Episode 2927 CWSA 08/14/25

Looks like everything's working today.

That's kind of day I like.

Let's check our stocks.

They're kind of flat.

Not much happening, but let me get your comments working and then we're off to the races.

Come on.

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

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

But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience up to levels that no one can understand with their tiny shiny human brains.

Well, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass, a tanker, shelves or sty, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparallel pleasure that dopamine end of the day.

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip, but it happens now.

Delicious.

H.

So, I think I've asked this before, but how many of you watch closed caption when you're watching TV because the sound that they give you is so bad that you can't hear the the dialogue.

I swear to God, every movie starts out with and about five minutes in, it all turns into British mumbling.

Well, what was all Charlie Brown's teacher?

One of the people in the comments said he downloads the movie and then runs it through a uh some kind of an audio normalizer.

If you made a movie that has such bad sound that people are downloading it and correcting the sound before they watch it, you've done a bad job.

I think it's because they make the good stuff for the 5.1 surround sound, so it's all mushed together if you watch it on a regular TV.

But wow.

Uh, so now I'm completely addicted to having the closed caption on.

And it's really I'll tell you what it is.

It's sort of a confession that the people who make TV shows and movies don't even like you.

They they make the show.

So, it sounds good in their home theater.

You know, if you're a director, you probably have one.

But boy, if they they should visit people's living room and see that the closed caption is turned on, they'd have a heart attack.

All right.

Uh I wonder if there's any science that they could have skipped just by asking me.

Well, Tel Aviv University has a new study that shows that uh simply showing somebody an image multiple times, even if it's a fake image, so it's not something that happened in the real world, let's say it's AI generated, makes people believe it's real.

So, let me say that again.

The more you see an image that's fake, the more you think it's real.

Now, I assume that the people looking at the images did not know that they were seeing real ones or fake ones.

They probably didn't know.

But the more you see a thing, the more you think is true.

That's basically hypnosis right there.

It's a a lot of Trump's um success with persuasion is that he knows this.

If you just repeat the the statement or repeat the image, it looks believable.

That's all you have to do.

You have to just keep doing it.

And Trump does that better than anybody.

Um, all right.

I wonder if there's any science that would suggest that exercise is good for your health.

Oh, yeah.

Dr.

Ronda Patrick uh tells us on X about a study that says that uh that exercise uh which they describe as uh moderate intensity exercise can cut diabetes risk more than the diabetes drugs.

Now, I'm assuming that doctors would tell you to do both, but exercise is more effective treating diabetes than the diabetes drug.

Yeah, you could have asked me that one, too.

I would have told you it's probably as good as drugs, but it might be better.

But talk to your doctor.

Don't stop doing your drugs.

Don't listen to me about anything medical, as I like to remind you.

Well, Representative uh Anna Pelina Luna was on Joe Rogan making some news.

So, she has access to all the the good secrets and uh she's uh quote very confident that there's things out there, meaning UFO kind of things that have not been created by mankind.

Okay.

So, she has seen photos that look like they're real.

Huh.

Let's see.

Back to my first story.

If you show somebody an AI image long enough uh or enough times, they'll think it's incredible.

Well, I don't know if that's what happened, but why don't we get to see the photos?

Is there some reason we can't see that photo?

And have you noticed that the best evidence for aliens is somebody else told you they saw a thing once, but they didn't touch it?

They They didn't touch it.

they saw a photo or they talked to somebody who did touch it, but they've never touched it.

You know, there's never been a downed aircraft or, you know, an alien that looked real to me.

They all look like paperier-mâché.

And then she described um Representative Luna did a UFO encounter uh that took place over Vandenberg Air Base and she said that whatever had appeared over the base was basically bigger than a football field.

So do you believe that something hovered over a military base that was as big as a football field?

Not the base, just the thing hovering was as big as a football field.

And uh nobody got a picture.

Is that the photo you don't want to show us?

Really?

There's no photo of a thing that was over an Air Force base and it was as big as a football field cuz I'm pretty sure you don't have to be on the military base to see a thing like that.

Couldn't you see that from miles away?

And nobody got a photo.

Nobody.

All right.

All right.

Um and then uh Representative Luna claims that she has seen evidence of quote interdimensional beings and that credible people are reporting quote movement outside of time and space.

Uh they call them interdimensional beings.

I think that they can actually operate through the time spaces that we currently have.

Um then she said, "I can tell you without getting into classified conversations that there have been incidents where very credible people have reported that there have been movements outside of time and space." Okay.

Um would the credible people be the same scientists who 98% of them said that climate change is going to kill you?

Would it be the credible people in the intelligence community who said that Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation?

Is that's the credible people?

Would it be the credible people in front of the Bureau of Labor Statistics who didn't have the employment numbers even close?

Was it those credible people?

Was it the credible people in the NOS's?

Oh, no.

They're all criminals.

Was it the credible people that are the head of the DNC?

Was it the credible people who ran the Russia gate hoax?

Was it the credible people in the media who told you that uh Trump said neo-Nazis were fine people?

Who are the who are the credible people?

I don't believe I've met any credible people.

Have you?

I've only met people that I couldn't determine if they were lying.

but credible.

It We seem to live in a world where all that matters if somebody has some incentive to fool you.

If they do, they probably will.

And it's not always Russia.

All right.

There are no there are no credible people.

That's not a standard by which you would judge whether UFOs are real.

Um, according to unusual whales on X, 62% of Gen Z users or not users, six 62% of Gen Z, they use social media for financial advice uh over traditional financial advisors.

Why would that be?

Well, according to Business Insider, that's happening.

And uh I would offer you a few possibilities.

Um, one is that Gen Z people can't afford a financial advisor.

So, it could be just financial.

They just can't afford it.

The other is the best I I once thought of starting this as a business a long time ago.

The the financial advice I would like to see the most is I'd like to have access to what other people in my situation are doing, especially if they're doing well at it.

So for example, I would love to know, oh, there's a person a certain age and they have certain family situation and certain amount of income and this is what they do with their money.

They buy, you know, a second house or not.

Uh they they have index funds or not.

So, I would love to have visibility into the the full financial picture of ordinary people, but I want to know something about the ordinary people.

I want to know, do you know what you're doing?

You know, did you really research this before you bought a bunch of rentals?

So, I like what Gen Z is doing.

I would use social media for my advice, but I would like better information about what other people are doing.

I would take that over the advice of a financial advisor who by the way are not credible because they get paid often by the people that they recommend.

So if your financial advisor says, you know, there's a fund that you should put your money into, they're really good on firm or whatever, that's probably because that fund is compensating the financial advisor to recommend that people get into it.

Did you know that?

So, your financial advisor is the last person you should trust.

Social media, even if it's just random people doing what they think makes most sense, would actually be a better standard for deciding what you should do.

It really would be.

All right.

If you're not following the saga of Laura Loomer, uh, you're really missing a great show.

So, I guess Laura Lubber has got this lawsuit against Bill Maher because Bill Maher suggested that she was having an affair with Trump, which uh she uh is quite adamant, um is not a thing.

So, um apparently she was being deposed and for some reason we have access to the deposition and we're being told that the following exchange really happened in the real world.

Are you ready for this?

Now, there there are two different uh stories with Laura Loomer.

One of them is about Arby's.

This one's not about Orbeez.

And I I'll just tell you, if you want to have a good laugh, uh but but you better have a good sense of humor, then you should go search for Laura Loomer and Arby's.

You know, Arby's, the roast beef sandwich restaurant kind of place.

Arby's.

Now, I won't even tell you what that story is about, but but you really want to you want to catch up on that one, trust me.

But the one I wanted to tell you about is that apparently in the deposition um Laura Loomer said, uh, and I quote, "Several of President Trump's staff have told me in confidence that Lindsey Graham is gay." And then Ms.

Bulier, who I assume is the attorney doing the deposition, says, and I quote, "Hold on, Miss Loomer, there's no question." In other words, Laura Loomer answered a question which had not ever been asked because it was apparently had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

And she just goes, "Several of President Trump's staff have told me in confidence that Lindsey Graham is gay." Hold on.

There's no question.

Now, that is one of the funniest things I've ever heard.

Especially if they knew the deposition would get leaked.

She just puts that little She puts that little Easter egg there in her deposition.

Oh, well, I suppose this is the part where I'm supposed to say uh that we don't care if Lindsey Graham is gay or not, cuz we don't.

So, uh, if Lindsey Graham is gay or non-binary or whatever he wants to be, makes no difference to me.

Uh, but it's a funny story.

Um, all right.

I'll tell you the RB story in case you don't look it up.

Apparently, Marjorie Taylor Green and and Loomer are having this big public spat and they're insulting each other on X and other places, I guess.

And uh Loomer suggested that Marjgerie Taylor Green has Arby's in her pants.

Now apparently that became part of the deposition and she was being asked, "What did you mean when you said that Marjgerie Taylor Green has Orbeez in her pants and Loomer tries to play it straight.

You know, it's a sandwich.

Are you saying that she had a sandwich in her pants?

Yes.

Yes.

That's what I'm saying.

That she has a sandwich that she keeps in her pants.

Now, that's just the funniest thing.

Uh you you have to read the whole exchange, but when you see what she's, you know, how she's treating the legal process, probably without getting in any trouble, it is hilarious.

Well, in other news, in other spats, you know, Sam Alman and Elon Musk aren't getting along because of AI.

Maybe other stuff, too.

But now, Sam Alman apparently has co-founded a company that's going to compete with Neurolink.

It's called Merge Labs, a brain computer interface startup.

Now, I don't know if that has anything to do with Open AI.

Um, yeah, I guess it does.

So I guess he's doing it in the context of open AI.

So Elon Musk will have an AI and a brain interface.

And now Sam Alman will have an AI and a brain interface.

And we are heading for full cyborg future.

So cyborg is coming.

I I love how billionaires fight.

All right.

Well, I'm mad at you.

So I'll spend a billion dollars to buy this company to make your company look worse.

Well, I saw a clip that at first I thought might be AI, but I think it's real.

And it's Alan Dersuitz on Adam Corolla's podcast, and he's talking about what he thinks about the Obamas.

Now, as you know, Durowitz is a registered Democrat, and you would kind of expect that he would be a big fan of the Obamas, wouldn't you?

Well, he did not.

uh he did not hold back and he said about the Obamas, this is Alan Duritz saying this, you know, on video, so he doesn't care who hears it.

He goes, I don't like them as people.

He says, I remember Michelle Robinson, I guess that's Michelle Obama's main name, when she was a student and she was very radical.

Obama was not.

But once he was reelected, his true self came out and Dersuit says he's not a nice person.

Wow.

Can you believe that Dersuit just absolutely just pissed all over the Obamas?

I I did not see that coming.

And apparently Dersuitz has been, you know, invited into their White House events and stuff.

So he's been part of that world and he just says he's not a nice person.

Wow.

We had not really heard that from anybody, had we?

And I have to admit, I've had the same transition.

I was supportive of Obama when he first got elected because I thought, "Oh, this is sort of postracial and maybe we'll just get over this whole this whole racial stuff if you have a black president." Oh, and he seems pretty reasonable and he's not making too much trouble.

And so I was generally in favor of Obama.

Well, when he first got elected, my current opinion of him is he's a terrible person, especially because of the Russia gate stuff that's come out lately.

That is a really, really bad person.

Like a really bad person.

So, yeah, when Duruit says he's not a nice person, I can only imagine.

Well, you probably already heard that US alcohol consumption is at a record low.

Um, but why?

And uh I feel as if there's probably more than one reason.

One reason might be the demographics.

Is it true that younger people drink more than older people?

I mean, after, you know, they reach 21 or so.

Um, so it could be that we just have an aging population.

That might be a little bit of the story.

and that uh people in their 20s are more likely to party and have a drink than retired people basically.

Could be that.

Could be the substitution effect.

Maybe they're substituting weed and micro doing on mushrooms.

Could definitely be that especially the uh the psychedelic mushrooms.

I do hear that there's a lot of soccer moms, a lot of soccer moms who are on the the mushrooms and maybe then they don't need a drink of wine that night.

So, it might be that, but I think weed is actually down in young people, right?

Isn't weed use down as well?

And it could be because people have realized that there's no such thing as a little bit of alcohol that's good for you.

So maybe that maybe the news has turned in the last 20 years from, you know, a couple of drinks every night is better for you than if you hadn't had any drinks at all.

And now we know that that's completely made up.

Do you know why?

Because the scientists who do studies like that are not credible.

They're not credible.

No one is.

There there are no experts who are credible.

It's just not a thing.

It really isn't.

Um, but I'm also thinking that maybe one of the big reasons the alcohol use is down is that there are so many influencers now who talk about not being drinkers.

Have you noticed that there are a lot a lot of uh influencers who say they don't drink.

You know, Joe Rogan's the latest one.

Um, I'm one.

So, I don't know, some combination of all that stuff.

Um so uh Trump's net approval on the topic of inflation according to Harry Anton the CNN data polling kind of expert um is really bad.

So when people are asked if uh Trump is good on the topic of inflation, they're not so happy with him.

He's negative 20 points.

So he's way underwater on his approval for handling inflation.

But when he was running for office, he led Harris by nine points.

So people thought that he would do a great job on inflation, but they seem to be disappointed in what's happening so far.

Now I should point out the presidents can't do a whole lot about inflation in six months.

What did people expect him to do?

uh he does seem to have been in charge when energy prices were stabilizing and food prices were stabilizing uh but everything still cost too much.

So my take on this is that uh Harry said that if these if these numbers hold it would be practically impossible for the Republicans to hold the house in the in the midterms.

But um I don't know if people have an expectation about this inflation stuff.

What exactly did they think somebody else was going to do?

And when you answer a question on inflation, it's not like a war.

If you have a war, there's always someone who thinks it's a good idea.

So you're going to have a mixed opinion.

But if you say to people, "What do you think about prices?" Is there anybody in their right mind who would ever answer the question with, you know what, I think prices are pretty low these days.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I really appreciate that prices are low and um I'm not bothered at all by inflation.

Inflation is one of those things that everybody thinks is bad.

So, as soon as you say, um, how do you feel about inflation with Trump in charge?

Just the inflation part of the question alone guarantees it's going to be negative.

I guess the only way it can be positive is if you're comparing it to some other person like Harris and you believe this should be even worse.

But otherwise, just the topic itself guarantees that people have a negative opinion.

Well, Project Veritoss has some kind of a scoop and a whistleblower, but the story is too complicated for me to understand.

And I remind you that nobody's credible.

So, I don't know what to believe, but the whistleblower has a story about somehow being personally involved in over um other countries bribing politicians in the US.

She's naming Eric Adams says she that he took money from Turkey airlines and um some other people.

Let's see who else is she naming.

Fonnie Willis.

She thinks there's some evidence of Fonnie Wallace got paid off from something in the uh uh I don't know if that came from another country or that just came from the Democrats and there's some other guy who got in trouble for it.

So, it's a little complicated.

There are too many people involved.

So, I'm sort of waiting to see if there's any um other news sources that pick it up.

Um because I'm not too sure that the whistleblower is credible because no one is.

And if all you have is one whistleblower and no documents, one whistleblower, that's sort of as close as you could get to the lowest level of credibility.

Now, the good news is the whistleblower is not anonymous.

An anonymous whistleblower would be useless, but at least she's giving her name and her picture.

So, maybe, don't know.

Um, turns out a DC police sergeant um was involved in a lawsuit because she accused her superiors of faking the Washington DC crime stats to make them look low.

In other words, uh the bosses gave orders to charge lower offenses, I guess, so that it looked like the crime rate was coming down.

Now, let's talk about the trap that Trump has set for the Democrats, which apparently uh on Morning Joe, Mika and uh um uh Matthews, what's his name?

Matthews.

Uh Chris Matthews.

So Chris Matthews and Mika Brazinski are have both caught on that when Trump goes hard against crime in Washington DC, it forces the Democrats to be soft on crime, which is such a losing position.

It's such a losing position.

It's absolutely hilarious that they're falling for it.

Not only are they falling for it, but they know they're falling for it.

That's got to be the worst.

It's like, not only is the trap working, but I know it's working and I can't avoid falling into it because I can't agree with you.

No, but it's uh causing a little division in the pundits because not all of the pundits want to look like idiots.

For example, if you've been watching CNN for a while, as I have, uh they have a legal analyst who's on there all the time, uh Eli Hornik.

Now, Eli Honig, even though he shows up on these highly biased broadcasts, um I've never seen him lie.

I don't know if he's ever said anything that turned out not to be right, but I've never I've never seen him do the obvious lies that the other pundits do and the twisting things into nons and the he he's pretty much a straight shooter.

and he says that he uh apparently lives in lives or works or both in Washington DC and uh he's basically siding with Trump on going hard on the crime.

So he's a CNN guy who's saying uh yeah I live there it's dangerous and they need to do something and what else are you going to do?

So Eli Honik pretty much taking Trump's side, which you don't see a lot on CNN unless it's, you know, Scott.

And then Hillary Clinton weighed in.

She's one of the designated liars.

So I want you to see if you notice this about the Democrats.

I always talk about the designated liars.

They would be like uh Swallwell and Schiff and Rascin and Hillary Clinton.

They're designated liars.

And uh Schumer.

But here's what here's the thing.

Um also Brennan and Clapper.

Don't they look like they're lying when they're talking?

Hillary Clinton has a liar smile.

That is such a tell.

She has a satisfying smile when she tells you that Putin must have his hand right in Trump's pants.

Look at my satisfying smile.

It's telling you that I know I'm just making this up.

I'm just lying to you right now.

And Schumer has that same liars satisfied smile.

Oh yeah.

Oh yeah.

President Trump, he uh I believe he ate a baby.

And the same thing with Brennan and Clapper.

You just listen to them and you say to yourself, they look like they're bad actors who have been cast in the role of being a liar in a movie and they want the audience to know they're lying because the movie requires that.

But they're not actually admitting they're lying.

They're just signaling that they're lying.

You know, you know when you watch a movie and the evil character comes on and the evil character is saying, "Yeah, I'll uh I'll take care of your friend.

Don't you worry.

I'll take care of him." And you know, oh my god, they say they'll take care of the friend, but the way they say it looks so obviously like a lie.

Well, that's what the theater kids and the Democrats do.

When they lie, they they've got this little troop of official liars who do most of the really serious lying.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Even uh I'm seeing a picture in the comments of Newsome.

Nuome has the the uh that liar smile, too.

So, here's what Hillary Clinton said about DC.

Remember, she's a designated liar.

So her lies will be, you know, the most outrageous type.

Um, she says on X, "As you listen to an unhinged Trump try to justify deploying the National Guard in DC, here's the reality.

Violent crime in DC is at a 30-year low.

Um, let's see.

The crime statistics are at a 30-year low.

And what is being left out of that story?" Well, it could be the fact that there was just a lawsuit dismissed against a uh a DC police person who said the numbers are faked to look lower same day.

Um and then there's also the argument that even if it's at a 30-year low, it's still outrageously high.

So, first of all, it's not at a it's not at a 30-year low because the crime stats are gamed.

But even if it was, it would still be one of the most murderous cities in the entire planet.

Are you supposed to ignore that you're number four in murder because it's a lot better than it used to be?

These are pathetic, outrageous, theatrical lies.

And if you saw if you saw Clinton delivering this in person, I guarantee you she'd have her liar smile on because she'd be so happy to tell you her lie about Trump being unhinged.

So, watch for that.

And then, uh, Chuck Schumer put on his liar face and said, "I feel perfectly safe walking around in DC.

They're full of it." So, I've seen a number of influencers suggest that these people who say it's safe strap a Go.

Pro camera to their head and simply walk around at night and film it for us so we can see how safe it is.

So far, no takers.

For some reason, they don't want to put on the Go.

Pro camera and walk around.

Uh but the DC police union chairman Greg Petton um he says it's preposterous to suggest that cumulatively we've seen a 60% drop in violent crime from where we were in 2023 because we're out in the street.

We know the calls we're responding to.

So according to the DC police union, crime is not so good.

Not so good.

And then uh MSNBC had a uh one of their characters, Anthony Kohley, who also was agreeing with Trump.

He says, "I live in Washington.

This is personal for me.

Uh many people are frustrated with crime.

Uh they go to CB CVS to buy deodorant and they have to get it from behind the locked plexiglass.

So, if you're keeping score, MSNBC has been fractured and their pundits will not back the uh the MSNBC story that Trump is unhinged and and there's no problem to be solved.

So, and that's because they have personal experience there and it would be embarrassing to say that they hadn't noticed the crime.

Um, but then as I as I mentioned, Chris Matthews and Mika Brazinski were talking on MSNBC and they both agreed that it's a trap that Trump has successfully laid another trap.

Now, here's my question.

Did Trump do that absolutely intentionally?

as in when he looked at all the problems he could work on, did he say to himself, "All right, well, this DC crime thing I could ignore like everybody else has ignored, but if I don't ignore it, it's going to be this excellent trap to, you know, catch the Democrats." I feel like he plays on multiple levels, meaning that he knew it would be just a good thing to do, and he's right.

It's just a good thing to do and it would look make him look strong.

Uh, and it would be a trap that the Democrats would walk right into because they really are that dumb.

And it turns out they walked right into it.

Not only did they walk into it, they knew they were doing it while they were walking into it.

I would like to do my impression now of a Democrat who's completely aware they're walking into a wood chipper that was put there by the president.

All right.

Now, my impression of a Democrat heading towards the wood chipper.

Hey, looks like there's a wood chipper over there.

And I seem to be walking right at it.

Oh, that's the first time I've ever done the Democrat walking into the wood chipper.

So, if it wasn't perfect, just know it was my first.

So, then Trump does his usual fantastic uh persuasion.

And on Truth Social, he went through all the problems in DC and why he has to get tough on him.

But look how visual he is.

He start he says everything has to be locked up.

Don't you immediately see the locks on the products?

is visual, right?

Everything needs to be locked up.

People staying home, you can see it.

You see the family sitting in the living room uh all bored because they want to go out, but it's too dangerous.

You just see them sitting there.

Um he says one of the highest murder rates in the world.

Getting back to the point, it doesn't matter if it got a little bit better, is still one of the highest murder rates in the world.

Are you going to ignore that?

He says there's gang youth violence, which I immediately can picture.

I see a gang of young people and they look dangerous.

Um, he says people are giving up on calling the police.

I don't know if that's completely true, but it definitely sounds like it could be.

So, that's good persuasion.

Uh, people are living in fear.

The he says people are captive prisoners in their own city.

So now you imagine them in a jail cell that that should be their home.

And vehicle theft is three times the national average.

And you see the car.

You actually see the car.

Now look how look how visual that is because visual persuasion is the best.

Even if it's being described, if the if the verbal description causes you to form a picture in your head, that's really good persuasion.

And if that picture is scary, that's the best persuasion.

So you want it to be visual and you want it to be scary.

And he pulled off both of those.

He told you about all the scary things that the residents are going through.

And he made it visual.

And then he said that the White House arrested three people.

not the White House, but um the the new forces that they've surged into DC, the uh um National Guard, and I guess there's some FBI people, but with the extra help, they got 103 arrests in one week after it got federalized.

Now, I don't even know if that's a lot.

Is that a lot?

As someone who's not there, it sounds like a lot.

I mean, where were these people that they got arrested?

Were they all at home or were they on the street doing something that got them arrested?

I'd like to know more, but it sounds like progress.

So, so far, I'd say this Washington DC thing is just a total home run politically for Trump.

Um, and then on the two-way podcast, I saw a Democrat Dan Turentine say, "Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is falling into a trap." Uh, so he sees it, too.

So, the the fact that they all see it as a trap and then they walk right into it, does that tell you everything you need to know that they they're so addicted to being anti-Trump that he can say, "Look, here's this big wood chipper.

It's a trap.

I mean, it's really just a trap.

If you get near it, it'll just chip you right up.

So, don't get near it." Oh.

Oh, so you're so unhinged.

You think we can't get near a wood chipper?

Suddenly you think a wood chipper is all dangerous?

That would be the sound of the wood chipper.

Yeah, that's also the first time I've tried to imitate the sound of a wood chipper.

So, I know if it wasn't that good.

Remember, it was my first try.

Might be more of that coming up.

And uh uh but Dan Tarantine also pointed out that Trump was being a little hyperbolic.

He says, "I share the frustration that Trump described DC as a madishu.

It is not.

But crime is a problem.

Friends in DC uh tell him that it's changed even some of the nicest neighborhoods." Now, here's how to know that you're winning.

If you're Trump, if you can make the Democrats argue about whether or not Washington DC is worse than Mogadishu or not, you won.

You can declare a victory.

If you spend any time at all talking about, I don't think it's as bad as Mogadishu.

I feel like you won too far comparing it to Mogadishu.

If you're even in that conversation, that's a uh Trump wins that conversation conversation.

Uh Trump says that uh Democrats are being led by insane people and it's a waste of time to work with them.

How much do I love that?

That they're being led by insane people.

Yeah.

they're the ones who are in favor of more crime in Washington DC and you know men playing women's sports and he does have an argument that the most insane you know the open border people that no cash bail it does feel insane.

Now I I'm no mental health expert so I'm not going to say it is technically insane but when you're just talking to people does it sound insane?

It does.

this sounds a little bit insane.

So when he says there's just no point in talking to them, they're going to disagree with everything.

Uh I agree.

And he says, he was talking to Breitbart News, I guess, with this.

He said that the Democratic Party is quote broke or broke itself.

Says the Democratic Party broke themselves and they're continuing to do so.

Uh and Trump pointed out what I did, the men and women's sports and how bad uh their policy is tormenting them.

And Trump points out that the Democrats are taking the the 9010 issues and they're taking the 10 and there are 955 fives and I don't know who the fives are.

There are 955 issues where 5% are on the other side.

He goes and I don't know who the five are which is funny.

All right.

And uh to prove his point, the DC mayor uh has now gone from seemingly helpful and agreeing with Trump about needing a little help all the way to um she wants to see residents of DC to fight back against the National Guard takeover.

And she's calling it an authoritarian push.

Do you know what the best form of government would be if you could get it?

Now, I'm not saying you could get it or that we have it, but what would be the best form of government if you could get it?

And the answer would be a benevolent authoritarian.

A benevolent authoritarian.

In other words, somebody who had the strength and power and personality of an authoritarian, but they weren't doing it for their own benefit.

They were doing it for your benefit.

So they'd be pushing people around, but clearly for the benefit of the greater good, not for personal uh benefit.

Now, Trump, of course, is not immune to wanting some personal benefit.

Uh but he's really transparent.

And so I'm having this feeling that every time they call him authoritarian, but they match that word authoritarian with something that I'm happy he's doing, they're actually making the word authoritarian turn into a positive.

Have you noticed that?

Because if you told me, um, well, the president decided to surge some law enforcement into the, uh, high crime area of Washington DC, and I would say, what kind of person does that?

And they would say, an authoritarian.

And then I would say, h, so an authoritarian is what does things that make common sense.

And I kind of like, okay, is there anything else?

Yes, he's uh closing the border and sending back people who are here illegally.

Uh starting with the criminals first.

It all kind of makes sense, doesn't it?

All right.

Um here's a funny story that fits the time perfectly as we're finding out that nobody's credible and everything is fake.

all our data is fake and our science is fake and our our inflation numbers are fake and everything's fake.

Um, but we now know, and you've heard of this before, but there's some new news on it, that there are companies that rent crowds on demand.

So, if you pay them a certain amount of money, they will organize a bunch of people and pay them to show up.

So, it makes it look like your protest is genuine when it's actually artificial.

So, Adam Swart, who's the CEO of Crowds on Demand, he says that requests for his services are way up in Washington DC since the federalization of the police force.

And uh he said he said the vast majority of people at political events in the nation's capital are in some way compensated.

Right?

This is the guy who would know the most cuz his company actually sells or essentially organizes these fake paid protests and he's the one telling you it's not coming from someone else.

It's coming from the person who actually does it for a living.

He says that the vast majority of people at political events in the nation's capital are in some way compensated, whether directly paid, that would be his model, or attending as part of their professional duties, including Capitol Hill staffers.

Did you ever wonder why there are so many interns uh in the capital?

Now, it might be because it's just a great way to start a career and some of the old senators want to sexually molest them.

So, it could be a lot of different reasons, but one of them might be that if they have enough of these interns and people, they can say, "All right, all you interns and you low paid staffers, if you want a future here, you better attend this this protest even though you don't want to." So, yeah, protests are almost entirely fake in the United States.

How many people know that, do you think?

If if you were to stop people in the street, you know, if you stopped a 100 people randomly and said, "How many of you know that all the big movements like Black Lives Matter and and whatever is happening in Washington DC, how many of you know that those are not organic and that they're mostly paid protesters?" Like all the the Tesla stuff, it was so obviously paid protesters.

So obviously it makes me wonder if it do most people know it or is it still some kind of a mystery and and you and I are looking behind the curtain and wondering why nobody else knows this?

I don't know.

Well, here's another 8020 issue.

Uh Scott Bessant says he's going to start pushing for single stock trading ban in Congress.

So they can't do the insider trading because right now members of Congress can legally do insider trading, meaning buying and selling stocks because they have knowledge that the public doesn't have.

And uh allegedly people like Pelosi and uh I guess Widen and some others are being accused of being a little bit too good at investing if you know what I mean.

It makes it look like it's fake or uh corrupt.

Uh it's not illegal, but Bessant would like to make it illegal.

Now, when he says single stock trading, I assume that means they can still own stocks, but it would have to be in in a fund of some kind.

So they're not making their own decisions about it.

Now, of course, you're going to say, "But they could still get away with it because they could just tell a relative to do it or, you know, they can find some way to hide the fact they're monetizing their inside knowledge." They probably could.

But I would point out that this might be another one of the traps because are they going to make the Democrats support insider trading?

I think they are.

Now, there are also a number of uh Republicans were benefiting from this insider trading, but if the Dem if the Republicans uh shut up and just sort of play along, I don't know if they will, but they might, then it's going to be another trap.

Uh Trump and Bessant are going to trap the Democrats into saying, "No, I think Nancy Pelosi should do insider trading.

Of course, she should." Why would that be illegal?

So, if you'd like to see my imitation of a Democrat walking toward a wood chipper, um just imagine it in your head while you're thinking about Scott Bessant pushing the stock uh stock change.

Well, apparently Trump has turbocharged some say.

Secretary Shan Duffy saying this.

Um, American space dominance by getting rid of a whole bunch of red tape.

So, it's going to be a lot easier to start a a space related company or to get some rockets in space.

I guess there are a lot of outdated rules and they're going to speed up the licensing and ditch some of the environmental reviews that could take years.

And once again, I would say this is probably an 8020 topic, right?

Don't you think about 80% of the public would say, "Oh yeah, you should get rid of the red tape because we need to we need to do great in space." So that's another winner.

Uh the West Point and the Air Force Academy apparently have agreed with the US Department of Justice uh to be less racist, which is funny.

That's my take, but that's what it is.

So, they're going to not do so much DEI stuff and they're going to try to become less racist.

Let's see if they can do it.

Um, all right.

There's some more uh Russia gate classified document dump.

uh Tulsi Gabbard released some more and I guess DNI who he was the DNI had clapper at the time is on paper saying uh talking about the the CIA analysis that was being put together that was going to say that Russia was helping Trump and apparently not all of the analysts agreed that there was evidence to make that case.

So the people in charge were having a conversation that was on paper and uh we now know what they were saying.

So apparently uh Clapper was writing this.

He seemed to be aware that there was a disagreement.

Clapper was so here's how he he wanted to treat the disagreement.

Um, and I guess NSA director uh Rogers was pushing back against fasttracking this analysis cuz his people were not convinced that they had enough time to look at it, that they had looked at all the top secret stuff because he wasn't even sure they'd seen the good stuff.

But he didn't want to sign off on it unless they had the time and full access.

and he said, "If we don't have the time or we don't have full access to the private stuff, um, then we'll just back out and you guys handle it, but we're out." Whereas Clapper wanted everybody who was in the intelligence group to be on the same page so they could sell this uh hoax.

Um, and he even said this in writing.

He said in writing uh that they had to play as a team sport and it required quote compromise on our normal modalities.

Compromise on our normal modalities.

Now that would be bureaucracy speak to say they're going to cut some corners and they're going to take some chances and they're going to do some things that they would not consider normally good form.

We said it directly but it gets better.

Yeah.

And he said, as I said, he said, "This is one project that has to be a team sport." Now, imagine if the top people say, "Uh, on this one, it's got to be a team sport." If you were a lower level person, unless you were willing to go full whistleblower, and you probably wouldn't have the goods, you would just have suspicions.

You would probably say, "All right, I don't want to ruin my career forever." So, if it's got to be a team sport, I'll just shut up.

But it gets better.

This the following is a sentence that was actually written by James Clapper about this topic when he was telling people they should be on the same team and same page on it.

He goes, quote, in the spirit of, and then this is also in quote, in the spirit of this is our story and we're sticking to it.

When you say this is our story and we're sticking to it, doesn't that suggest that, you know, the story is not real?

That's the whole point of that saying, right?

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Isn't the entire context of that that you know your story is not real, you're just sticking to it.

Did he not tell them directly by saying this is our story and we're sticking to it?

Did he not directly tell the people stop worrying about whether it's true?

He did.

Right?

How else would you interpret that?

I interpret it as he's telling them don't worry if this is true.

It's more important that you agree.

That's what I hear.

I don't even know how to interpret it any other way.

You know, I usually try to look for the generous interpretation on the other side just just so you've heard it.

I don't think there is one.

I don't think there's a generous interpretation for this.

This very clearly to me says we're going to lie and I need you all to back me.

That's what I hear.

Anyway, but also separately, but maybe not that separate, sorry about the garbage trucks going wild outside.

Um, apparently Cash Patel, director of the FBI, uncovered a uh bombshell, according to Just the News, a bombshell memo written in 2017 um that showed the extensive political obstruction that career agents in three cities faced when their own bosses and the Obama Justice Department during the 2016 election told them to stop looking into the Hillary Clinton Foundation.

the Clinton Foundation.

So, we know now that on three separate occasions there were entities in the FBI who believe they had enough information to move against Hillary Clinton and her uh foundation.

Now, the foundation, I think everybody understands, was a money laundering operation, right?

Don't don't we all understand that to be obviously true?

Some of it might have been donated money that ended up with charities, but that's the cover.

What it really is is a way for the uh Clintons to monetize their connections and their offices and stuff.

And when they were in office, um it received tremendous amounts of funding from overseas.

And as soon as she was not in office, people cared a lot less about charity, it seems.

So, I feel like we all know it was crooked.

And I've always wondered why no investigation ever happened.

Well, it turns out that on three occasions, the people whose job it is to investigate believed they had enough information that was negative that an investigation made sense.

And in each case, um, somebody in leadership told them to shut it down.

That would include, uh, then attorney general Sally Yates and I think some other people as well.

So, do you think that will get re-uped?

Do you think the Clinton Foundation will get a a real investigation now that Gash Patel is there?

I don't know.

Yeah.

If it were happening, I suppose we wouldn't know, right?

Because they do the investigation before they announce that they're doing an investigation.

Isn't that the way it works?

So maybe it's entirely possible that by the end of this year you'll see Obama and Hillary Clinton in handcuffs.

No, that's not going to happen.

In the real world, every one of these is going to get off scaffree.

You know that, right?

In all likelihood, every one of these absolutely dead guilty trade risk crooks is going to get off one way or the other.

I mean, I don't know if they deserve to get off or don't.

Maybe statute limitations.

You maybe the only witness will die suspiciously, but one way or the other, I feel like every one of them is going to get off.

What do you think?

I'm I'm sort of optimistic that maybe then maybe somebody like Brennan will get nabbed at least.

Now, Roger Stone is posting on social media that his sources tell him that uh John Brennan has already escaped to Austria and he's pretending to be, you know, local when he does his appearances on MSNBC, but that he's already left the country and that he might not be planning to come back.

Now, I don't know what kind of extradition we have with Austria and I don't know if that report is true, but uh wouldn't surprise me.

Wouldn't surprise me if he's already left the country because it does look like Brennan has the most to explain.

Um, Representative Tim Burett, um, he was complaining on video about how Congress is laundering millions of our tax dollars into Democrats, billionaire donor NOS.

How many non-government organizations do you think there are that receive massive amounts of money from our government from our taxes?

Turns out thousands.

There are thousands of them and they all have the same nature.

They have some weird general name like the Institute of Freedom and Liberty.

Yeah.

Is also it's all basically they're 20 words that they just all have in different order.

And it looks like the way this scam works and the reason there's so many of them is that they can very easily break the law without it looking like they broke the law.

Somebody says 63,000 NOS's I wouldn't be surprised.

And the way they do it is they have some billionaire donate um some starter money to start a organization and then it looks legitimate because they got a name and they've registered and they've got funding.

Then they go to the government and they say, "We've got a little bit of funding, but if we had a lot of funding, oh, the good we can do." And then they get their their people that they plan to bribe later.

Or maybe they've bribed them in advance in the government to say, "Yeah, I'll support that.

Uh, yeah, we'll get you $100 million for your thing, whatever your thing is." and and then the NGO finds ways to donate money back to the people who have voted them their money.

So it literally is just a big money laundering theft ring called NOS's and there's 63,000 of them.

I always wondered how in the world could the US um budget get to the point where we're we're $2 trillion underwater every year?

Like my brain couldn't hold that as a possibility.

like where is all the money going?

How do you how do you overspend by $2 trillion a year?

How is that even possible?

And I think a big part of the answer is the these NOS's are just it's this normal just this enormous um illegal cash drain from our pockets.

So they're probably behind maybe a third of all of our problems.

And by the way, I don't think they're going away.

It It looks like even Trump can't make them go away.

It's too complicated.

There too many of them.

They have too much support.

It's how everybody gets their fake paychecks.

So, I don't think Trump's going to make any difference.

It it does seem like you could make some kind of sweeping rule that would make all the NOS's illegal or make them transparent, but they're probably, not probably, there are enough Republicans who are also sucking off that same tit that uh Trump probably can't take out half of the Republican base just to get to the Democrats.

Probably can't do it.

Might be no way to do it.

But uh Fox News Rachel Delgatis Gus is writing that there is a uh a separate shadow government that's pushing DEI and gender ideology in all the states including the red states.

So even though the DEI stuff is illegal on a federal level, um there are all these weird organizations that are not necessarily NOS's um that that are let me see if I have some of the names of them.

uh national organizations.

They're often branded as nonpartisan or professional groups, but they they operate as a shadow government government because they force the people they're working with to prove that they're doing deish stuff.

In other words, discriminating against white males.

And if they don't discriminate against white males, this shadow governance uh organizations that are not government will give them trouble.

So, I don't think that the banning of DEI is going to work at all.

I believe that the discrimination against white men is so popular among everybody who isn't a white man or a Republican, I guess, um that it'll just morph and change its name and they'll find new cracks to hide in.

And I don't think I don't think it's going away.

Well, Google has apparently been caught, I don't know how they're caught or by who, um, flagging GOP fundraising emails as suspicious and then sending them to spam.

Now, that's new news.

So, this is not old news.

So the news is that people at Google are knowingly creating a system so that Republican fundraising is hidden and goes to spam but not fundraising.

Now you might say I don't think that's true.

That sounds too far.

I can't believe they're doing that.

But I saw a post on this topic from Alex Sears who says this has been going on for at least the last four years and a former Google employee I knew even bragged about it once.

So here here's an eyewitness report that a former Google employee bragged about hiding the uh fundraising emails from Republicans.

It's a real thing.

So, is Google credible?

No, nobody is.

There's nobody credible.

None except me and you, of course.

Well, as you know, uh, Trump authorized military action against the cartels, but so far there's a little bit.

Um, I guess, uh, Mexico extradited over two dozen suspected cartel leaders to the US.

Now, when you hear that, do you say to yourself, "Aha, the government of Mexico must be really serious about cracking down on the cartels because they just extradited a bunch of cartel leaders to the United States." I don't believe any of that.

Here's what I believe.

I believe that the head of Mexico probably is in the pocket of one of the cartels and I believe that the two dozen suspected cartel leaders are probably in a rival cartel or cartels.

So my guess is that this allows the Mexican government to do the work of whatever cartel owns them to reduce the competition.

So, I don't believe that this is on the surface what it looks like.

Oh, it looks like Mexico and the US are coordinating really well to beat these cartels.

No, probably probably just Mexico is beefing up the one that they like and maybe they need to do that to stay alive.

But separately, um, apparently the US Customs and Border Protection flew a military drone over 600 miles into Mexico and they were looking at one of the cartel strongholds um, and then coming back.

So, I don't think they bombed anything.

I think it was just looking.

But isn't that isn't that what you always assumed was happening anyway?

Are we to believe that the US military has never used a drone to look at the cartel operations in Mexico?

Who would believe that?

I I assume we've been doing it for years.

I don't know.

Um anyway, so Trump and Putin are going to meet and I saw an article in Axios that was very much in line with what I was saying that uh Putin has made the mistake of making this personal with Trump.

And the personal part is that Trump says Putin is just tapping him along and essentially lying to him and making him look bad um because you know looks like he got suckered.

So Trump is now going into this and if he leaves this empty-handed, uh, it's going to look really bad for Trump.

Would you agree?

It would look like Putin played him again, just bought some time, got some credibility by meeting with the president, but that it was all just another trick, and that Trump would once again, you know, be duped by this clever Putin guy.

Do you think that uh Trump can allow that to happen this time?

So, I think because this is now completely personal, um it's, you know, political, but it's also very personal.

I think uh that Trump is going to tell Putin, here's the deal.

I need to leave here with something real, you know, like a ceasefire, for example, or I'm going to just destroy your economy.

Oh, no you won't, Mr.

President.

You would never do that.

Yeah, I would.

It's personal now.

And when it becomes personal, Putin is, I'm sure, smart enough to know that his options got real limited real fast.

If he keeps it personal, I think Trump is going to take down the Russian economy.

Just take it down.

Now, can he do that?

Well, um the general view for months, this is from Axios, uh and this is coming from the government people who were in the know.

So, their general view is that they could bring down the Russian economy tomorrow that uh they would do it, I guess, with banking mostly.

Um yeah, I think mostly through banking and financial stuff.

they would basically turn off the spigot and uh there are only a few steps toward ruining them and most of them come from the treasury.

All right, so financial operations um some come from the Department of Justice.

So, I don't know what Trump is going to say to Putin, but I guarantee it's going to be a threat.

And I can almost guarantee it's going to be a direct threat against what's left of Russia's economy.

And we'll see if uh Putin wants to tap uh Trump along cuz I think Trump's going to say, "Look, you got a week and at the end of the week, all the the banking connections to anybody doing business with Russia.

It won't even be just banking restrictions on Russia.

It'll probably be restrictions on anybody who does any business with them.

So suddenly India just to pick an example won't be able to get bank financing from any American bank.

Now maybe they don't need it.

I don't know but uh yeah this could get pretty pretty dark pretty fast.

According to Zero Hedge and I24 News, Netanyahu says he backs a quote greater Israel.

So, Israel with lots more land than it has now legally.

And uh I guess there's some people worried that uh some of the most conservative people in Israel want to take over part of Syria now.

I don't know about that, but uh there might be more coming.

We'll see.

I don't think that Israel is going to make a move on Syria uh other than bombing bad guys.

Um, let me ask you this.

About a year ago, I was doing a lot of experimenting with AI apps and I had a bunch of things I wanted to do besides just simple searches and uh it didn't work for anything because of hallucinations or various limitations or I couldn't upload big documents.

There always just some problem.

It it seemed like it was promising but it didn't really do anything.

So, I waited a year and then I waited back in and tried to get AI to do some stuff and it just doesn't do anything.

It's really good as an interface for search, but even then, you've got to check to make sure it didn't hallucinate.

So, let me just tell you a couple of simple things that I tried to do because people are telling me that I'm the idiot and that if I used a better super prompt, I could get better results.

to which I say, I'm not using any super prompts.

If I have to use a super prompt, your product is broken on delivery.

If you if you tell me that I have to ask the question in some Harry Potter magic incantation or I'll get the wrong answer, your product is broken.

I'm not going to adjust my Harry Pottering myself until I can say uh excelsius extremists or whatever you have to say to get a real answer.

But here are two things that I failed at doing that should have been easy.

One was I took a picture of myself at 14 years old.

I had a picture and I was sitting on a minibike and I wanted to see if I could animate it so it looked like I was, you know, moving on the miniike.

So I used a Grock, the imagine feature and sure enough it took that photo and it animated it.

But it also changed me to a different character.

So it it changed me into a 10-year-old who didn't look like me at all.

Now, what would what would I do with that?

Am I going to share a picture of a 10-year-old boy who doesn't look like me and send it to my friends?

Hey everybody, here's a 10-year-old boy who doesn't look like me, but he's sitting on this minibike just like I was when I was 14.

How about that?

Huh?

Has no value.

and and a number of other things I changed changed my face so much that I thought I don't want to show this to anybody.

Um then because I had some technical problems with the show yesterday and I didn't have the right microphone on I wanted to use a app which I used before called descript and one of the features there is you push a button and run your video through it and it changes the audio from maybe a poor quality audio to getting rid of the background sounds and it sounds like a studio.

So, I put in my video and I push the button.

It gets to 85% processed and it just locks up.

Just doesn't do anything.

Just churns forever.

So, I turn it off and I do it again.

It gets to 85% and it just stops.

So, I do it a third time and this time it got to 0%.

Now, there's no super prompt involved.

It's literally just a button.

that says studio quality audio didn't do it, you know.

So, every time I try to use AI for anything outside of the most basic stuff, it just doesn't work and it doesn't look fixable.

It doesn't look like there's a way around it.

So, we'll see.

I don't know if that's your experience, but so far AI looks like a um way over promised.

Well, apparently the Gateway Punda has a story that says that the Pentagon had developed a self-spreading vaccine.

Self-spreading means that you would catch it from other people except in c instead of catching a virus that would hurt you.

Allegedly, it would be a virus that protected you from other viruses and whatnot.

Um, apparently this has already been worked on but not rolled out.

Can you imagine learning that your government made a virus that was meant to infect you and didn't tell you or get your permission?

Can you even imagine that?

That's the sort of problem that would bring down the government, I think.

So, don't do that, Pentagon.

Um, so I guess uh G Gavin Newsome is going to do some big event today to push back against Trump's redistricting map.

And I don't know if you noticed, but uh now Newsome put out at least one post that was uh trying to mock Trump's style.

So he tried to copy how he talks, put it in all caps, and ended with, "Thank you for your attention to this matter." and tried to use the, you know, the framing and the pacing of Trump, but a lot of people didn't realize he was joking and they just started mocking him for looking looking like he's bad at social media.

Once you realize that as he's mocking, then then you look at it differently.

Go, oh, okay.

Yeah, that's that's pretty good mocking.

Um, I don't think it'll make a difference, but at least it gave Newsome something to do for an afternoon.

Um, Governor Pritsker of Illinois is talking about ending Illinois's ban on large-scale nuclear plants.

To which I say, they have a ban on large-scale nuclear plants.

What's wrong with them?

It's 2025.

All right.

Then I'm going to give you going to end with a little bit of advice.

And uh one of the pieces of advice is from Rob Henderson who was on the boys cast podcast and he was asked about one piece of advice he had given.

I don't know where he gave it might have been in his book.

Um if you're not following Rob Henderson on X you should.

He's uh got a lot of good content on psychology and studies about psychology and how people how people act.

But anyway, um he said one of the advices was uh to overd deliver and do more than people expect of you.

And he credited me for where he saw that.

Now, I didn't make that one up.

You've all heard that one before, right?

Do overd deliver and underpromise.

You should always do more than you say you're going to do.

It's some of the best advice.

And one of the reasons it's the best advice, it's just the easiest thing to do to get an advantage in this world.

Um, and he talked about his his experience as a dishwasher when he was a young man.

And he was getting, you know, praised and he was getting raises and and he didn't understand why his boss was so happy with him because all he did was show up on time and do the work.

Well, if you've ever worked with dishwashers, they don't show up on time and sometimes they just don't show up and they don't always do the work.

So, it doesn't take much to be the best dishwasher.

But it's also true in your corporate job.

It doesn't take much.

Maybe you work a weekend and your boss sees it.

Maybe you volunteer to help a co-orker on a thing.

Maybe you see a project that hasn't been asked for, but you know it's worth doing, so you just start doing it.

It's really, really easy to be in the top 10% of any group.

It just really is.

And uh so that's good advice.

Any anytime you have a possibility of doing a little bit better than the other people, total pay totally pays off.

Yeah.

Show up one minute before your boss and leave one minute after your boss and your boss will think you're there all day.

That's one of my favorite tricks.

And then this bit of advice from Mark Andre, which you may have heard from me as well.

So I don't know that he was influenced by me on this.

It might be just obvious enough um observation.

But he says the person who writes down the thing has tremendous power.

When he says the thing that you're writing down, it just it means it depends on the situation, right?

It's the thing.

And I've told you the same thing that um when I wrote down the list of hoaxes that the Democrats have used, it became really powerful because people said, "Oh, here's a list.

I'll send that around.

It's one of the most viral things on the internet right now.

And it's because I wrote it down.

Now, because I wrote it down, I got to decide what was on the list and what wasn't.

So, I got to have an unusually large impact on on politics because I wrote it down when when I wrote the blog post called the clown genius in which when Trump was running for uh first announced in 2015 and everybody said he's a crazy clown and I wrote a blog post that went um hugely viral in which I said well he might be a clown but he's a clown genius.

because he's using his clownery as part of his weaponry and part of his persuasion.

And sure enough, sure enough, now the the blog post was hugely persuasive because it was the first time people saw Trump being reframed into a brilliant operator as opposed to a clown.

So, I got to do that.

And why was it because I was so smart?

Well, I mean that might be my story, but the reality is, as Mark Andre says, the person who writes down the thing has tremendous power.

So, if you ever find yourself in a situation where you could take some time to do a little more than people expected of you.

Again, these two things fit together really well.

And you just take the time to write it down.

And maybe somebody will edit it later.

Maybe you're not the best writer.

Doesn't matter.

Whoever writes it down has a lot of power.

I've often also said that about speech writers for politicians.

The speech writer has a lot of power because they they can sort of test out uh ways to reframe things.

Now, the politician who's going to read the speech still has the ultimate power, but you can so often influence them by coming up with a great way to reframe something that they can't resist it.

So, if you come up with a great reframe and you're a you're a speech writer, then your politician is going to be repeating that reframe.

So, you have tremendous power writing stuff down.

All right, that's all I got for you today.

I went way long, so I'm going to say bye to everybody except for the locals, beloved subscribers.

I'm going to talk to you privately and the rest of you, thanks for joining.

I will see you tomorrow.

Same time, same place.

If all of our technology

Looks like everything's working today.

That's kind of day I like. Let's check

our stocks. They're kind of flat. Not

much happening,

but let me get your comments working and

then we're off to the races.

Come on.

[Music]

Good morning everyone and welcome to the

highlight of human civilization. It's

called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take a chance on elevating

your experience up to levels that no one

can understand with their tiny shiny

human brains.

Well, all you need for that is a copper

mug or a glass, a tanker, shelves or

sty, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of

any kind. Fill it with your favorite

liquid. I like coffee. And join me now

for the unparallel pleasure that

dopamine end of the day. The thing that

makes everything better. It's called the

simultaneous sip, but it happens now.

Delicious.

H. So, I think I've asked this before,

but how many of you watch closed caption

when you're watching TV because the

sound that they give you is so bad that

you can't hear the the dialogue. I swear

to God, every movie starts out with

and about five minutes in, it all turns

into British mumbling.

Well, what was all Charlie Brown's

teacher?

One of the people in the comments said

he downloads the movie and then runs it

through a uh some kind of an audio

normalizer.

If you made a movie that has such bad

sound that people are downloading it and

correcting the sound before they watch

it, you've done a bad job. I think it's

because they make the good stuff for the

5.1 surround sound, so it's all mushed

together if you watch it on a regular

TV. But wow. Uh, so now I'm completely

addicted to having the closed caption

on. And it's really I'll tell you what

it is. It's sort of a confession that

the people who make TV shows and movies

don't even like you.

They they make the show. So, it sounds

good in their home theater. You know, if

you're a director, you probably have

one. But boy, if they they should visit

people's living room and see that the

closed caption is turned on, they'd have

a heart attack.

All right. Uh I wonder if there's any

science that they could have skipped

just by asking me. Well, Tel Aviv

University has a new study that shows

that uh simply showing somebody an image

multiple times, even if it's a fake

image, so it's not something that

happened in the real world, let's say

it's AI generated, makes people believe

it's real. So, let me say that again.

The more you see an image that's fake,

the more you think it's real. Now, I

assume that the people looking at the

images did not know that they were

seeing real ones or fake ones. They

probably didn't know. But the more you

see a thing, the more you think is true.

That's basically hypnosis right there.

It's a a lot of Trump's um success with

persuasion is that he knows this. If you

just repeat the the statement or repeat

the image,

it looks believable. That's all you have

to do. You have to just keep doing it.

And Trump does that better than anybody.

Um, all right. I wonder if there's any

science that would suggest that exercise

is good for your health. Oh, yeah. Dr.

Ronda Patrick uh tells us on X about a

study that says that uh that exercise

uh which they describe as

uh moderate intensity exercise can cut

diabetes risk more than the diabetes

drugs. Now, I'm assuming that doctors

would tell you to do both, but exercise

is more effective treating diabetes

than the diabetes drug.

Yeah, you could have asked me that one,

too. I would have told you it's probably

as good as drugs, but it might be

better. But talk to your doctor. Don't

stop doing your drugs. Don't listen to

me about anything medical, as I like to

remind you.

Well, Representative uh Anna Pelina Luna

was on Joe Rogan making some news. So,

she has access to all the the good

secrets and uh she's uh quote very

confident that there's things out there,

meaning UFO kind of things that have not

been created by mankind.

Okay. So, she has seen photos that look

like they're real. Huh. Let's see. Back

to my first story.

If you show somebody an AI image long

enough uh or enough times, they'll think

it's incredible. Well, I don't know if

that's what happened, but why don't we

get to see the photos? Is there some

reason we can't see that photo? And have

you noticed that the best evidence for

aliens is somebody else told you they

saw a thing once, but they didn't touch

it? They They didn't touch it. they saw

a photo or they talked to somebody who

did touch it, but they've never touched

it. You know, there's never been a

downed aircraft or, you know, an alien

that looked real to me. They all look

like paperier-mâché.

And then she described um Representative

Luna did a UFO encounter

uh that took place over Vandenberg Air

Base and she said that whatever had

appeared over the base was basically

bigger than a football field.

So do you believe that something hovered

over a military base that was as big as

a football field? Not the base, just the

thing hovering was as big as a football

field. And uh nobody got a picture.

Is that the photo you don't want to show

us?

Really? There's no photo of a thing that

was over an Air Force base and it was as

big as a football field cuz I'm pretty

sure you don't have to be on the

military base to see a thing like that.

Couldn't you see that from miles away?

And nobody got a photo. Nobody. All

right. All right. Um

and then uh Representative Luna claims

that she has seen evidence of quote

interdimensional beings and that

credible people are reporting quote

movement outside of time and space. Uh

they call them interdimensional beings.

I think that they can actually operate

through the time spaces that we

currently have.

Um then she said, "I can tell you

without getting into classified

conversations that there have been

incidents where very credible people

have reported that there have been

movements outside of time and space."

Okay. Um would the credible people be

the same scientists who 98% of them said

that climate change is going to kill

you? Would it be the credible people in

the intelligence community who said that

Hunter's laptop was Russian

disinformation? Is that's the credible

people? Would it be the credible people

in front of the Bureau of Labor

Statistics who didn't have the

employment numbers even close? Was it

those credible people? Was it the

credible people in the NOS's? Oh, no.

They're all criminals. Was it the

credible people that are the head of the

DNC? Was it the credible people who ran

the Russia gate hoax? Was it the

credible people in the media who told

you that uh Trump said neo-Nazis were

fine people? Who are the who are the

credible people? I don't believe I've

met any credible people. Have you? I've

only met people that I couldn't

determine if they were lying.

but credible. It We seem to live in a

world

where all that matters if somebody has

some incentive to fool you. If they do,

they probably will. And it's not always

Russia. All right. There are no there

are no credible people. That's not a

standard by which you would judge

whether UFOs are real.

Um, according to unusual whales on X,

62% of Gen Z users or not users, six 62%

of Gen Z, they use social media for

financial advice uh over traditional

financial advisors. Why would that be?

Well, according to Business Insider,

that's happening. And uh I would offer

you a few possibilities.

Um, one is that Gen Z people can't

afford a financial advisor. So, it could

be just financial. They just can't

afford it. The other is the best I I

once thought of starting this as a

business a long time ago.

The the financial advice I would like to

see the most is I'd like to have access

to what other people in my situation are

doing, especially if they're doing well

at it. So for example, I would love to

know, oh, there's a person a certain age

and they have certain family situation

and certain amount of income and this is

what they do with their money. They buy,

you know, a second house or not. Uh they

they have index funds or not. So, I

would love to have visibility into the

the full financial picture of ordinary

people, but I want to know something

about the ordinary people. I want to

know, do you know what you're doing? You

know, did you really research this

before you bought a bunch of rentals?

So, I like what Gen Z is doing. I would

use social media for my advice, but I

would like better information about what

other people are doing. I would take

that over the advice of a financial

advisor who by the way are not credible

because they get paid often by the

people that they recommend. So if your

financial advisor says, you know,

there's a fund that you should put your

money into, they're really good on firm

or whatever, that's probably because

that fund is compensating the financial

advisor to recommend that people get

into it. Did you know that? So, your

financial advisor is the last person you

should trust. Social media, even if it's

just random people doing what they think

makes most sense, would actually be a

better standard for deciding what you

should do. It really would be.

All right. If you're not following the

saga of Laura Loomer, uh, you're really

missing a great show. So, I guess Laura

Lubber has got this lawsuit against Bill

Maher because Bill Maher suggested that

she was having an affair with Trump,

which uh she uh is quite adamant, um is

not a thing. So,

um apparently she was being deposed and

for some reason we have access to the

deposition

and we're being told that the following

exchange really happened in the real

world. Are you ready for this?

Now, there there are two different uh

stories with Laura Loomer. One of them

is about Arby's. This one's not about

Orbeez. And I I'll just tell you, if you

want to have a good laugh, uh but but

you better have a good sense of humor,

then you should go search for Laura

Loomer and Arby's. You know, Arby's, the

roast beef sandwich restaurant kind of

place. Arby's. Now, I won't even tell

you what that story is about, but but

you really want to you want to catch up

on that one, trust me. But the one I

wanted to tell you about is that

apparently in the deposition

um Laura Loomer said, uh, and I quote,

"Several of President Trump's staff have

told me in confidence that Lindsey

Graham is gay." And then Ms. Bulier, who

I assume is the attorney doing the

deposition, says, and I quote, "Hold on,

Miss Loomer, there's no question."

In other words, Laura Loomer answered a

question which had not ever been asked

because it was apparently had nothing to

do with the topic at hand. And she just

goes, "Several of President Trump's

staff have told me in confidence that

Lindsey Graham is gay." Hold on. There's

no question.

Now, that is one of the funniest things

I've ever heard. Especially if they knew

the deposition would get leaked. She

just puts that little She puts that

little Easter egg there in her

deposition.

Oh,

well, I suppose this is the part where

I'm supposed to say uh that we don't

care if Lindsey Graham is gay or not,

cuz we don't. So, uh, if Lindsey Graham

is gay or non-binary or whatever he

wants to be, makes no difference to me.

Uh, but it's a funny story.

Um,

all right. I'll tell you the RB story in

case you don't look it up. Apparently,

Marjorie Taylor Green and and Loomer are

having this big public spat and they're

insulting each other on X and other

places, I guess. And uh Loomer suggested

that Marjgerie Taylor Green has Arby's

in her pants. Now apparently that became

part of the deposition and she was being

asked, "What did you mean when you said

that Marjgerie Taylor Green has Orbeez

in her pants

and Loomer tries to play it straight.

You know, it's a sandwich. Are you

saying that she had a sandwich in her

pants? Yes.

Yes. That's what I'm saying. That she

has a sandwich that she keeps in her

pants.

Now, that's just the funniest thing. Uh

you you have to read the whole exchange,

but when you see what she's, you know,

how she's treating the legal process,

probably without getting in any trouble,

it is hilarious.

Well, in other news, in other spats, you

know, Sam Alman and Elon Musk aren't

getting along because of AI. Maybe other

stuff, too. But now, Sam Alman

apparently has co-founded a company

that's going to compete with Neurolink.

It's called Merge Labs, a brain computer

interface startup. Now, I don't know if

that has anything to do with Open AI.

Um, yeah, I guess it does. So I guess

he's doing it in the context of open AI.

So Elon Musk will have an AI and a brain

interface. And now Sam Alman will have

an AI and a brain interface. And we are

heading for full cyborg future.

So cyborg is coming. I I love how

billionaires fight. All right. Well, I'm

mad at you. So I'll spend a billion

dollars to buy this company to make your

company look worse.

Well, I saw a clip that at first I

thought might be AI, but I think it's

real. And it's Alan Dersuitz on Adam

Corolla's podcast, and he's talking

about what he thinks about the Obamas.

Now, as you know, Durowitz is a

registered Democrat,

and

you would kind of expect that he would

be a big fan of the Obamas, wouldn't

you? Well, he did not. uh he did not

hold back and he said about the Obamas,

this is Alan Duritz saying this, you

know, on video, so he doesn't care who

hears it. He goes, I don't like them as

people.

He says, I remember Michelle Robinson, I

guess that's Michelle Obama's main name,

when she was a student and she was very

radical. Obama was not. But once he was

reelected, his true self came out and

Dersuit says he's not a nice person.

Wow.

Can you believe that Dersuit just

absolutely just pissed all over the

Obamas?

I I did not see that coming. And

apparently Dersuitz has been, you know,

invited into their White House events

and stuff. So he's been part of that

world and he just says he's not a nice

person. Wow.

We had not really heard that from

anybody, had we? And I have to admit,

I've had the same transition. I was

supportive of Obama when he first got

elected because I thought, "Oh, this is

sort of postracial and maybe we'll just

get over this whole this whole racial

stuff if you have a black president."

Oh, and he seems pretty reasonable and

he's not making too much trouble. And so

I was generally in favor of Obama. Well,

when he first got elected, my current

opinion of him is he's a terrible

person, especially because of the Russia

gate stuff that's come out lately. That

is a really, really bad person. Like a

really bad person. So, yeah, when Duruit

says he's not a nice person, I can only

imagine.

Well, you probably already heard that US

alcohol consumption is at a record low.

Um,

but why?

And uh I feel as if there's probably

more than one reason. One reason might

be the demographics.

Is it true that younger people drink

more than older people? I mean, after,

you know, they reach 21 or so. Um, so it

could be that we just have an aging

population. That might be a little bit

of the story. and that uh people in

their 20s are more likely to party and

have a drink than retired people

basically. Could be that. Could be the

substitution effect. Maybe they're

substituting weed and micro doing on

mushrooms. Could definitely be that

especially the uh the psychedelic

mushrooms. I do hear that there's a lot

of soccer moms, a lot of soccer moms who

are on the the mushrooms and maybe then

they don't need a drink of wine that

night. So, it might be that, but I think

weed is actually down in young people,

right? Isn't weed use down as well?

And it could be because people have

realized that there's no such thing as a

little bit of alcohol that's good for

you. So maybe that maybe the news has

turned in the last 20 years from, you

know, a couple of drinks every night is

better for you than if you hadn't had

any drinks at all. And now we know that

that's completely made up. Do you know

why? Because the scientists who do

studies like that are not credible.

They're not credible.

No one is. There there are no experts

who are credible. It's just not a thing.

It really isn't. Um,

but I'm also thinking that maybe one of

the big reasons the alcohol use is down

is that there are so many influencers

now who talk about not being drinkers.

Have you noticed that there are a lot

a lot of uh influencers who say they

don't drink. You know, Joe Rogan's the

latest one. Um, I'm one. So, I don't

know, some combination of all that

stuff.

Um

so uh Trump's net approval on the topic

of inflation according to Harry Anton

the CNN data polling kind of expert um

is really bad. So when people are asked

if uh Trump is good on the topic of

inflation, they're not so happy with

him. He's negative 20 points. So he's

way underwater on his approval for

handling inflation.

But when he was running for office, he

led Harris by nine points. So people

thought that he would do a great job on

inflation, but they seem to be

disappointed in what's happening so far.

Now I should point out the presidents

can't do a whole lot about inflation in

six months.

What did people expect him to do?

uh he does seem to have been in charge

when energy prices were stabilizing and

food prices were stabilizing uh but

everything still cost too much. So my

take on this

is that uh Harry said that if these if

these numbers hold it would be

practically impossible for the

Republicans to hold the house in the in

the midterms.

But um I don't know if people have an

expectation about this inflation stuff.

What exactly did they think somebody

else was going to do? And when you

answer a question on inflation, it's not

like a war. If you have a war, there's

always someone who thinks it's a good

idea. So you're going to have a mixed

opinion. But if you say to people, "What

do you think about prices?" Is there

anybody in their right mind who would

ever answer the question with, you know

what, I think prices are pretty low

these days. Yeah. Yeah. I really

appreciate that prices are low and um

I'm not bothered at all by inflation.

Inflation is one of those things that

everybody thinks is bad. So, as soon as

you say, um, how do you feel about

inflation with Trump in charge? Just the

inflation part of the question alone

guarantees it's going to be negative. I

guess the only way it can be positive is

if you're comparing it to some other

person like Harris and you believe this

should be even worse.

But otherwise, just the topic itself

guarantees that people have a negative

opinion.

Well, Project Veritoss has some kind of

a scoop and a whistleblower, but the

story is too complicated for me to

understand. And I remind you that

nobody's credible. So, I don't know what

to believe, but the whistleblower has a

story about somehow being personally

involved in over um other countries

bribing politicians in the US. She's

naming Eric Adams says she that he took

money from Turkey airlines and um some

other people. Let's see who else is she

naming. Fonnie Willis. She thinks

there's some evidence of Fonnie Wallace

got paid off from something in the uh

uh I don't know if that came from

another country or that just came from

the Democrats

and there's some other guy who got in

trouble for it. So, it's a little

complicated. There are too many people

involved. So, I'm sort of waiting to see

if there's any um other news sources

that pick it up. Um because I'm not too

sure that the whistleblower is credible

because no one is.

And if all you have is one whistleblower

and no documents,

one whistleblower,

that's sort of as close as you could get

to the lowest level of credibility. Now,

the good news is the whistleblower is

not anonymous. An anonymous

whistleblower would be useless, but at

least she's giving her name and her

picture. So, maybe, don't know.

Um,

turns out a DC police sergeant

um

was involved in a lawsuit because she

accused her superiors of faking the

Washington DC crime stats to make them

look low. In other words, uh the bosses

gave orders to charge lower offenses, I

guess, so that it looked like the crime

rate was coming down. Now,

let's talk about the trap that Trump has

set for the Democrats,

which apparently uh on Morning Joe, Mika

and uh um uh Matthews, what's his name?

Matthews.

Uh Chris Matthews. So Chris Matthews and

Mika Brazinski are have both caught on

that when Trump goes hard against crime

in Washington DC, it forces the

Democrats to be soft on crime, which is

such a losing position.

It's such a losing position. It's

absolutely hilarious that they're

falling for it. Not only are they

falling for it, but they know they're

falling for it. That's got to be the

worst. It's like, not only is the trap

working, but I know it's working and I

can't avoid falling into it because I

can't agree with you. No,

but it's uh causing a little division in

the pundits because not all of the

pundits want to look like idiots. For

example, if you've been watching CNN for

a while, as I have, uh they have a legal

analyst who's on there all the time, uh

Eli Hornik.

Now, Eli Honig, even though he shows up

on these highly biased

broadcasts,

um I've never seen him lie.

I don't know if he's ever said anything

that turned out not to be right, but

I've never I've never seen him do the

obvious lies that the other pundits do

and the twisting things into nons and

the he he's pretty much a straight

shooter. and he says that he uh

apparently lives in lives or works or

both in Washington DC and uh he's

basically siding with Trump on going

hard on the crime. So he's a CNN guy

who's saying uh yeah I live there it's

dangerous and they need to do something

and what else are you going to do? So

Eli Honik pretty much

taking Trump's side, which you don't see

a lot on CNN unless it's, you know,

Scott.

And then Hillary Clinton weighed in.

She's one of the designated liars. So I

want you to see if you notice this about

the Democrats. I always talk about the

designated liars. They would be like uh

Swallwell and Schiff and Rascin and

Hillary Clinton. They're designated

liars. And uh Schumer. But here's what

here's the thing. Um also Brennan and

Clapper.

Don't they look like they're lying when

they're talking? Hillary Clinton has a

liar smile.

That is such a tell. She has a

satisfying smile when she tells you that

Putin must have his hand right in

Trump's pants. Look at my satisfying

smile. It's telling you that I know I'm

just making this up. I'm just lying to

you right now. And Schumer has that same

liars satisfied smile. Oh yeah. Oh yeah.

President Trump, he uh I believe he ate

a baby.

And the same thing with Brennan and

Clapper. You just listen to them and you

say to yourself,

they look like they're bad actors who

have been cast in the role of being a

liar in a movie and they want the

audience to know they're lying because

the movie requires that. But they're not

actually admitting they're lying.

They're just signaling that they're

lying. You know, you know when you watch

a movie and the evil character comes on

and the evil character is saying, "Yeah,

I'll uh I'll take care of your friend.

Don't you worry. I'll take care of him."

And you know, oh my god, they say

they'll take care of the friend, but the

way they say it looks so obviously like

a lie.

Well, that's what the theater kids and

the Democrats do. When they lie, they

they've got this little troop of

official liars who do most of the really

serious lying.

Yeah. Yeah. Even uh I'm seeing a picture

in the comments of Newsome. Nuome has

the the uh that liar smile, too.

So, here's what Hillary Clinton said

about DC. Remember, she's a designated

liar. So her lies will be, you know, the

most outrageous type. Um, she says on X,

"As you listen to an unhinged Trump try

to justify deploying the National Guard

in DC, here's the reality. Violent crime

in DC is at a 30-year low.

Um, let's see. The crime statistics are

at a 30-year low.

And what is being left out of that

story?" Well, it could be the fact that

there was just a lawsuit dismissed

against a uh a DC police person who said

the numbers are faked to look lower

same day. Um and then there's also the

argument that even if it's at a 30-year

low, it's still outrageously high. So,

first of all, it's not at a it's not at

a 30-year low because the crime stats

are gamed. But even if it was, it would

still be one of the most murderous

cities in the entire planet. Are you

supposed to ignore that you're number

four in murder because it's a lot better

than it used to be?

These are pathetic, outrageous,

theatrical lies. And if you saw if you

saw Clinton delivering this in person, I

guarantee you she'd have her liar smile

on because she'd be so happy to tell you

her lie about Trump being unhinged.

So, watch for that.

And then, uh, Chuck Schumer put on his

liar face and said, "I feel perfectly

safe walking around in DC. They're full

of it." So, I've seen a number of

influencers suggest that these people

who say it's safe strap a GoPro camera

to their head and simply walk around at

night and film it for us so we can see

how safe it is.

So far, no takers. For some reason, they

don't want to put on the GoPro camera

and walk around. Uh but the DC police

union chairman Greg Petton

um he says it's preposterous to suggest

that cumulatively we've seen a 60% drop

in violent crime from where we were in

2023 because we're out in the street. We

know the calls we're responding to. So

according to the DC police union, crime

is not so good. Not so good. And then uh

MSNBC had a uh one of their characters,

Anthony Kohley, who also was agreeing

with Trump. He says, "I live in

Washington. This is personal for me. Uh

many people are frustrated with crime.

Uh they go to CB CVS to buy deodorant

and they have to get it from behind the

locked plexiglass.

So, if you're keeping score, MSNBC has

been fractured and their pundits will

not back the uh the MSNBC story that

Trump is unhinged and and there's no

problem to be solved. So, and that's

because they have personal experience

there and it would be embarrassing to

say that they hadn't noticed the crime.

Um, but then as I as I mentioned, Chris

Matthews and Mika Brazinski were talking

on MSNBC and they both agreed that it's

a trap that Trump has successfully laid

another trap. Now, here's my question.

Did Trump do that absolutely

intentionally?

as in when he looked at all the problems

he could work on, did he say to himself,

"All right, well, this DC crime thing I

could ignore like everybody else has

ignored, but if I don't ignore it, it's

going to be this excellent trap to, you

know, catch the Democrats." I feel like

he plays on multiple levels, meaning

that he knew it would be just a good

thing to do, and he's right. It's just a

good thing to do and it would look make

him look strong. Uh, and it would be a

trap that the Democrats would walk right

into because they really are that dumb.

And it turns out they walked right into

it. Not only did they walk into it, they

knew they were doing it while they were

walking into it. I would like to do my

impression now of a Democrat who's

completely aware they're walking into a

wood chipper that was put there by the

president. All right. Now, my impression

of a Democrat heading towards the wood

chipper.

Hey, looks like there's a wood chipper

over there. And I seem to be walking

right at it. Oh,

that's the first time I've ever done the

Democrat walking into the wood chipper.

So, if it wasn't perfect, just know it

was my first.

So, then Trump does his usual fantastic

uh persuasion. And on Truth Social,

he went through all the problems in DC

and why he has to get tough on him. But

look how visual he is. He start he says

everything has to be locked up. Don't

you immediately see the locks on the

products? is visual, right? Everything

needs to be locked up. People staying

home,

you can see it. You see the family

sitting in the living room uh all bored

because they want to go out, but it's

too dangerous. You just see them sitting

there. Um he says one of the highest

murder rates in the world. Getting back

to the point, it doesn't matter if it

got a little bit better, is still one of

the highest murder rates in the world.

Are you going to ignore that?

He says there's gang youth violence,

which I immediately can picture. I see a

gang of young people and they look

dangerous. Um, he says people are giving

up on calling the police. I don't know

if that's completely true, but it

definitely sounds like it could be. So,

that's good persuasion. Uh, people are

living in fear. The he says people are

captive prisoners in their own city. So

now you imagine them in a jail cell that

that should be their home. And vehicle

theft is three times the national

average. And you see the car. You

actually see the car. Now look how look

how visual that is because visual

persuasion is the best. Even if it's

being described, if the if the verbal

description causes you to form a picture

in your head, that's really good

persuasion. And if that picture is

scary, that's the best persuasion. So

you want it to be visual and you want it

to be scary.

And he pulled off both of those. He told

you about all the scary things that the

residents are going through. And he made

it visual.

And then he said that the White House

arrested

three people. not the White House, but

um the the new forces that they've

surged into DC, the uh um National

Guard, and I guess there's some FBI

people, but with the extra help, they

got 103 arrests in one week after it got

federalized. Now, I don't even know if

that's a lot. Is that a lot?

As someone who's not there, it sounds

like a lot. I mean, where were these

people that they got arrested? Were they

all at home or were they on the street

doing something that got them arrested?

I'd like to know more, but it sounds

like progress.

So, so far, I'd say this Washington DC

thing is just a total home run

politically for Trump. Um,

and then on the two-way podcast,

I saw a Democrat Dan Turentine say,

"Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is

falling into a trap." Uh, so he sees it,

too.

So, the the fact that they all see it as

a trap and then they walk right into it,

does that tell you everything you need

to know that they they're so addicted to

being anti-Trump that he can say, "Look,

here's this big wood chipper. It's a

trap. I mean, it's really just a trap.

If you get near it, it'll just chip you

right up. So, don't get near it." Oh.

Oh, so you're so unhinged. You think we

can't get near a wood chipper? Suddenly

you think a wood chipper is all

dangerous?

That would be the sound of the wood

chipper. Yeah, that's also the first

time I've tried to imitate the sound of

a wood chipper. So, I know if it wasn't

that good. Remember, it was my first

try. Might be more of that coming up.

And uh

uh but Dan Tarantine also pointed out

that Trump was being a little

hyperbolic. He says, "I share the

frustration that Trump described DC as a

madishu. It is not. But crime is a

problem. Friends in DC uh tell him that

it's changed even some of the nicest

neighborhoods." Now,

here's how to know that you're winning.

If you're Trump, if you can make the

Democrats argue about whether or not

Washington DC is worse than Mogadishu or

not, you won.

You can declare a victory. If you spend

any time at all talking about, I don't

think it's as bad as Mogadishu. I feel

like you won too far comparing it to

Mogadishu. If you're even in that

conversation,

that's a uh Trump wins that conversation

conversation.

Uh Trump says that uh Democrats are

being led by insane people and it's a

waste of time to work with them.

How much do I love that? That they're

being led by insane people. Yeah.

they're the ones who are in favor of

more crime in Washington DC and you know

men playing women's sports and he does

have an argument that the most insane

you know the open border people that no

cash bail it does feel insane.

Now I I'm no mental health expert so I'm

not going to say it is technically

insane but when you're just talking to

people does it sound insane? It does.

this sounds a little bit insane. So when

he says there's just no point in talking

to them, they're going to disagree with

everything. Uh I agree. And he says, he

was talking to Breitbart News, I guess,

with this. He said that the Democratic

Party is quote broke or broke itself.

Says the Democratic Party broke

themselves and they're continuing to do

so. Uh and Trump pointed out what I did,

the men and women's sports and how bad

uh their policy is tormenting them. And

Trump points out that the Democrats are

taking the the 9010 issues and they're

taking the 10 and there are 955 fives

and I don't know who the fives are.

There are 955 issues where 5% are on the

other side. He goes and I don't know who

the five are

which is funny.

All right. And uh to prove his point,

the DC mayor

uh has now gone from seemingly helpful

and agreeing with Trump about needing a

little help all the way to

um she wants to see residents of DC to

fight back against the National Guard

takeover. And she's calling it an

authoritarian push.

Do you know what the best form of

government would be if you could get it?

Now, I'm not saying you could get it or

that we have it, but what would be the

best form of government if you could get

it? And the answer would be a benevolent

authoritarian.

A benevolent authoritarian. In other

words, somebody who had the strength and

power and personality of an

authoritarian, but they weren't doing it

for their own benefit. They were doing

it for your benefit. So they'd be

pushing people around, but clearly for

the benefit of the greater good, not for

personal uh benefit. Now, Trump, of

course, is not immune to wanting some

personal benefit. Uh but he's really

transparent.

And so I'm having this feeling that

every time they call him authoritarian,

but they match that word authoritarian

with something that I'm happy he's

doing, they're actually making the word

authoritarian turn into a positive. Have

you noticed that? Because if you told

me, um, well, the president decided to

surge some law enforcement into the, uh,

high crime area of Washington DC,

and I would say, what kind of person

does that? And they would say, an

authoritarian. And then I would say, h,

so an authoritarian

is what does things that make common

sense. And I kind of like, okay, is

there anything else? Yes, he's uh

closing the border and sending back

people who are here illegally. Uh

starting with the criminals first.

It all kind of makes sense, doesn't it?

All right.

Um here's a funny story that fits the

time perfectly as we're finding out that

nobody's credible and everything is

fake. all our data is fake and our

science is fake and our our inflation

numbers are fake and everything's fake.

Um, but we now know, and you've heard of

this before, but there's some new news

on it, that there are companies that

rent crowds on demand. So, if you pay

them a certain amount of money, they

will organize a bunch of people and pay

them to show up. So, it makes it look

like your protest is genuine when it's

actually artificial. So, Adam Swart,

who's the CEO of Crowds on Demand, he

says that requests for his services are

way up in Washington DC

since the federalization of the police

force. And uh

he said he said the vast majority of

people at political events in the

nation's capital are in some way

compensated.

Right? This is the guy who would know

the most cuz his company actually sells

or essentially organizes these fake paid

protests and he's the one telling you

it's not coming from someone else. It's

coming from the person who actually does

it for a living. He says that the vast

majority of people at political events

in the nation's capital are in some way

compensated, whether directly paid, that

would be his model, or attending as part

of their professional duties, including

Capitol Hill staffers. Did you ever

wonder why there are so many interns

uh in the capital? Now, it might be

because it's just a great way to start a

career and some of the old senators want

to sexually molest them. So, it could be

a lot of different reasons, but one of

them might be that if they have enough

of these interns and people, they can

say, "All right, all you interns and you

low paid staffers, if you want a future

here, you better attend this this

protest even though you don't want to."

So, yeah, protests are almost entirely

fake in the United States. How many

people know that, do you think? If if

you were to stop people in the street,

you know, if you stopped a 100 people

randomly and said, "How many of you know

that all the big movements like Black

Lives Matter and and whatever is

happening in Washington DC, how many of

you know that those are not organic and

that they're mostly paid protesters?"

Like all the the Tesla stuff, it was so

obviously paid protesters. So obviously

it makes me wonder if it do most people

know it or is it still some kind of a

mystery and and you and I are looking

behind the curtain and wondering why

nobody else knows this? I don't know.

Well, here's another 8020 issue. Uh

Scott Bessant says he's going to start

pushing for single stock trading ban in

Congress. So they can't do the insider

trading because right now members of

Congress can legally do insider trading,

meaning buying and selling stocks

because they have knowledge that the

public doesn't have. And uh allegedly

people like Pelosi and uh I guess Widen

and some others are being accused of

being a little bit too good at investing

if you know what I mean. It makes it

look like it's fake or uh corrupt. Uh

it's not illegal, but Bessant would like

to make it illegal. Now, when he says

single stock trading, I assume that

means they can still own stocks, but it

would have to be in in a fund of some

kind. So they're not making their own

decisions about it. Now, of course,

you're going to say, "But they could

still get away with it because they

could just tell a relative to do it or,

you know, they can find some way to hide

the fact they're monetizing their inside

knowledge." They probably could. But I

would point out that this might be

another one of the traps

because are they going to make the

Democrats support insider trading?

I think they are. Now,

there are also a number of uh

Republicans were benefiting from this

insider trading, but if the Dem if the

Republicans uh shut up and just sort of

play along, I don't know if they will,

but they might, then it's going to be

another trap. Uh Trump and Bessant are

going to trap the Democrats into saying,

"No, I think Nancy Pelosi should do

insider trading. Of course, she should."

Why would that be illegal? So,

if you'd like to see my imitation of a

Democrat walking toward a wood chipper,

um just imagine it in your head while

you're thinking about Scott Bessant

pushing the stock uh stock change.

Well, apparently Trump has turbocharged

some say. Secretary Shan Duffy saying

this. Um, American space dominance by

getting rid of a whole bunch of red

tape. So, it's going to be a lot easier

to start a a space related company or to

get some rockets in space. I guess there

are a lot of outdated rules and they're

going to speed up the licensing and

ditch some of the environmental reviews

that could take years. And once again, I

would say this is probably an 8020

topic, right? Don't you think about 80%

of the public would say, "Oh yeah, you

should get rid of the red tape because

we need to we need to do great in

space." So that's another winner. Uh the

West Point and the Air Force Academy

apparently have agreed with the US

Department of Justice uh to be less

racist,

which is funny. That's my take, but

that's what it is. So, they're going to

not do so much DEI stuff and they're

going to try to become less racist.

Let's see if they can do it.

Um,

all right. There's some more uh Russia

gate classified document dump. uh Tulsi

Gabbard released some more and I guess

DNI who he was the DNI had clapper at

the time is on paper saying uh talking

about the the CIA analysis that was

being put together that was going to say

that Russia was helping Trump

and

apparently not all of the analysts

agreed that there was evidence to make

that case. So the people in charge were

having a conversation that was on paper

and uh we now know what they were

saying. So apparently uh Clapper

was writing this. He seemed to be aware

that there was a disagreement. Clapper

was so here's how he he wanted to treat

the disagreement.

Um, and I guess NSA director uh Rogers

was pushing back against fasttracking

this analysis cuz his people were not

convinced that they had enough time to

look at it, that they had looked at all

the top secret stuff because he wasn't

even sure they'd seen the good stuff.

But he didn't want to sign off on it

unless they had the time and full

access. and he said, "If we don't have

the time or we don't have full access to

the private stuff, um, then we'll just

back out and you guys handle it, but

we're out." Whereas Clapper wanted

everybody who was in the intelligence

group to be on the same page so they

could sell this uh hoax. Um, and he even

said this in writing. He said in writing

uh that they had to play as a team sport

and it required quote compromise on our

normal modalities.

Compromise on our normal modalities. Now

that would be bureaucracy speak to say

they're going to cut some corners and

they're going to take some chances and

they're going to do some things that

they would not consider normally good

form.

We said it directly but it gets better.

Yeah. And he said, as I said, he said,

"This is one project that has to be a

team sport."

Now, imagine if the top people say, "Uh,

on this one, it's got to be a team

sport."

If you were a lower level person, unless

you were willing to go full

whistleblower, and you probably wouldn't

have the goods, you would just have

suspicions.

You would probably say, "All right, I

don't want to ruin my career forever."

So, if it's got to be a team sport, I'll

just shut up.

But it gets better. This the following

is a sentence that was actually written

by James Clapper about this topic when

he was telling people they should be on

the same team and same page on it. He

goes, quote, in the spirit of, and then

this is also in quote, in the spirit of

this is our story and we're sticking to

it.

When you say this is our story and we're

sticking to it, doesn't that suggest

that, you know, the story is not real?

That's the whole point of that saying,

right? That's my story and I'm sticking

to it. Isn't the entire context of that

that you know your story is not real,

you're just sticking to it. Did he not

tell them directly by saying this is our

story and we're sticking to it? Did he

not directly tell the people stop

worrying about whether it's true?

He did. Right? How else would you

interpret that? I interpret it as he's

telling them don't worry if this is

true. It's more important that you

agree. That's what I hear. I don't even

know how to interpret it any other way.

You know, I usually try to look for the

generous interpretation on the other

side just just so you've heard it. I

don't think there is one. I don't think

there's a generous interpretation

for this. This very clearly to me says

we're going to lie and I need you all to

back me. That's what I hear.

Anyway,

but also separately, but maybe not that

separate,

sorry about the garbage trucks going

wild outside. Um, apparently Cash Patel,

director of the FBI, uncovered a uh

bombshell, according to Just the News, a

bombshell memo written in 2017

um that showed the extensive political

obstruction

that career agents in three cities faced

when their own bosses and the Obama

Justice Department during the 2016

election told them to stop looking into

the Hillary Clinton Foundation. the

Clinton Foundation.

So, we know now that on three separate

occasions there were entities in the FBI

who believe they had enough information

to move against Hillary Clinton and her

uh foundation. Now, the foundation, I

think everybody understands, was a money

laundering operation, right? Don't don't

we all understand that to be obviously

true? Some of it might have been donated

money that ended up with charities, but

that's the cover. What it really is is a

way for the uh Clintons to monetize

their connections and their offices and

stuff. And when they were in office,

um it received tremendous amounts of

funding from overseas. And as soon as

she was not in office, people cared a

lot less about charity, it seems. So, I

feel like we all know it was crooked.

And I've always wondered why no

investigation ever happened. Well, it

turns out that on three occasions, the

people whose job it is to investigate

believed they had enough information

that was negative that an investigation

made sense. And in each case, um,

somebody in leadership told them to shut

it down. That would include, uh, then

attorney general Sally Yates

and I think some other people as well.

So,

do you think that will get re-uped? Do

you think the Clinton Foundation will

get a a real investigation now that Gash

Patel is there? I don't know. Yeah. If

it were happening, I suppose we wouldn't

know, right? Because they do the

investigation before they announce that

they're doing an investigation. Isn't

that the way it works?

So maybe it's entirely possible that by

the end of this year you'll see Obama

and Hillary Clinton in handcuffs.

No, that's not going to happen. In the

real world, every one of these

is going to get off

scaffree. You know that, right? In all

likelihood, every one of these

absolutely dead guilty trade risk crooks

is going to get off one way or the

other. I mean, I don't know if they

deserve to get off or don't. Maybe

statute limitations.

You maybe the only witness will die

suspiciously, but one way or the other,

I feel like every one of them is going

to get off. What do you think?

I'm I'm sort of optimistic

that maybe then maybe somebody like

Brennan will get nabbed at least. Now,

Roger Stone is posting on social media

that his sources tell him that uh John

Brennan has already escaped to Austria

and he's pretending to be, you know,

local when he does his appearances on

MSNBC, but that he's already left the

country and that he might not be

planning to come back. Now, I don't know

what kind of extradition we have with

Austria and I don't know if that report

is true, but uh wouldn't surprise me.

Wouldn't surprise me if he's already

left the country

because it does look like Brennan has

the most to explain.

Um, Representative Tim Burett,

um, he was complaining on video about

how Congress is laundering millions of

our tax dollars into Democrats,

billionaire donor NOS. How many

non-government organizations do you

think there are that receive massive

amounts of money from our government

from our taxes?

Turns out thousands. There are thousands

of them and they all have the same

nature. They have some weird general

name like the Institute of Freedom and

Liberty.

Yeah. Is also it's all basically they're

20 words that they just all have in

different order. And it looks like the

way this scam works and the reason

there's so many of them is that they can

very easily break the law without it

looking like they broke the law.

Somebody says 63,000 NOS's I wouldn't be

surprised. And the way they do it is

they have some billionaire donate um

some starter money to start a

organization and then it looks

legitimate because they got a name and

they've registered and they've got

funding. Then they go to the government

and they say, "We've got a little bit of

funding, but if we had a lot of funding,

oh, the good we can do." And then they

get their their people that they plan to

bribe later. Or maybe they've bribed

them in advance in the government to

say, "Yeah, I'll support that. Uh, yeah,

we'll get you $100 million for your

thing, whatever your thing is." and and

then the NGO finds ways to donate money

back to the people who have voted them

their money. So it literally is just a

big money laundering theft ring called

NOS's and there's 63,000 of them. I

always wondered how in the world could

the US um budget get to the point where

we're we're $2 trillion underwater every

year? Like my brain couldn't hold that

as a possibility. like where is all the

money going? How do you how do you

overspend by $2 trillion a year? How is

that even possible? And I think a big

part of the answer is the these NOS's

are just it's this normal just this

enormous um illegal cash drain from our

pockets. So they're probably behind

maybe a third of all of our problems.

And by the way, I don't think they're

going away. It It looks like even Trump

can't make them go away. It's too

complicated. There too many of them.

They have too much support. It's how

everybody gets their fake paychecks. So,

I don't think Trump's going to make any

difference. It it does seem like you

could make some kind of sweeping rule

that would make all the NOS's illegal or

make them transparent, but they're

probably, not probably, there are enough

Republicans who are also sucking off

that same tit that uh Trump probably

can't take out half of the Republican

base just to get to the Democrats.

Probably can't do it. Might be no way to

do it.

But uh Fox News Rachel Delgatis

Gus is writing that there is a uh a

separate shadow government that's

pushing DEI and gender ideology in all

the states including the red states. So

even though the DEI stuff is illegal on

a federal level, um there are all these

weird organizations

that are not necessarily NOS's

um

that that are let me see if I have some

of the names of them.

uh national organizations. They're often

branded as nonpartisan or professional

groups, but they they operate as a

shadow government government because

they force the people they're working

with to prove that they're doing deish

stuff. In other words, discriminating

against white males. And if they don't

discriminate against white males, this

shadow governance uh organizations that

are not government will give them

trouble.

So, I don't think that the banning of

DEI is going to work at all. I believe

that the discrimination against white

men is so popular among everybody who

isn't a white man or a Republican, I

guess, um that it'll just morph and

change its name and they'll find new

cracks to hide in. And I don't think I

don't think it's going away.

Well, Google has apparently been caught,

I don't know how they're caught or by

who, um, flagging GOP fundraising emails

as suspicious and then sending them to

spam.

Now, that's new news. So, this is not

old news. So the news is that people at

Google are knowingly creating a system

so that Republican fundraising is hidden

and goes to spam but not fundraising.

Now

you might say I don't think that's true.

That sounds too far. I can't believe

they're doing that. But I saw a post on

this topic from Alex Sears

who says this has been going on for at

least the last four years and a former

Google employee I knew even bragged

about it once. So here here's an

eyewitness report that a former Google

employee bragged

about hiding the uh fundraising emails

from Republicans. It's a real thing.

So, is Google credible?

No, nobody is. There's nobody credible.

None

except me and you, of course.

Well, as you know, uh, Trump authorized

military action against the cartels, but

so far there's a little bit. Um, I

guess, uh, Mexico extradited over two

dozen suspected cartel leaders to the

US. Now, when you hear that, do you say

to yourself, "Aha, the government of

Mexico must be really serious about

cracking down on the cartels because

they just extradited a bunch of cartel

leaders to the United States." I don't

believe any of that. Here's what I

believe. I believe that the head of

Mexico probably is in the pocket of one

of the cartels and I believe that the

two dozen suspected cartel leaders are

probably in a rival cartel

or cartels. So my guess is that this

allows the Mexican government to do the

work of whatever cartel owns them to

reduce the competition. So, I don't

believe that this is on the surface what

it looks like. Oh, it looks like Mexico

and the US are coordinating really well

to beat these cartels. No, probably

probably just Mexico is beefing up the

one that they like and maybe they need

to do that to stay alive.

But separately,

um, apparently the US Customs and Border

Protection flew a military drone over

600 miles into Mexico

and they were looking at one of the

cartel strongholds

um, and then coming back. So, I don't

think they bombed anything. I think it

was just looking. But isn't that isn't

that what you always assumed was

happening anyway?

Are we to believe that the US military

has never used a drone to look at the

cartel operations in Mexico?

Who would believe that? I I assume we've

been doing it for years. I don't know.

Um anyway, so Trump and Putin are going

to meet and I saw an article in Axios

that was very much in line with what I

was saying that uh Putin has made the

mistake of making this personal with

Trump. And the personal part is that

Trump says Putin is just tapping him

along and essentially lying to him and

making him look bad um because you know

looks like he got suckered. So Trump is

now going into this and if he leaves

this empty-handed,

uh, it's going to look really bad for

Trump. Would you agree? It would look

like Putin played him again, just bought

some time, got some credibility by

meeting with the president,

but that it was all just another trick,

and that Trump would once again, you

know, be duped by this clever Putin guy.

Do you think that uh Trump can allow

that to happen this time?

So,

I think because this is now completely

personal, um it's, you know, political,

but it's also very personal. I think uh

that Trump is going to tell Putin,

here's the deal. I need to leave here

with something real, you know, like a

ceasefire, for example, or I'm going to

just destroy your economy. Oh, no you

won't, Mr. President. You would never do

that. Yeah, I would. It's personal now.

And when it becomes personal, Putin is,

I'm sure, smart enough to know that his

options got real limited real fast. If

he keeps it personal, I think Trump is

going to take down the Russian economy.

Just take it down. Now, can he do that?

Well,

um the general view for months, this is

from Axios, uh and this is coming from

the government people who were in the

know. So, their general view is that

they could bring down the Russian

economy tomorrow that uh they would do

it, I guess, with banking mostly. Um

yeah, I think mostly through banking and

financial stuff. they would basically

turn off the spigot and uh there are

only a few steps toward ruining them and

most of them come from the treasury. All

right, so financial operations um some

come from the Department of Justice. So,

I don't know what Trump is going to say

to Putin, but I guarantee it's going to

be a threat. And I can almost guarantee

it's going to be a direct threat against

what's left of Russia's economy.

And

we'll see if uh Putin wants to tap uh

Trump along cuz I think Trump's going to

say, "Look, you got a week and at the

end of the week, all the the banking

connections to anybody doing business

with Russia. It won't even be just

banking restrictions on Russia. It'll

probably be restrictions on anybody who

does any business with them. So suddenly

India just to pick an example won't be

able to get bank financing from any

American bank. Now maybe they don't need

it. I don't know but uh yeah this could

get pretty pretty dark pretty fast.

According to Zero Hedge and I24 News,

Netanyahu says he backs a quote greater

Israel. So, Israel with lots more land

than it has now legally. And uh I guess

there's some people worried

that uh some of the most conservative

people in Israel want to take over part

of Syria now. I don't know about that,

but uh there might be more coming. We'll

see. I don't think that Israel is going

to make a move on Syria

uh other than bombing bad guys.

Um, let me ask you this. About a year

ago, I was doing a lot of experimenting

with AI apps and I had a bunch of things

I wanted to do besides just simple

searches and uh it didn't work for

anything because of hallucinations or

various limitations or I couldn't upload

big documents. There always just some

problem. It it seemed like it was

promising but it didn't really do

anything. So, I waited a year and then I

waited back in and tried to get AI to do

some stuff and it just doesn't do

anything.

It's really good as an interface for

search, but even then, you've got to

check to make sure it didn't

hallucinate. So, let me just tell you a

couple of simple things that I tried to

do because people are telling me that

I'm the idiot and that if I used a

better super prompt, I could get better

results. to which I say, I'm not using

any super prompts. If I have to use a

super prompt, your product is broken on

delivery. If you if you tell me that I

have to ask the question in some Harry

Potter magic incantation or I'll get the

wrong answer, your product is

broken. I'm not going to adjust my Harry

Pottering myself until I can say uh

excelsius extremists or whatever you

have to say to get a real answer. But

here are two things that I failed at

doing that should have been easy. One

was I took a picture of myself at 14

years old. I had a picture and I was

sitting on a minibike and I wanted to

see if I could animate it so it looked

like I was, you know, moving on the

miniike. So I used a Grock, the imagine

feature and sure enough it took that

photo and it animated it. But it also

changed me to a different character. So

it it changed me into a 10-year-old who

didn't look like me at all. Now, what

would what would I do with that?

Am I going to share a picture of a

10-year-old boy who doesn't look like me

and send it to my friends? Hey

everybody, here's a 10-year-old boy who

doesn't look like me, but he's sitting

on this minibike just like I was when I

was 14. How about that? Huh? Has no

value. and and a number of other things

I changed changed my face so much that I

thought I don't want to show this to

anybody. Um then because I had some

technical problems with the show

yesterday and I didn't have the right

microphone on I wanted to use a app

which I used before called descript

and one of the features there is you

push a button and run your video through

it and it changes the audio from maybe a

poor quality audio to getting rid of the

background sounds and it sounds like a

studio.

So, I put in my video and I push the

button. It gets to 85% processed and it

just locks up. Just doesn't do anything.

Just churns forever. So, I turn it off

and I do it again. It gets to 85% and it

just stops. So, I do it a third time and

this time it got to 0%.

Now, there's no super prompt involved.

It's literally just a button. that says

studio quality audio

didn't do it, you know. So, every time I

try to use AI for anything outside of

the most basic stuff, it just doesn't

work and it doesn't look fixable. It

doesn't look like there's a way around

it. So, we'll see. I don't know if

that's your experience, but so far AI

looks like a um way over promised.

Well, apparently the Gateway Punda has a

story that says that the Pentagon had

developed a self-spreading vaccine.

Self-spreading means that you would

catch it from other people except in c

instead of catching a virus that would

hurt you. Allegedly, it would be a virus

that protected you from other viruses

and whatnot. Um, apparently this has

already been worked on but not rolled

out. Can you imagine learning that your

government made a virus that was meant

to infect you and didn't tell you or get

your permission? Can you even imagine

that? That's the sort of problem that

would bring down the government, I

think. So, don't do that,

Pentagon.

Um,

so I guess uh G Gavin Newsome is going

to do some big event today to push back

against Trump's redistricting map. And I

don't know if you noticed, but uh now

Newsome put out at least one post that

was uh trying to mock Trump's style. So

he tried to copy how he talks, put it in

all caps, and ended with, "Thank you for

your attention to this matter." and

tried to use the, you know, the framing

and the pacing of Trump, but a lot of

people didn't realize he was joking and

they just started mocking him for

looking looking like he's bad at social

media. Once you realize that as he's

mocking,

then then you look at it differently.

Go, oh, okay. Yeah, that's that's pretty

good mocking. Um, I don't think it'll

make a difference, but at least it gave

Newsome something to do for an

afternoon. Um, Governor Pritsker of

Illinois is talking about ending

Illinois's ban on large-scale nuclear

plants. To which I say, they have a ban

on large-scale nuclear plants. What's

wrong with them? It's 2025.

All right.

Then I'm going to give you going to end

with a little bit of advice.

And uh one of the pieces of advice is

from Rob Henderson who was on the boys

cast podcast and he was asked about one

piece of advice he had given. I don't

know where he gave it might have been in

his book. Um if you're not following Rob

Henderson on X you should. He's uh got a

lot of good content on psychology and

studies about psychology and how people

how people act. But anyway, um he said

one of the advices was uh to overd

deliver and do more than people expect

of you. And he credited me for where he

saw that. Now, I didn't make that one

up. You've all heard that one before,

right? Do overd deliver and

underpromise. You should always do more

than you say you're going to do. It's

some of the best advice. And one of the

reasons it's the best advice, it's just

the easiest thing to do to get an

advantage in this world. Um, and he

talked about his his experience as a

dishwasher when he was a young man. And

he was getting, you know, praised and he

was getting raises and and he didn't

understand why his boss was so happy

with him because all he did was show up

on time and do the work. Well, if you've

ever worked with dishwashers,

they don't show up on time and sometimes

they just don't show up and they don't

always do the work. So, it doesn't take

much to be the best dishwasher. But it's

also true in your corporate job. It

doesn't take much. Maybe you work a

weekend and your boss sees it. Maybe you

volunteer to help a co-orker on a thing.

Maybe you see a project that hasn't been

asked for, but you know it's worth

doing, so you just start doing it. It's

really, really easy

to be in the top 10% of any group. It

just really is. And uh so that's good

advice. Any anytime you have a

possibility of doing a little bit better

than the other people, total pay totally

pays off.

Yeah. Show up one minute before your

boss and leave one minute after your

boss and your boss will think you're

there all day. That's one of my favorite

tricks. And then

this bit of advice from Mark Andre,

which you may have heard from me as

well. So I don't know that he was

influenced by me on this. It might be

just obvious enough um observation. But

he says the person who writes down the

thing has tremendous power. When he says

the thing that you're writing down, it

just it means it depends on the

situation, right? It's the thing.

And I've told you the same thing that um

when I wrote down the list of hoaxes

that the Democrats have used, it became

really powerful because people said,

"Oh, here's a list. I'll send that

around. It's one of the most viral

things on the internet right now. And

it's because I wrote it down. Now,

because I wrote it down, I got to decide

what was on the list and what wasn't.

So, I got to have an unusually large

impact on on politics because I wrote it

down when when I wrote the blog post

called the clown genius in which when

Trump was running for uh first announced

in 2015 and everybody said he's a crazy

clown and I wrote a blog post that went

um hugely viral in which I said well he

might be a clown but he's a clown

genius.

because he's using his clownery as part

of his weaponry and part of his

persuasion. And sure enough, sure

enough, now the the blog post was hugely

persuasive because it was the first time

people saw Trump being reframed into a

brilliant operator as opposed to a

clown.

So, I got to do that. And why was it

because I was so smart? Well, I mean

that might be my story, but the reality

is, as Mark Andre says, the person who

writes down the thing has tremendous

power.

So, if you ever find yourself in a

situation where you could take some time

to do a little more than people expected

of you. Again, these two things fit

together really well. And you just take

the time to write it down. And maybe

somebody will edit it later. Maybe

you're not the best writer. Doesn't

matter. Whoever writes it down has a lot

of power. I've often also said that

about speech writers for politicians.

The speech writer has a lot of power

because they they can sort of test out

uh ways to reframe things. Now, the

politician who's going to read the

speech still has the ultimate power, but

you can so often influence them by

coming up with a great way to reframe

something that they can't resist it. So,

if you come up with a great reframe and

you're a you're a speech writer, then

your politician is going to be repeating

that reframe. So, you have tremendous

power writing stuff down. All right,

that's all I got for you today.

I went way long, so I'm going to say bye

to everybody except for the locals,

beloved subscribers. I'm going to talk

to you privately

and the rest of you, thanks for joining.

I will see you tomorrow. Same time, same

place. If all of our technology