he called the Israeli

occupation of Gaza and not an

endorsement of violence. So he says

he'll still be in favor of the idea

uh of that he's opposed to the

occupation of Gaza as he would call it

but he does not endorse anything about

it that is violence. Now remember what I

said about

whoever gets to decide what the

definition of something is is in charge.

So here is Zoron trying to make us

accept his definition of what um

globaliz inifat means. If he can get us

to accept that definition,

then he probably has a good chance of

getting elected and it looks like he's

winning. But

do you do you buy that? How many of you

think that um that that phrase is sort

of innocent and it's only talking about

the occupation?

It's not really believable.

So I don't think that he has the power

to redefine that. So it means that at

the moment he's not in charge of you

because you still have your own

definition and you would be willing to

use it in public if he had to but he's

trying to redefine it to get power over

you and so far not successful.

And uh then I was then he was asked

about whether he still supports

defunding the police, which is something

he had said in the past. And he decided

to avoid the question.

Avoid the question. How in the world

would all these top CEOs like Jamie

Diamond and, you know, a bunch of people

like that, how in the world are they

going to back this guy? Well, we don't

know if they will or or not, but um

apparently a bunch of outofstate people

are donating to Mom Donny's campaign.

He's got 350,000

since his primary win from out of state.

Now, he gets also instate, but that's a

lot. And I'm wondering if Republicans

are donating to him. Are there any

Republicans who are so Mckavelian that

they say to themselves, you know, if we

let the Communist completely destroy New

York City,

um the Democrat party will be dead for a

generation?

Is there any Republican with enough

money

that they actually think that? It's

like, well, you know, I don't want to

destroy New York City, but they

apparently want to destroy themselves.

So, we'll just give them the tools to do

it and then nobody will vote for a

Democrat ever again. Maybe. I don't

know. Well, Adam Schiff,

who used to say no one is above the law,

now says that Trump's attacks on Schiff

are uh more dangerous than ever because

it involves the law.

So, Adam Schiff, who apparently broke

the law when it came to saying what uh

what was his primary residence because

he had two primary residents, which is

not a thing. It's illegal.

But he's saying the real problem is

Trump's abuse of law,

not the fact that he broke it in the

most obvious way,

allegedly.

Um, according to the Wall Street

Journal, vigilante groups are taking

control of Russia's streets because so

many of their police officers have been

shipped to the war. Now, the way the

story reads, the reason so many police

officers in Russia have been sent to the

uh war is because it pays better to be a

soldier than it does to be a police

officer. To which I say, how much more

does it pay that you would go into a

meat grinder where you can't walk

outside without a drone killing you?

What What police officer would give up

their police job to voluntarily go to

the front lines of the Ukraine Russia

war that's just grinding up all the

humans?

I don't know about this story. I believe

the vigilante groups and I believe that

there may be not enough cops, but I

don't believe that the cops were mostly

leaving for the high pay of being killed

on the front lines. That doesn't seem

doesn't seem likely, does it?

All right, people. That's all I got for

now. Sorry I went long. I'm going to say

a few words privately to the local

subscribers who I call Beloved

and the rest of you. Thanks for joining

and I will see you again tomorrow. Same

time, same place. Locals coming at you

privately.

Uh, if this