Episode 3016 CWSA 11/12/25

Make sure you get a seat up front.

It is really good to see you again.

Do you think I need a set designer or do you like a sloppy blanket and a roll of paper towels as your background set?

At least it's sort of glowing green.

So, it's not like I didn't put any thought into it at all.

All right, I'm going to check on your stocks.

H, they're not doing much.

They're just sort of sitting there.

just sort of in there.

All right, let me make sure that I've got all of the valuable comments highly visible in my new setup that I improved upon this morning.

So, with any luck, I will be able to see in living color all of your Perfect.

No.

Did you really disappear?

Stay right there.

Boom.

All right.

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

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.

And you've never had a better time.

But if you'd like to take a chance of elevating your experience up to levels that no one can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cuper, a mug or a glass, a tanker, chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.

Exquisite, divine, beyond compare.

Well, it looks like it's time for the morning reframe.

You love it.

You love it.

You love to get reframed.

Well, it's from my book, Reframe Your Brain.

the best reviewed book I've ever written, which I wasn't expecting actually.

Uh, but people loved it and that was awesome.

Um, how about uh this one?

You've heard this one before, but it works so well and you need it so often that I'm going to give it to you again.

You ready?

So a common way to look at the world, the usual frame would be that history is important.

That I mean it's how we got here.

It explains, you know, who gets what.

History is pretty important.

Wouldn't you agree?

And if you don't understand history, you might repeat it in the worst possible way.

Yep.

History is important.

That's the usual frame.

But here's a reframe.

History doesn't exist.

History doesn't exist.

Well, give me a handful.

Grab grab some history.

Here you go.

Here's some history.

Where is it?

History is entirely in your mind.

If if you don't want it to bother you, it doesn't need to because it doesn't exist.

You create the history in your mind and then you use it as a a spear to poke yourself or a a way to torture yourself.

And and I'm not even talking about like the history of nations.

I mean, you could go into a whole different conversation about whether you and I should care about uh what was happening in the Middle East 3,000 years ago.

Maybe we don't care.

If the people who live there care, I mean, you that's up to them.

But you and I don't have to even pay attention to the fact that any history ever happened because to us it doesn't exist at the moment.

Now it comes it's it's far more useful when you're using this reframe in your personal life.

In your personal life, how many of you have done something that like gives you shame which is a complete waste of time feeling shame.

One of the best ways to make shame go away or any kind of whatever you would call your personal failure is to just remind yourself that it doesn't exist.

History doesn't exist.

You you couldn't you couldn't find some history and put it in a little bag and give it to somebody because there is none.

So if you're being tortured by history, well, I just reframed it away for some percentage of you.

It won't be a big percentage, but for some percentage of you, a few of you probably are going to message me later and say, "I can't believe it, but there's this thing that's been bothering me my whole life.

You just made it away by you just made it go away by telling me that history doesn't exist." And the moment I realized that that was absolutely true, there's nothing really to debate on that, the actual problem went away.

And there you go.

All right, that's your reframe for the day.

How many of you saw the northern lights?

Apparently, there was quite a show last night.

It did not extend down to my little neighborhood in California, but for those of you in the northern part of the country and the world, did you get kind of a light show last night?

Apparently, it's going to be better tonight.

So, I can't imagine what what would be better than like going outside and seeing this Aurora Borealis, like this natural wonder.

That's like the best thing that ever happened.

I mean, what what could really be better than that?

Oh, here's something that's better.

It's the 2026 Dilbert calendar, which is now available at the Amazon store, but only the USA Amazon.

You know, the one you use if you're in America.

That's the only place you can get it.

Not available in stores, only in Amazon.

More beautiful than the Aurora Borealis.

I know that seems like an overclaim, but wait till you see it.

You'll agree.

All right.

Uh, we have a little fact check.

Remember the If you're following any of the drama on the right side of the news, uh, do you remember the Let's see.

Ben Shapiro was on stage with Megan Kelly and uh Ben claimed that Candace Owens claimed and this is the part that's not true that Candace had suggested that that Erica Kirk was somehow responsible for the were involved in the death of her husband and uh Megan Kelly said what?

So, yeah, I'm paraphrasing, but she basically said some version of what?

Like, I I do this for a living.

I've never heard of that.

Why?

How could I not have heard of that?

And I had the same experience, which is when I heard it, I was like, I didn't think Ben Shapiro would be wrong factually.

He's very fact-based.

So, I thought, really, how could that have happened?

And I never would have heard of it.

Turns out, uh, it never happened.

So, so now we have the the the final word.

Yeah.

Never happened.

Uh, I don't know what Ben saw or believes he saw or or maybe he just interpreted something differently than other people, but in case you want to know factually, uh, there's no evidence that Candace did that.

She has, I believe, and I I think I'm accurate in saying this, but I want to be very careful.

I don't want to mischaracterize anybody's opinion, which would be easy in this case.

Um, I believe Candace does have some questions about Turning Point USA, one or more persons who may have been doing things that sort of didn't add up and that, you know, maybe maybe that mattered.

So, but that's a far cry from saying that either that person or persons or any other person was involved in, you know, planning and executing a a tragic murder.

So, moving on.

That's your drama drama corner.

I don't think I don't think the uh right side of the world does the drama as well as the left.

The dramcrats really have an advantage in that thing.

All right, here's one piece of science.

According to Cypost, Karina Petrova is writing that uh shared gut microbe imbalances.

So if you have an imbalance in your gut microbes, um that it might be the same kind of imbalance for people who have autism, ADHD, and anorexia and nervosa, which would suggest that your gut, at least one, one thing it suggests is that your gut um changes your brain or influences your brain.

Now, I suppose it could work the other way, right?

It's not obvious how it could, but you have to ask yourself, is it possible that if the brain is doing a certain thing, let's say one of these imbalances, that it causes your gut also to be imbalanced in some certain specific way maybe.

But doesn't it seem more likely that the gut imbalance would lead to, you know, some variety of brain imperfections temporarily or permanently?

Anyway, uh as I often say this little reframe, your body is your brain.

If you want your brain to be working the best it can, you have to take care of your body.

That's diet and exercise.

People, do you remember um that I was critical and lots of people were critical of Apple for being so slow with AI?

And you thought to yourself, "Oh my god." Well, maybe you didn't think it, but I said it out loud as if I knew something.

And I thought, "Oh my god, Apple could actually be at risk of just completely going out of business or or being cut down to size.

If AI is the thing in the future, like just the thing.

And if Apple doesn't embrace it or lead in it or buy a company, it's going to miss out on the thing." and you know maybe there's no way to catch up.

Well, as of today, the opinions seem to be turning toward Apple.

Uh meaning that Nvidia just went down because Soft Bank sold all of their stock.

But to be fair, Soft.

Bank is putting it back into AI, just a different form.

Uh putting it back into Open AI and building data centers, I guess.

So they're still all all in an AI.

But the thinking is from the smart people that Apple might have been the the most clever player in the entire tech industry.

And by clever I mean they never bought the hype.

Everyone else has gone trillions of dollars of risk into something that looks like it doesn't work nearly as well as they told us it might.

Apple looks like the only one who is seeing things clearly.

too early to say, but uh I' I've had two opinions that I realized today are contradictory because I also said, "Hey, I think Apple's Apple's in real trouble for not having an AI strategy." So, I've said that, but at the same time, you've watched as from the beginning, very early on, because I jumped into AI to see what it would do when it was newish.

And as soon as I found out, it couldn't stop hallucinating and it couldn't even read a little file and tell me what was in it.

It couldn't read a file and tell me what was in it.

And it looked like it never would be able to.

When I found that out, I immediately said, "Uh, you better watch out for this AI.

It doesn't look like it might not be as big a potential as you think if it can't get past those enormous obstacles.

So at the moment, Nvidia may have some pressure from either lowerc cost competitors or who knows what maybe loss of confidence that AI is the thing and Apple might be the smartest player in the space.

So, Apple's stock did not go down when some of the other AI ones did.

Very interesting.

I, you know, I'm always I sold my Apple stock as I I said, but you have to say that Apple does hire smart people.

So, every time you tell yourself you're smarter than Apple, you know, maybe check that.

Maybe check that.

You're probably not smarter than Apple.

At least I'm not.

And then things are getting even weirder.

There's somebody named Mahoney who is some kind of a expert.

What kind of expert is he?

Uh he's a Wall Streety guy.

What's his name?

Oh, Ken Mahoney, CEO of Mahoney Asset Management.

And uh what he says is that uh Walmart might be one of the big beneficiaries of AI.

So now people are saying hey uh we should instead of putting our money in the AI companies maybe now the smart money we'll go into the businesses that are just normal businesses like Walmart but they could lower their costs with AI.

And there is some thought that's already happening at Walmart.

I don't know if that's already happening.

But remember, all all of the Dilberty big companies are going to claim, especially if they put billions of dollars into AI, they're going to claim that that's why they can lower costs even if all they're doing is firing people.

So, it'll be a long time before we know it's real.

But the but we can tell what the claims will be.

The claims will be that it saved the money and it's good thing they put hundred billion dollars into it.

And so what they're saying, this is an axios, uh that 2026, this coming year, may be the year of investing in companies benefiting from all this AI or or putting your money into companies like Apple that knew they shouldn't waste their money, at least too much of it, on AI.

We'll see.

Uh do you know the No Kings group, the ones that that organized the No Kings uh protests around the country?

Well, apparently that group, Indivisible, is what they're called, Indivisible, said they're only going to support a Democratic Senate candidates that call the cancel Chuck Schumer.

So Chuck Schumer is going to have the worst week anybody ever had.

uh be you know obviously the the activist group Indivisible is pretty pretty baked into the power structure of the Democrats.

So having them come against Schumer is probably a big deal.

But there there's something about Schumer that bothers me whenever I see him.

And I'm wondering if you've ever noticed, which is that no matter what the topic is, he seems too happy about it.

Like he looks like somebody who's putting on a play for the neighbors, but his part is maybe sometimes the bad guy or the bearer of bad news or or death or something.

But because he's just doing a play for his neighbors, he can't get the smile off his face.

So th this is my impression of Chuck Schumer telling you he found a mass grave in his own in his own backyard and and there was a bass grave.

Uh we we just uh were we're putting in a septic tank and and I tell you it's all leg and we dug kept dug and digging.

It was a mass grave.

A mass grave there.

Must have been hundreds of people in the mass grave.

And am I wrong that he looks too happy when he says stuff like, "Oh, we have the advantage now.

You know, children are starving.

It's exactly what we'd hope for.

I'm Chuck Schumer." All right.

According to uh uh Harry Anton, uh Chuck Schumer is now the the most unpopular Senate Democratic leader on record going back to I guess going back to 1985.

Anyway, so he's even underwater with Democrats.

Even Democrats dislike him more than they like him.

So let let me break this down.

I I hate to give the Democrats advice, you know, be it accidental, but I'm going to give you some uh persuasion lessons here, and if any of them are listening, maybe they'll learn something, but I doubt it.

Um, so a lot of people on the Democrat side are saying that what the Democrats need is a fighter.

You've heard that, right?

Every time they talk, it's like, no, we need a fighter.

a fighter.

We got to fight.

Do you know what's wrong with that as an approach?

If you say that the thing you want is a fighter and then you get one, what does that get you?

A fight.

Because that's what you asked for.

You didn't ask for a solution.

You didn't ask for a great health care plan.

You didn't ask for reducing the budget.

You asked for a fighter.

So if you got what you wanted, you wouldn't want what you got, would you?

So the reason that they say we want a fighter is because you can't really measure the the out the the output of the fighter.

If I say I want a a good health care plan where premiums do not cost more, then I would be able to measure whether I did that or not.

At some point, you'd be able to measure it.

But if I say I want a fighter, how do you measure that you got one?

Would it be that person swore more than normal in public?

That's part of what they think it must be because they're doing it.

Would it be that you simply wouldn't vote for things such as a continuing resolution until people suffered because that would make it look like you're fighting.

So when you look at the fighting, you have to think of that in terms of theatrics because the fighting thing is not something that has a it doesn't have a deliverable.

There's no deliverable.

So in order to claim that you fought, you've got to have video clips of you looking like a fighter.

So if you're if you're Jasmine Crockett, for example, she's she's doing the best that any of the other Democrats are doing because she's creating uh unlimited viral clips of someone who looks like a theatrical fighter girl.

Oh, I'm fighting.

Look at these words I'm using.

Look at me fighting.

Tomorrow there's going to be another video clip of me fighting just like this.

Deliverables, I don't even know what you're talking about.

Policies, never heard of them.

fight, fight, fight.

You got to fight, fight, fight.

And whoever does the best acting job of being a fighter will be the will be the standard bearer for the Democrats probably that they're they're so not on the right page.

The right page is not to do a theater a theatrical rendition of a play that you call the fighter.

That's not what anybody's asking for.

They actually want some health care, a budget that makes sense and doesn't break the bank, you know, like like to protect that border, get the crime down.

Yeah.

You know, you know, it's another thing that I hate is when somebody chews up airtime like I just did, listing the things that you could have listed yourself.

How much do you hate that?

you you'll be watching the show and somebody will go I think the Democrats they need to work on health care and then you're like don't list all the things that they need to work on.

Got to work on the crime.

Seriously, just shut the up.

We know what the list is.

Uh got to make sure the border is secure.

H stop it.

Stop it.

You're wasting my time.

All right.

That's what kind of a day it is.

Um, I would also say that whoever came up with that fighter thing, I don't know if that's a professional that may have went that may have grown organically, but I'll tell you what does look like professional work is you may have seen Hakee Jay's he did a little video in which he said that the entire U Republican power structure is corrupt and then he went through and he was asked, you know, about that and he said that the Cong the Republican Congress is corrupt, the president is corrupt and then he said the Supreme Court is corrupt.

But what he really meant was when asked about it is that justice Thomas and Elita, Elito in his opinion uh crossed some kind of ethical boundary by uh at least in one case accepting a trip with one of his best friends.

Like he went on one of his billionaire best friends boat and the billionaire paid for the vacation which is sort of just what your billionaire friend is going to do anyway.

So, you know, you could argue whether that should or should not happen, but how do you tell a Supreme Court guy he can't hang out with his best friend?

They weren't strangers.

That was it was actually one of his best friends.

So, anyway, um you could My point is that when uh corruption was chosen, that looks like professional work of a persuader.

And what I mean by that is that when you see them them pick things like dark, remember in the Hillary Clinton race, she goes, "Oh, everything Trump says is dark." The reason that works so well for them is that you don't have to do much thinking.

You can take everything that Trump says, just everything, go, "Well, that was a dark take." Even if it isn't, it doesn't even matter if it's a dark take.

You just call everything dark.

Corruption is one of those things, too, because you can't really prove it in any given moment, but you can just throw those accusations out there and everything sick.

I'll bet you can't even think of a certain topic, any topic that you couldn't at least throw into the corruption pile.

Uh maybe abortion is an exception.

But everything else you could say, "Oh, he just wants to make his cronies richer.

Oh, tax policy.

Oh, that's about his cronies.

Oh, the Supreme Court.

We need to pack it.

That's the reason we need to pack it with 13 cuz otherwise they'll be corrupt and they'll be taking vacations with their friends and everything.

I mean, there's a slippery slope situation.

If you let Justice Thomas take a vacation with one of his best friends and his best friend helps pay for it because he happens to be a billionaire.

If you let that happen, where's it going to end up?

Well, obviously they're gonna take two vacations per year.

Start with one, you're like, test the water.

Next thing you know, two vacations.

Now, the republic might survive.

A Supreme Court member, you know, a a justice taking one vacation with his friend per year.

But people, how would we ever survive if he took two?

And do you realize how quickly it could go from one to two?

That's only one more than two.

This is a real danger.

And I think Hakee Jeff needs to warn us about it some more.

There's going to be some corruption.

Some corruption.

You know, I have this bad habit of casting people in movies that don't exist.

And whenever I see Hakee, uh, I want him to play the part of death in a movie.

You, you know, death always wears the the black robe and has the whatever that thing is for cutting grass.

Scythe.

Scythe.

Sith.

Sith.

Scythe.

Uh, cuz you can imagine death walking into the room in this movie and the face is entirely concealed by the shadows.

Notice how I avoided saying black so it didn't sound racist.

Um, and then he takes down the the hood and his haim and you're like, "Ah, grim reaper.

The grim reaper.

He would be the best grim reaper ever." All right.

Well, as you know, um, Turning Point USA had an event, uh, in Berkeley, UC Berkeley, and there was some dusting up and some people people got roughed up and there was a little bit of violence, way too much.

I don't want to minimize it, but now there's going to be a Department of Justice investigation into the failures of security.

And the theory is that if you you you don't treat this one as just some random, you know, bad day that some protesters showed up and you wish they hadn't, but rather it looks like it might be part of the pattern.

And the pattern is that when the left wants to censor the right, they simply don't give enough security where they know security is warranted.

Do you think that's a real thing?

Do you think that people on the left actually think that through?

Not necessarily coordinated, but maybe, you know, sort of all on the same page.

Uh do you think that they intentionally give inadequate securities so that if somebody goes and talks, they can say, "Well, we told you.

We told you it was going to be a mess.

Uh we can't let them speak.

Look what happened at Berkeley.

There's no way we can afford all the security it would take to avoid what happened in Berkeley.

All right.

You're almost you're you're you're all unan unanimous.

You all believe looks like you all believe that that's intentional, you know.

Um I I think I'm on your side on this.

I wouldn't say that there's a smoking smoking gun, but you can smell it before you can see the smoke.

That's sort of where I am.

I can smell it.

I I don't see the smoke.

So, I'll I'll say, you know, we're short of something that I would call proof, but boy, you can smell it.

So, consistent with everything else we know about the world.

It sort of fits right into that frame, doesn't it?

Like, it fits the whole uh Mike Ven's view of the world, you know?

Plus, yeah, it smells um apparently the White House is responding to some complaints I talked about, which is that a lot of stock um a lot of companies that have public stock have these proxy entities that go and get the essentially they're the ones that cast the vote on behalf of lots of stockholders, which gives them a lot of control over companies.

and it's not really the kind of control you'd want them to have over companies because it doesn't help their profitability.

They might be looking for some woke stuff to happen.

Basically, it's a distortion of the free market.

And uh without getting into too much of the boring details of how that works, essentially there are a few entities like uh ISS, that's a company and index fund giants such as Black Rockck and I think there was a I think there's another famous one that should be mentioned there.

I don't know which one, but they know they know who it is.

And the complaints are coming from people like Elon Musk and Jamie Diamond.

You know, the most important banker and the most important technologist, engineer, entrepreneur in the world.

So, they're on the same page, which is you need to get rid of this proxy voting stuff.

And apparently the White House has opened up some kind of a project to look into it.

You say Fidelity Fidelity, I think, State Street.

Yeah.

I'm not sure.

I don't I don't want to throw out names cuz I don't know.

Well, how many of you saw the video of the Russian humanoid robot?

I thought it was fake.

Uh so the the video shows the Russians introducing on stage uh something you think you've seen lots of times in America which is hey this is our new humanoid robot and it's going to like it's going to dance or something.

So the the humanoid robot stumbles forward and it walks like Joe Biden on a bad day through through tall grass and then it just falls on his face and can't get up and that's the that's the Russian humanoid robot.

Now I thought it was a joke because the way it walked was so much like Joe Biden that I didn't think that could be a coincidence.

It looked like they were either mocking him or it was AI or something, the Biden bot.

So, I waited on it.

My My first reaction was I did repost it, but then I I undid my repost because I was not confident that could have been real.

How in the world was that real?

All right, so go find that on social media.

you I'm sure you can just uh do a normal internet search and look for Russian humanoid robot.

You're going to laugh so hard when you see that that robot.

You're you're you're also going to think that uh Ukraine is going to win the war when you see their their best technology.

It's pretty funny.

Anyway, also in the AI world, Variety is reporting that Matthew Mc.

Conna and Michael Kaine, uh, both of them, uh, they're they're teaming with an AI audio company called 11 Labs.

Uh, 11 Labs is the one that does really accurate voices and faces, and they're going to um, it looks like they're licensing their voices is how I would interpret this.

So, you'll be able to use 11 lamps to reproduce either of their voices.

Now, here's why I think that's smart.

Don't you think at some point a lot of other people are going to be doing this?

So, whoever goes first is just going to get all the goodness.

It's one of those things where going first is just sort of obvious.

If if you're Matthew Mc.

Conna and you're a certain age, he can't play the same roles he's played forever.

Although he's a good actor.

I like I like what he does.

So he might he might have a longer longer shelf life than a lot of people.

But he's smart enough to know that he's not going to be a forever actor because AI will take that work.

Why wouldn't he try to get in first and get the best possible deal and get a perpetual license on his very interesting voice?

Same with Michael Kaine.

Very interesting voice.

So I believe whoever is representing them, their management, good job management.

You you don't usually think you look at an actor and say, "Wow, that's some good management there." And maybe and maybe they're just both smart.

I think Mc.

ConnA probably does a lot to run his own affairs.

That would be my guess.

You know, he looks like he's a good generalist that he would be able to figure out everything from his career strategies to what he's doing in the next movie.

But, uh, smart.

The CEO of Eli Lily says he uses AI every day and likes asking science questions, but doesn't like the answers he gets from chat GPT.

So he thinks he gets better science answers for from either Claude that's that's an AI Claude or X AI which would be Grock I guess he finds Grock more Tur which I like Tur um and he says that open a the chat GPT does a lot of fake references so you have to be careful and I'm going to say this again because until Somebody smart tells me this is a bad idea.

I feel like I fixed this idea.

Why couldn't you have two AIs open all the time and one AI is instructed simply to listen to the other AI?

And you tell the second AI to fact check everything that the first AI says.

And if there's no problem, just stay silent.

But if you catch it giving you a fake reference or something, uh, speak up and we'll correct it.

You don't think that if you had two AIs running at the same time, the odds of both of them saying that this fake reference is real would drop to almost zero, wouldn't it?

And it would cost you nothing but the subscription to the second service.

Am I wrong about that?

And is that something that people don't want to talk about just because for competitive reasons or something?

Uh you run Grock and Gemini side by side.

But but tell me tell me why that wouldn't work.

Now, on day one, maybe, you know, one doesn't hear the other one well or something, but you could easily hook them up so that their their audio connection was flawless, so there's not even any outside room noise to bother one, right?

I'm looking at your comments and I don't see anybody saying, "Scott, you idiot.

That would never work." Because it would sort of obviously work, wouldn't it?

I don't know, maybe there would be cases where the second one refused to do what you told it to and it would just say stuff like, "I cannot correct my fellow AI." I don't know.

Well, I know you hate to admit it, but I just solved AI.

All right.

What else is happening?

Apparent according to just the news, um Bondi and Cash Patel are going to look into the the Clinton Foundation uh under allegations that foreign entities um and some domestic actors influenced the policy of the government back in those uh Clinton Foundation days.

Now, the weird part about that is that what else was the foundation for?

Now, don't we at this point, don't we understand that it was only for corrupt reasons and that whatever good they did was just the cover for the corruption?

Don't we all know that?

But there's this weird thing about time and about how the media works.

If the media doesn't tell you, and here the media in this uh context would be the New York Times, the Washington Post, you know, the the left-leaning media.

If the left-leaning media doesn't say this is a story, it just won't be.

It just won't be a story.

So, it doesn't matter how much just the news reports on it, doesn't matter how much I mentioned on my podcast, just won't be a story.

Um, but how hard do you think it would be to find out if the Clinton Foundation was corrupt and accepting money to influence policy?

Do you think that would be hard to find out?

I have a suspicion that the FBI or somebody looked into it enough because they would want to have leverage over the Clintons.

Obviously, anybody would uh that they looked into it enough that probably we already have like really specific, you know, hidden phone calls and stuff.

So, anything could happen.

But if I had to put a bet on it, nothing will happen.

How many le let's do let's do an instant poll.

How many of you think the Clinton Foundation despite the fact that a 100% of you think it was corrupt because of course you do.

How many of you think there'll be any arrests or indictments of let's say the Clintons spec specifically the Clintons?

How many think that?

I it feels like zero, right?

So you have this weird situation where that our assumption that the crimes happened and are are sort of just obvious or is 100%.

And then our faith that it will be treated the way you think crime should be treated is 0%.

That's not ideal.

Not ideal at all.

Well, according to O Ed Martin uh was working for the Department of Justice was on and was talking about Jack Smith when he was trying to convict Trump um that he was running all across the country building this conspiracy network as some would call it and uh we're going to get to the bottom of that.

Do you think the Jack Smith thing, although it does seem to me to me I think there's enough reporting that I'd call it obvious that it was a RICO hugely coordinated democratic thing?

We know all the players.

We know how they're connected.

We know what meetings they had.

We know what memos they sent.

We know their handwriting notes.

We kind of know exactly what this was.

It was an attempt to control the government without the normal democratic process that we know and love.

How many of you think that uh that will result in meaningful indictments andor convictions?

I already know the answer.

None of you think this will result in conviction.

Do you?

I don't.

I do.

I do think that the maybe not in a beyond a shadow of a doubt court sense, but certainly in every common sense way that you can imagine this, it looks like just exactly what it was in my opinion.

A very organized Rico like criminal enterprise uh with the worst possible intentions.

Yeah.

25%.

All right.

Well, according apparently the uh Supreme Court, no, this is the Olympics themselves.

So, the Olympics um whoever controls at the IOC, they're uh they're going to stop having transgender women athletes.

Apparently, they've looked at all the science and they've determined that even if you discontinue or or even if you do you start the right hormone therapy really early, people who were born male have an undeniable advantage.

Um, and so they don't think it would be fair to have any competition except men and women.

So, those would be the only two categories.

Did you expect that to happen?

I didn't even know that was brewing.

But, you know, the the athletic thing has to be seen in its own category.

I I wouldn't put that in the trans category.

It's just its own specific thing.

You know, same with the questions about children.

I don't put that exactly in the trans bucket.

It's its own thing.

It's not like any other thing.

All right.

Um, apparently, uh, JFK Jr.'s, uh, relative Jack Schlloberg, who is, uh, who is he?

He's JFK's grandson.

So, Jack Schlloberg's running for Congress.

And as part of that, he's throwing his his relative, RFK Jr., under the bus, and he's being really mean.

He's being very mean.

Um, this is him talking about his own relative.

I mean, when he's not making infomercials for Steak and Shake and Coca.

Cola, he's spreading misinformation and lies.

They're leading to deaths around the country.

And then he talks about beetle measles and vaccines and stuff like that.

God, I I hate watching this because have you noticed that whenever they do these laundry list of accusations of RFK Jr., they never actually mention anything specific and real.

It's always sort of these general things.

Do you think you can explain RFK's complicated opinion on vaccines by saying something like, you know, he's against them, that he's antivaccine.

That would not even come close to the nuance of his opinion.

Not even close.

Or how about uh that he he was making infomercials for whatever those products are.

I don't even know what he's talking about.

I never heard of him making any infomercials, but he did uh he he did give some of the dye in of the diet sodas, right?

I don't think Coca-Cola loves him at as much as they did, if they ever did.

So, it's all this generic stuff.

And I guess uh I guess Florida's happy because the courts have upheld that they can block uh Chinese land buys in Florida.

So, if you go to Florida and you're Chinese and you want to buy some property, no go.

No property for you.

Do you think other states will follow suit now that has passed at least one court's um judgment?

Maybe you might.

Um Saudi Ramco.

So Saudi's one of the biggest or the biggest um energy company.

They're gonna make this giant push into gas because they think electricity is the future.

So, generating electricity with gas and they got to do a lot of desalinization and then they want to have enough power to power ginormous uh data centers.

So, even Saudi Arabia needs more than oil.

So, they were more about the oil, but now they're they're just going to go wild in the gas business.

Um anyway, speaking of climate change, uh did you know that uh climate models have not included plankton?

And now the green people according to the university autom uh they've decided that uh plankton is really important.

So these they call it the ocean's tiniest engineers calcifying plankton.

They play a vital yet often unnoticed role in regulating Earth's climate.

So, they're very important to the climate and they're currently not included in any climate models.

Huh.

Way do you find out about those climate models, people?

Yep.

Plankton.

They forgot the plankton.

The next time somebody argues with you about uh climate models, bring up plankton and and act like it's a really big deal.

And if they don't understand the plankton problem, why are they even in this topic?

Uh Scott, you seem to be quite a troglodite.

uh 98% of scientists uh have concluded with their advanced uh climate models and all their smartness and their gigantic brains have concluded that climate change will end us all possibly within a few years and you're so dumb that you don't know that and then you just wait for it to be to to stop and then you look at it and you go did you know that the climate models didn't even include plankton And then they'll look at you and go, "What?

Plankton?

I mean, it's vital to the climate." And yet the climate models don't even have any plankton variable in it.

Did anybody tell you that there's no plankton?

Oh, well, I'm sure that they've they've really proven to be very accurate.

How could they be accurate without plankton?

You have totally planktonfree climate models.

That's crazy.

That's crazy.

Plankton free.

Come on.

You're not even trying, you plankton denying bastard.

That's how you handle that.

Well, Trump Trump is trying to get the courts to throw out that Eene Carol lawsuit that he lost.

Um, his argument still is that uh she's not his type.

His strongest argument was she's not my type.

And what's funny about that is it's actually a pretty good argument.

I mean, we weren't there and there's no there's no actual evidence.

It's just he said, she said, right?

That's as close as it is to evidence.

There's no video of it.

I don't know.

I I guess what they would call evidence might be different than what you would call evidence, but uh I find that completely compelling.

Yeah, she's not really his type.

I know how that sounds.

Um, let's see.

According to uh interesting engineering, Capil Kajal is telling us that the Ukrainians are getting so good with their drone warfare and their anti- drone warfare that they found out to use some music to disrupt the Russian drones.

Now, you might say, "How does music disrupt a drone?" Well, it's not the music, per se.

It just has to be any any consistent sound source.

Um, that's Well, you wouldn't want it to be just boop, but you'd want a sound source that has variety, but is persistent, not consistent, a persistent sound.

And apparently if you beam that just right with the right electronics working, you can uh confuse a Russian drone.

So the music is not important except as a sound source and then they use a sound source as part of the jamming um protocol.

And apparently they're doing it really well.

And there's some thought that the Ukrainians are sort of ahead of even America in uh their technology deployment, but even maybe understanding and engineering.

I don't know about that.

I've got a feeling that Anderil is making better drones than Ukraine.

You know what I mean?

Maybe not every company is doing better than Ukraine.

I think Anderella probably is or will soon without the music.

Anyway, we'll see.

And as I've said many times before, why in the world don't we hear casualty numbers from Ukraine anymore or Russia?

I I saw one person who seemed a little bit knowledgeable saying that uh Russia is right on the verge of winning.

you know, Ukraine's going to collapse any minute because uh it's it's really about people and Russia's run.

Russia has more people.

Do you believe any of that?

Does it look like this war is on the verge of ending one way or the other?

Doesn't look like it's on the verge of anything.

It looks like it's just stuck stuck in time.

You found Death Leopard works best on Russian drones.

H we'll get that we'll get that information to Ukraine immediately.

Well, meanwhile, the UK allegedly stopped sharing intel about Caribbean boat locations because the US is blowing up Caribbean boats that it says are carrying drugs from Venezuela.

So, Washington Times is reporting on this.

uh vaugh cockain is writing about it.

So do you think that uh we'll be much crippled by the fact that the UK is not giving us information about Caribbean cartel boats?

I don't know.

I think we'll somehow survive.

How much difference did it make that we're getting some some uh UK intel?

Do you think we had an enormous fleet of our our maritime and and our uh air force over there?

Like we have like all our best assets surrounding Venezuela right now.

Did we really need British intel to know where their boats are?

Like what what were we doing without it?

Are we just shooting missiles into the water and hoping something lucky happens?

Could we really not tell where anything was?

We really needed them.

I don't know.

Something wrong with that story.

Did you see the uh guest that uh Tucker Carlson had recently uh who who had made some claims about uh chemtrails chemtrails being real?

Let's see.

Who was that?

Uh well, there's a story in the Daily Mail, too, about uh the US military accused of secret climate spraying.

And uh let's see, there's a Dne Wigington.

He's an environmental researcher for 30 years.

He claimed that the conspiracy surrounding chemtrails is not only true, but has actually crippled the Earth's ability to naturally overcome the pollution caused by humans.

Okay.

How many of you are now confu now convinced that chemtrails are real and that they've been happening for decades?

I don't know.

I don't know.

Yeah, certainly they've certainly tested things.

I know they've they've certainly seated clouds.

I mean, there there's certainly parts of it that are real, but whatever is happening, I don't know if we know.

We don't know what's new.

No, no, no.

Hell no.

Call me skeptical.

I wouldn't rule out anything at the this current my current worldview is that you can't really rule out anything anymore.

But yeah, you know, it's probably something like here here's my best guess.

There's probably something like chemtrails, meaning that there's something real at the base of it.

But I'll bet you that most of the things that people see in the sky and they believe to be chemtrails are just water vapor from jets.

How many of you would accept that there might be something to it to the claim but that most of what we see and most you could use your own definition of most but most of it is just imagining you see it would you agree with that even if there's something real at the base there might be something real I mean there there's nothing that rules it out really you you couldn't disprove it anyway Okay, so President Trump was talking to Laura Ingram uh yesterday.

I guess it was a nice piece.

You should watch it if you can find it.

Um and uh Trump was defending the so-called H-1B visas.

So those are the ones that we use to, as Trump would say, bring in talent.

But through the America first people depending on which ones you're talking to might say hey we have enough talent here why would you bring even one person into the country to take an American job the answer would be whether you buy the answer or not the answer would be oh we do not have enough talented trained people for every kind of job.

So, in some cases when you bring people over, you're going to have to, you know, it'll take a while to train Americans or you're going to have to bring somebody from the country that invested such as the South Korean battery company.

At least in the short run, they might have to bring their own people because they know how to make batteries and we don't.

But we're better off bringing the, you know, onshoring the company.

That would be the, you know, the better long-term play.

So Trump is in favor of using them where you can't easily find or train workers and if you had those workers we would be ahead.

How many of you agree with that take that there is such a thing as a worker shortage for some specialty jobs and there probably a lot of lot of them would that would be specialty.

uh and that you can't really just take the homeless and train them to make microchips.

How many think you can take the homeless and just train them as hard as you can until they know how to make microchips?

AI microchips.

All right, so I'm exaggerating a little bit.

You couldn't do it with the homeless.

But how many think you could just take, let's say, you know, good engineers from American schools and teach them to do really anything, just anything at all?

Well, you could do that, but would there be enough?

And would there be enough people who wanted to be trained in that specific thing?

Um, so I can completely understand the two sides because the two sides have reasonably good arguments.

Reasonably good arguments.

I mean, certainly the side that says, "Damn it, you could always find an American to do these jobs.

Don't let in one other person." I get that.

I understand that argument very well.

And then the people who say, "But if you tried, Scott, if you tried to keep out 100% of, you know, the nonitizens and you tried to simply train people in America to do these jobs, you would fail.

It would be impractical." That's actually a really good argument.

If you spent any time in the real world, it's hard to find anybody who's trained to do anything.

just anything, you know, much less some specialty high-tech thing that we just shipped in from South Korea.

Where are you going to find somebody who could do that?

And then you say, "But you can train people because we have some of the smartest, most educated people." Yes, you can, but there's friction.

It might take you a while or you might need to get these specialized workers to work there for a couple years while they're training.

But why would they do that if they know they're going to get fired in a couple of years?

So in the real world, it's sort of really really hard to get anybody who's trained to do anything.

and then you add on top of it um that it has to be, you know, trained in a specific thing in a specific amount of time.

It's really hard.

So I I think both arguments are substantial.

And uh I guess I lean toward a Trump has a common sense view of the world.

I think we agree on that, right?

So the question is, which of these two takes fits what you would call common sense?

I feel like Trump has got the high ground here.

And I hope I'm not, you know, just being a team player because you have to watch out for that, right?

I feel like he just has a stronger case because it's sort of a it's aspirational that you could train Americans to do all these jobs.

I love the aspiration and I love the confidence that that shows in American workers.

I just don't think in the real world you could actually fill the jobs.

So that's that's where Trump's common sense take comes in.

You know, you got your ideal.

The ideal would be don't hire anybody outside the country.

Um, you can train Americans.

That's a nice ideal.

Trump gets he knows that.

He you would agree with the ideal.

So, if he's if he's still in favor of doing it, fully understanding that the ideal situation would also be ideal America first mega.

And he and he's still not going with the ideal America first MAGA is because he has a common sense view of the world.

you can't easily fill these jobs.

Elon Musk will tell you that sometimes you're just going to have to, you know, grab a Brit or a, you know, Nigerian engineer or something, you know, somebody who's already closer to knowing how to do the job.

So, I'm no expert.

And if you say to me, Scott, I would rather that we don't even have these industries than we have this big open door where people coming in and taking all our good stuff like our jobs.

I could respect that opinion.

I would respect that.

I would disagree with it.

But I think that's a an opinion I could respect because, you know, it's it's grounded on something that makes sense.

you know, don't give don't give your stuff away.

If you can make it work, you know, if you could find a way to not let in any H1B visa people and also, you know, be dominant in all these these high-tech industries, if you can find a way to do that, I'm all in.

But I'm kind of agreeing with Trump.

If you're just trying to be practical and you're trying to be common sense and you're and you're getting advice from real people in the real world, you know, like if Elon Musk says, "I can't hire as many Americans as I need to support my high-tech companies," what are you going to say?

You're wrong.

He's not wrong.

He's in the he's in the trenches, right?

So I think that I think the people in the trenches largely agree that it would make a big big difference if at least for some sets of jobs, not everyone.

I'm not in favor of H-1B for sort of ordinary jobs where you could clearly find Americans who would love those jobs.

We're not talking about that.

We're talking about somebody who knows how to make a microchip, right?

Real specialized stuff.

For that, I would take no chance.

All right.

Here here's a way for me to say it so that you might agree with me.

It's just a better way to say it.

I would never take the chance that the USA fell fell behind in a in an important technology because of H-1B visas being uh unavailable.

That would be a risk, wouldn't you say?

Whenever we allow anybody else to get ahead of us in a technology, if it's one of the critical ones, that becomes their economy, it becomes their military, and then they would dominate us, depending on the industry.

So, would you agree that it's super important that we dominate the critical industries if we can?

You'd agree with that, right?

So, what gets you closer to being able to dominate those industries, a controlled economy or a free market?

And of course, I'm setting you up, right?

Uh, how do they know we don't have the talents?

You You're on the wrong argument.

You're on the wrong argument.

Um, so let me also say that the way the H-1B visa stuff has run in the past, I'm not arguing for that because I do think that there were too many abuses.

Um, but the question is this.

If if you allowed these big companies to hire whenever there was a real shortage of a real, you know, a real skill, would America do better or worse industrywide in dominating a technology?

If you could say, Scott, if you just let the big companies hire, but only when it's really critical.

We're not talking about ordinary skills, but if you give them the freedom to do that, you're closer to a free market than if you don't give them the freedom to do that.

So, what Trump is arguing is you need to give these people like Musk freedom.

that if they say the only way I can make this work is with these specialized people, then you let them do that because you're not running their company.

You don't want you you don't want the government to decide who they hire.

Right?

Now, the exception would be and here's where we all agree.

If it was for somebody to work on the assembly line and it was just like a real good union or non-union job, I want that to go to American.

Even if it's say, you know, entry level engineering and we don't have that many, still I'd want that to go to the American.

So if there's a little bit of friction, I want it to go to the American.

But if there's a lot of risk such as we'll fall behind in a critical industry, I want.

So first you want to win if it's a critical industry.

And if somebody like a Musk says the only way we can win, I'm sorry.

I would love to hire America first, but for some of these jobs, such as building your own uh microchip fab, which is what uh Tesla wants to do, for some of these jobs, you're just going to have to hire from other countries.

And by the way, every time we hire away one of the top people from another country, that also is good for our situation in the world.

So we win by getting the talent, but we also win by denying that same talent to a country that could have used it instead of us.

So if you see it in terms of risk management and you apply it only to those industries that are critical to our future survival, I think we end up on the same page or very close.

But yeah, short of national survival, which is tied to dominating certain industries, short of that, there's no reason to consider H-1B when you can train Americans all on the same page.

Um, here's something uh that I keep trying to say in different ways until it hits.

I don't think I it hasn't hit yet, but I was watching a movie that was called something like the uh the something of extraordinary gentlemen or something warfare of extraordinary gentlemen.

And I thought that one of the biggest stories that political stories, one of the biggest political stories in the world is completely ignored.

It's like an unspoken understanding.

And it goes like this, that the GOP has been taken over by unusually intelligent people.

Unusually intelligent people.

Let me tell you what I mean by that.

In my opinion, one of the things that people get wrong about Trump all the time and then there's surprise is that he likes extraordinary people.

He likes extraordinary people.

Be they athletes, you know, could be boxers or fighters, could be, you know, baseball players.

Daryl Strawberry, he likes extraordinary people.

Now, some people think, oh, he's he's got such a big ego that uh he doesn't want to be around, you know, people who are actually smart because he wants to be the smartest person in the room.

No, that's not him at all.

Part of what makes him special is that he recognizes and boosts unusually capable people.

You know, why is RFK Jr.

part of his administration?

Because he's unusually capable, right?

Why is David Saxs got an important role?

Only one reason.

He's unusually capable, right?

You know, Jared, why does he have Jared helping?

He's unusually capable.

He happens to be related, which gives him a little bit of an advantage, but he's unusually capable.

And once you see that and you see that everybody from you know uh Elon Musk to you know you could go down the line from the the Joe Rogan etc.

If you made a list of the people who are supporting him how many of them would you describe as unusually smart like just not normal smart but just unusually smart.

And when you see that the unusually smart seem to have found a home, like they found a home because you can't really it's hard to be unusually smart if you're not around other unusually smart people.

And so it it kind of created a home for the unusually smart.

And we could talk about, you know, who's on my list of unusually smart, but I I'll bet you would have a very similar list of the unusually smart.

And I don't know how you beat that group if if they stayed, you know, if they decided to have a coherent after Trump policy, they could put together quite a quite a doozy if they could find the right carrier for the ideas.

You might be JD, maybe not.

We'll see.

So Trump gave his uh tour of the White House to Laura Ingram and uh took her by the Hall of Presidents that includes now the autopen photo in place of Biden.

And Trump said that was his idea.

He comes up with all the good ideas he says, which is also funny.

And uh and he has no he has no plans to ever change it.

He's going to keep the autopan there for four years.

I don't know how long it will last after that, but that is a good joke.

Like if you can't appreciate the humor of that uh and you think that's the worst thing that ever happened, you don't really understand Trump at all.

And I would argue that uh my prior point about the unusually intelligent uh people who have decided to be on the same side, part of that unusual intelligence is accepting of edgy humor.

Would you agree that the smartest people you know are probably the people who can take the hardest joke, right?

Am I imagining that or is that just sort of obviously true?

Uh it's it's dumb people who have trouble understanding the joke is a joke.

You know, once you get to a certain level of of intelligence, you just know a joke's a joke and you get over it pretty quickly.

So, I think the base totally understands the autopen and they know that its purpose in large part is to bother the Democrats.

And every time it's there and it bothers a Democrat and it gives them something to talk about, I laugh again.

So, it's like the it's like the gift that keeps on giving.

It's never not funny.

Yeah.

But the funny part is not that he's doing it.

I'm sorry.

The funny part is not just the that it's an autopen instead of a photo.

That is funny, but you get over that part kind of quickly, but it remains funny because it still bothers them.

The fact that it never stops bothering them.

That's the joke.

That's the joke.

And that doesn't get less funny.

All right.

Did you know the Washington Times is reporting Stefan Dan that the number of uh suspected terrorists coming over the border is way up?

Did you know that the number of quote suspected terrorists crossing the border is up by 30fold?

Are you afraid yet?

The number of suspected terrorists coming across the border is up 30fold.

Okay, don't worry.

It's not bad news.

What it is is once the cartels were designated as terrorist organizations and then we got good at grabbing their photos, it turns out we're now good at identifying cartel members.

So when when it says that uh the number of suspected terrorists is up 30fold, it means we got really really good at spotting cartel members crossing the border.

Trying to do it legally, but obviously we're spotting them.

So what looks like bad news is actually extraordinary.

Extraordinary that they had a 30fold improvement in spotting cartel members coming across the border.

How often do you get a 30-fold improvement in anything?

That's pretty impressive.

So, yeah, that's just sort of all good news.

I I would like to have fewer cartel members crossing my border.

That'd be good, too.

But the fact that we can now spot him seems like a good idea.

Well, apparently there's going to be some protests against the Mexican president for not doing enough uh to go after the cartels.

and the Mexican president.

What What do you think she did when the uh security risk got too high?

That's right.

She's building a wall around wherever the president lives.

I don't know what it is in Mexico, but whatever their version of the presidential palace or whatever it is, they're they're building a big steel wall all around it.

Build the wall.

Build the wall.

Um, and it's interesting that the public so clearly blames her as being basically a tool of the cartel.

I'm pretty sure that Trump thinks of her the same way, but is she's the only she's the only president they have.

So, he has to deal with her in the real world in a some kind of real world productive way.

So maybe he just has to pretend, you know, he knows less about the cartel connections than he does.

But it could suggest that there's going to be a military move against the cartels by the US because you might expect that the president of Mexico would be very vulnerable to some kind of cartel attack if she didn't stop the US from attacking Mexico.

So things could get a little uh little wet and a little dark as soon as that fence is done.

Uh there there's some specific protests coming up, but I'll bet you they keep the fence up after that's over.

According to interesting engineering, Kyif Shik is writing that uh there's some new technology that promises to turn uh ethanol ethanol plants that would be a place that turns things into ethanol.

Um but there's some CO2 waste that comes out of that and they could turn it into jet fuel for 80% less than the current cost of just jet fuel.

Now, I'm not going to try to tell you that this is likely to happen, this specific technology, but all the times I've read to you, almost every day, there's always some breakthrough in either uh producing energy or converting CO2 into energy or reducing cost by 80% like in this case, I feel like the future is something like everything will cost 80% less and then 90% less.

us.

Like if you were going to look at the near-term and midterm, everything will look more expensive.

But if you were to look at the long term, it looks like the cost of everything is just going to plummet because we'll keep finding these little ways to do stuff like this.

It's like, oh, we'll just turn this into something.

It'll reduce the cost by 80%.

So Jeff Fuel is one of the big big polluters in the world.

All right, let me just finish up here.

The If you haven't seen the video yet of a giant bridge in China collapsing, it's sort of a newish bridge, but it was one of those big impressive ones, and they had some mudslide that just took out the whole bridge.

Nobody died.

The police did a good job, cleared it out in anticipation of the problem, and sure enough, there's video of a mudslide taking out the whole bridge.

So, the reason I bring that up is I've been thinking lately that China is the only one who can make anything anymore, but it used to be that we thought that China didn't manufacture as well as, you know, other countries because we were racist or something.

Uh, and now I'm wondering how many other engineering miracles that China has built are just going to fall over.

You know all those ghost cities they built that they ended up blowing up.

Did it ever make sense to you that they would just blow them up?

Unless they were built so poorly that they knew they couldn't put people in them and that they would be dangerous.

Could it be that some percentage of their their engineering miracles are just pure and that they didn't do a good job, they just made it look good and then sold it as a miracle?

I don't know.

Yeah.

M makes makes me wonder how much is real.

Anyway, uh the US is going after some more of those drug boats.

RSBN is reporting Dylan Burroughs.

Uh two more taken out on Sunday and we report that these vessels were known by our intelligence to be associated with illicit narcotics.

Well, how could we know that without the the British intelligence?

Without the British intelligence, these could have been tourists.

How would we know?

I'm just joking.

Um, have you noticed that there are a lot of things governments do that they can blame on the our intelligence people and you and I can't check?

So, are you sure that those were uh narco boats?

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

Our intelligence people confirmed it.

Which intelligence people?

Oh, we can't give that up.

How' they confirm it?

Sources and methods.

Sorry, I'm not going to tell you that.

How sure are they?

Oh, they're really sure.

Very sure.

You can just blame anything on on the intel group and and nobody has any way to check.

Absolutely.

These are narco boats if I ever saw any.

Um, apparently there's some big anti-corruption watchdog thing happening in Ukraine where there's some allegations that Ukraine is filled with corruption.

Huh.

Uh, and that they believe that the corruption is not just the government itself taking its taste, which of course is probably happening, but rather it seems to be criminal enterprises.

So, there seems to be criminal organizations that are taking 10% of everything that's happening over there.

So, starting to think I can't trust those Ukrainians.

That's my joke of the day.

All right, everybody.

Thanks for joining me.

That takes me to the end of my valuable comments.

I'm going to talk uh for a moment to my beloved members of Locals.

All my technology is working today.

I'm so impressed.

All right.

Uh, everybody else, I'll see you tomorrow.

Same time, same place.

Let's see.

Let's see if we can do locals privately.

Hey,

Make sure you get a seat up front.

It is really good to see you again.

Do you think I need a set designer

or do you like a sloppy blanket and a

roll of paper towels as your background

set?

At least it's sort of glowing green. So,

it's not like I didn't put any thought

into it at all.

All right, I'm going to check on your

stocks. H, they're not doing much.

They're just sort of sitting there.

just sort of in there.

All right, let me make sure that I've

got all of the valuable comments

highly visible in my new setup that I

improved upon this morning.

So, with any luck, I will be able to see

in living color all of your

Perfect. No.

Did you really disappear? Stay right

there. Boom.

All right.

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. And

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take a chance of elevating

your experience up to levels that no one

can even understand with their tiny

shiny human brains, all you need for

that is a cuper, a mug or a glass, a

tanker, chalice or stein, a canteen jug

or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it

with your favorite liquid. I like

coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled

pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the

thing that makes everything better. It's

called the simultaneous sip and it

happens now.

Exquisite,

divine,

beyond compare.

Well, it looks like it's time for the

morning reframe.

You love it. You love it. You love to

get reframed.

Well, it's from my book, Reframe Your

Brain. the best reviewed book I've ever

written, which I wasn't expecting

actually. Uh, but people loved it and

that was awesome.

Um,

how about uh this one? You've heard this

one before, but it works so well and you

need it so often that I'm going to give

it to you again. You ready?

So a common way to look at the world,

the usual frame would be that history is

important.

That I mean it's how we got here. It

explains, you know, who gets what.

History is pretty important. Wouldn't

you agree? And if you don't understand

history, you might repeat it in the

worst possible way. Yep. History is

important. That's the usual frame. But

here's a reframe. History doesn't exist.

History doesn't exist.

Well, give me a handful. Grab grab some

history. Here you go. Here's some

history. Where is it?

History is entirely in your mind. If if

you don't want it to bother you, it

doesn't need to because it doesn't

exist.

You create the history in your mind and

then you use it as a a spear to poke

yourself or a a way to torture yourself.

And and I'm not even talking about like

the history of nations. I mean, you

could go into a whole different

conversation about whether you and I

should care about uh what was happening

in the Middle East 3,000 years ago.

Maybe we don't care. [laughter]

If the people who live there care, I

mean, you that's up to them. But you and

I don't have to even pay attention to

the fact that any history ever happened

because to us

it doesn't exist at the moment.

Now it comes it's it's far more useful

when you're using this reframe in your

personal life. In your personal life,

how many of you have done something that

like gives you shame

which is a complete waste of time

feeling shame.

One of the best ways to make shame go

away or any kind of whatever you would

call your personal failure

is to just remind yourself that it

doesn't exist.

History doesn't exist.

You you couldn't you couldn't find some

history and put it in a little bag and

give it to somebody because there is

none. So if you're being tortured by

history, well, I just reframed it away

for some percentage of you. It won't be

a big percentage, but for some

percentage of you, a few of you probably

are going to message me later and say,

"I can't believe it, but there's this

thing that's been bothering me my whole

life. You just made it away by you just

made it go away by telling me that

history doesn't exist." And the moment I

realized that that was absolutely true,

there's nothing really to debate on

that,

the actual problem went away.

And there you go.

All right, that's your reframe for the

day. How many of you saw the northern

lights? Apparently, there was quite a

show last night. It did not extend down

to my little neighborhood in California,

but for those of you in the northern

part of the country and the world, did

you get kind of a light show last night?

Apparently, it's going to be better

tonight.

So,

I can't imagine what what would be

better than like going outside and

seeing this Aurora Borealis, like this

natural wonder. That's like the best

thing that ever happened. I mean, what

what could really be better than that?

Oh, here's something that's better. It's

the 2026 Dilbert calendar, which is now

available at the Amazon store, but only

the USA Amazon. You know, the one you

use if you're in America. That's the

only place you can get it. Not available

in stores, only in Amazon. More

beautiful than the Aurora Borealis. I

know that seems like an overclaim, but

wait till you see it. You'll agree. All

right. Uh, we have a little fact check.

Remember the If you're following any of

the drama on the right side of the news,

uh, do you remember the Let's see. Ben

Shapiro was on stage with Megan Kelly

and uh Ben claimed that Candace Owens

claimed and this is the part that's not

true that Candace had suggested that

that Erica Kirk was somehow responsible

for the were involved in the death of

her husband and uh Megan Kelly said

what? [laughter]

So, [clears throat] yeah, I'm

paraphrasing, but she basically said

some version of what? Like, I I do this

for a living. I've never heard of that.

Why? How could I not have heard of that?

And I had the same experience, which is

when I heard it, I was like, I didn't

think Ben Shapiro would be wrong

factually. He's very fact-based. So, I

thought, really, how could that have

happened? And I never would have heard

of it. Turns out, uh, it never happened.

[laughter]

So, so now we have the the the final

word. Yeah. Never happened. Uh, I don't

know what Ben saw or believes he saw or

or maybe he just interpreted something

differently than other people, but in

case you want to know factually,

uh, there's no evidence that Candace did

that. She has, I believe, and I I think

I'm accurate in saying this, but I want

to be very careful. I don't want to

mischaracterize anybody's opinion, which

would be easy in this case. Um, I

believe Candace does have some questions

about Turning Point USA,

one or more persons who may have been

doing things that sort of didn't add up

and that, you know, maybe maybe that

mattered.

So, but that's a far cry from saying

that either that person or persons or

any other person was involved in, you

know, planning and executing a a tragic

murder.

So,

moving on. [snorts] That's your drama

drama corner.

I don't think I don't think the uh right

side of the world does the drama as well

as the left. The dramcrats really have

an advantage in that thing. All right,

here's one piece of science. According

to Cypost, Karina Petrova is writing

that uh shared gut microbe imbalances.

So if you have an imbalance in your gut

microbes, um that it might be the same

kind of imbalance for people who have

autism, ADHD, and anorexia and nervosa,

which would suggest that your gut,

at least one, one thing it suggests is

that your gut um changes your brain or

influences your brain. Now, I suppose it

could work the other way, right?

It's not obvious how it could, but you

have to ask yourself, is it possible

that if the brain is doing a certain

thing, let's say one of these

imbalances, that it causes your gut also

to be imbalanced in some certain

specific way maybe. But doesn't it seem

more likely that the gut imbalance

would lead to, you know, some variety of

brain imperfections temporarily or

permanently? Anyway,

uh as I often say this little reframe,

your body is your brain.

If you want your brain to be working the

best it can, you have to take care of

your body. That's diet and exercise.

People,

do you remember

um that I was critical and lots of

people were critical of Apple for being

so slow with AI?

And you thought to yourself, "Oh my

god." Well, maybe you didn't think it,

but I said it out loud as if I knew

something. And I thought, "Oh my god,

Apple could actually be at risk of just

completely going out of business or or

being cut down to size. If AI is the

thing in the future, like just the

thing. And if Apple doesn't embrace it

or lead in it or buy a company, it's

going to miss out on the thing." and you

know maybe there's no way to catch up.

Well, as of today, the opinions seem to

be turning toward Apple. Uh meaning that

Nvidia just went down because Soft Bank

sold all of their stock. But to be fair,

SoftBank is putting it back into AI,

just a different form. Uh putting it

back into Open AI and building data

centers, I guess.

So they're still all all in an AI. But

the thinking is from the smart people

that Apple might have been the the most

clever player in the entire tech

industry.

And by clever I mean they never bought

the hype.

Everyone else has gone trillions of

dollars of risk into something that

looks like it doesn't work nearly as

well as they told us it might. Apple

looks like the only one who is seeing

things clearly.

too early to say,

but uh I' I've had two opinions that I

realized today are contradictory

because I also said, "Hey, I think

Apple's Apple's in real trouble for not

having an AI strategy." So, I've said

that, but at the same time, you've

watched as from the beginning, very

early on, because I jumped into AI to

see what it would do when it was newish.

And as soon as I found out, it couldn't

stop hallucinating and it couldn't even

read a little file and tell me what was

in it. It couldn't read a file and tell

me what was in it. And it looked like it

never would be able to. [laughter]

[clears throat] When I found that out,

I immediately said, "Uh, you better

watch out for this AI. It doesn't look

like it might not be

as big a potential as you think if it

can't get past those enormous obstacles.

So at the moment, Nvidia

may have some pressure from either

lowerc cost competitors or who knows

what maybe loss of confidence that AI is

the thing and Apple might be the

smartest player in the space. So,

Apple's stock did not go down when some

of the other AI ones did. Very

interesting. I, you know, I'm always I

sold my Apple stock as I I said, but you

have to say that

Apple does hire smart people.

So, every time you tell yourself you're

smarter than Apple,

you know, maybe check that. Maybe check

that.

You're probably not smarter than Apple.

At least I'm not.

And then things are getting even

weirder.

There's somebody named Mahoney who is

some kind of a expert. What kind of

expert is he? Uh he's a Wall Streety

guy.

What's his name?

Oh, Ken Mahoney, CEO of Mahoney Asset

Management.

And uh what he says is that

uh Walmart might be one of the big

beneficiaries of AI. So now people are

saying hey uh we should instead of

putting our money in the AI companies

maybe now the smart money we'll go into

the businesses that are just normal

businesses like Walmart but they could

lower their costs with AI. And there is

some thought that's already happening at

Walmart. I don't know if that's already

happening.

But remember, all all of the Dilberty

big companies are going to claim,

especially if they put billions of

dollars into AI, they're going to claim

that that's why they can lower costs

even if all they're doing is firing

people. So, it'll be a long time before

we know it's real. But the but we can

tell what the claims will be. The claims

will be that it saved the money and it's

good thing they put hundred billion

dollars into it.

And so what they're saying, this is an

axios, uh that 2026,

this coming year, may be the year of

investing in companies benefiting from

all this AI or

or putting your money into companies

like Apple that knew they shouldn't

waste their money, at least too much of

it, on AI. We'll see.

Uh do you know the No Kings group, the

ones that that organized the No Kings uh

protests around the country? Well,

apparently that group, Indivisible, is

what they're called, Indivisible, said

they're only going to support a

Democratic Senate candidates that call

the cancel Chuck Schumer.

[laughter]

So Chuck Schumer is going to have the

worst week anybody ever had. uh

be you know obviously the the activist

group Indivisible is pretty pretty baked

into the power structure of the

Democrats. So having them come against

Schumer is probably a big deal. But

there there's something about Schumer

that bothers me whenever I see him. And

I'm wondering if you've ever noticed,

which is that no matter what the topic

is, he seems too happy about it. Like he

looks like somebody who's putting on a

play for the neighbors, but his part is

maybe sometimes the bad guy or the

bearer of bad news or or death or

something. But because he's just doing a

play for his neighbors, he can't get the

smile off his face.

So th this is my impression of

Chuck Schumer telling you he found a

mass grave in his own in his own

backyard

and and there was a bass grave.

Uh we we just uh were we're putting in a

septic tank and and I tell you it's all

leg and we dug kept dug and digging. It

was a mass grave. A mass grave there.

Must have been hundreds of people in the

mass grave.

And

am I wrong that he looks too happy

when he says stuff like, "Oh, we have

the advantage now.

You know, children are starving. It's

exactly what we'd hope for.

I'm Chuck Schumer."

All right. According to uh [sighs]

uh Harry Anton,

uh Chuck Schumer is now the the most

unpopular Senate Democratic leader on

record [laughter]

going back to I guess going back to

1985. Anyway, so he's even underwater

with Democrats. Even Democrats dislike

him more than they like him.

So let let me break this down. I I hate

to give the Democrats advice,

you know, be it accidental, but I'm

going to give you some uh persuasion

lessons here, and if any of them are

listening, maybe they'll learn

something, but I doubt it.

Um,

so a lot of people on the Democrat side

are saying that what the Democrats need

is a fighter.

You've heard that, right? Every time

they talk, it's like, no, we need a

fighter. a fighter. We got to fight. Do

you know what's wrong with that as an

approach?

If you say that the thing you want is a

fighter

and then you get one,

what does that get you? A fight.

[laughter]

Because that's what you asked for. You

didn't ask for a solution. You didn't

ask for a great health care plan. You

didn't ask for reducing the budget.

You asked for a fighter.

So if you got what you wanted, you

wouldn't want what you got, would you?

So the reason that they say we want a

fighter is because you can't really

measure the the out the the output of

the fighter. If I say I want a a good

health care plan where premiums do not

cost more, then I would be able to

measure whether I did that or not. At

some point, you'd be able to measure it.

But if I say I want a fighter, how do

you measure that you got one? Would it

be that person swore more than normal in

public? That's part of what they think

it must be because they're doing it.

Would it be that you simply wouldn't

vote for things such as a continuing

resolution until people suffered

because that would make it look like

you're fighting.

So when you look at the fighting, you

have to think of that in terms of

theatrics

because the fighting thing is not

something that has a it doesn't have a

deliverable.

There's no deliverable.

So in order to claim that you fought,

you've got to have video clips of you

looking like a fighter.

So if you're if you're Jasmine Crockett,

for example, she's she's doing the best

that any of the other Democrats are

doing because she's creating uh

unlimited viral clips of someone who

looks like a theatrical fighter girl.

Oh, I'm fighting. Look at these words

I'm using. Look at me fighting. Tomorrow

there's going to be another video clip

of me fighting just like this.

Deliverables, I don't even know what

you're talking about. Policies, never

heard of them. fight, fight, fight. You

got to fight, fight, fight. And whoever

does the best acting job of being a

fighter

will be the will be the standard bearer

for the Democrats probably that they're

they're so not on the right page. The

right page is not to do a theater a

theatrical rendition of a play that you

call the fighter. That's not what

anybody's asking for. They actually want

some health care, a budget that makes

sense and doesn't break the bank, you

know, like like to protect that border,

get the crime down.

Yeah. You know, you know, it's another

thing that I hate is when somebody chews

up airtime like I just did, listing the

things that you could have listed

yourself. How much do you hate that? you

you'll be watching the show and somebody

will go I think the Democrats they need

to work on health care and then you're

like don't list all the things that they

need to work on. Got to work on the

crime. Seriously, just shut the up.

We know what the list is. Uh got to make

sure the border is secure. H stop it.

Stop it. You're wasting my time.

All right. That's what kind of a day it

is. Um, I would also say that whoever

came up with that fighter thing,

I don't know if that's a professional

that may have went that may have grown

organically, but I'll tell you what does

look like professional work is you may

have seen Hakee Jay's

he did a little video in which he said

that the entire

U Republican power structure is corrupt

and then he went through and he was

asked, you know, about that and he said

that the Cong the Republican Congress is

corrupt, the president is corrupt and

then he said the Supreme Court is

corrupt.

But what he really meant was when asked

about it is that justice Thomas and

Elita, Elito in his opinion

uh crossed some kind of ethical boundary

by

uh at least in one case accepting a trip

with one of his best friends. Like he

went on one of his billionaire best

friends boat and the billionaire paid

for the vacation which is sort of just

what your billionaire friend is going to

do anyway. So, you know, you could argue

whether that should or should not

happen, but how do you tell a Supreme

Court guy

he can't hang out with his best friend?

They weren't strangers. That was it was

actually one of his best friends. So,

anyway, um you could My point is that

when uh corruption was chosen, that

looks like professional work of a

persuader. And what I mean by that is

that when you see them them pick things

like dark, remember in the Hillary

Clinton race, she goes, "Oh, everything

Trump says is dark." The reason that

works so well for them is that you don't

have to do much thinking. You can take

everything that Trump says, just

everything, go, "Well, that was a dark

take." Even if it isn't, it doesn't even

matter if it's a dark take. You just

call everything dark. Corruption is one

of those things, too, because you can't

really prove it in any given moment,

but you can just throw those accusations

out there and everything sick. I'll bet

you can't even think of a certain topic,

any topic that you couldn't at least

throw into the corruption pile.

Uh maybe abortion is an exception. But

everything else you could say, "Oh, he

just wants to make his cronies richer.

Oh, tax policy. Oh, that's about his

cronies. Oh, the Supreme Court. We need

to pack it. That's the reason we need to

pack it with 13 cuz otherwise they'll be

corrupt and they'll be taking vacations

with their friends and everything.

I mean, there's a slippery slope

situation. If you let Justice Thomas

take a vacation with one of his best

friends

and his best friend helps pay for it

because he happens to be a billionaire.

If you let that happen, where's it going

to end up? Well, obviously they're gonna

take two vacations per year. Start with

one, you're like, test the water. Next

thing you know, two vacations.

Now,

the republic might survive. A Supreme

Court member, you know, a a justice

taking one vacation with his friend per

year. But people, how would we ever

survive if he took two? And do you

realize how quickly it could go from one

to two? That's only one more than two.

This is a real danger. And I think Hakee

Jeff needs to warn us about it some

more. There's going to be some

corruption. Some corruption.

You know, I have this bad habit of

casting people in movies that don't

exist.

And whenever I see Hakee, uh, I want him

to play the part of death in a movie.

You, you know, death always wears the

the black robe and has the whatever that

thing is for cutting grass. Scythe.

Scythe. Sith. Sith. Scythe.

Uh, cuz you can imagine death walking

into the room in this movie and the face

is entirely concealed by the shadows.

Notice how I avoided saying black so it

didn't sound racist. Um, and then he

takes down the the hood and his haim and

you're like, "Ah,

grim reaper. The grim reaper. He would

be the best grim reaper

ever."

All right. Well, as you know, um,

Turning Point USA had an event, uh, in

Berkeley, UC Berkeley, and there was

some dusting up and some people people

got roughed up and there was a little

bit of violence, way too much. I don't

want to minimize it, but now there's

going to be a Department of Justice

investigation

into the failures of security. And the

theory is

that if you you you don't treat this one

as just some random, you know, bad day

that some protesters showed up and you

wish they hadn't, but rather it looks

like it might be part of the pattern.

And the pattern is that when the left

wants to censor the right, they simply

don't give enough security where they

know security is warranted. Do you think

that's a real thing? Do you think that

people on the left actually think that

through?

Not necessarily coordinated, but maybe,

you know, sort of all on the same page.

Uh do you think that they intentionally

give inadequate securities so that if

somebody goes and talks, they can say,

"Well, we told you. We told you it was

going to be a mess. Uh we can't let them

speak. Look what happened at Berkeley.

There's no way we can afford all the

security it would take to avoid what

happened in Berkeley. All right. You're

almost you're you're you're all unan

unanimous. You all believe

looks like you all believe that that's

intentional, you know. Um

I I think I'm on your side on this.

I wouldn't say that there's a smoking

smoking gun,

but you can smell it before you can see

the smoke. That's sort of where I am. I

can smell it. I I don't see the smoke.

So, I'll I'll say, you know, we're short

of something that I would call proof,

but boy, you can smell it. So,

consistent with everything else we know

about the world.

It sort of fits right into that frame,

doesn't it? Like, it fits the whole uh

Mike Ven's view of the world, you know?

Plus,

yeah, it smells

um apparently the White House is

responding to some complaints

I talked about, which is that a lot of

stock um a lot of companies that have

public stock have these proxy entities

that go and get the essentially they're

the ones that cast the vote on behalf of

lots of stockholders,

which gives them a lot of control over

companies.

and it's not really the kind of control

you'd want them to have over companies

because it doesn't help their

profitability. They might be looking for

some woke stuff to happen. Basically,

it's a distortion of the free market.

And uh without getting into too much of

the boring details of how that works,

essentially there are a few entities

like uh ISS, that's a company and index

fund giants such as Black Rockck and I

think there was a I think there's

another famous one that should be

mentioned there. I don't know which one,

but they know they know who it is. And

the complaints are coming from people

like Elon Musk and Jamie Diamond. You

know, the most important banker and the

most important technologist, engineer,

entrepreneur in the world. So, they're

on the same page, which is you need to

get rid of this proxy voting stuff. And

apparently the White House has opened up

some kind of a project to look into it.

You say Fidelity Fidelity, I think,

State Street. Yeah. I'm not sure. I

don't I don't want to throw out names

cuz I don't know.

Well, how many of you saw the video of

the Russian humanoid robot?

I thought it was fake.

Uh

so the the video shows the Russians

introducing on stage

uh something you think you've seen lots

of times in America which is hey this is

our new humanoid robot and it's going to

like it's going to dance or something.

So the the humanoid robot stumbles

forward and it walks like Joe Biden on a

bad day through through tall grass

[laughter]

and then it just falls on his face and

can't get up [laughter]

and that's [clears throat] the that's

the Russian humanoid robot. Now I

thought it was a joke because the way it

walked was so much like Joe Biden that I

didn't think that could be a

coincidence.

It looked like they were either mocking

him or it was AI or something, the Biden

bot. So, I waited on it. My My first

reaction was I did repost it, but then I

I undid my repost because I was not

confident that could have been real. How

in the world was that real? All right,

so go find that on social media. you I'm

sure you can just uh do a normal

internet search and look for Russian

humanoid robot.

You're going to [clears throat] laugh so

hard when you see that that robot.

[laughter]

You're you're you're also going to think

that uh Ukraine is going to win the war

when you see their their best

technology.

It's pretty funny. Anyway, also in the

AI world, Variety is reporting that

Matthew McConna and Michael Kaine, uh,

both of them, uh, they're they're

teaming with an AI audio company called

11 Labs. Uh, 11 Labs is the one that

does really accurate voices and faces,

and they're going to um, it looks like

they're licensing their voices is how I

would interpret this. So, you'll be able

to use 11 lamps to reproduce either of

their voices. Now, here's why I think

that's smart.

Don't you think at some point a lot of

other people are going to be doing this?

So, whoever goes first is just going to

get all the goodness. It's one of those

things where going first is just sort of

obvious. If if you're Matthew McConna

and you're a certain age, he can't play

the same roles he's played forever.

Although he's a good actor. I like I

like what he does. So he might he might

have a longer longer shelf life than a

lot of people.

But he's smart enough to know that he's

not going to be a forever actor because

AI will take that work. Why wouldn't he

try to get in first and get the best

possible deal and get a perpetual

license on his very interesting voice?

Same with Michael Kaine. Very

interesting voice. So I believe whoever

is representing them, their management,

good job management.

You you don't usually think you look at

an actor and say, "Wow, that's some good

management there." And maybe and maybe

they're just both smart. I think McConnA

probably does a lot to run his own

affairs. That would be my guess. You

know, he looks like he's a good

generalist that he would be able to

figure out everything from his career

strategies to what he's doing in the

next movie. But, uh, smart.

[snorts] The CEO of Eli Lily says he

uses AI every day and likes asking

science questions, but doesn't like the

answers he gets from chat GPT. So he

thinks he gets better science answers

for from either Claude that's that's an

AI Claude or X AI which would be Grock I

guess he finds Grock more Tur

which I like

Tur

um and he says that open a the chat GPT

does a lot of fake references so you

have to be careful

and I'm going to say this again because

until Somebody smart tells me this is a

bad idea. I feel like I fixed this idea.

Why couldn't you have two AIs open all

the time and one AI is instructed simply

to listen to the other AI? And you tell

the second AI to fact check everything

that the first AI says. And if there's

no problem, just stay silent. But if you

catch it giving you a fake reference or

something, uh, speak up and we'll

correct it. You don't think that if you

had two AIs running at the same time,

the odds of both of them saying that

this fake reference is real

would drop to almost zero, wouldn't it?

And it would cost you nothing but the

subscription to the second service.

Am I wrong about that? And is that

something that people don't want to talk

about just because

for competitive reasons or something?

Uh you run Grock and Gemini side by

side. But but tell me

tell me why that wouldn't work. Now, on

day one, maybe, you know, one doesn't

hear the other one well or something,

but you could easily hook them up so

that their their audio connection was

flawless,

so there's not even any outside room

noise to bother one, right?

I'm looking at your comments and I don't

see anybody saying, "Scott, you idiot.

That would never work."

Because it would sort of obviously work,

wouldn't it? [laughter]

I don't know, maybe there would be cases

where the second one refused to do what

you told it to and it would just say

stuff like, "I cannot correct my fellow

AI."

I don't know.

Well, I know you hate to admit it, but I

just solved AI.

All right. What else is happening?

Apparent according to just the news,

um Bondi and Cash Patel are going to

look into the the Clinton Foundation

uh under allegations that foreign

entities

um and some domestic actors influenced

the policy of the government back in

those uh Clinton Foundation days.

Now, the weird part about that

is that what else was the foundation

for?

Now, don't we at this point, don't we

understand that it was only for corrupt

reasons and that whatever good they did

was just the cover for the corruption?

Don't we all know that? But there's this

weird thing about time and about how the

media works. If the media doesn't tell

you, and here the media in this uh

context would be the New York Times, the

Washington Post, you know, the the

left-leaning media. If the left-leaning

media

doesn't say this is a story,

it just won't be. It just won't be a

story. So, it doesn't matter how much

just the news reports on it, doesn't

matter how much I mentioned on my

podcast,

just won't be a story. Um, but how hard

do you think it would be to find out if

the Clinton Foundation was corrupt and

accepting money to influence policy? Do

you think that would be hard to find

out?

I have a suspicion

that the FBI or somebody looked into it

enough because they would want to have

leverage over the Clintons. Obviously,

anybody would uh that they looked into

it enough that probably we already have

like really specific, you know, hidden

phone calls and stuff. So, anything

could happen. But if I had to put a bet

on it, nothing will happen. [laughter]

How many le let's do let's do an instant

poll. How many of you think the Clinton

Foundation

despite the fact that a 100% of you

think it was corrupt because of course

you do.

How many of you think there'll be any

arrests or indictments

of let's say the Clintons spec

specifically the Clintons? How many

think that? I it feels like zero, right?

So you have this weird situation where

that our assumption that the crimes

happened and are are sort of just

obvious or is 100%.

And then our faith that it will be

treated the way you think crime should

be treated is 0%.

That's not ideal. Not ideal at all.

Well, according to O Ed Martin

uh was working for the Department of

Justice was on and was talking about

Jack Smith when he was trying to convict

Trump

um that he was running all across the

country building this conspiracy network

as some would call it and uh

we're going to get to the bottom of

that. Do you think the Jack Smith thing,

although it does seem to me to me I

think there's enough reporting that I'd

call it obvious that it was a RICO

hugely coordinated democratic thing? We

know all the players. We know how

they're connected. We know what meetings

they had. We know what memos they sent.

We know their handwriting notes. We kind

of know

exactly what this was. It was an attempt

to

control the government without the

normal democratic process that we know

and love. How many of you think that uh

that will result in meaningful

indictments andor convictions?

I already know the answer. None of you

think this [clears throat] will result

in conviction. Do you? I don't.

I do. I do think that the

maybe not in a beyond a shadow of a

doubt court sense, but certainly in

every common sense way that you can

imagine this, it looks like just exactly

what it was in my opinion.

A very organized Rico like criminal

enterprise

uh with the worst possible intentions.

Yeah. 25%. All right. Well, according

apparently the uh Supreme Court, no,

this is the Olympics themselves. So, the

Olympics

um whoever controls at the IOC,

they're uh they're going to stop having

transgender women athletes.

Apparently, they've looked at all the

science and they've determined that even

if you discontinue

or or even if you do you start the right

hormone therapy really early, people who

were born male have an undeniable

advantage.

Um, and so they don't think it would be

fair

to have any competition except men and

women. So, those would be the only two

categories. Did you expect that to

happen? I didn't even know that was

brewing.

But, you know, the the athletic thing

has to be seen in its own category. I I

wouldn't put that in the trans category.

It's just its own specific thing. You

know, same with the questions about

children.

I don't put that exactly in the trans

bucket. It's its own thing. It's not

like any other thing.

All right. Um, apparently, uh, JFK

Jr.'s, uh, relative Jack Schlloberg, who

is, uh, who is he? He's JFK's grandson.

So, Jack Schlloberg's running for

Congress. And as part of that, he's

throwing his his relative, RFK Jr.,

under the bus, and he's being really

mean. He's being very mean. Um, this is

him talking about his own relative. I

mean, when he's not making infomercials

for Steak and Shake and CocaCola, he's

spreading misinformation and lies.

They're leading to deaths around the

country. And then he talks about beetle

measles and vaccines and stuff like

that.

God,

I I hate watching this because have you

noticed that whenever they do these

laundry list of accusations of RFK Jr.,

they never actually mention anything

specific and real.

It's always sort of these general

things.

Do you think you can explain RFK's

complicated opinion on vaccines by

saying something like, you know, he's

against them, [laughter]

that he's antivaccine.

That would not even come close to the

nuance of his opinion. Not even close.

Or how about uh that he he was making

infomercials for whatever those products

are. I don't even know what he's talking

about. I never heard of him making any

infomercials, but he did uh he he did

give some of the dye in of the diet

sodas, right? I don't think Coca-Cola

loves him at as much as they did, if

they ever did. So, it's all this generic

stuff.

And I guess uh I guess Florida's happy

because the courts have upheld that they

can block uh Chinese land buys in

Florida. So, if you go to Florida and

you're Chinese and you want to buy some

property, no go.

No property for you. Do you think other

states will follow suit now that has

passed at least one court's um judgment?

Maybe

you might.

Um Saudi Ramco. So Saudi's

one of the biggest or the biggest um

energy company. They're gonna make this

giant push into gas

because they think electricity is the

future. So, generating electricity with

gas and they got to do a lot of

desalinization and then they want to

have enough power to power ginormous uh

data centers. So, even Saudi Arabia

needs more than oil.

So, they were more about the oil, but

now they're they're just going to go

wild in the gas business.

Um anyway, speaking of climate change,

uh did you know that uh climate models

have not included plankton?

And now the green people according to

the university autom

uh they've decided that uh plankton is

really important. So these they call it

the ocean's tiniest engineers

calcifying plankton. They play a vital

yet often unnoticed role in regulating

Earth's climate. So, they're very

important to the climate and they're

currently not included in any climate

models. Huh.

Way do you find out about those climate

models, people? Yep. Plankton. They

forgot the plankton.

The next time somebody argues with you

about uh climate models, bring up

plankton and and act like it's a really

big deal. And if they don't understand

the plankton problem, why are they even

in this topic? Uh Scott, you seem to be

quite a troglodite.

uh 98% of scientists uh have concluded

with their advanced uh climate models

and all their smartness and their

gigantic brains have concluded that

climate change will end us all possibly

within a few years and you're so dumb

that you don't know that and then you

just wait for it to be to to stop and

then you look at it and you go did you

know that the climate models

didn't even include plankton

And then they'll look at you and go,

"What?

Plankton? I mean, it's vital to the

climate." And yet the climate models

don't even have any plankton variable in

it. Did anybody tell you that there's no

plankton?

Oh, well, I'm sure that they've they've

really proven to be very accurate. How

could they be accurate without plankton?

You have totally planktonfree

climate models. That's crazy.

That's crazy. Plankton free. Come on.

You're not even trying,

you plankton denying bastard.

That's how you handle that.

Well, [snorts] Trump Trump is trying to

get the courts to throw out that Eene

Carol lawsuit that he lost. Um, his

argument still is that uh she's not his

type. [laughter]

His

strongest argument was she's not my

type. [laughter]

And what's funny about that is it's

actually a pretty good argument. I mean,

we weren't there and there's no there's

no actual evidence. It's just he said,

she said, right? That's as close as it

is to evidence. There's no video of it.

I don't know. I I guess what they would

call evidence might be different than

what you would call evidence, but uh I

find that completely compelling. Yeah,

she's not really his type. [laughter]

I know how that sounds. Um,

let's see. According to uh interesting

engineering, Capil Kajal is telling us

that the Ukrainians are getting so good

with their drone warfare and their anti-

drone warfare that they found out to use

some music to disrupt the Russian

drones. Now, you might say, "How does

music disrupt a drone?" Well, it's not

the music, per se. It just has to be any

any consistent sound source. Um, that's

Well, you wouldn't want it to be just

boop, but you'd want a sound source that

has variety, but is persistent, not

consistent, a persistent sound. And

apparently if you beam that just right

with the right electronics working, you

can uh confuse a Russian drone.

So the music is not important except as

a sound source and then they use a sound

source as part of the jamming

um protocol. And apparently they're

doing it really well. And there's some

thought that the Ukrainians are sort of

ahead of even America in uh their

technology

deployment, but even maybe understanding

and engineering. I don't know about

that.

I've got a feeling that Anderil is

making better drones than Ukraine. You

know what I mean?

Maybe not every company is doing better

than Ukraine. I think Anderella probably

is or will soon without the music.

Anyway, we'll see. And as I've said many

times before, why in the world don't we

hear casualty numbers from Ukraine

anymore or Russia? I I saw one person

who seemed a little bit knowledgeable

saying that uh Russia is right on the

verge of winning. you know, Ukraine's

going to collapse any minute because uh

it's it's really about people and

Russia's run. Russia has more people. Do

you believe any of that?

Does it look like this war is on the

verge of ending one way or the other?

Doesn't look like it's on the verge of

anything. [laughter] It looks like it's

just stuck stuck in time.

You found Death Leopard works best on

Russian drones.

H

we'll get that we'll get that

information to Ukraine immediately.

Well, meanwhile, the UK allegedly

stopped sharing intel about Caribbean

boat locations because the US is blowing

up Caribbean boats that it says are

carrying drugs

from Venezuela. So, Washington Times is

reporting on this.

uh

vaugh cockain is writing about it.

So do you think that uh we'll be much

crippled by the fact that the UK is not

giving us information about Caribbean

cartel boats? I don't know. I think

we'll somehow survive. How much

difference did it make that we're

getting some

some uh UK intel? Do you think we had an

enormous fleet of our our maritime and

and our uh air force over there? Like we

have like all our best assets

surrounding Venezuela right now. Did we

really need British intel to know where

their boats are?

Like what what were we doing without it?

Are we just shooting missiles into the

water and hoping something lucky

happens? Could we really not tell where

anything was? [laughter]

We really needed them.

I don't know. Something wrong with that

story.

Did you see the uh guest that uh Tucker

Carlson had recently

uh who who had made some claims about uh

chemtrails chemtrails being real?

Let's see. Who was that? Uh

well, there's a story in the Daily Mail,

too, about uh the US military accused of

secret climate spraying.

And uh let's see, there's a Dne

Wigington. He's an environmental

researcher for 30 years. He claimed that

the conspiracy surrounding chemtrails is

not only true, but has actually crippled

the Earth's ability to naturally

overcome the pollution caused by humans.

Okay.

How many of you are now confu now

convinced that chemtrails

are real and that they've been happening

for decades?

I don't know. [laughter]

I don't know. Yeah, certainly they've

certainly tested things. I know they've

they've certainly seated clouds.

I mean, there there's certainly parts of

it that are real,

but whatever is happening, I don't know

if we know. We don't know what's new.

No, no, no. Hell no.

Call me skeptical.

I wouldn't rule out anything at the this

current my current worldview is that you

can't really rule out anything anymore.

But

yeah, you know, it's probably something

like

here here's my best guess. There's

probably something like chemtrails,

meaning that there's something real at

the base of it. But I'll bet you that

most of the things that people see in

the sky and they believe to be

chemtrails are just water vapor from

jets. How many of you would accept that

there might be something to it to the

claim but that most of what we see and

most you could use your own definition

of most but most of it is just imagining

you see it would you agree with that

even if there's something real at the

base

there might be something real

I mean there there's nothing that rules

it out really you you couldn't disprove

it

anyway Okay, so President Trump was

talking to Laura Ingram

uh yesterday. I guess it was a nice

piece. You should watch it if you can

find it. Um and uh Trump was defending

the so-called H-1B visas. So those are

the ones that we use to, as Trump would

say, bring in talent.

But through the America first people

depending on which ones you're talking

to might say hey we have enough talent

here why would you bring even one person

into the country to take an American job

the answer would be whether you buy the

answer or not the answer would be oh we

do not have enough talented

trained people for every kind of job.

So, in some cases when you bring people

over, you're going to have to, you know,

it'll take a while to train Americans or

you're going to have to bring somebody

from the country that invested such as

the South Korean battery company.

At least in the short run, they might

have to bring their own people because

they know how to make batteries and we

don't. But we're better off bringing

the, you know, onshoring the company.

That would be the, you know, the better

long-term play. So Trump is in favor of

using them where you can't easily find

or train workers and if you had those

workers we would be ahead.

How many of you agree with that take

that there is such a thing

as a worker shortage for some specialty

jobs and there probably a lot of lot of

them would that would be specialty. uh

and that you can't really just take the

homeless and train them to make

microchips.

How many think you can take the homeless

and just train them as hard as you can

until they know how to make microchips?

AI microchips.

All right, so I'm exaggerating a little

bit. You couldn't do it with the

homeless. But how many think you could

just take, let's say, you know, good

engineers from American schools

and teach them to do really anything,

just anything at all? Well, you could do

that, but would there be enough? And

would there be enough people who wanted

to be trained in that specific thing?

Um, so I can completely understand the

two sides because the two sides have

reasonably good arguments.

Reasonably good arguments. I mean,

certainly the side that says, "Damn it,

you could always find an American to do

these jobs. Don't let in one other

person." I get that. I understand that

argument very well.

And then the people who say, "But if you

tried,

Scott, if you tried to keep out 100% of,

you know, the nonitizens

and you tried to simply train people in

America to do these jobs, you would

fail. It would be impractical."

That's actually a really good argument.

[laughter] If you spent any time in the

real world, it's hard to find anybody

who's trained to do anything. just

anything, you know, much less some

specialty high-tech thing that we just

shipped in from South Korea. Where are

you going to find somebody who could do

that?

And then you say, "But you can train

people because we have some of the

smartest, most educated people." Yes,

you can, but there's friction.

It might take you a while

or you might need to get these

specialized workers to work there for a

couple years while they're training. But

why would they do that if they know

they're going to get fired in a couple

of years? So in the real world, it's

sort of really really hard to get

anybody who's trained to do anything.

and then you add on top of it um that it

has to be, you know, trained in a

specific thing in a specific amount of

time. It's really hard.

So

I I think both arguments are

substantial.

And uh I guess I lean toward a

Trump has a common sense view of the

world. I think we agree on that, right?

So the question is, which of these two

takes

fits what you would call common sense?

I feel like Trump has got the high

ground here.

And I hope I'm not, you know, just being

a team player because you have to watch

out for that, right? I feel like he just

has a stronger case because it's sort of

a it's aspirational that you could train

Americans to do all these jobs. I love

the aspiration and I love the confidence

that that shows in American workers. I

just don't think in the real world you

could actually fill the jobs.

So that's that's where Trump's common

sense take comes in. You know, you got

your ideal. The ideal would be don't

hire anybody outside the country. Um,

you can train Americans. That's a nice

ideal. Trump gets he knows that. He you

would agree with the ideal. So, if he's

if he's still in favor of doing it,

fully understanding that the ideal

situation would also be ideal America

first mega.

And he and he's still not going with the

ideal America first MAGA is because he

has a common sense view of the world.

you can't easily fill these jobs. Elon

Musk will tell you that sometimes you're

just going to have to, you know, grab a

Brit or a, you know, Nigerian engineer

or something, you know, somebody who's

already closer to knowing how to do the

job.

So, I'm no expert. And if you say to me,

Scott, I would rather that we don't even

have these industries than we have this

big open door where people coming in and

taking all our good stuff like our jobs.

I could respect that opinion. I would

respect that. I would disagree with it.

But I think that's a an opinion I could

respect because, you know, it's it's

grounded on something that makes sense.

you know, don't give don't give your

stuff away. [laughter] If you can make

it work,

you know, if you could find a way to not

let in any H1B visa people and also,

you know, be dominant in all these these

high-tech industries, if you can find a

way to do that, I'm all in. But I'm kind

of agreeing with Trump. If you're just

trying to be practical

and you're trying to be common sense and

you're and you're getting advice from

real people in the real world, you know,

like if Elon Musk says, "I can't hire as

many Americans as I need to support my

high-tech companies," what are you going

to say? You're wrong.

He's not wrong.

He's in [clears throat] the he's in the

trenches, right? So I think that I think

the people in the trenches largely agree

that it would make a big big difference

if at least for some sets of jobs, not

everyone.

I'm not in favor of H-1B for sort of

ordinary jobs where you could clearly

find Americans who would love those

jobs. We're not talking about that.

We're talking about somebody who knows

how to make a microchip, right? Real

specialized stuff. For that, I would

take no chance. All right. Here here's a

way for me to say it so that you might

agree with me. It's just a better way to

say it. I would never take the chance

that the USA fell fell behind in a in an

important technology

because of H-1B visas being uh

unavailable.

That would be a risk, wouldn't you say?

Whenever we allow anybody else to get

ahead of us in a technology, if it's one

of the critical ones, that becomes their

economy, it becomes their military, and

then they would dominate us, depending

on the industry.

So, would you agree that it's super

important that we dominate the critical

industries if we can? You'd agree with

that, right?

So, what gets you closer to being able

to dominate those industries, a

controlled economy or a free market?

And of course, I'm setting you up,

right?

Uh,

how do they know we don't have the

talents? You You're on the wrong

argument.

You're on the wrong argument. Um,

so let me also say that the way the H-1B

visa stuff has run in the past,

I'm not arguing for that

because I do think that there were too

many abuses. Um, but the question is

this. If if you allowed these big

companies to hire whenever there was a

real shortage of a real, you know, a

real skill, would America do better or

worse

industrywide

in dominating a technology?

If you could say, Scott, if you just let

the big companies hire, but only when

it's really critical. We're not talking

about ordinary skills, but if you give

them the freedom to do that, you're

closer to a free market than if you

don't give them the freedom to do that.

So, what Trump is arguing is you need to

give these people like Musk

freedom. that if they say the only way I

can make this work is with these

specialized people, then you let them do

that because you're not running their

company. You don't want you you don't

want the government to decide who they

hire. Right? Now, the exception would be

and here's where we all agree.

If it was for somebody to work on the

assembly line and it was just like a

real good union or non-union job, I want

that to go to American.

Even if it's say, you know, entry level

engineering and we don't have that many,

still

I'd want that to go to the American. So

if there's a little bit of friction, I

want it to go to the American. But if

there's a lot of risk such as we'll fall

behind in a critical industry,

I want.

So first you want to win if it's a

critical industry. And if somebody like

a Musk says the only way we can win, I'm

sorry. I would love to hire America

first, but for some of these jobs, such

as building your own uh microchip fab,

which is what uh Tesla wants to do, for

some of these jobs, you're just going to

have to hire from other countries. And

by the way, every time we hire away one

of the top people from another country,

that also is good for our situation in

the world. So we win by getting the

talent, but we also win by denying that

same talent to a country that could have

used it instead of us.

So if you see it in terms of risk

management and you apply it only to

those industries that are critical to

our future survival,

I think we end up on the same page

or very close. But yeah, short of

national survival,

which is tied to dominating certain

industries, short of that, there's no

reason to consider H-1B when you can

train Americans all on the same page.

Um,

here's something uh

that I keep trying to say in different

ways until it hits. I don't think I it

hasn't hit yet, but I was watching a

movie that was called something like the

uh the something of extraordinary

gentlemen or something warfare of

extraordinary gentlemen. And I thought

that one of the biggest stories that

political stories, one of the biggest

political stories in the world is

completely ignored. It's like an

unspoken understanding. And it goes like

this, that the GOP has been taken over

by unusually intelligent

people.

Unusually intelligent people.

Let me tell you what I mean by that.

In my opinion, one of the things that

people get wrong about Trump all the

time and then there's surprise is that

he likes extraordinary people. He likes

extraordinary people. Be they athletes,

you know, could be boxers or fighters,

could be, you know, baseball players.

Daryl Strawberry, he likes extraordinary

people. Now, some people think, oh, he's

he's got such a big ego that uh he

doesn't want to be around, you know,

people who are actually smart because he

wants to be the smartest person in the

room. No, that's not him at all. Part of

what makes him special is that he

recognizes and boosts unusually capable

people. You know, why is RFK Jr. part of

his administration? Because he's

unusually capable,

right? [clears throat]

Why is David Saxs got an important role?

Only one reason. He's unusually capable,

right? You know, Jared, why does he have

Jared helping? He's unusually capable.

He happens to be related, which gives

him a little bit of an advantage, but

he's unusually capable.

And once you see that and you see that

everybody from you know uh Elon Musk to

you know you could go down the line from

the the Joe Rogan etc. If you made a

list of the people who are supporting

him how many of them would you describe

as unusually smart like just not normal

smart

but just unusually smart. And when you

see that the unusually smart seem to

have found a home, like they found a

home because you can't really it's hard

to be unusually smart if you're not

around other unusually smart people.

And so it it kind of created a home for

the unusually smart. [laughter]

And we could talk about, you know, who's

on my list of unusually smart, but I

I'll bet you would have a very similar

list of the unusually smart. And I don't

know how you beat that group if if they

stayed, you know, if they decided to

have a coherent after Trump policy, they

could put together quite a quite a doozy

if they could find the right carrier for

the ideas. You might be JD, maybe not.

We'll see.

So Trump gave his uh tour of the White

House to Laura Ingram and uh took her by

the Hall of Presidents that includes now

the autopen photo in place of Biden.

And Trump said that was his idea. He

comes up with all the good ideas he

says, which is also funny. And uh and

[clears throat] he has no he has no

plans to ever change it. He's going to

keep the autopan there for four years.

I don't know how long it will last after

that, but that is a good joke. Like if

you can't appreciate the humor of that

uh and you think that's the worst thing

that ever happened, you don't really

understand Trump at all. And I would

argue that uh my prior point about the

unusually intelligent

uh people who have decided to be on the

same side, part of that unusual

intelligence

is accepting of edgy humor. Would you

agree that the smartest people you know

are probably the people who can take the

hardest joke, right?

Am I imagining that or is that just sort

of obviously true? Uh it's it's dumb

people who have trouble

understanding the joke is a joke. You

know, once you get to a certain level of

of intelligence, you just know a joke's

a joke and you get over it pretty

quickly. So, I think the base totally

understands the autopen and they know

that its purpose in large part is to

bother the Democrats. And every time

it's there and it bothers a Democrat and

it gives them something to talk about, I

laugh again. So, it's like the it's like

the gift that keeps on giving. It's

never not funny.

Yeah. But [clears throat] the funny part

is not that he's doing it. I'm sorry.

The funny part is not just the that it's

an autopen instead of a photo. That is

funny, but you get over that part kind

of quickly, but it remains funny because

it still bothers them. [laughter]

The fact that [clears throat] it never

stops bothering them. That's the joke.

That's the joke. And that doesn't get

less funny.

All right. Did you know the Washington

Times is reporting Stefan Dan that the

number of uh suspected terrorists coming

over the border is way up?

Did you know that the number of quote

suspected terrorists crossing the border

is up by 30fold?

Are you afraid yet?

The number of suspected terrorists

coming across the border is up 30fold.

Okay, don't worry. It's not bad news.

What it is is once the cartels were

designated as terrorist organizations

and then we got good at grabbing their

photos, it turns out we're now good at

identifying cartel members. So when when

it says that uh the number of suspected

terrorists is up 30fold, it means we got

really really good at spotting cartel

members crossing the border. Trying to

do it legally, but obviously we're

spotting them. So what looks like bad

news is actually extraordinary.

Extraordinary

that they had a 30fold improvement in

spotting cartel members coming across

the border. How often do you get a

30-fold improvement in anything? That's

pretty impressive. So, yeah, that's just

sort of all good news. I I would like to

have fewer cartel members crossing my

border. That'd be good, too. But the

fact that we can now spot him seems like

a good idea.

Well, apparently there's going to be

some protests against the Mexican

president for not doing enough uh to go

after the cartels. and the Mexican

president. What What do you think she

did when the uh security risk got too

high?

That's right. She's building a wall

[laughter]

[clears throat] around wherever the

president lives. I don't know what it is

in Mexico, but whatever their version of

the presidential palace or whatever it

is, they're they're building a big steel

wall all around it. Build the wall.

Build the wall.

Um, and it's interesting that the public

so clearly

blames her as being basically a tool of

the cartel.

I'm pretty sure that Trump thinks of her

the same way, but is she's the only

she's the only president they have. So,

he has to deal with her in the real

world in a some kind of real world

productive way. So maybe he just has to

pretend, you know, he knows less about

the cartel connections than he does. But

it could suggest that there's going to

be a military move against the cartels

by the US because you might expect that

the president of Mexico would be very

vulnerable

to some kind of cartel attack if she

didn't stop the US from attacking

Mexico. So things could get a little uh

little wet and a little dark as soon as

that fence is done. Uh there there's

some specific protests coming up, but

I'll bet you they keep the fence up

after that's over.

According to interesting engineering,

Kyif Shik is writing that uh there's

some new technology that promises to

turn uh

ethanol ethanol plants that would be a

place that turns things into ethanol. Um

but there's some CO2 waste that comes

out of that and they could turn it into

jet fuel for 80% less

than the current cost of just jet fuel.

Now, I'm not going to try to tell you

that this is likely to happen, this

specific technology, but all the times

I've read to you, almost every day,

there's always some breakthrough in

either uh producing energy or converting

CO2 into energy or reducing cost by 80%

like in this case, I feel like the

future

is something like everything will cost

80% less and then 90% less. us. Like if

you were going to look at the near-term

and midterm, everything will look more

expensive. But if you were to look at

the long term, it looks like the cost of

everything is just going to plummet

because we'll keep finding these little

ways to do stuff like this. It's like,

oh, we'll just turn this into something.

It'll reduce the cost by 80%.

So Jeff Fuel is one of the big big

polluters

in the world. All right, let me just

finish up here. The If you haven't seen

the video yet of a giant bridge in China

collapsing, it's sort of a newish

bridge, but it was one of those big

impressive ones, and they had some

mudslide that just took out the whole

bridge. Nobody died. The police did a

good job, cleared it out in anticipation

of the problem, and sure enough, there's

video of a mudslide taking out the whole

bridge.

So, the reason I bring that up is I've

been thinking lately that China is the

only one who can make anything anymore,

but it used to be that we thought that

China didn't manufacture as well as, you

know, other countries because we were

racist or something. Uh, and now I'm

wondering

how many other engineering miracles

that China has built are just going to

fall over.

You know all those ghost cities they

built that they ended up blowing up. Did

it ever make sense to you that they

would just blow them up? Unless they

were built so poorly that they knew they

couldn't put people in them and that

they would be dangerous.

Could it be that some percentage of

their their engineering miracles are

just pure and that they didn't

do a good job, they just made it look

good and then sold it as a miracle?

I don't know.

Yeah. M makes makes me wonder how much

is real.

Anyway, uh the US is going after some

more of those drug boats. RSBN is

reporting Dylan Burroughs. Uh two more

taken out on Sunday

and we report that these vessels were

known by our intelligence to be

associated with illicit narcotics. Well,

how could we know that without the the

British intelligence? Without the

British intelligence, these could have

been tourists. How would we know? I'm

just joking.

Um, have you noticed that

there are a lot of things governments do

that they can blame on the our

intelligence people and you and I can't

check?

So, are you sure that those were

uh narco boats? Oh, yeah. Yeah. Our

intelligence people confirmed it. Which

intelligence people? Oh, we can't give

that up. How' they confirm it? Sources

and methods. Sorry, I'm not going to

tell you that. How sure are they? Oh,

they're really sure. Very sure.

You can just blame anything on on the

intel group and and nobody has any way

to check. Absolutely. These are narco

boats if I ever saw any.

Um, apparently there's some big

anti-corruption watchdog thing happening

in Ukraine where there's some

allegations that Ukraine is filled with

corruption. Huh.

Uh, and that they believe that the

corruption is not just the government

itself taking its taste, which of course

is probably happening, but rather it

seems to be criminal enterprises. So,

there seems to be criminal organizations

that are taking 10% of everything that's

happening over there. So, starting to

think I can't trust those Ukrainians.

That's my joke of the day. All right,

everybody. Thanks for joining me. That

takes me to the end of my valuable

comments. I'm going to talk uh for a

moment to my beloved members of Locals.

All my technology is working today. I'm

so impressed. All right. Uh, everybody

else, I'll see you tomorrow. Same time,

same place.

Let's see. Let's see if we can do locals

privately. Hey,