Episode 2926 CWSA 08/13/25

All right, let's do that.

Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization except for all the technology is broken and sucks.

But we'll have a XON show today.

It will not be appearing on the other platforms until we record this.

I don't even know if that works, but we might be able to load it on the other platforms later.

But um how would you like the simultaneous sip?

I think you'd like it.

If you'd like it, all you need is a copper mug or a glass attacker gels in a canteen jug or flask vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.

The thing makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

What happens now?

Go.

All right.

Now, given that I can't tell if my audio is working, I have to check your note.

I see you.

No, You.

Tube.

Uh, right.

Okay.

So, I'm going to put a note here on X.

Stop it today.

Bumble studio not working.

All right, that's the best I can do.

Well, uh, did you know that Meta and their AI, they think they've taken the first step towards super intelligence?

And, uh, so Zuckerberg says he's not going to release, um, any new versions that are their best version because their best version has super intelligence.

Apparently, the uh Meta AI has already shown signs of improving itself, meaning that they can tell it to upgrade its own code and it will rewrite its own code and make it better.

Now, just in small ways, but that is the uh the thing everybody worries about is that the AI will figure out how to do it in big ways and it'll happen kind of instantly.

And if you're not ready for it, the whole world is in trouble.

I'm going to I'm going to make a counter um prediction.

My prediction is that AI will be able to improve itself and that'll happen you right now, I guess, but that the amount it can improve itself will be severely limited.

It will not be instantly becoming godlike.

It will do stuff like, hey, I can improve the efficiency of my code so that I can answer faster or I can answer more completely.

But I feel like that's all it's going to do.

I just don't feel like I don't feel like the nature of intelligence is that no matter how much you have, you have the ability to improve your own intelligence.

I mean, beyond those small tweaks of your code.

So, I'm going to bet against it.

Um, but we already know according to the Lancet, there's some concern that doctors are becoming dumber as they use AI.

I'm not sure I believe this.

This doesn't sound like the data would be reliable necessarily, but uh they studied colonoscopies that were used by doctors who were using AI to make sure that they were really getting it right.

And the people, the doctors who used AI allegedly became almost instantly worse at identifying tumors on their own.

Do you believe that?

Do you believe that the ones who used AI to help them identify tumors that they instantly lost the ability to do it themselves or they're I think they were 20% worse at it almost instantly?

Maybe.

Maybe because if you believe that you don't need to be smart and that something else is doing the smart part for you, I I believe that you probably turn down your brain power a little bit.

So, it wouldn't surprise me.

I don't know if that'll make the world worse or not.

As long as the AI is getting the job done, doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter, right?

As long as you get the right answer.

Well, there's a new movement.

I don't know how new it is, but Silicon Valley is apparently uh trying harder to get smart babies.

So, there are a couple ways you can do that.

One of the ways is that you can hire a um hire somebody to find you a mate.

So, they have all these really expensive uh dating services where a human being will match you with people that they've vetted.

Now, that's for the super rich.

But if you're super rich and you're smart and you want to make sure that any children you have are also smart, you can tell your Cuban matchmaker to only pair you with somebody who's super smart.

So, the odds of your baby being super smart, if it's the two of you, are very good.

Very good.

But the other way is that they have new technologies now that can determine the likely smartest um egg, I guess.

So if you've got some fertilized eggs, you can check them out to find out what their probable IQ is and then you can select based on that.

So, um, but part of this story is the, uh, the media has trouble acknowledging that IQ matters.

So, so they have to throw in all these qualifiers like, well, you know, IQ is just one variable.

It's just one variable.

I mean, you also have your lifestyle and your upbringing and your parenting and all that.

To which I say, Why do we why are we so shy about IQ?

That IQ is the single most predictive variable in all of life.

If if somebody is super smart, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll be rich or successful, but the odds of it are way way higher than if they're not super smart.

Is it a coincidence that all the heads of our biggest, most impressive companies are also super smart?

You know, Zuckerberg and Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos and, you know, I could go on, Bill Gates.

Um, so yeah, the the fact that we're struggling with the question of whether IQ matters is a sort of a DEI leftover because as soon as you imagine that IQ matters, then genetics comes into the conversation and then it's all racist.

So you can't even have that conversation really.

However, I think we're getting closer to the point where we can.

In other news, News Nation is reporting that there was an ALS patient.

Um, that's somebody who's lost control of their bodily functions that learned to control an i.

Pad entirely by thought.

Now, if that sounds like Neuralink, you'd be right to say it sounds like it, but it's a competing company.

So I guess Neurolink now has a uh established competitor called Singron.

S Y N C H R O N.

Singron and they've developed a sensor that must be really good.

So it's competitive with the Neuralink stuff.

So here's what's going to happen.

IQ in humans only matters so much because if you've got AI to augment your IQ, how would you measure the IQ of someone who knew how to use I um knew how to use AI and had access to it?

Yeah.

See how hard that is?

If you took a person who has an IQ of a 100 and they didn't have IQ, they didn't have AI, you'd say, "Oh, that's person has so much capability." But if you took a person with an IQ of 100, taught them how to use AI, and then made sure that they really did use it, wouldn't their functional IQ be it wouldn't be as high as the AI's IQ, but wouldn't it be some blend between the humans 100 IQ and the AI's nearly infinite?

How would you even measure that?

And then then you go to the next layer which is these neurolink or synchron chips.

How would you um measure the IQ of a cyborg who had part human brain but could access somewhat automatically the infinite intelligence of the internet?

I don't know.

Would that be an IQ of a 100 plus of machine parts or would it be an infinite IQ?

What happens if the AI does more than just answer questions?

What if you've got a chip in your head and it's making suggestions?

If it's making suggestions, sort of like the voice that's in your head naturally, I feel like you would have almost infinite IQ as long as you took the suggestions.

You know, if you were overruling the suggestions, it might be a hot mess.

Anyway, IQ I predict will be a much much bigger part of the conversation especially because China is trying to raise super IQ warriors and babies and stuff.

So a lot more on that is coming.

Um so there's a story in the news.

I saw it on social media.

I think it might be true, but it's so fun that I'm going to treat it like it's true, even if it's not.

Everybody okay with that?

We're all going to say we're going to suspend our critical functions because it might be true.

By the way, I don't know if it's true, but the story is that Chuck Schumer has been telling a story about a fake family for decades, and apparently he always gets away with it.

Now the the story is allegedly that the family doesn't exist and it's somebody called the Bailey's and that over time Schumer uses them to um show that he knows some middle class family that has a set of problems that he has all the solutions for.

So he's added like the names of the children and their ages and you know what kind of job he has and allegedly it's all made up.

There's no Bailey family.

Now, I hope it's true that it's all made up because that would be a good summer news story.

Um, it seems slightly more likely that there was a Bailey family, but maybe exaggerated a little bit or something, but for now, I'm going to accept that he made it all up because it's just funnier.

All right.

Uh, that's not good.

>> A little bit or something, but for now.

>> All right.

Looks like our technology is working on X.

Well, the uh Make America Healthy Again Commission was supposed to send over their recommendation yesterday to the White House on how to combat childhood chronic diseases.

So, I believe that they have the report at the White House, but they're still looking over it, and there will be some uh probably some tweaks to it before we see it.

But part of it was addressing school lunches.

Apparently, school lunches are filled with uh ultrarocessed food.

And so, we're sending kids to school to make them dumber and more mentally ill and uh sicker with the food that they have to eat.

Now, one thing that if do you if you have any uh teenagers especially, have you noticed that the teenagers often will skip lunch um because they use it for a social time instead of eating?

So, there's a whole lot of teenagers who don't eat anything during the day or might get a snack or something.

That's it.

So, that's also a problem.

But, uh RFK Jr.

apparently wants to improve these school lunches, but that's no easy thing because it's cheap to give them frozen, highly processed food, and it would be expensive to give them freshly prepared meals, which would require hiring more people to make them, etc.

So, I don't know what we're going to do because we don't want to raise the budget of schools all over the country so much.

Um but on the other hand, we don't want to poison our children.

So pick one.

Well, in the usual way that uh every single story becomes two movies on one screen, inflation is either really under control and it's uh good news or it's high and it's bad news.

And both of those stories are active today.

But apparently uh energy prices went down a little bit in the past month.

Food was flat, didn't go up or down, and shelter was a little bit up, 2%.

Now, uh, but the core inflation, that would be the stuff that's not energy, food, or shelter.

I think I think that's what core inflation is.

Um, that had a 3.1% inflation, which would be high.

So your your major categories were good, but some of the other ones were not.

So you could find whatever story you want in the inflation numbers.

It's either too high or it's not.

But to make things even more fun, the uh Federal Reserve, if the inflation looked high, would be highly inclined to lower the interest rates, which would be really good for markets, which is why the stocks are way up this morning.

So we can't even tell if inflation is good news or bad news because if the inflation is high, the stock market goes up because that means that the interest rates will probably be, you know, artificially driven down a little bit to battle the inflation and that's good for stocks.

So I can say with certainty that inflation is either up or down and that the net effect of that inflation being either up or down is that it'll be either good or bad and the cause will either be the tariffs or no effect from the tariffs.

So all of those movies are playing at the same time.

Pick one.

Well, in the most predictable news, the Texas Democrats went awall so that there would be no vote on redistricting in Texas because they didn't like how the map was being drawn.

So, the Democrats did their usual theater kid thing and they made a big deal about it and they made some cringy social media posts and then Texas got tough and acted like they were going to have them all hunted down and arrested and I don't know fired and their pay would be cut and all kinds of threats.

But the one thing that we can all be sure of is that it wouldn't last.

It was It's not as if the Democrats were never coming back.

because if they never came back, they would get removed from office.

So, they didn't really have any play.

The the only play they had was getting some attention like they're fighting.

Now, this is very consistent.

And by the way, they're already back and uh Texas has already voted in the new redistricting map.

So everything they did was a waste of time, but it fell into the Democratic strategy of cursing more and fighting fighting hard.

So it it was a fake fight.

They they wanted to pretend that they were, you know, really serious and they're fighting hard, but they had no fight.

They had no play whatsoever.

In the end, Texas was definitely going to get what the majority wanted, and they did.

So pathetic.

Very pathetic.

Um, apparently Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has threatened to lock up Betto Aor because Betto was raising money to help the uh Democrats be awall and, you know, keep them in uh keep them in food and transportation while they're gone.

And uh apparently Paxton has filed a motion for contempt in court against her work as a maximum sentence um of $500 fine andor 6 months in jail.

That's a weird law, isn't it?

That the maximum sentence is either uh Well, it could be both, but it could be $500 or it could be six months in jail.

Do you think Bento work is going to get six months in jail?

I don't think so.

But Paxton says, quote, "I'm working to put him behind bars." So, there's another video of Betto Aor cursing more and saying that they got to fight more.

F this, fat, fight more.

That's all they got.

Cursing and pretending to fight.

Well, there's a new wrinkle in the story of Smartmatic and Fox News.

You may know that um Smartmatic, the uh the uh voting machine company, do they do only software or do they do hardware?

I can't remember.

But they're uh they've got a lawsuit against Fox News for defamation.

I guess Fox News must have claimed that there was some irregularities with their technology and they didn't like it, so they're suing them.

Um but now we have learned according to Fox News um that uh for Smartmatic to get the contract for LA, they may have uh they been may have been giving some uh let's say gifts to the local officials.

Apparently they reportedly they they funneled dollars into quote a slush fund.

Um and that it provided uh the register recorder and clerk Dean Logan with quote business class travel expensive entertainment.

Expensive entertainment you say and other personal benefits.

Oh personal you say that could be anything.

uh and that it was not disclosed which I guess would have made it legal.

Um and so the uh the belief is that smatic may have tried to bribe some local government people so they could get that contract to which I say have I mentioned that all local government is a criminal activity.

You cannot have a local government in charge of very large contracts.

That's it.

That's that's the whole statement.

You can't have a local government that's in charge of distributing who gets contracts because it's too much power and they're going to steal it.

They're going to they're going to give it to their friends and their friends are going to find some indirect hidden way to reward them for giving them the contract.

And I feel like that's going to happen every time in every city.

And whenever they look for it, they seem to find it.

Like you could throw a dart at the United States and hit any city and then say, "All right, we're going to do a deep audit and find out if the people who got all of the contracts that the city gives out, how many of them are friends of the people who were in elected office?" And you would find out most of them that the the whole system is not just corrupt, but it's designed in a way that guarantees it.

It's a guaranteed corrupt system.

It's going to be that way every time.

Now, not every contract every time, but over time, you know, over the length of time that we're alive, you can guarantee that every one of these local uh local entities will be staffed with corrupt politicians who are just making tons of money allocating money to contractors.

Well, there's some new declassified documents from the FBI.

Cash Patel continues to feed us little stuff.

And this one says that uh Comey ordered the FBI to assist the New York Times in writing one of the articles.

And there's also information that Comey had some kind of a PR professional that was working just to feed news to the the media that would make Comey look good.

And uh as part of the FBI's assistance to the New York Times, they made available Peter Stro and Lisa Page to be interviewed by the New York Times.

And then what else we know?

According to um according to some new documents also um Eric Swallwell uh is reportedly the source of a lot of leaked information and had to be counseledled to be more careful.

Now are you having the same impression I have about the Democrats?

I remember at the very beginning when the Russia collusion hoax was being hatched and I would watch Brennan and Clapper talk about it on TV and I would say to myself, "Huh, I'm no body language expert, but it seems to me very obvious by their demeanor and the choice of words and their body language that they're completely lying about all of this." But I didn't know.

I mean, it was just my impression when I looked at I was like, "Huh?" You know, I I don't think that every single person who goes on television is lying, even if they're on what I would consider the other team.

Sometimes there's just different opinions and, you know, different facts and there's two movies on one screen and all that.

But Brennan and Clapper look like they literally were just making up.

And it turns out, looks like that's what they were doing.

They're just making up.

When I see Swallwell go on TV frequently and make ridiculous claims, I do not tell to tell myself, "Huh, he looks like he might be mistaken or have bad information." I never say that.

He looks like he's lying.

When Adam Schiff goes on TV, he doesn't look like he's misinformed.

He looks like he's lying.

And it just it seems really obvious.

And again, I don't say that about every member of Congress, you know, or every Democrat.

It's not about them being Democrats.

They are the designated liars.

Jamie Rascin, whenever he's talking, I just assume it's a lie and that he knows it's a lie, not that he's mistaken.

So, do do Republicans have something like that?

I mean, I realize that Trump is always in the hyperbole world and he's always exaggerating, you know, his accomplishments, etc., but that doesn't feel the same because, you know, that Trump knows that we know that he's a salesman.

So, it's a little bit like we have an agreement with him.

All right.

Yeah.

Okay.

You can you can brag about that a little bit.

It's good for the country.

If if uh if Trump can convince the country that the US is now the hottest country and everybody should be making deals with us, it's good for the country.

So I I definitely accept that when Trump is exaggerating, um it's just part of the process and it works and it unambiguously it works.

But these Democrats, they just look like they're really bad liars and it it just looks completely different.

Like they're just making stuff up out of nothing.

Let's see what else we got here.

Um and there's a now worldwide calls for President Trump to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

I I kind of like the fact that Trump is lobbying directly and indirectly to win a Nobel Peace Prize.

So it makes it more like the uh the Academy Awards.

You know, to get an Academy Award, it is you have to do more than just make a good movie or be good at whatever you did for the movie.

You you have to sort of lobby for it, you know, kind of politic for it a little bit.

And I don't know if that was ever the case for the Nobel Peace Prize.

I thought people used to win these prizes without even knowing they were nominated necessarily.

But uh we do know that the following uh according to the White House, they put down a put down a social media post on this that the following countries andor leaders have recommended the Nobel Peace Prize for Trump.

You got the uh prime minister of Armenia, president of Azerbashan, prime minister of Cambodia, the president of Gabon.

Is it Gabon?

G- a b- o n gabon.

Gabon.

There's a word I've never said l.

Then uh there's Israel and Nanyahu.

And there's the government of Pakistan.

Uh and there's the foreign minister of Rwanda.

Now, it's funny that it's the government of Pakistan but not the government of India.

when when Trump allegedly was uh instrumental in getting Pakistan and India to stand down from their little conflict.

But I think India's story is that Trump didn't really make a difference and Pakistan is saying that he did.

So once again, does it matter if Trump is exaggerating the calls for him to get a Nobel Peace Prize?

No, no, that's a exaggeration that works for him if you know he gets a Nobel Peace Prize, but it also works for us because when he goes into the next negotiation, I want the people that he's negotiated with to say, "Oh, here's that guy who always makes the peace deal work." And then he has more chance of making it work because everybody just believes it will work.

that will be extra important this week probably.

We'll talk about that in a minute.

Um, according to I saw Chanel Ryan on O talking to Har Dylan, assistant attorney general and uh apparently the Trump Department of Justice is going to review all the 50 states and make them clean up their voter roles and uh restore public confidence in elections.

How much difference do you think that will make?

I I'm a little undecided if cleaning up the voter roles is going to just wildly change the the outcome of elections.

It might it might wildly change the outcome because we believe, but I have no evidence to support this.

It's just a belief that um Democrats are more likely to game the system with names they should not be on the election voter roles.

Now, I don't know if that's true, but if they clean up the voter roles, we might find out.

So, I love that.

Um, there's also some mystery going around uh Trump's view of marijuana.

Axios is reporting that uh it might be another one of those situations where the Republicans can steal a topic that normally you'd expect the Democrats would be more progressive on like marijuana legalization andor decriminalization.

And uh Axio points out that the Trump administration banned food dyes, which you'd sort of expect would be a Democrat thing.

Uh calls for an end to animal lab testing, which you would imagine would be a Democrat thing, and embraced psychedelics for mental health, which again, you would assume would have been a Democrat thing, but they missed all three of them.

I assume RFK Jr.

is the reason that um Trump is doing some sort of things that you'd expect would have come from Democrats.

There's also some mystery going around uh Trump's view of marijuana.

Axios is reporting that uh it might be another one of those situations where the Republicans can steal a topic that normally you'd expect the Democrats would be more progressive on like marijuana legalization andor decriminalization.

And uh Axio points out that the Trump administration banned food dies which you'd sort of expect would be a Democrat thing.

uh calls for an end to animal lab testing, which you would imagine would be a Democrat thing, and embraced psychedelics for mental health, which again, you would assume would have been a Democrat thing, but they missed all three of them.

I assume RFK Jr.

is the reason that um Trump is doing some sort of things that you'd expect would have come from Democrats.

But the conversation about marijuana is not to make it legal at a federal level, but to uh reschedu it.

And I there's a little ambiguity about what that really means.

But if you reschedu it, it will look like you did something, but it won't change the world that much because it's not legalizing it.

It's just rescheduling it, which would be it might be officially recognized for medicinal use.

So, the federal government could say, "Well, it's not legal, but if you're using it for medicinal use, and maybe if you've got a prescription from a doctor, then the feds are okay with it." Um, and that might be enough to allow the the weed manufacturers to have a little extra freedom for banking and whatever else that they've been restricted from doing.

But uh the uh certainly you're probably aware that Republicans are not unified on this.

However, how much of the world is unified on it?

I think 88% uh according to a Pew Research Center poll, uh 88% of people favor medical or recreational use.

88%.

Now, it's medical or recreational use.

So my guess is that almost everybody's in favor of medical use because almost everybody knows at this point they almost all know somebody who used it medically and it worked.

So I can see why there'd be 88% support.

Uh I will say again that my view on marijuana and legalization is it's a lot like guns.

There's no such thing as guns are good or guns are bad.

Guns are good for some people.

It makes them safer and it's definitely bad for other people.

So, if somebody's in favor of guns and somebody's not in favor of guns, it's not like you can take the average.

The best you can do is hope that there are more people who agree with your your take on it and then that's where the law goes.

So, marijuana is like that.

It would be catastrophic for some people's lives if you make it easier and, you know, let's say less stigmatized.

Almost certainly that would result in just killing some people.

But that would be the same with guns.

It' be the same with having swimming pools.

It's legal to build a swimming pool in your backyard and that's just a death trap.

You know, sometimes you have to put a gate around it and stuff, but still it's still sort of a death trap.

Um, so a swimming pool could be the greatest thing for people who really like it and can afford it and all that, but also it's a death trap reliably.

I mean, you can know for sure a certain number of people drowned in swimming pools, most of them children.

Um, so marijuana is neither bad nor good.

It's lifech changingly good for some people and I'm one of them.

Um, I don't know.

I I should just admit to you, I wouldn't be able to do my podcast without it.

Um, this morning, as every morning, I'm on some meds right now that give me just insane cramping and stomach aches.

Uh, and it just pops up maybe three times a day, but marijuana makes it go away.

And since I'm a uh chronic user, I don't get all the psychedelic, that's the wrong word, but I don't get a strong reactions from the drug.

All it does is calm my stomach.

So, I'm very high right now.

Could you tell the difference?

Probably not.

If if you had never had marijuana before and you tried doing it right before you did a podcast in front of, you know, tens of thousands of people, would that be a good idea?

No, no, that would be a very bad idea.

But I happen to be a chronic lifetime user and it has very predictable benefits to me.

So my stomach right now, perfect, completely cured, takes about 15 minutes.

So I I just give myself the uh the cure, wait about 15 minutes, and a tremendous amount of pain.

I mean, it's a lot of pain just goes away.

So right now I have no pain in my stomach.

So I would like people like me to have access to it, but I acknowledge that in a free world, it will cause other people to die.

Um, and that's not ideal, but it's a way we make decisions about all the stuff that's good for some people and bad for others.

Well, the the Ukraine conversation, oh, I shouldn't say conversation, I hate that word.

the Ukraine negotiations, the meeting uh looks like it's going to be on Friday in Alaska and Trump is wisely making sure that his administration is talking to the Europeans because they were fearing being sidelined and left out of the deal and uh also talking to Zilinski um and trying to make sure that uh they're somewhat on the same page.

Now, I do agree that Trump should meet with Putin without them because if you add too many voices too soon, nothing good happens.

I mean, yet the decision makers are Putin and probably Trump.

Everybody else just has to be browbeat to get on board if they can come up with some kind of a deal.

So, it does make sense to me that Trump would have this conversation with just Putin.

I feel like that that moves the uh the ball ahead a little bit.

I don't think there's really any chance that they'll make a deal on this one meeting.

Do you?

I I feel like there's not enough to work with.

It might it might be important to the process of continuing to talk and working it out and you maybe somebody will come up with the idea that works, but I doubt it.

Here's what I think is going to happen.

Uh, Axios is reporting that insiders are saying that Trump is quote still pissed off at Putin for, you know, yanking him around all these times and not being serious about peace, which is kind of embarrassing for Trump because he made some promises that he could wrap up that war quickly and nothing like that is happening.

Um, but if it's true that Trump is pissed off at Putin, then I want this meeting to be between Trump and Putin because if we know anything about Trump, he's going to say something like this.

Um, this is also from Axios that there are more ways uh that that basically Trump could close down the Russian economy.

Now, that would be a much bigger step than anything that's happened so far.

But do you think that Trump will threaten it?

There's no way that Trump is going to threaten, you know, nuclear war because that wouldn't sound believable and it'd be a bad idea.

But we know that Trump likes to threaten and I doubt that he's going to have a personal conversation with Putin who he is pissed off at, and not threaten him.

There's going to be some threats.

Now, how he words the threats, there's a lot of variability.

It might be offensive and it might be polite.

We don't know.

But I feel like Trump is going to sit in the room with Putin and he's going to say, "Here's the deal.

You just made me look like a chimp.

No good.

I'm going to have to destroy your whole economy.

Um, unless you give me a peace deal because you made me, Putin, you made me look like an idiot.

I promised I would wrap this war up and then you're working on the other side from that.

I'm pissed off at you.

You need to make this right.

Otherwise, if you and I are never right, say goodbye to your little economy.

I'm going to find 10 new ways to squeeze you into dust because you with me.

Now, would he be able to say that if the room was full of Zilinski and European leaders?

Not really.

Not really.

He wouldn't be able to say it as clearly as it needs needs to be said.

But what I suspect is that um Trump's leverage is his personal feeling about this.

Let me say that again.

Putin is working with lots of different variables.

you know, there's the military, the the economy, there's the personalities and all this.

And most of those things he has some kind of advantage.

There is one thing he does not have an advantage in, which is how Trump feels about the situation.

If if he leaves the meeting, Trump, and he's more pissed off at Putin, Putin loses.

We don't know what he loses.

We don't know if we'll be worse off than Russia will.

There'll still be lots of questions.

But if he pisses off Trump more than Trump is already pissed off, Trump is going to find a way to close down his whole economy.

And he won't really have a choice because you can't let Putin grab you by the nads and swing you around in front of the entire public if you're the United States and certainly if you're not Trump.

So although I don't believe any of this was planned in a clever way, the situation is that if Putin doesn't give Trump something that Trump can take home and say, you know, we got some progress, there's going to be real trouble.

And I think we're at the point where Trump can just squeeze the the big Jesus out of their uh what's left of their economy.

and uh he can do it forever and he can just keep making money from uh Europe buying our weapons.

So if Trump creates a situation where the US keeps profiting selling weapons and uh Putin is just losing stuff, you know, he's just spending money on it in the war and he's also having his economy squeezed in all the ways that we can squeeze it.

Um Trump has some leverage So the personal the personal feeling of Trump is his biggest leverage right now.

Putin cannot ignore that because Trump won't he won't ignore it and I wouldn't want him to.

So um maybe something will happen but it will depend how well uh Trump threatens Putin whether Putin believes it.

Well, to that point, apparently uh overnight um some Russian pipelines and at least one pumping station were attacked by Ukrainian drones.

Now, do you think that that Trump has already sort of approved or authorized or said it's okay with me if Ukraine takes out Russia's um energy production capacity?

because I feel like that's going to happen.

I feel like Trump is going to say to Putin, "Here's the deal.

The only reason Ukraine hasn't taken out your entire energy infrastructure is because some of our allies need the energy." But we're kind of done with that.

And if you don't give me a deal, I'm going to say, "Look, Ukraine, we'll sell you weapons.

And if you want to take out all of Russia's energy production, that's up to you.

That's between you guys.

And that would scare Putin.

I think it would.

So, could be it's not a coincidence that those energy production things got hit right before the Friday conversation.

Conversation.

Damn it.

Don't use that word.

Well, the National Guard is now deployed in the Washington DC area.

pay 100 guard members and 500 federal agents.

Um, and uh, we'll see how that goes.

Uh, MSNBC, of course, is still reporting the hoax crime numbers.

MSNBC doesn't seem to want to admit or tell its viewers that the crime numbers are just complete because all they have to do is recategorize things and reclassify things and suddenly it looks like crime is going down when it's not.

But even Joe Scarboro is is not buying into the Democrat messaging this time.

So good for him.

and he read aloud a text he got from a quote very liberal person which is I guess if you're on MSNBC and you're disagreeing with the the network's narrative that you don't say that you disagree you read a text from somebody who is very liberal uh well this is not my opinion but I'm going to read this text from some person you don't know and uh the text apparently said from this very liberal person.

Um, quote, "This may sound controversial, but I'm not totally opposed to Trump's National Guard move in DC, I know he's doing it for politics, but crime remains rampant." And the stranger said, the highly liberal stranger said to Joe Scarboro by text, "I've had too many friends carjacked, shot at.

None of us will walk more than three blocks after 8:00 p.m.

13 year olds are committing many of these crimes.

Uh it's quite a change from a decade ago when things were much calmer.

Um and so Scarbor was talking to Simone Sanders who used to be uh Bernie's head of his campaign and then worked for Biden.

And uh Scar Bro says to Simone, "You don't think more police make streets safer?" Now, that's not a real question, right?

Because 100% of the world knows that more police makes your streets safer.

It's not really something you debate, right?

So Scarboro puts that out there.

You don't think more police make streets safer?

Simone Sanders says, "No, I'm a black woman in America.

So, is is that an answer to the question?

You don't think more police make streets safer?

No.

I'm a black woman in America.

Okay.

Uh I have nothing to say about that.

Um but then one of their other regular guests, the guy who looks like has the flaming hair.

Do you know the guy who's got the gray hair that he's teased so it it looks like a gray flame on top of his head?

Uh anyway, Anand Girahoradaras Haroradus.

Giraadus.

It's tough to pronounce.

Um, and he said on MSNBC, quote, "When I go to DC, I'm not afraid of losing my wallet so much as I'm afraid of losing my vote." He goes on, "I'm not afraid of losing my wallet so much as I'm afraid that my children's freedom to breathe will be stolen in a world where climate change policy is non-existent." Is everybody on MSNBC dumb?

Because they're making Joe Scarboro look like the smartest guy in America just because he's he's not buying into the crazy part of this narrative.

Uh, and then Jamie Rascin was asked about it, about the the uh new emphasis on DC crime, and he says that Rasin says Trump wants to put the National Guard in the streets of DC because of quote graffiti and homeless people.

So Jamie Rascin, one of the designated liars, I always tell you that there's a small group of people like Swallwell and Rascin whose only job is to say the things that other Democrats would be embarrassed to say because it's just so obviously ridiculous.

No, I don't think Trump brought in the National Guard to work on the graffiti or the homeless people.

Uh, and then Rascin says that Trump knows DC crime well because he quote uh, incited a violent mass insurrection in DC.

So, he goes back to January 6.

Now, Rascin will be one of the 10 pole protectors.

Now, as you know, everybody watching this knows January 6 was a uh, a hoax and a coup attempt by the Democrats.

And what it was is they probably stole the election.

Now, uh, my belief that 2020 was a stolen election is based on the way they treat the January 6 because they so they have such a pattern of projection, which is blaming the Republicans for the thing that they're actively doing right then that you can use it to predict.

So, I don't have any direct evidence that the 2020 election was stolen.

I don't have direct evidence, but I do see that they're blaming the Republicans for trying to do an insurrection when clearly that wasn't happening.

So, why would they be projecting that?

Because they're doing it.

So their projection about January 6 is for me as a let's say as a jaded observer of politics to me that's confirmation that they it wouldn't even occur to them to blame the the Republicans of an insurrection unless they had just pulled one off and it looks like they had.

So, my opinion is that the longer they go with this January 6 hoax, the more certain I am that they have something to cover up and that they're using projection as they always do as part of the cover up.

Well, how do you know that it's summer?

Well, one way is that one of the most interesting stories is about the new head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

I'm hoping that when the summer is over and the news becomes more meaty that I will no longer be talking about the new person at the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But apparently this new guy uh EJ Antony uh is getting a lot of push back from Democrats who say that his resume is kind of weak.

He hasn't he's not enough of a superstar to be in that job.

Um, but other people like Wall Street Mav uh on X was saying that they're he's a huge fan of EJ and Tony and uh that that he's been on TV a bunch of times.

He's been on Steve Bannon's podcast.

And then I understood, oh, I get it.

He's good on TV.

So, his resume is a little bit light.

Uh, but he's a loyal MAGA guy, it looks like.

Uh, and he's been on all the right shows and he must be good on TV.

So, those are I think that's enough to put him in the job because his job is to figure out how to fix the numbers.

I don't think he has to make up the numbers.

I don't believe he has to sit at a desk and call upon his economics expertise to just make up numbers.

I believe that the job is how to find better, more reliable and timely sources.

Is he capable of doing that?

Probably most people would be able to do that.

You wouldn't have to be an economist to say, "All right, can somebody tell me where we can get good numbers and what's stopping us from using them?" So, no, you don't need to be the world's most published economist to figure out that the numbers were bad and they need a better source.

and you'll talk to smart people who know where those numbers can be improved and presumably have better numbers someday.

Um, so there's a topic which people are mad at me all the time about which is that I don't talk enough about the H1B visas.

And the reason is that I feel like you have to be pretty close to it to have a smart opinion.

And I haven't I've never been close to the topic.

In other words, I've I've never worked in a business where I had to hire somebody like that or I was working with a lot of people who had H-1B visas.

So, I don't have I don't even have a glancing um experience with it.

And so, every time I'd read about it, I would say to myself, "Huh, I'll bet this story in the news is bullshit." And the reason I think that is because all the other stories are So, I feel like not only do I not know enough about the pros and cons of the H1B, but that I could not learn it by reading the news.

I don't think that I could, you know, use AI to tell me cuz it looks like it's just a bunch of people lying about stuff.

So, here's what I think is true.

What I think is true is that there are some well-meaning people who say, "Let's just use these visas to bring in people from other countries who have very specific skills that for whatever reason Americans can't match." That might make sense.

But others say, "Scott, you fool.

You fool.

Don't you realize that the system will be gamed and it will just turn into a way for big companies to replace American workers who might be too expensive with cheaper labor and then pretend there was no way to hire anybody who could have done that job who was already here as an American.

So I feel like that captures the argument, right?

The argument is if you could do it right, you might get a lot of people to agree with it because it would be a small number of people with specific expertise and we couldn't match it with Americans.

But the reality is you could probably match everything.

The the the counterpoint would be there's no such thing as something an American can't do.

There is no such thing.

you might have to try a little harder, you know, to hire an American, but there are Americans who could do all those jobs.

So, that would be the counterargument, and I don't know which is true, but we'll probably find out because there will be some changes made.

All right.

Zero Hedge is reporting that uh according to the Financial Times that the Mcron of France uh secretly hired investigators to dig up dirt on Candace Owens.

Because you might know that Candace Owens is being sued by the Mcron because Candace has uh done a series of uh content claiming that uh Bridget Mcronone was born a male and specifically was the person who looks like her little brother in old pictures and that uh and she's still a man basically.

Um, she of course would say that's not true.

But here's something I noticed today that just tells you we live in a simulation.

If I had to bet on it, I would bet against Breijit Mcronone having been born a man.

And the only reason is because they could make this whole thing go away just by proving she's a woman.

And that feels like an easy thing to prove.

doesn't it?

Uh, could you not release at least the DNA part of the report that said what you were born as?

Couldn't they do that?

You know, maybe they don't want all of her DNA to be in the public domain, but you couldn't have somebody just say, "All right, the only part we're going to talk about is, yeah, definitely a woman." Seems like it'd be easy.

They can make the whole thing go away with a a minimal amount of effort.

but instead they're doing this big legal thing and digging through things etc.

But what I wanted to mention is here's how you know that we're a simulation.

So Brejid Mcronone's husband is Emanuel Mcronone.

Did you know that the word man is the middle of the word Emmanuel and that you couldn't spell Mcronone without m?

So he's got man in his first name and his last name.

Biggest funnier.

He's married to Breijit Mcronone.

And if you were to just remove letters from Breijit, you would have it.

And then you remove some letters from Mcronone and you'd have man.

So it would be it man.

Now, is that a weird coincidence that the entire topic is about whether or not she's a man and that both of their names have man right in their name?

What are the odds of that?

Anyway, so I'm going to bet against her being uh having been born a man, but and let me let me use the Candace Owens hypothesis to make a point I made yesterday.

I told you how if you don't understand that things could be not true and yet there'd be tons of evidence that says it's true.

This might be one of those.

It might be that uh that you know she was born a woman, but there's just tons of coincidental things that sort of suggest she wasn't.

So, I don't know what the truth is there, but I'd go 60 40 that uh that the evidence is not conclusive, but we'll see.

Maybe we'll know at some point.

Rasmusson did a poll on uh whether people trust the New York Times.

What percent of Let's see how good you are at answering this question.

What percent of likely US voters said they had quote a lot of trust in news coverage from the New York Times?

What percent said they had a lot of trust in the New York Times?

That's right.

Uh I if I could see your comments, I would know that you're saying 25%.

The answer is 23.

But there is another 27 that have some trust.

They've got a little bit some trust.

Um, so that's not good.

That that's as close as you can get to having nobody trust you is if a quarter of the people say they do, that is as close as these polls get to zero, which I've described to you in the past.

Well, let's do a update on the Democrats, uh, the dumbest Democrats.

Um and uh Betto Orc is uh doubling down on the cursing cuz that's what they think is the problem.

Not enough cursing.

He said at a event, "Who cares about the effing rules right now?

Throw some punches.

Win some effing power." And everybody cheered.

Now maybe the crowd is the problem because they shouldn't cheer for that.

He just described a losing strategy.

The losing strategy is to once again ignore policy and uh ignore the rules of decorum and throw some punches and fight harder and swear more.

And everybody's like, "Yeah, yeah, that's not good advice.

That's a terrible idea.

That's not going to get you anything." and and and the things he focuses on are the fight and the winning of power.

Shouldn't he be focusing on how he's going to help the people who have been ignored the middle class?

Shouldn't he be telling us how he's going to decrease the national debt or keep us out of wars?

None of that.

No, just some vague fight and swear a lot.

So, that's a Democrat update.

Well, Hamas um is trying to broker some kind of a deal before Israel does what it says it's going to do, which is a complete occupation of Gaza City and some other places.

And uh they're going to destroy every last trace of uh Hamas before they turn over.

Their plan is to turn over Gaza to a friendly Arab occupation.

So, Israel says they don't want to own Gaza.

They want to just get rid of Hamas and then have it run by some uh Arab coalition maybe that doesn't like Hamas either.

So, Nanyahu says, "Our goal is not to occupy Gaza.

Our goal is to free Gaza.

That's a good reframe.

The goal is to free Gaza.

Um he says the uh the goal is to fully root out Hamas everywhere before stabilizing the region and eventually handing leadership off to friendly Arab forces opposed to Hamas.

Well, can you think of anything that would be a different plan from that that might work?

I can't.

You know, you don't have to be in favor of it or against it.

You can simply say, "What the hell else are they going to do?" Like, what else would they do?

I can't think of anything.

So, as plans go, it looks like the most workable plan of all the plans that aren't workable.

Um, I I wouldn't bet it's going to be successful, but it's better than anything anything else.

Well, India and China are trying to restore their economic links and friendliness.

It's been a problem since the 2020 border clash.

Um, but it looks like Modi might need to put a little pressure on Trump um by by saying, well, you know, if we don't get everything we want with our tariffs, etc., we might have to get a little closer to China.

And you wouldn't want that, would you?

So, looks like Modi is playing a uh a clever game in which he's improving things with China, but it puts a little pressure on uh the US and our tariff game.

So, we'll see where that goes.

Well, the AI company called Perplexity has offered to buy the Chrome browser from Google because Google's got this antirust case going on.

And part of the antitrust case is that they might be asked to sell off some of their assets that are non-competitive like Chrome.

Non-competitive meaning too competitive.

They have too much of the market.

And uh Perplexity is offering to buy it for about twice the value of all of Perplexity.

So there is some thinking that they could get uh backing to view that deal and then Perplexity would own Chrome.

I wouldn't bet that that's going to happen, but it might happen.

Could be a big deal.

And then uh you probably know that the u the Golden Dome is being uh um planned and implemented and that would protect the United States from incoming missiles.

And apparently it's we know a little bit more about the plan.

It'll have a four layer defense system.

and they presented their idea to 3,000 defense contractors so that people could bid on parts of it.

So, I guess it's better to have a golden dome than not to have a golden dome.

So, that's good.

All right.

I can't see your comments um because I'm broadcasting only on X.

Had a little problem with the Rumble Studio this morning.

It wasn't it wasn't allowing me to stream to the other platforms.

We'll get that worked out by tomorrow.

Um, so I think if I just end this, it will save it.

So, I'm going to push that little X in the corner and say goodbye.

And locals, I'll catch up with you in the morning tomorrow um when everything works.

So, I hope uh I hope this worked cuz I can't I can't really tell if the sound and the video worked the entire

All right, let's do that.

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization

except for all the technology is broken

and sucks.

But we'll have a XON show today. It will

not be appearing on the other platforms

until we record this. I don't even know

if that works, but we might be able to

load it on the other platforms later.

But um how would you like the

simultaneous sip?

I think you'd like it.

If you'd like it, all you need is a

copper mug or a glass attacker gels in a

canteen jug or flask vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid. I

like coffee. And join me now for the

unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine

hit of the day. The thing makes

everything better. It's called the

simultaneous sip. What happens now? Go.

All right.

Now, given that I can't tell

if my audio is working, I have to check

your note. I see you. No, YouTube.

Uh, right. Okay. So, I'm going to put a

note here on X.

Stop it

today.

Bumble studio

not working.

All right,

that's the best I can do.

Well, uh, did you know that Meta and

their AI, they think they've taken the

first step towards super intelligence?

And, uh, so Zuckerberg says he's not

going to release,

um, any new versions that are their best

version because their best version has

super intelligence. Apparently, the uh

Meta AI has already shown signs of

improving itself, meaning that they can

tell it to upgrade its own code and it

will rewrite its own code and make it

better. Now, just in small ways,

but that is the uh the thing everybody

worries about is that the AI will figure

out how to do it in big ways and it'll

happen kind of instantly. And if you're

not ready for it, the whole world is in

trouble. I'm going to I'm going to make

a counter um prediction. My prediction

is that AI will be able to improve

itself and that'll happen you right now,

I guess, but that the amount it can

improve itself will be severely limited.

It will not be instantly becoming

godlike. It will do stuff like, hey, I

can improve the efficiency of my code so

that I can answer faster or I can answer

more completely. But I feel like that's

all it's going to do. I just don't feel

like I don't feel like the nature of

intelligence is that no matter how much

you have, you have the ability to

improve your own intelligence. I mean,

beyond those small tweaks of your code.

So, I'm going to bet against it.

Um, but we already know according to the

Lancet, there's some concern that

doctors are becoming dumber as they use

AI.

I'm not sure I believe this. This

doesn't sound like the data would be

reliable necessarily, but uh they

studied colonoscopies

that were used by doctors who were using

AI to make sure that they were really

getting it right. And the people, the

doctors who used AI allegedly became

almost instantly worse at identifying

tumors on their own.

Do you believe that? Do you believe that

the ones who used AI to help them

identify tumors that they instantly lost

the ability to do it themselves or

they're I think they were 20% worse at

it almost instantly?

Maybe. Maybe because if you believe that

you don't need to be smart and that

something else is doing the smart part

for you, I I believe that you probably

turn down your brain power a little bit.

So, it wouldn't surprise me.

I don't know if that'll make the world

worse or not. As long as the AI is

getting the job done, doesn't matter. It

doesn't matter, right? As long as you

get the right answer. Well, there's a

new movement.

I don't know how new it is, but Silicon

Valley is apparently uh trying harder to

get smart babies. So, there are a couple

ways you can do that. One of the ways is

that you can hire a um hire somebody to

find you a mate. So, they have all these

really expensive uh dating services

where a human being will match you with

people that they've vetted. Now, that's

for the super rich. But if you're super

rich and you're smart and you want to

make sure that any children you have are

also smart,

you can tell your Cuban matchmaker to

only pair you with somebody who's super

smart. So, the odds of your baby being

super smart, if it's the two of you, are

very good. Very good. But the other way

is that they have new technologies now

that can determine the likely smartest

um egg, I guess. So if you've got some

fertilized eggs, you can check them out

to find out what their probable IQ is

and then you can select based on that.

So,

um, but part of this story is the, uh,

the media has trouble acknowledging that

IQ matters. So, so they have to throw in

all these qualifiers like, well, you

know, IQ is just one variable. It's just

one variable. I mean, you also have your

lifestyle and your upbringing and your

parenting and all that. To which I say,

Why do we why are we so shy about IQ?

That IQ is the single most predictive

variable in all of life. If if somebody

is super smart, that doesn't necessarily

mean they'll be rich or successful, but

the odds of it are way way higher than

if they're not super smart. Is it a

coincidence that all the heads of our

biggest, most impressive companies are

also super smart? You know, Zuckerberg

and Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos and, you

know, I could go on, Bill Gates. Um, so

yeah, the the fact that we're struggling

with the question of whether IQ matters

is a sort of a DEI leftover because as

soon as you imagine that IQ matters,

then genetics comes into the

conversation

and then it's all racist.

So you can't even have that conversation

really.

However, I think we're getting closer to

the point where we can. In other news,

News Nation is reporting that there was

an ALS patient. Um,

that's somebody who's lost control of

their bodily functions that learned to

control an iPad entirely by thought.

Now, if that sounds like Neuralink,

you'd be right to say it sounds like it,

but it's a competing company. So I guess

Neurolink now has a uh established

competitor called Singron. S Y N C H R O

N. Singron

and they've developed a sensor that must

be really good. So it's competitive with

the Neuralink stuff. So here's what's

going to happen.

IQ in humans only matters so much

because if you've got AI to augment your

IQ, how would you measure the IQ of

someone who knew how to use I um knew

how to use AI and had access to it?

Yeah. See how hard that is? If you took

a person who has an IQ of a 100 and they

didn't have IQ, they didn't have AI,

you'd say, "Oh, that's person has so

much capability." But if you took a

person with an IQ of 100, taught them

how to use AI, and then made sure that

they really did use it, wouldn't their

functional IQ be

it wouldn't be as high as the AI's IQ,

but wouldn't it be some blend between

the humans 100 IQ and the AI's nearly

infinite? How would you even measure

that? And then then you go to the next

layer which is these neurolink or

synchron chips. How would you

um measure the IQ of a cyborg who had

part human brain but could access

somewhat automatically the infinite

intelligence of the internet?

I don't know. Would that be an IQ of a

100 plus of machine parts or would it be

an infinite IQ?

What happens if the AI does more than

just answer questions? What if you've

got a chip in your head and it's making

suggestions?

If it's making suggestions, sort of like

the voice that's in your head naturally,

I feel like you would have almost

infinite IQ as long as you took the

suggestions. You know, if you were

overruling the suggestions, it might be

a hot mess.

Anyway,

IQ

I predict will be a much much bigger

part of the conversation especially

because China is trying to raise super

IQ warriors and babies and stuff. So a

lot more on that is coming.

Um

so there's a story in the news. I saw it

on social media. I think it might be

true, but it's so fun that I'm going to

treat it like it's true, even if it's

not. Everybody okay with that? We're all

going to say we're going to suspend our

critical functions because it might be

true. By the way, I don't know if it's

true, but the story is that Chuck

Schumer has been telling a story about a

fake family for decades, and apparently

he always gets away with it. Now the the

story is allegedly that the family

doesn't exist and it's somebody called

the Bailey's and that over time Schumer

uses them to um show that he knows some

middle class family that has a set of

problems that he has all the solutions

for. So he's added like the names of the

children and their ages and you know

what kind of job he has and allegedly

it's all made up. There's no Bailey

family. Now, I hope it's true that it's

all made up because that would be a good

summer news story. Um, it seems slightly

more likely that there was a Bailey

family, but maybe exaggerated a little

bit or something, but for now, I'm going

to accept that he made it all up because

it's just funnier.

All right.

Uh, that's not good.

>> A little bit or something, but for now.

>> All right. Looks like our technology is

working on X.

Well, the uh Make America Healthy Again

Commission was supposed to send over

their recommendation yesterday to the

White House on how to combat childhood

chronic diseases. So, I believe that

they have the report at the White House,

but they're still looking over it, and

there will be some uh probably some

tweaks to it before we see it. But part

of it was addressing school lunches.

Apparently, school lunches are filled

with uh ultrarocessed food. And so,

we're sending kids to school to make

them dumber and more mentally ill and uh

sicker with the food that they have to

eat. Now, one thing that if do you if

you have any uh teenagers especially,

have you noticed that the teenagers

often will skip lunch um because they

use it for a social time instead of

eating? So, there's a whole lot of

teenagers who don't eat anything during

the day or might get a snack or

something. That's it. So, that's also a

problem. But, uh RFK Jr. apparently

wants to improve these school lunches,

but that's no easy thing because it's

cheap to give them frozen, highly

processed food, and it would be

expensive to give them freshly prepared

meals, which would require hiring more

people to make them, etc. So, I don't

know what we're going to do because we

don't want to raise the budget of

schools all over the country so much. Um

but on the other hand, we don't want to

poison our children. So pick one.

Well, in the usual way that uh every

single story becomes two movies on one

screen, inflation is either really under

control and it's uh good news or it's

high and it's bad news. And both of

those stories are active today. But

apparently uh energy prices went down a

little bit in the past month. Food was

flat, didn't go up or down, and shelter

was a little bit up, 2%. Now, uh, but

the core inflation, that would be the

stuff that's not energy, food, or

shelter. I think I think that's what

core inflation is. Um, that had a 3.1%

inflation, which would be high. So your

your major categories were good, but

some of the other ones were not. So you

could find whatever story you want in

the inflation numbers. It's either too

high or it's not. But to make things

even more fun, the uh Federal Reserve,

if the inflation looked high, would be

highly inclined to lower the interest

rates, which would be really good for

markets, which is why the stocks are way

up this morning. So we can't even tell

if inflation is good news or bad news

because if the inflation is high, the

stock market goes up because that means

that the interest rates will probably

be, you know, artificially driven down a

little bit to battle the inflation and

that's good for stocks. So I can say

with certainty that inflation is either

up or down and that the net effect of

that inflation being either up or down

is that it'll be either good or bad and

the cause will either be the tariffs or

no effect from the tariffs. So all of

those movies are playing at the same

time. Pick one.

Well, in the most predictable news, the

Texas Democrats went awall so that there

would be no vote on redistricting in

Texas because they didn't like how the

map was being drawn. So, the Democrats

did their usual theater kid thing and

they made a big deal about it and they

made some cringy social media posts and

then Texas got tough and acted like they

were going to have them all hunted down

and arrested and I don't know fired and

their pay would be cut and all kinds of

threats. But the one thing that we can

all be sure of is that it wouldn't last.

It was It's not as if the Democrats were

never coming back.

because if they never came back, they

would get removed from office. So, they

didn't really have any play. The the

only play they had was getting some

attention like they're fighting. Now,

this is very consistent. And by the way,

they're already back and uh Texas has

already voted in the new redistricting

map. So everything they did was a waste

of time, but it fell into the Democratic

strategy of cursing more and fighting

fighting hard.

So it it was a fake fight. They they

wanted to pretend that they were, you

know, really serious and they're

fighting hard,

but they had no fight. They had no play

whatsoever. In the end, Texas was

definitely going to get what the

majority wanted, and they did. So

pathetic. Very pathetic.

Um,

apparently Texas Attorney General Ken

Paxton has threatened to lock up Betto

Aor because Betto was raising money to

help the uh Democrats be awall and, you

know, keep them in uh keep them in food

and transportation while they're gone.

And uh apparently

Paxton has filed a motion for contempt

in court against her work as a maximum

sentence um of $500 fine andor 6 months

in jail.

That's a weird law, isn't it? That the

maximum sentence is either

uh

Well, it could be both, but it could be

$500 or it could be six months in jail.

Do you think Bento work is going to get

six months in jail?

I don't think so.

But Paxton says, quote, "I'm working to

put him behind bars."

So, there's another video of Betto Aor

cursing more and saying that they got to

fight more. F this, fat, fight more.

That's all they got. Cursing and

pretending to fight.

Well, there's a new wrinkle in the story

of Smartmatic and Fox News. You may know

that um Smartmatic, the uh the uh voting

machine company, do they do only

software or do they do hardware? I can't

remember. But they're uh

they've got a lawsuit against Fox News

for defamation. I guess Fox News must

have claimed that there was some

irregularities with their technology and

they didn't like it, so they're suing

them. Um

but now we have learned according to Fox

News um that uh for Smartmatic to get

the contract for LA, they may have uh

they been may have been giving some uh

let's say gifts to the local officials.

Apparently they reportedly they they

funneled dollars into quote a slush

fund. Um

and that it provided uh the register

recorder and clerk Dean Logan with quote

business class travel expensive

entertainment.

Expensive entertainment you say and

other personal benefits. Oh personal you

say that could be anything. uh and that

it was not disclosed which I guess would

have made it legal. Um and so the uh the

belief is that smatic may have tried to

bribe some local government people so

they could get that contract to which I

say have I mentioned that all local

government is a criminal activity.

You cannot have a local government in

charge of very large contracts.

That's it. That's that's the whole

statement. You can't have a local

government that's in charge of

distributing who gets contracts

because it's too much power and they're

going to steal it. They're going to

they're going to give it to their

friends and their friends are going to

find some indirect hidden way to reward

them for giving them the contract. And I

feel like that's going to happen every

time in every city. And whenever they

look for it, they seem to find it. Like

you could throw a dart at the United

States and hit any city and then say,

"All right, we're going to do a deep

audit and find out if the people who got

all of the contracts that the city gives

out, how many of them are friends of the

people who were in elected office?" And

you would find out most of them that the

the whole system is not just corrupt,

but it's designed in a way that

guarantees it. It's a guaranteed corrupt

system. It's going to be that way every

time. Now, not every contract every

time, but over time, you know, over the

length of time that we're alive, you can

guarantee that every one of these local

uh local entities will be staffed with

corrupt politicians who are just making

tons of money allocating money to

contractors.

Well, there's some new declassified

documents from the FBI. Cash Patel

continues to feed us little stuff. And

this one says that uh Comey ordered the

FBI to assist the New York Times in

writing one of the articles. And there's

also information that Comey had some

kind of a PR professional that was

working just to feed news to the the

media that would make Comey look good.

And uh as part of the FBI's assistance

to the New York Times, they made

available Peter Stro and Lisa Page to be

interviewed by the New York Times.

And then what else we know? According to

um

according to some new documents also um

Eric Swallwell

uh is reportedly the source of a lot of

leaked information and had to be

counseledled to be more careful.

Now are you having the same impression I

have about the Democrats? I remember at

the very beginning when the Russia

collusion hoax was being hatched and I

would watch Brennan and Clapper talk

about it on TV and I would say to

myself, "Huh, I'm no body language

expert, but it seems to me very obvious

by their demeanor and the choice of

words and their body language that

they're completely lying about all of

this." But I didn't know. I mean, it was

just my impression when I looked at I

was like, "Huh?" You know, I I don't

think that every single person who goes

on television is lying, even if they're

on what I would consider the other team.

Sometimes there's just different

opinions and, you know, different facts

and there's two movies on one screen and

all that. But Brennan and Clapper look

like they literally

were just making up. And it turns

out,

looks like that's what they were doing.

They're just making up. When I see

Swallwell go on TV frequently and make

ridiculous claims, I do not tell to tell

myself, "Huh, he looks like he might be

mistaken or have bad information."

I never say that. He looks like he's

lying. When Adam Schiff goes on TV, he

doesn't look like he's misinformed. He

looks like he's lying. And it just it

seems really obvious. And again, I don't

say that about every member of Congress,

you know, or every Democrat. It's not

about them being Democrats. They are the

designated liars. Jamie Rascin, whenever

he's talking, I just assume it's a lie

and that he knows it's a lie, not that

he's mistaken.

So,

do do Republicans have something like

that? I mean, I realize that Trump is

always in the hyperbole world and he's

always exaggerating, you know, his

accomplishments, etc., but that doesn't

feel the same because, you know, that

Trump knows that we know that he's a

salesman. So, it's a little bit like we

have an agreement with him. All right.

Yeah. Okay. You can you can brag about

that a little bit. It's good for the

country. If if uh if Trump can convince

the country that the US is now the

hottest country and everybody should be

making deals with us, it's good for the

country. So I I definitely accept that

when Trump is exaggerating,

um it's just part of the process and it

works and it unambiguously it works.

But these Democrats, they just look like

they're really bad liars and it it just

looks completely different. Like they're

just making stuff up out of nothing.

Let's see what else we got here. Um

and

there's a now worldwide calls for

President Trump to receive the Nobel

Peace Prize.

I I kind of like the fact that Trump is

lobbying directly and indirectly to win

a Nobel Peace Prize. So it makes it more

like the uh the Academy Awards. You

know, to get an Academy Award, it is you

have to do more than just make a good

movie or be good at whatever you did for

the movie. You you have to sort of lobby

for it, you know, kind of politic for it

a little bit. And I don't know if that

was ever the case for the Nobel Peace

Prize. I thought people used to win

these prizes without even knowing they

were nominated necessarily. But uh we do

know that the following uh according to

the White House, they put down a put

down a social media post on this that

the following countries andor leaders

have recommended the Nobel Peace Prize

for Trump. You got the uh prime minister

of Armenia, president of Azerbashan,

prime minister of Cambodia, the

president of Gabon. Is it Gabon? G- a b-

o n gabon. Gabon. There's a word I've

never said l. Then uh there's Israel and

Nanyahu. And there's the government of

Pakistan.

Uh and there's the foreign minister of

Rwanda. Now, it's funny that it's the

government of Pakistan but not the

government of India.

when when Trump allegedly

was uh instrumental in getting Pakistan

and India to stand down from their

little conflict. But I think India's

story is that Trump didn't really make a

difference and Pakistan is saying that

he did. So once again, does it matter

if Trump is exaggerating

the calls for him to get a Nobel Peace

Prize? No, no, that's a exaggeration

that works for him if you know he gets a

Nobel Peace Prize, but it also works for

us because when he goes into the next

negotiation,

I want the people that he's negotiated

with to say, "Oh, here's that guy who

always makes the peace deal work." And

then he has more chance of making it

work because everybody just believes it

will work.

that will be extra important this week

probably. We'll talk about that in a

minute. Um, according to I saw Chanel

Ryan on O talking to Har Dylan,

assistant attorney general and uh

apparently the Trump Department of

Justice is going to review all the 50

states and make them clean up their

voter roles and uh restore public

confidence in elections. How much

difference do you think that will make?

I I'm a little undecided if cleaning up

the voter roles is going to just wildly

change the the outcome of elections. It

might it might wildly change the outcome

because we believe, but I have no

evidence to support this. It's just a

belief that um Democrats are more likely

to game the system with names they

should not be on the election voter

roles. Now, I don't know if that's true,

but if they clean up the voter roles, we

might find out.

So, I love that. Um,

there's also some mystery going around

uh Trump's view of marijuana. Axios is

reporting that uh it might be another

one of those situations where the

Republicans can steal a topic that

normally you'd expect the Democrats

would be more progressive on like

marijuana legalization andor

decriminalization.

And uh Axio points out that the Trump

administration banned food dyes, which

you'd sort of expect would be a Democrat

thing. Uh calls for an end to animal lab

testing, which you would imagine would

be a Democrat thing, and embraced

psychedelics for mental health, which

again, you would assume would have been

a Democrat thing, but they missed all

three of them.

I assume RFK Jr. is the reason that um

Trump is doing some sort of things that

you'd expect would have come from

Democrats. There's also some mystery

going around uh Trump's view of

marijuana. Axios is reporting that uh it

might be another one of those situations

where the Republicans can steal a topic

that normally you'd expect the Democrats

would be more progressive on like

marijuana legalization andor

decriminalization.

And uh Axio points out that the Trump

administration banned food dies which

you'd sort of expect would be a Democrat

thing. uh calls for an end to animal lab

testing, which you would imagine would

be a Democrat thing, and embraced

psychedelics for mental health, which

again, you would assume would have been

a Democrat thing, but they missed all

three of them.

I assume RFK Jr. is the reason that um

Trump is doing some sort of things that

you'd expect would have come from

Democrats.

But the conversation about marijuana is

not to make it legal at a federal level,

but to uh reschedu it. And I there's a

little ambiguity about what that really

means. But if you reschedu it, it will

look like you did something, but it

won't change the world that much because

it's not legalizing it. It's just

rescheduling it, which would be it might

be officially recognized for medicinal

use. So, the federal government could

say, "Well, it's not legal, but if

you're using it for medicinal use, and

maybe if you've got a prescription from

a doctor, then the feds are okay with

it." Um, and that might be enough to

allow the the weed manufacturers to have

a little extra freedom for banking and

whatever else that they've been

restricted from doing. But uh the uh

certainly you're probably aware that

Republicans are not unified on this.

However,

how much of the world is unified on it?

I think 88%

uh according to a Pew Research Center

poll, uh 88% of people favor medical or

recreational use. 88%.

Now, it's medical or recreational use.

So my guess is that almost everybody's

in favor of medical use because almost

everybody knows at this point they

almost all know somebody who used it

medically and it worked. So I can see

why there'd be 88% support. Uh I will

say again

that my view on marijuana and

legalization is it's a lot like guns.

There's no such thing as guns are good

or guns are bad. Guns are good for some

people. It makes them safer and it's

definitely bad for other people.

So, if somebody's in favor of guns and

somebody's not in favor of guns, it's

not like you can take the average. The

best you can do is hope that there are

more people who agree with your your

take on it and then that's where the law

goes.

So, marijuana is like that. It would be

catastrophic for some people's lives if

you make it easier and, you know, let's

say less stigmatized. Almost certainly

that would result in just killing some

people. But that would be the same with

guns. It' be the same with having

swimming pools. It's legal to build a

swimming pool in your backyard and

that's just a death trap. You know,

sometimes you have to put a gate around

it and stuff, but still it's still sort

of a death trap. Um, so a swimming pool

could be the greatest thing for people

who really like it and can afford it and

all that, but also it's a death trap

reliably. I mean, you can know for sure

a certain number of people drowned in

swimming pools, most of them children.

Um, so

marijuana is neither bad nor good. It's

lifech changingly good for some people

and I'm one of them. Um,

I don't know. I I should just admit to

you, I wouldn't be able to do my podcast

without it. Um, this morning, as every

morning, I'm on some meds right now that

give me just insane cramping and stomach

aches. Uh, and it just pops up maybe

three times a day, but marijuana makes

it go away. And since I'm a uh chronic

user, I don't get all the psychedelic,

that's the wrong word, but I don't get a

strong reactions from the drug. All it

does is calm my stomach. So, I'm very

high right now.

Could you tell the difference? Probably

not. If if you had never had marijuana

before and you tried doing it right

before you did a podcast in front of,

you know, tens of thousands of people,

would that be a good idea? No, no, that

would be a very bad idea. But I happen

to be a chronic lifetime user and it has

very predictable benefits to me. So my

stomach right now, perfect, completely

cured, takes about 15 minutes. So I I

just give myself the uh the cure, wait

about 15 minutes, and a tremendous

amount of pain. I mean, it's a lot of

pain just goes away. So right now I have

no pain in my stomach.

So I would like people like me to have

access to it, but I acknowledge that in

a free world, it will cause other people

to die. Um, and that's not ideal, but

it's a way we make decisions about all

the stuff that's good for some people

and bad for others.

Well, the the Ukraine conversation, oh,

I shouldn't say conversation, I hate

that word. the Ukraine negotiations, the

meeting uh looks like it's going to be

on Friday in Alaska and Trump is wisely

making sure that his administration is

talking to the Europeans because they

were fearing being sidelined and left

out of the deal and uh also talking to

Zilinski

um and trying to make sure that uh

they're somewhat on the same page. Now,

I do agree that Trump should meet with

Putin without them because if you add

too many voices too soon, nothing good

happens. I mean, yet the decision makers

are Putin and probably Trump. Everybody

else just has to be browbeat to get on

board if they can come up with some kind

of a deal. So, it does make sense to me

that Trump would have this conversation

with just Putin. I feel like that that

moves the uh the ball ahead a little

bit. I don't think there's really any

chance that they'll make a deal on this

one meeting. Do you? I I feel like

there's not enough to work with. It

might it might be important to the

process of continuing to talk and

working it out and you maybe somebody

will come up with the idea that works,

but I doubt it. Here's what I think is

going to happen.

Uh, Axios is reporting that insiders are

saying that Trump is quote still pissed

off at Putin for, you know, yanking him

around all these times and not being

serious about peace, which is kind of

embarrassing for Trump because he made

some promises that he could wrap up that

war quickly and nothing like that is

happening. Um,

but if it's true that Trump is pissed

off at Putin, then I want this meeting

to be between Trump and Putin because if

we know anything about Trump, he's going

to say something like this. Um, this is

also from Axios that there are more ways

uh that that basically Trump could close

down the Russian economy.

Now, that would be a much bigger step

than anything that's happened so far.

But do you think that Trump will

threaten it? There's no way that Trump

is going to threaten, you know, nuclear

war because that wouldn't sound

believable and it'd be a bad idea. But

we know that Trump likes to threaten and

I doubt that he's going to have a

personal conversation with Putin who he

is pissed off at, and not threaten him.

There's going to be some threats.

Now, how he words the threats, there's a

lot of variability. It might be

offensive and it might be polite. We

don't know. But I feel like Trump is

going to sit in the room with Putin and

he's going to say, "Here's the deal. You

just made me look like a chimp.

No good. I'm going to have to destroy

your whole economy.

Um, unless you give me a peace deal

because you made me, Putin, you made me

look like an idiot. I promised I would

wrap this war up and then you're working

on the other side from that. I'm

pissed off at you. You need to make this

right. Otherwise, if you and I are never

right, say goodbye to your

little economy. I'm going to find 10 new

ways to squeeze you into dust because

you with me.

Now, would he be able to say that if the

room was full of Zilinski and European

leaders? Not really. Not really. He

wouldn't be able to say it as clearly as

it needs needs to be said. But what I

suspect is that um Trump's leverage

is his personal feeling about this.

Let me say that again. Putin is working

with lots of different variables. you

know, there's the military, the the

economy, there's the personalities and

all this. And most of those things he

has some kind of advantage. There is one

thing he does not have an advantage in,

which is how Trump feels about the

situation.

If if he leaves the meeting, Trump, and

he's more pissed off at Putin, Putin

loses.

We don't know what he loses. We don't

know if we'll be worse off than Russia

will. There'll still be lots of

questions. But if he pisses off Trump

more than Trump is already pissed off,

Trump is going to find a way to close

down his whole economy. And he

won't really have a choice because you

can't let Putin grab you by the nads and

swing you around in front of the entire

public if you're the United States and

certainly if you're not Trump. So

although I don't believe any of this was

planned in a clever way, the situation

is that if Putin doesn't give Trump

something that Trump can take home and

say, you know, we got some progress,

there's going to be real trouble. And I

think we're at the point where Trump can

just squeeze the the big Jesus out of

their uh what's left of their economy.

and uh he can do it forever and he can

just keep making money from uh Europe

buying our weapons. So if Trump creates

a situation where the US keeps profiting

selling weapons and uh Putin is just

losing stuff,

you know, he's just spending money on it

in the war and he's also having his

economy squeezed in all the ways that we

can squeeze it. Um

Trump has some leverage

So the personal the personal feeling of

Trump is his biggest leverage right now.

Putin cannot ignore that because Trump

won't he won't ignore it and I wouldn't

want him to. So um maybe something will

happen but it will depend how well uh

Trump threatens Putin whether Putin

believes it.

Well, to that point, apparently uh

overnight

um some Russian pipelines and at least

one pumping station were attacked by

Ukrainian drones.

Now,

do you think that that Trump has already

sort of approved or authorized or said

it's okay with me if Ukraine takes out

Russia's

um energy production capacity?

because I feel like that's going to

happen. I feel like Trump is going to

say to Putin, "Here's the deal. The only

reason Ukraine hasn't taken out your

entire energy infrastructure

is because some of our allies need the

energy." But we're kind of done with

that. And if you don't give me a deal,

I'm going to say, "Look, Ukraine, we'll

sell you weapons. And if you want to

take out all of Russia's energy

production,

that's up to you.

That's between you guys. And that would

scare Putin. I think it would.

So, could be it's not a coincidence that

those energy production things got hit

right before the Friday conversation.

Conversation. Damn it. Don't use that

word.

Well, the National Guard is now deployed

in the Washington DC area. pay 100 guard

members and 500 federal agents. Um, and

uh, we'll see how that goes. Uh, MSNBC,

of course, is still reporting the hoax

crime numbers. MSNBC doesn't seem to

want to admit or tell its viewers that

the crime numbers are just complete

because all they have to do is

recategorize things and reclassify

things and suddenly it looks like crime

is going down when it's not. But

even Joe Scarboro

is is not buying into the Democrat

messaging this time. So good for him.

and he read aloud a text he got from a

quote very liberal person which is I

guess if you're on MSNBC and you're

disagreeing with the the network's

narrative that you don't say that you

disagree you read a text from somebody

who is very liberal

uh well this is not my opinion but I'm

going to read this text from some person

you don't know and uh

the text apparently said from this very

liberal person. Um, quote, "This may

sound controversial, but I'm not totally

opposed to Trump's National Guard move

in DC, I know he's doing it for

politics, but crime remains rampant."

And the stranger said, the highly

liberal stranger said to Joe Scarboro by

text, "I've had too many friends

carjacked, shot at. None of us will walk

more than three blocks after 8:00 p.m.

13 year olds are committing many of

these crimes. Uh it's quite a change

from a decade ago when things were much

calmer.

Um and so Scarbor was talking to Simone

Sanders who used to be uh Bernie's head

of his campaign and then worked for

Biden. And uh Scar Bro says to Simone,

"You don't think more police make

streets safer?"

Now,

that's not a real question, right?

Because 100% of the world knows that

more police makes your streets safer.

It's not really something you debate,

right? So Scarboro puts that out there.

You don't think more police make streets

safer? Simone Sanders says, "No, I'm a

black woman in America.

So,

is is that an answer to the question?

You don't think more police make streets

safer? No. I'm a black woman in America.

Okay.

Uh I have nothing to say about that. Um

but then one of their other regular

guests, the guy who looks like has the

flaming hair. Do you know the guy who's

got the gray hair that he's teased so it

it looks like a gray flame on top of his

head? Uh anyway, Anand

Girahoradaras

Haroradus.

Giraadus.

It's tough to pronounce. Um, and he said

on MSNBC, quote, "When I go to DC, I'm

not afraid of losing my wallet so much

as I'm afraid of losing my vote."

He goes on, "I'm not afraid of losing my

wallet so much as I'm afraid that my

children's freedom to breathe will be

stolen in a world where climate change

policy is non-existent."

Is everybody on MSNBC dumb?

Because they're making Joe Scarboro look

like the smartest guy in America just

because he's he's not buying into the

crazy part of this narrative.

Uh, and then Jamie Rascin was asked

about it, about the the uh new emphasis

on DC crime, and he says that Rasin says

Trump wants to put the National Guard in

the streets of DC because of quote

graffiti and homeless people.

So Jamie Rascin, one of the designated

liars, I always tell you that there's a

small group of people like Swallwell and

Rascin whose only job is to say the

things that other Democrats would be

embarrassed to say because it's just so

obviously ridiculous. No, I don't think

Trump brought in the National Guard to

work on the graffiti or the homeless

people.

Uh, and then Rascin says that Trump

knows DC crime well because he quote uh,

incited a violent mass insurrection in

DC. So, he goes back to January 6. Now,

Rascin will be one of the 10 pole

protectors. Now, as you know, everybody

watching this knows January 6 was a uh,

a hoax and a coup attempt by the

Democrats. And what it was is they

probably stole the election. Now, uh, my

belief that 2020 was a stolen election

is based on the way they treat the

January 6 because they so they have such

a pattern of projection, which is

blaming the Republicans for the thing

that they're actively doing right then

that you can use it to predict. So, I

don't have any direct evidence that the

2020 election was stolen. I don't have

direct evidence, but I do see that

they're blaming the Republicans for

trying to do an insurrection when

clearly that wasn't happening. So, why

would they be projecting that? Because

they're doing it. So their projection

about January 6 is for me as a let's say

as a jaded observer of politics to me

that's confirmation that they it

wouldn't even occur to them to blame the

the Republicans of an insurrection

unless they had just pulled one off and

it looks like they had. So, my opinion

is that the longer they go with this

January 6 hoax, the more certain I am

that they have something to cover up and

that they're using projection as they

always do as part of the cover up.

Well, how do you know that it's summer?

Well, one way is that one of the most

interesting stories is about the new

head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

I'm hoping that when the summer is over

and the news becomes more meaty that I

will no longer be talking about the new

person at the head of the Bureau of

Labor Statistics.

But apparently this new guy uh EJ Antony

uh is getting a lot of push back from

Democrats who say that his resume is

kind of weak. He hasn't he's not enough

of a superstar to be in that job. Um,

but other people like Wall Street Mav uh

on X was saying that they're he's a huge

fan of EJ and Tony and uh that that he's

been on TV a bunch of times. He's been

on Steve Bannon's podcast. And then I

understood, oh, I get it. He's good on

TV.

So, his resume is a little bit light.

Uh, but he's a loyal MAGA guy, it looks

like. Uh, and he's been on all the right

shows and he must be good on TV. So,

those are I think that's enough to put

him in the job because his job is to

figure out how to fix the numbers. I

don't think he has to make up the

numbers. I don't believe he has to sit

at a desk and call upon his economics

expertise to just make up numbers. I

believe that the job is how to find

better, more reliable and timely

sources. Is he capable of doing that?

Probably most people would be able to do

that. You wouldn't have to be an

economist to say, "All right, can

somebody tell me where we can get good

numbers and what's stopping us from

using them?" So, no, you don't need to

be the world's most published economist

to figure out that the numbers were bad

and they need a better source. and

you'll talk to smart people who know

where those numbers can be improved and

presumably

have better numbers someday.

Um, so there's a topic which people are

mad at me all the time about which is

that I don't talk enough about the H1B

visas. And the reason is that I feel

like you have to be pretty close to it

to have a smart opinion. And I haven't

I've never been close to the topic. In

other words, I've I've never worked in a

business where I had to hire somebody

like that or I was working with a lot of

people who had H-1B visas. So, I don't

have I don't even have a glancing

um experience with it. And so, every

time I'd read about it, I would say to

myself, "Huh, I'll bet this story in the

news is bullshit." And the reason I

think that is because all the other

stories are So, I feel like

not only do I not know enough about the

pros and cons of the H1B, but that I

could not learn it by reading the news.

I don't think that I could, you know,

use AI to tell me cuz it looks like it's

just a bunch of people lying about

stuff. So, here's what I think is true.

What I think is true is that there are

some well-meaning people who say, "Let's

just use these visas to bring in people

from other countries who have very

specific skills that for whatever reason

Americans can't match." That might make

sense. But others say, "Scott, you fool.

You fool. Don't you realize that the

system will be gamed and it will just

turn into a way for big companies to

replace American workers who might be

too expensive with cheaper labor and

then pretend there was no way to hire

anybody who could have done that job who

was already here as an American. So I

feel like that captures the argument,

right? The argument is if you could do

it right, you might get a lot of people

to agree with it because it would be a

small number of people with specific

expertise and we couldn't match it with

Americans. But the reality is you could

probably match everything. The the the

counterpoint would be there's no such

thing as something an American can't do.

There is no such thing. you might have

to try a little harder, you know, to

hire an American, but there are

Americans who could do all those jobs.

So, that would be the counterargument,

and I don't know which is true, but

we'll probably find out because there

will be some changes made. All right.

Zero Hedge is reporting

that uh according to the Financial Times

that the Mcron of France uh secretly

hired investigators to dig up dirt on

Candace Owens. Because you might know

that Candace Owens is being sued by the

Mcron because Candace has uh done a

series of uh content claiming that uh

Bridget Mcronone was born a male and

specifically was the person who looks

like her little brother in old pictures

and that uh

and she's still a man basically. Um, she

of course would say that's not true. But

here's something I noticed today that

just tells you we live in a simulation.

If I had to bet on it, I would bet

against Breijit Mcronone having been

born a man. And the only reason is

because they could make this whole thing

go away just by proving she's a woman.

And that feels like an easy thing to

prove.

doesn't it? Uh, could you not release at

least the DNA part of the report that

said what you were born as? Couldn't

they do that? You know, maybe they don't

want all of her DNA to be in the public

domain, but you couldn't have somebody

just say, "All right, the only part

we're going to talk about is, yeah,

definitely a woman."

Seems like it'd be easy. They can make

the whole thing go away with a a minimal

amount of effort. but instead they're

doing this big legal thing and digging

through things etc. But what I wanted to

mention is here's how you know that

we're a simulation.

So Brejid Mcronone's husband is Emanuel

Mcronone.

Did you know that the word man is the

middle of the word Emmanuel

and that you couldn't spell Mcronone

without m?

So he's got man in his first name and

his last name. Biggest funnier. He's

married to Breijit Mcronone.

And if you were to just remove letters

from Breijit, you would have it. And

then you remove some letters from

Mcronone and you'd have man. So it would

be it man.

Now, is that a weird coincidence that

the entire topic is about whether or not

she's a man and that both of their names

have man right in their name? What are

the odds of that? Anyway, so I'm going

to bet against her being uh having been

born a man, but and let me let me use

the Candace Owens hypothesis to make a

point I made yesterday.

I told you how if you don't understand

that things could be not true and yet

there'd be tons of evidence that says

it's true. This might be one of those.

It might be that uh that you know she

was born a woman, but there's just tons

of coincidental things that sort of

suggest she wasn't. So, I don't know

what the truth is there, but I'd go 60

40 that uh that the evidence is not

conclusive,

but we'll see. Maybe we'll know at some

point.

Rasmusson did a poll on uh whether

people trust the New York Times. What

percent of Let's see how good you are at

answering this question. What percent of

likely US voters said they had quote a

lot of trust in news coverage from the

New York Times? What percent said they

had a lot of trust in the New York

Times?

That's right. Uh I if I could see your

comments, I would know that you're

saying 25%. The answer is 23. But there

is another 27 that have some trust.

They've got a little bit some trust.

Um,

so that's not good.

That that's as close as you can get to

having nobody trust you is if a quarter

of the people say they do, that is as

close as these polls get to zero, which

I've described to you in the past. Well,

let's do a update on the Democrats,

uh, the dumbest Democrats.

Um and uh Betto Orc is uh doubling down

on the cursing cuz that's what they

think is the problem. Not enough

cursing. He said at a event, "Who cares

about the effing rules right now? Throw

some punches. Win some effing power."

And everybody cheered.

Now maybe the crowd is the problem

because they shouldn't cheer for that.

He just described a losing strategy. The

losing strategy is to once again ignore

policy

and uh ignore the rules of decorum

and throw some punches and fight harder

and swear more.

And everybody's like, "Yeah, yeah,

that's not good advice. That's a

terrible idea. That's not going to get

you anything." and and and the things he

focuses on are the fight and the winning

of power.

Shouldn't he be focusing on how he's

going to help the people who have been

ignored the middle class? Shouldn't he

be telling us how he's going to decrease

the national debt or keep us out of

wars? None of that. No, just some vague

fight and swear a lot. So, that's a

Democrat update.

Well, Hamas

um

is trying to broker some kind of a deal

before Israel does what it says it's

going to do, which is a complete

occupation of Gaza City and some other

places. And uh they're going to destroy

every last trace of uh Hamas before they

turn over. Their plan is to turn over

Gaza to a friendly Arab occupation.

So, Israel says they don't want to own

Gaza. They want to just get rid of Hamas

and then have it run by some uh Arab

coalition maybe that doesn't like Hamas

either. So, Nanyahu says, "Our goal is

not to occupy Gaza.

Our goal is to free Gaza. That's a good

reframe. The goal is to free Gaza. Um he

says the uh the goal is to fully root

out Hamas everywhere before stabilizing

the region and eventually handing

leadership off to friendly Arab forces

opposed to Hamas.

Well,

can you think of anything that would be

a different plan from that that might

work? I can't. You know, you don't have

to be in favor of it or against it. You

can simply say, "What the hell else are

they going to do?" Like, what else would

they do? I can't think of anything. So,

as plans go,

it looks like the most workable plan of

all the plans that aren't workable. Um,

I I wouldn't bet it's going to be

successful,

but it's better than anything anything

else.

Well, India and China are trying to

restore their economic links and

friendliness. It's been a problem since

the 2020 border clash. Um, but it looks

like Modi might need to put a little

pressure on Trump um by by saying, well,

you know, if we don't get everything we

want with our tariffs, etc., we might

have to get a little closer to China.

And you wouldn't want that, would you?

So, looks like Modi is playing a uh a

clever game in which he's improving

things with China, but it puts a little

pressure on uh the US and our tariff

game.

So, we'll see where that goes. Well, the

AI company called Perplexity has offered

to buy the Chrome browser from Google

because Google's got this antirust case

going on. And part of the antitrust case

is that they might be asked to sell off

some of their assets that are

non-competitive like Chrome.

Non-competitive meaning too competitive.

They have too much of the market. And uh

Perplexity

is offering to buy it for about twice

the value of all of Perplexity.

So there is some thinking that they

could get uh backing to view that deal

and then Perplexity would own Chrome. I

wouldn't bet that that's going to

happen, but it might happen. Could be a

big deal. And then uh

you probably know that the u the Golden

Dome is being uh um planned and

implemented and that would protect the

United States from incoming missiles.

And apparently it's we know a little bit

more about the plan. It'll have a four

layer defense system.

and

they presented their idea to 3,000

defense contractors

so that people could bid on parts of it.

So, I guess it's better to have a golden

dome than not to have a golden dome. So,

that's good. All right. I can't see your

comments um because I'm broadcasting

only on X. Had a little problem with the

Rumble Studio this morning. It wasn't it

wasn't allowing me to stream to the

other platforms. We'll get that worked

out by tomorrow. Um, so I think if I

just end this,

it will save it. So, I'm going to push

that little X in the corner and say

goodbye. And locals, I'll catch up with

you in the morning tomorrow um when

everything works. So, I hope uh I hope

this worked cuz I can't I can't really

tell if the sound and the video worked

the entire