Episode 3028 CWSA 11/24/25

Hey, there you are.

Get in here, people.

We're getting ready for the show of shows.

Best part of Monday.

You won't want to miss it.

Call your friends.

Get your dog.

Alert the media.

All right, let's make sure I got your comments going.

Boom.

Perfect.

Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization is called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better time.

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

Whoa.

All you need for that is a tanker gel, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

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

The thing that makes say everything.

It's called simultaneous sip.

And it happens now.

Go.

Disgusting.

Don't ever have coffee with prescription medication.

It doesn't go well at all.

All right.

So, let me grab my notes.

And uh wait, what's wrong with my notes?

Something happened to my notes.

Oh, it's the 2026 Dilbert calendar that accidentally jumped into my hand to remind you that it's available at amazon.com.

It's the only place you can get it.

And it's got comics on both sides.

And it'll make you so happy.

Well, I can barely express how happy you'll get.

Barely.

All right.

Oh, you're a beast of a man.

I'm no beast.

You're a beast.

All right.

Let's look at all the interesting stories today.

Um there's a new theory about why kids are doing poorly in school as if they needed another reason.

It's the uh laptops.

So apparently, as we know, if uh children are allowed to watch television, their brains will rot.

And if children are allowed to have smartphones, their brains will rot.

And if they're allowed to have i.

Pads, you know, their brains will rot.

However, here's the good news.

If they if they have laptops, which apparently more and more kids do as they go to school, um that's very predictive that they will do poorly in school because apparently they spend a lot of time just messing around on the laptop and not as much time learning.

Did you know that apparently they know that if you write your notes with your hand like as in handwritten notes that you'll remember your notes better than if you typed them.

I knew that.

So one of the things that I used to do is try to activate as many different senses and parts of the brain as I could when I studied back in my studying days.

So, sometimes I'd draw a picture of the thing.

Sometimes I'd uh, you know, sometimes I'd write it by hand.

Sometimes I'd write it more than once.

So, I try to try to just engage every possible, you know, physical and mental sense to wrap it around the idea.

I was trying to remember.

And that's your tip for the day.

tell your your uh school age child how to do that.

All right, here's the most surprising story of the day.

I want you to see if you can guess the direction this story will take.

H this will be a tough one.

According to the Gateway Pundit, the Chicago Teachers Union uh has been put on notice because apparently they they failed to do a financial audit for half a decade.

That would be five years for those of you who went to Chicago schools.

So, let's see.

What do you think happened when a Chicago teachers union who took lots of money from their members and then for five years didn't tell anybody where it went?

Huh?

Chicago teachers union large bunch of money seems to be missing and nobody can say where it went.

What happened?

Well, it's the world's most predictable outcome.

If it's a large organization and they haven't done an audit, guess what?

They stole it.

Is it ever anything else?

Do Do you think they're just going to find that, hey, oh wow, this is kind of a surprise.

Turns out we just didn't spend the money.

We have all this money to refund because we just didn't spend it.

No, that probably didn't happen.

Um, I have two ways to look at this.

Number one, the opposite of the word audited is what?

So, they were not audited.

What is the opposite of audited?

Embezzled.

If you're not auditing your large pile of money, you're embezzling it every time.

It's not just sitting there doing what you wanted it to do.

Somebody's embezzling it.

All right.

Uh here's the alternate post.

I was going to do this on X.

So instead of saying the opposite of is embezzled, which I thought was pretty clever, fairly clever.

Uh I add another po post that I thought was almost as good.

It was just quote, "Hey, what happened to our unwatched pile of money?" Hey, what happened to our unwatched pile of money?

Well, have I ever taught you anything about unwatched piles of money?

Have I taught you nothing?

If there's an unwatched pile of money and you wait long enough, yeah, it's exactly what you think.

Meanwhile, I saw a story uh Wall Street apes had this on X that Democrats apparently laundered, that's their word, laundered, 93 billion dollars uh during the 76 days between when Trump got elected and he took office.

So, the Democrats just very quickly distributed 96, no 93 billion.

Huh.

I wonder where this story will go.

$93 billion.

Was it audited or was it unaudited?

H seems to have been unaudited.

Unaudited.

So there was a 93 billion pile of money.

It was unaudited.

How could I ever predict what would happen here?

Oh, I've got an idea.

Is a lot of it missing?

Well, not all of it.

Scott, don't be so cynical.

It's not all missing.

They did manage to claw back uh what uh 24 billion.

So, only 69 billion left to be recovered.

69 billion.

You know, I don't know if that means that a few people got a lot of billions or did they just sort of say, "All right, who's a Democrat?

You're a Democrat.

Here's $1,000." How do you even steal $69 billion?

That would take a lot of work.

Uh, in other news, you know, we always talk about uh repeat offenders with crime.

The City Journal is reminding us, I don't know, I don't know if these numbers are right or real.

They don't even look real, but uh allegedly uh in New York City uh 327 people account for onethird of all shoplifting arrests.

327.

What does that imply for how many committed the crimes?

This is just the arrests.

I mean, you have to try pretty hard to get arrested for shoplifting these days.

And uh those 327 people have allegedly been arrested 6,000 times.

And then in Oakland, there allegedly 400 people were responsible for the majority of homicides.

Wait, what?

There are 400 people in Oakland who are responsible for the majority of the homicides.

The majority.

I I was frightened to death that there are 400 murderers in the town next to me.

400 murderers.

And apparently they're murdering more than one person.

I I don't know the average murder per murderer, but looks like looks like they're pretty busy.

You know, I was thinking of becoming a criminal.

uh early in my career and then I thought, "Oh, am I going to be one of those lazy criminals who just does a crime or two and then retires or goes to jail or am I going to be one of these industrious serial criminals who who who robs a thousand banks?" And I thought, "Well, I don't want to be a lazy criminal.

I'll be one of these ones, these repeat offenders." Anyway, uh I'd like to know how many murders a piece the murderers are doing.

All right, here's my I remember in California when we had this uh three strikes law.

So when it was first being contemplated contemplated and I would be reading the news and I wasn't really that involved with any politics at all.

wasn't really following politics in any way and certainly not in the state.

It wasn't following any state politics.

And then I heard people arguing that if you locked up all the repeat offenders after their third offense, it wouldn't make any difference to the crime rate.

And I thought to myself, wait, what?

If you put in jail the people who are doing the crimes, that will not reduce the crime.

Can you explain how that doesn't work?

And the only way that you could explain how locking up the repeat offenders doesn't work is if the people who were not planning to do more crimes compensated by saying, "Whoa, it looks like they locked up the repeat offenders.

I'm g I'm going to have to increase my my crime per person to compensate for the the locked up repeat offenders.

Otherwise, there isn't really any possible way that locking up the people doing the crimes ends up with the same amount of crime.

That's not really possible.

And here again, I feel like we we devolve into that just ridiculousness, the ridiculousness of imagining that wouldn't work.

It would work.

It would just be really bad for the people getting locked up.

They wouldn't like it at all.

Or maybe they would.

I don't know.

I can't get in the mind of a serial criminal.

Well, speaking of bad behavior, there is a hilarious story of a VP at Campbell Soups company.

And for some reason, there was a an ex now an ex employee who recorded the VP over lunch.

And here are some of the things that the VP of Campbell Soup.

Now, this is the VP of it, I think.

So, it wasn't the marketing guy, but uh the VP was caught on uh caught on audio, I guess, recorded as saying, and I quote, "We have for poor people." Meaning that their product is for poor people.

He goes, "Who buys our I don't buy Kai Campbell's products barely anymore.

It's not healthy now that I know what the in it.

Remember this is a VP at Campbell Soup.

It's not healthy now that I know what the in it.

He goes, "Bioengineered meat.

I don't want to eat a piece of chicken that came from a 3D printer." That's the actual VP of of Campbell Soup.

bioengineered meat.

I don't want to eat a piece of chicken that came from a 3D printer.

Well, maybe it's just me, but I'd like to offer that guy a job.

I would love to have a an executive who was that honest.

All right.

Apparently, this is all there's some lawsuit by a former employee, but that's pretty bad.

I didn't know you could just record people over lunch.

Kind of depends what state you're in, doesn't it?

In my state, you couldn't do that.

That would be illegal.

All right.

Uh so we'll see where that goes.

That that will soon be a Dilbert uh comic, you know.

Yeah, it will be.

Dilbert comic about the uh one of Dilbert's executives being recorded talking honestly about the products.

Yeah, that's coming.

That's coming.

Well, I saw just before I went live, Eric Dohy was posting about this that uh Trump is going to introduce maybe tomorrow some kind of healthc care price cuts act.

What do you think that'll be about?

I don't know the details, but a few other things being mentioned.

Um it would halt Obamacare premium spikes.

I don't know how.

And the plan reportedly includes some kind of deposit mechanism, some kind of health savings account.

Is that a good idea?

I don't know.

It It seems like something that might work in the long run, but you know, in year one, you'd have to get those accounts up.

Um, it would also end the premium hikes and zero premium subsidies and stop massive fraud known as quote ghost beneficiaries.

Would it?

Well, I don't know.

That's a big claim.

And Trump recently said, "I'm calling today for insurance companies not to be paid, but for this massive amount of money to be paid directly directly to the people so they can buy their own healthcare." Does anybody understand what that means?

Because I don't.

I have no idea what it means to say you're going to pay the people directly instead of the insurance companies, wouldn't that be the same as singlepayer insurance?

What does that mean?

If if you ignored the insurance companies and you simply had I don't know, the government, who who is it who's paying?

I guess it would be the government paying the people.

I don't know.

So, I got lots and lots of questions.

I don't know who is going to take the lead on uh this program, but um I don't think that would make you self-insured, right?

That would make you self-insured in a way, but you'd still need something like the government backstopping you.

Otherwise, it's not really health insurance.

It's not insurance.

If you're if you're insuring yourself, that's not very much insurance.

Private health costs or what?

Do some of you actually understand this?

I'll try I'll try to catch up on it today because I don't have an opinion on any of it yet because it's a little too hard to figure out how it all fits together.

But if the Trump administration puts their best people on explaining it, we might find out soon.

Maybe.

Maybe something's going to happen.

All right, I'm going to make a bold prediction today.

Bold prediction for technology.

So, you know how for the past, I don't know, few years, I've been saying too often, "Oh, there's a new story about some company making a claim that they can make a a battery for cars that last twice as long and blah blah blah." But you never see that battery.

And it's usually because it's some kind of lab development, not really a real world development yet.

You know, it would take years for it to reach the real world.

Well, speaking of the real world, um, over in China, according to Notebook Check, uh, some big, uh, China automotive group is announcing that they've developed, uh, an actual, uh, an actual manufacturing capability for a battery that would go, they say, about twice as far as the current battery.

So about 620 mi, but everybody knows that's an exaggeration because it's a Chinese battery estimate which tends to be about one/ird higher than reality.

However, this one they've they've completed the first large capacity production line.

So now they have the technology, but they're just finishing the tweaking of the production line to actually produce the mass mass production.

So here's my pred here's my uh prediction.

When it comes to technology, there's there are some technologies and batteries are definitely in that category.

That's why they're interesting to me.

Where a little bit improvement is just a little bit of improvement.

Ah, it's 10% better.

I'll save some money.

Now it's 20% better.

Maybe I'll buy an electric car.

So when you get these 10 and 20% increases in in capacity, it's really good and it helps your industry and maybe sometimes you can predict that that means things will develop faster in the electric car space, whatever.

But you're going to reach a point, and here's my prediction, that 2026 is when we reach the point where if you were to double capacity, and a lot of the new battery breakthroughs, they make that claim anyway.

They claim they double capacity.

You don't have to predict which one of them ends up being the dominant one, the one that works.

All you have to know is that there are a whole bunch of technologies that might, if they could figure out how to produce them, double your capacity.

If we were to double our current capacity, it would just change everything.

Suddenly, robots are not just practical, they're cheap.

Uh, electric cars would be everywhere.

Self-driving cars would be everywhere.

It' be the only way you'd go anywhere.

and you'd be able to build um networks that capture the sun power and you still have plenty of capacity to make it all the way overnight.

So I think 2026 is going to be the year of the battery and it I realize that there's a dog not barking in this space which is I don't believe Tesla brags about their new battery technology too far ahead of time.

Do they?

But when would you ever learn that Tesla came up with a new battery technology and had already built out a mega factory to produce it in mass quantities.

You'd probably find out around the time they opened the factory, right?

I don't know that they would tell you years in advance and it would take a little while to get that up and running.

So, the thing I'm expecting is that Tesla will have a substantial battery upgrade announcement that'll have that'll either be announced or implemented in 2026.

So, 2026, the year of the battery.

All right, let's see if you could do what I could do, which is anticipate this science according to the University of Cambridge.

And I want you to listen to this carefully so that you can see if you're as smart as I am.

Um, apparently they already knew that improving your diet could improve your weight.

That's something they already knew.

They already knew also that exercise could improve your weight.

So they knew that diet worked and they knew the exercise worked.

So what did they give funding to test?

Well, they got funding to test if you combined eating right with exercise if the two of them would get you a better result than if you only done if than if you only did one or the other.

What do you think?

I'm not going to tell you the surprising result.

Do you think that if you knew that diet works and you know that exercise works, if you did both of them right, what would happen?

Na na.

Did you get it?

I think one of you buzzed in.

That's right.

If you do two smarter things that definitely work and every single person in the world knows it, you're going to get a better result than if you did one thing.

No, really.

Really?

I'm not making that up.

That's that's science.

Well, next time you don't need to do that science.

Just ask Scott.

So, I guess we're still talking about the uh six Democrats who did that video urging people in the military not to follow any illegal orders.

Have you noticed a pattern?

There's a pattern.

And the pattern is that Democrats consistently find things that didn't need to be done and then they do them.

They they're finding new ways to be useless.

What what would be more useless than creating a video to remind people in the military not to do the thing that every one of them already knows not to do and reminding them also that they should talk to their JAG officer if there's some gray area?

Do you think that short of having that short of having that video by the six Democrats in Congress that if that had not been made, do you think our military would be out there doing a bunch of illegal orders?

Would they be all confused because they wouldn't know how to handle this?

Or is it the one thing that you all know whether you're in the military or not in the military?

That would cover everybody.

Is it the one thing that every one of us knows without being told by a special video made by Democrats?

I'm pretty sure they already know it.

Or do you imagine that this is happening all over the military?

Hey, Bob.

I was thinking of shooting uh you maybe murdering one of our uh one of our compatriots and then stealing his money and uh then pinning the blame on somebody else.

What do you think?

I don't know.

Would that be illegal?

Oh, yeah.

It would be illegal.

It' be illegal.

But is it a good idea?

Hm.

I don't remember a boot camp, but I'll bet somebody mentioned something about that once.

Don't do illegal orders.

Yeah.

No, somebody said that.

I'm positive I'm positive that some somewhere in my training they told me not to murder people because it's illegal.

It's illegal and you're not allowed to do illegal things just because you're in the military.

Well, why did I even join the military if I'm not allowed to do illegal things?

Well, I don't know.

Sounds like a mistake.

Cuz I joined it just to do illegal things.

Now, what could be less useful?

Seriously, what could be less useful than telling people in the military the one thing that every person in the military already knows?

I'll bet you couldn't find one piece of knowledge or information that had as many people knowing that you can't do it.

It'd be hard to match it.

All right, but here are some funny things coming out of that.

Number one, uh, apparently they're getting a nickname.

This the sedicious six.

I saw that on social media.

I don't know if it's catching on yet, but it's very funny.

the sedicious sex.

Now, I had to I had to check with AI to figure out what sedicious means versus let's see what are the other words they use around this, you know, insurrection, sedition, treason, right?

Those are all the words that they use.

And um I guess I guess Trump suggested that if anybody is involved in sedition, they should be executed.

Now, he didn't name them, but people kind of connected the dots and said, "Hey, I think Trump's saying that maybe maybe they should be executed." Now, here's the problem, and you may have spotted this on your own because I've gave you some hints before today.

Have I ever told you, and yes, I have, that you can predict Trump's reaction because he'll always take the strongest path.

Now, that doesn't mean he's serious about it, and it doesn't mean that that strongest path will ever happen.

But if you're just talking, as in he's talking about what you do about these sedicious sex, if you're just talking, you can kind of guarantee in advance that if there's one thing to be said that's the strongest thing, even if it's the wrong thing, if it's the strongest thing, you know, Trump's going to say it, right?

And so far, that's worked out for him.

But it does create this uh set of uh evidence that the the Democrats would use that he's a he's a fascist authoritarian.

So you can you see the problem?

So the problem is if you were to artificially create a situation as a Democrat in which there was no space left for the strongest opinion except for something that's over the line.

Would you consider it over the line to talk about executing members of Congress for making this video that didn't need to be made under the assumption that really the reason for the video is to try to turn the military against the sitting uh sitting government?

Well, there's a lot of mind readading that would be involved in in that.

But um so here's the problem.

If the Democrats get smart enough, and I worry that that's what just happened.

If they get smart enough, are they not going to realize that they can trap Trump into saying what is over the line by going as close to the line as they can and and sort of leaving him not much space for whatever would be the strongest thing to say?

Now, did he say the strongest thing you can say when some members of your government make this kind of a video?

Yeah.

Yeah, that's the strongest thing you can say.

It's not even the law.

It's not even the law that you can execute people for uh what would be I guess they would say sedition, which is an unproven allegation at this point, right?

Sedition is not the death penalty.

I didn't know what was so I had to ask uh Chat GBT.

Now if Chat GBT told me the truth and did not hallucinate then treason could in some cases be the death penalty.

But even that would be rare.

And treason is when you're working with a foreign country to undermine your current country.

That's not what's being alleged.

What's being alleged is sedition which is people within the country trying to change the government outside the constitutional uh mechanism.

And then there's insurrection which would be you know some version of trying to do it from the inside also not necessarily implying there's any foreign country involved.

So, it's the foreign country involvement that pushes you toward maybe execution, but even then probably not.

It would be a rare rare occurrence.

So, uh here's my open question.

Did the Democrats become suddenly smart enough that they knew that if they did this ridiculous thing that didn't need to be done, which is a video telling the people in the military exactly what every one of them already knew.

Don't do any illegal things.

Don't follow follow any illegal orders.

Like I'm not in the military and even I knew that.

Is there even one person who's in the comments?

Let's say, is there one person in the audience right now?

Show me in the comments.

who didn't know this, whether you've ever been in the military or know anybody who's in the military or had any contact with the military, didn't you know that they're not allowed to do illegal things?

Like, they can't just go murder people because their their senior officer told them to.

You all knew that, right?

So, if we acknowledge that the that it's probable, can't read their minds, but it's probable that the Democrats who made that video were completely aware that it did nothing useful, but that it would bait Trump into saying the strongest thing you would say in that domain.

And the strongest thing you would say is what he said.

And then they got their little food for the day.

Their food for the day is, can we trick him into saying something that we can determine or we can define as being authoritarian or fascist?

Yes.

Yes.

We tricked him into saying the strongest thing.

Now, as I told you, it's almost I I think I've said every time, but maybe that's too strong.

When Trump's instinct is to take the strongest position, even if it's not practical or, you know, something that could ever happen in the real world, it still makes him look like the strongest person in every conversation.

And in the long run, that's going to pay off because sometimes you just need a strong leader.

And you're going to look around and go, "All right, well, I don't like everything he's ever said, but I have to admit, we need a strong leader right now, and you can't beat that.

that that's the strongest leader we've ever seen, at least in my lifetime.

All right, so here's my question.

How do we know that the Democrats did it just because they're stupid and combined with TDS?

Did they think this was actually something the country needed?

How many of you think that?

Because I'm just thinking, what are the possible explanations for why they even made that video?

stupid, right?

They'd have to be stupid because they'd have to know.

They'd have to realize that there's no point in it.

Doesn't change anything.

And then or they just have TDS or they're stupid and they have TDS.

Does that explain it?

I don't think it does, honestly.

And I don't know the answer, so I'm just speculating, too.

But if I had to guess, I feel like there's somebody over on that team who is smart enough to know that this would be a a way to generate these artificial he's an authoritarian.

He's a fascist.

Just look what he did.

We'll keep this in the news forever.

I I feel like it's intentional, like like it's some kind of a trap they set up.

Now, the real question is this.

Can you trap Trump?

Is he trappable?

Well, Megan Kelly found out he wasn't that trappable the first time he he did a debate with the Republicans.

Remember the very first debate?

Uh, you say these terrible things about women.

That's a trap.

You That's a trap.

There's no way you're going to get out of that.

Only Rosie O'Donnell.

Oh, okay.

I guess there is one way to get out of it.

So while I while I am sure it's a trap, whether intentional or not, that's that's still open.

But it it functions as a trap.

Would you agree?

Everybody agrees with that, right?

Even if it's not intentional on the on the part of the Democrats, it functions as a trap.

And did did Trump walk right into it?

We'll see because once he I think once he recognizes that it's a trap and by now he certainly has.

Of course he has.

Um he's going to have an unpredictable which is what he did with the with the Rosie O'Donnell move.

It's just unpredictable.

He's probably going to have an unpredictable response.

So what I would look for is what happens next because to me it looks like the Democrats had a pretty good play.

It look it looks like it looks like they couldn't possibly be as dumb as they're acting.

So, I'm going to guess that they knew what they were doing or at least one person over there did and created this situation where they can generate this new these new headlines that are based on nothing.

They just created a situation that wasn't there.

Pretty clever.

But watching Democrats find new ways to be useless never gets old.

Um, and then of course each of the Democrats involved has now been asked multiple times by the media, can you uh give me an example of one of these illegal orders?

And so far they've been smart enough not to give examples.

And instead they say, well, some version of it's not that it's already happened.

It's that we're worried that it will happen.

To which I say, isn't that every problem in the world?

Every problem in the world is just something that they're worried will happen.

Shouldn't you worry about some things that are actually happening?

Let me tell you something that's actually happening.

We're overspending and running ourselves into debt.

Let me tell you something that as far as I know hasn't happened and probably won't.

the US military uh obey obeying obviously illegal orders doesn't feel like a big problem.

It hasn't affected me yet, but their argument would be someday in the future this might happen.

Yeah, I see in the comments somebody saying color revolution.

You are correct.

So, this could be just one this could be just one move within a larger set of moves that we would call a color revolution.

What would that involve?

Well, it would involve um getting some street muscle check.

They did that.

They did the anti-Tesla stuff, the no king stuff.

Street muscle.

Um, it would involve trying to create a narrative that the media can carry forever that says one of them is a bad egg and must be removed.

Check.

They're they're now creating the narrative.

And now the press is uh trying to decide if they're going to be duped.

So, I guess uh Alisa Sluten, one of the six, was on uh this week in ABC and asked some questions and did not have any examples of any illegal orders.

I don't think anybody else has, but her defense her defense of why they did it involved a reference to Nuremberg and the movie A Few Good Men.

And somehow she made an argument which is funnier if you actually hear her say it that that uh the existence of Nuremberg and the existence of that movie uh are somehow somehow support them making that video.

I'm not even going to try to try to explain that argument.

It's so stupid.

It's just funny.

Um all right, that was funny.

And uh and when asked if she believed that Trump had issued any illegal orders, she did the to my knowledge, I'm not aware of things that are illegal.

And now, uh, one of the one of the six, the sedicious six, Representative Jason Crowe, uh, now he's saying that he's got a problem because he's getting death threats and bomb threats from what I imagine would be people who are on the other side of the political aisle.

And he says it's very disturbing stuff.

When you have the president of the United States threatening to execute and to hang and arrest using this rhetoric, people listen to it.

Well, he's not wrong, is he?

He's not wrong.

I mean, I think he had an example that he played and stuff.

So, yes, if the president of the United States, be it Trump or be it Biden, says something like, uh, you know, these other group of people are bad people.

Whoever it is, you're going to give some nuts who's going to take a shot at him.

So, did this create a super dangerous situation for these six Democrats?

Yes, it did.

But was this situation going to create itself?

No.

Was this situation something that Trump dreamed up?

Was Trump sitting sitting at home and his boxers and and the uh the White House and thinking, "I've got an idea.

If I can just trick them into making a video that doesn't need to be made, then I can uh say that anybody would do that should be hung and then some crazy person will go hurt them.

Do you think that happened?

Or do you think Democrats created a situation that absolutely did not need to be created by making the video in the first place and accusing the person that maybe some of you voted for of being a fascist dictator authoritarian?

Which one of those created the situation?

Representative Jason Crowe, I will give you Trump worsened it.

Can we agree on that?

I'll give you that.

Trump worsened it.

But who created it?

Who created the situation that just didn't need to exist?

Was it the video that six people created that didn't need to be made to tell people what they already knew and offered absolutely nothing except the opportunity for Trump to all it did was create an opportunity for Trump to say these people should be hung even though he didn't say that about them specifically technically people connected the dots and assumed that that's what he's telling.

So I'll give you that.

I will give you that.

Democrats.

Trump worsened the situation.

He didn't create it.

You're going to have to own creating it.

But but as a supporter of the president, I will own worsened it.

I will own that.

All right.

Um and I don't and and by the way, I'm not in favor of it in case I need to say that clearly.

Not in favor of that level of narrative.

But I accept that it happened and it happened on my side.

Is that okay?

I accept that I'm on the side that where that happened and that I have some responsibility for it, don't I?

Would wouldn't you agree as as a member of a team, certainly a, you know, longtime supporter of the president.

I have some responsibility for that.

And I'm going to take my responsibility right now, which is maybe it's time to back off on that a little bit.

Yeah, maybe just a little bit.

Back off on that.

Yeah, we don't we don't want to be killing anybody for their political opinions.

Not all of you will agree with this.

I get that.

And by the way, I I accept that, too.

I accept that some of you are not going to agree that there should be any softening of that position.

But do you really want do you really want your elected representatives to be hung over a dumb video that obviously they were just not clever enough to know how this would turn out?

I don't know that that feels like I would not be benefited by that in any way, but the country would would be harmed by it.

So no, I don't want to see anybody hung over their political speech, even if it's pretty raw like that was.

That was pretty raw on the uh on both of their parts really.

Well, Zoron Mumani was on uh one of the weekend shows and he was asked if uh he thinks Trump is a fascist.

Remember that's the same question he was asked when uh he was in the Oval Office.

Um and uh he didn't get to answer it, but he answered it on TV and he said uh basically yes.

He said, "That's something that I've said in the past and I say it today." All right.

So, I will give him credit that Money has not backed off from saying that Trump is a fascist.

He's he's doubling down.

But does that make sense when you also know that they had something like a productive conversation about affordability and they think they can work together to get that done?

Does that make sense?

Does does that compute in your brain that he says he's a fascist, but apparently he can work with him on getting uh affordability because you know who's really good on affordability is the fascists.

So kind of weird.

I I feel as though you could criticize Zoron for working with fascists.

So, the next question I'd ask him is, uh, Zoron, do you think it's okay to work with a fascist?

Because he just said yes.

So, is the thing that really happened, maybe the only thing that really happened is that the word fascist just turned into a non-word because Trump actually joked about it in the Oval Office.

He said, "You could just say yes.

Just say yes is easier.

Like Trump wasn't even denying the fascist thing.

It's so harmless now.

It's so overused and you know it's overused without real evidence of anything that looks at least in my opinion in that category.

So it could be that we're watching that word become completely disarmed partly by Trump saying ah you could just say yes just say I'm a fascist it doesn't matter.

And then again by Zoron who agrees that it's a accurate word but he can work with him.

Well, if you can work with him, it can't be that bad, can it?

It just makes the word look ridiculous.

So maybe that's a step ahead.

Zero Hedge has got an article today that uh since 2008 um the US gas pipeline pipelines have been booming.

Now, that's the pipelines, you know, the physical pipelines.

And uh I didn't know this, but apparently even long before the Trump administration, even before the first one, uh the pipeline boom was begun.

And now we're seeing a lot of it having been built out.

So, we're going to see sort of the benefit of it under the second Trump administration.

But if you wondered how's the US doing in the energy business, the answer is really good.

Really good.

So the the regions, what region?

Uh sort of the Oklahoma Gulf Coast region is going to get a big boost in capacity very soon.

Good news.

Anything that's good for your country's energy situation, probably good for your country.

Um, I didn't know this was happening, but apparently there was some big I think maybe a 30 nation climate summit um that was in the Amazon.

I I don't know if they found their way out.

That's funny just to imagine that they all went in there and they couldn't find their way out.

No, they could.

they could find a way out.

But Breitbart is writing about this and uh I didn't know about it probably because the US had not participated.

So Trump said no no thank you.

We don't need need to be part of this climate summit but uh was that a mistake not being part of the climate summit?

Let's see what group of political people in this country would have said we should have gone to the climate summit.

Well, I think that would be Democrats.

Am I right?

If Democrats had been in charge, don't you think the US would have gone to the climate summit?

Yeah, we would have.

And then we would have been part of their amazing accomplishments.

You know, I keep saying that Democrats do useless things like doing videos telling the military things they military already knows.

A lot of useless things.

But this one, oh no, this is this was useful.

It was all these countries, they went into the Amazon and then they said important things and it took days and days, but finally when they gave out, they had applause because they had done something useful.

Let's see.

What was that?

What was the useful thing they did?

Oh, uh, I guess they agreed to quote voluntarily accelerate their climate actions.

No specific goals.

Uh, no specific end points and no definition of accelerate.

So, that was useful, wasn't it?

You're seeing the pattern, right?

It's not my imagination.

The pattern is pretty clear.

This was completely a waste of time because it changed nothing.

And Trump was smart enough to say that looks like a waste of time.

I'm not going to go.

So, good call by Trump.

Um Ran Paul is warning.

He was on the Sunday, at least one of the Sunday shows, I guess, and he said uh that the the Trump coalition, if you will, the Trump supporters could be split uh under two conditions.

There probably more of them, but here are two of them.

He says once there, this is Ran Paul.

He says once there's an invasion of Venezuela or if they decide to reup the subsidies and the gifts to Ukraine uh then then Ran says I think you'll see a splintering and a fracturing of the movement that has supported the president.

What do you think?

Do you think that if Trump invades Venezuela or he starts to refund uh Ukraine that his coalition will split apart?

I think so.

Yeah, I I think that's a reasonable prediction.

But what are the odds he's going to do either one of those things?

What are the odds that Trump is going to refund Ukraine when he's pulled off one of the smartest things I've ever seen, which is not only is he now funding Ukraine, but he's getting he's getting our allies to pay our military-industrial complex for the weapons that Ukraine is going to use.

Don't we sort of win in that situation?

I think we do.

Do do you think uh do you think Trump's base is going to be mad at him for finding out how to take the free money off the table?

Yeah.

I mean, he's basically acting like the Chicago uh teachers union.

If you were here in the beginning of the podcast, Trump's just acting like the Chicago Teachers Union.

Hey, uh, this big pile of money on the table doesn't seem to be labeled.

Is anybody claiming this money that's is just sitting here?

No.

No.

You?

No.

No.

No.

Nobody claims this money.

Well, what if what if I just take it?

Any complaints?

Still no complaints.

All right.

Chicago Teachers Union.

That's how they do it.

Allegedly.

Allegedly.

I'm just saying allegedly.

All right.

Meanwhile, the US White House, you know that White House, not the other White House.

The US White House announced it's uh eliminating the Department of Government Efficiency, Doge.

Here's how I would interpret that.

You would interpret that negatively, wouldn't you?

As in, hey, Doge was a good idea.

If they eliminate it, I will be unhappy because it's something I liked and I think it worked a little bit and maybe they should have just tried harder, but I like the Doge idea and eliminating it seems like a bad idea.

Well, I'm not sure that's what's happening.

I will take a fact check on this later in the day when we learn more.

But here's what I think is happening.

I And this is something I said what, a year ago, two years ago.

Um I a year ago at least I pointed out that Doge was simply becoming how how the government operated.

So instead of needing instead of needing a separate Doge department, what made a lot more sense is what you saw um Bill P do in the Fanny Freddy situation.

If you're running a big government entity, you know that Trump wants you to cut costs and he wants you to brag about it because he wants to cut the budget and he wants everybody to know it.

So if you're running a big entity and you know exactly what the boss wants and unlike prior years, this is the real magic part, unlike prior years, you're not going to get a you're not going to get a pat on the back for spending more than your budget.

But apparently that used to happen otherwise they wouldn't all be spending more than their budget.

So at this point you you saw people almost competing you know heads of heads of cabinets heads of departments you saw them almost competing to see who could make get the most attention for saying I've cut the budget in the smartest best way.

So you saw Haggth talking about budget cuts, you know, Bill PTE again.

Um, and uh, I think you can name half a dozen others where they literally just bragged about cutting budgets.

Once you once you've created that culture, which apparently Trump has done, uh, then Doge just becomes how you think about everything.

It doesn't become the external department that needs to be bothering you all the time.

You should be doing those things before they knock on the door.

You shouldn't need Doge to say you need an audit.

Nobody needs Doge to say they should save money.

Look where they can cut costs.

That should just be part of the operation.

So when I see that Doge first was created, I was excited because obviously that was a thing that wasn't in existence that needed to exist.

But once it operated for a while and everybody got the idea and it it just became part of our conversation, it became a word.

I mean, you don't even need to have the department now.

If you're if you're running some big department in the government, don't you think that one of the words you would use is Doge?

It would be something like this.

All right, everybody.

Um, we need to come up with some big cost savings so I can tell the boss that we're on board.

So somebody come up with some good Doge ideas, they would literally use the word to describe what they want to do, which is have a responsible budget that you could audit and keep keep under control.

So I'm happy that Doge went away if the reason is they had successfully just integrated into the thinking of the government and I think they did.

I mean from the outside it looks like they did.

So, I would consider that an enormous win if that's what happened.

But I'll I'll take a fact check on that, too.

I guess we've got some video Zero Hedge says of uh some maybe drones hitting a major power station near Moscow.

Now, you have to be careful about all the all the reporting from Moscow and from um Ukraine because it's all subject to the fog of war.

But the timing would be interesting if that really happened.

And there's good reason to believe it did happen because it would not be unusual for Ukraine to have done a drone attack on a energy facility in Russia.

And this would be timed somewhat uh coincidentally or not by the the fact that Marco Rubio just said they had a very productive meeting.

actually the most productive.

He said the most productive and meaningful meeting to date that is with his Ukrainian uh partners trying to come up with some kind of a peace deal that they could present to Putin uh that would have some chance of being negotiated to completion.

So, as of today, the government is talking in a more, let's say, optimistic way about the chances of peace than I've seen in a while.

Do you think that's real?

Uh, do you think that's real?

I don't know.

Because, you know, we've been disappointed so many times where we're like, "Oh, there's going to be a peace deal in Ukraine any minute." And then gets yanked away.

Well, here's what I feel.

And this is going to be more feelings than facts.

Um, so if I'm wrong, don't be surprised because I can't give you an argument for what I'm going to say.

I'm going to tell you how it feels.

Now, my argument, I guess there is an argument, but it's a bad one.

Um, my argument is that sometimes you can feel things or smell them before you can see them and touch them.

And this this is feeling that way to me.

So, I'm just an observer of the news.

I don't have any special access to any anything in this topic.

But I observe patterns and sometimes I don't know what pattern I'm picking up.

Have you ever had that experience?

You're like, "Ah, I feel like I know where this is heading, but I don't know why I know it." And it's because there might be some pattern you're picking up.

Might be false.

Doesn't mean it's true, but it means we're just pattern recognition machines.

When I look at the war, here's the first question I ask.

What are the odds that the Ukraine Russia war will still be raging uh for the entire term of Trump's time in office?

Do you think this could run another 3 years?

Because that would put it at seven years and it probably would be sitting at the same place at the end of three more years.

So, I'm finding it hard to believe that uh either Putin or Zilinski are thinking to themselves, we can wait this guy out, meaning Trump, we can wait him out.

I think the days of waiting anybody out are over.

And then I would say, what are the odds that it would end differently if you wait three more years?

And I think the answer is there's no reason to believe it's going to turn out differently.

Might be better, might be worse.

But the last thing that Moscow wants is three more years of Ukraine developing better drones.

It's just going to get worse.

So if you're in Moscow and you're in something blow up and your lights flickered, which may or may not be what happened again, fog of war, you can't believe any reporting from that area.

But if you believe it happened, it's going to be a lot of pressure.

Could could you imagine just going three more years and gaining nothing and it looks exactly the same at the end of three more years?

So my first pattern recognition is that if if waiting doesn't seem like it's going to get you a better result and both sides would see that that that seems obvious from both sides, then why would you wait?

What you would do instead of waiting is you would look for some excuse as to why now would be the time.

And that excuse is Trump.

Trump is the excuse because he won't always be there and you can't count on even, you know, given our politics, you can't guarantee he'll even be there in three years.

But he's there now and he's willing to put in maximum effort to get this thing finished.

So because there's a Trump and because it's gone four years and because he's going to be here another three and because we can kind of predict that things aren't going to get better and that drones will get more powerful and just more things will explode.

You might as well do it now.

Now is that a good argument?

Not really.

Not really.

I'm telling you how it feels and what it feels like.

I'm going to give you the the summary of what I just said.

The summary is it just feels like it's time.

Does anybody have that feeling?

And I'm not sure I would have said that before.

Before I would have said, oh, it's logical.

You know, both sides could, you know, they'd be better off if they do it.

So, I would have given you a logical argument before, but now it just sort of feels like the even the even the words that Marco Rubio chose, the the way that Zilinski is sort of sliding into a new position, the way the Europeans are on the hook for the entire bill.

It it's sort of all those things.

the way the way the technology is improving to the point where it's not a you know it's mostly robots on robots etc.

So I think maybe something's coming that could be good.

And another way to look at it was it feels like capitulation.

If you're familiar with investing, there's a word called capitulation.

I mean it's a regular word, but when it's used in in the context of uh investing, it means that people just feel like they're done with some investment position.

Capitulation.

And capitulation doesn't always have like a logical uh backing to it.

It just people agree that's how they feel.

It's like gh capitulation.

I think that's what's happened.

I think maybe the the way the media will cover it will change.

I think that um there's also a narrative fatigue.

Sometimes you just have to have a new narrative.

And in this case, the narrative is the story, and the story is the the reality, the thing that's really happening.

I I feel like we're tired of waking up and saying, "Is is Russia and Ukraine at war still?

Is exactly the same?

Are the lines about the same as they were?" We're just fatigued with that version of reality.

So, there's also a we are living in a simulation argument, which is we're just tired with that narrative.

So, so our collective consciousness will change the narrative because we're just bored with it.

We'll get something else.

Then I would argue also that we already know how the story ends.

We already know how the story ends.

It's a three arc or or it's a threeact movie and at the end of the third act, what happens?

You all know how the movie ends.

Uh let me set it up for you.

in in uh scene one, Trump uh is impeached twice and loses re-election.

But in scene two, Trump wins re-election against against all odds.

And then he goes on this series of ridiculously successful presidential actions, which is what at least the Republicans would say he's doing right now.

And that's a proper second act.

So the first act is something really bad happens to your hero.

That's the impeachment.

That's the losing re-election.

That's all that stuff.

That's the first act.

Second act is usually the hero of the movie has reached let's say some kind of plateau of how their life could be.

If it's an athlete, the athlete is suddenly winning all the competitions, right?

Uh so so that's happening.

And then the third act would be something that looks like, oh no, you could never you could never get out of this.

It would be something like the Ukraine Russia war looks like it's unsolvable.

Uh at the same time, Trump's Trump's popularity numbers are plunging.

So he's going to have the lowest popularity numbers in a war that he can't stop and he's going to be accused of being a a fascist, whatever.

And it will look like maybe it might even get worse.

And it will look like there's no way anybody could get out of this situation.

And that's the third act.

The third act is when your hero escapes the situation that nobody could escape.

It's impossible.

And uh then what happens after he does the escape?

What happens after he does the impossible?

He gets a Nobel Peace Prize.

the the fact that Trump doesn't have the Nobel Peace Prize and and that this is brewing back there, that's a little bit too much of a pattern for me to imagine it's not going to go that way.

It looks like it's just going to turn into a three-act movie.

It will look like he's doomed pretty soon from some new drama that we don't even see coming.

And then he'll find a way out because that's what he does.

And then he'll get the Nobel Peace Prize and you'll be you'll be watching it in awe saying, "How did that why was that so predictable?" Because it kind of is.

So that'll be fun.

Well, Tucker Carlson was quite provocative today on X.

He posted this.

I'm gonna read just what Tucker said because it's a big story if if his allegations are true.

And it goes like this.

So this is brand new.

This just before I came on.

Uh Tucker said that for months the Wall Street Journal has held us has held a story detailing the personal corruption of somebody named Andre Yermac, the second most powerful man in Ukraine.

year has skimmed hundreds of millions in American tax dollars meant for Ukraine aid.

Now remember this is allegations made by Tucker.

The journal's editors can prove that really but they're not.

Instead they're protecting Yurmach.

Why?

And then Tucker answers his own question.

He says because Yurmach is leading Ukraine's effort to scuttle the Trump peace plan for Eastern Europe.

what the owners of the Wall Street Journal don't want peace with Russia.

Now remember that's that's a little mind readading going on there because unless they've said it I know uh you'd be assuming that that's what they're thinking and it might be right.

I'm not saying it's wrong.

I'm just saying just distinguish between things you can prove and things which are allegations.

So, the owners of the Wall Street Journal, says Tucker, don't want peace with Russia.

They want war.

At the same time, the journal's editorial page has attacked the Trump administration for pushing a peace agreement.

And then, says Tucker, this is true corruption without uh informing its readers.

The Murdoch family, no, without informing its readers, the Murdoch family, says Tucker, is using both sides of his newspaper to continue the war with Russia.

That's not the behavior of a news organization.

Wait for it.

It's the hallmark of an intel agency.

Oh, damn.

Damn.

I don't know how many of you have been watching Tucker's content since he uh got cancelled and cancelled again.

But uh he does do a lot of content about Well, you probably didn't know this, but the some intel agency is behind it because I think it usually is.

Uh what do you think of this?

Do do you think that Tucker's narrative of this is accurate?

I don't have any inside information.

I've never heard of this.

Uh, Andre Yermeck, I will say that the the Ukraine war has the feeling of something that rich people want to continue because it feels like it feels like if all the rich people wanted it to end, that would have already ended.

What's the point of being all these billionaires if you can't control, you know, control civilization, too?

So, there must have been somebody who wanted the war to continue.

And maybe it's this guy.

I wouldn't know.

Um, but that's a heck of an allegation.

A heck of an allegation.

So, let's keep an eye on that one.

I I think it's too early for me to have an opinion on that one because I'd have to see if there's any second side to it.

But the the the allegation that the Wall Street Journal is sort of intentionally promoting war for the benefit of some billionaires and maybe for the benefit of their own company.

That's a big allegation.

That's a big one.

All right.

Uh Glenn Beck recently asked RFK Jr.

his thoughts on the World Economic Forum, the WF, and RFK Jr.

said, quote, "We shouldn't be paying attention to it." Meaning the WF, it's a billionaire's boys club that's arranging for the world to shift wealth upward and to clamp down on totalitarian controls on and clamp and to clamp down totalitarian controls on everybody else.

Now, who does that sound like?

There's one other public figure who has talked about the World Economic Forum in almost exactly the same terms.

the Billionaires Boys Club.

That was Elon.

When Elon Musk was asked about the World Economic Forum, he also just sort of brushed it aside in terms of importance and acted like it was just a social club for rich people and that if you thought it was more than that, you were kind of giving it too much power.

Yeah.

So, I agree with RFK Jr.'s take.

I have not seen the World Economic Forum uh be anything but a billionaire boys club.

It looks exactly like that.

And yes, we should ignore them.

Uh unless they become more powerful and start affecting things.

All right.

In other news, the Israeli the defense forces apparently are dismissing the first wave, what they call the first wave of uh people that they say were responsible for allowing the October 7th attack to happen.

Meaning people who allegedly did not do their jobs well enough to prevent it and should have.

Now, apparently quite a few people are involved in this and they're calling it just the first first major wave.

Newsmax is reporting on this, by the way.

It's the first major wave, but that would suggest that there are going to be other major waves.

How many people How many people were actually literally physically involved and should have done more?

I don't know how there could be that many people.

I I could see if it were one or two or a dozen people, but once it gets up to a larger numbers, how many people were making mistakes all in the same time in the same way?

I don't know what that means.

Uh but apparently they're not done.

Uh so they're going to keep looking and keep firing people who are responsible.

Now, uh, Prime Minister Netanyahu, um, is apparently reportedly opposed to a state inquiry, uh, of the government to find out if members of the government as opposed to the military, uh, were also responsible and should take some kind of action or responsibility, I guess.

So, you've got the IDF saying, "Yes, we take responsibility and these specific people are being dismissed." But you've got the government saying, "No, let's not let's not get into this any deeper.

Maybe maybe we should just leave this with the military." Uh, now, if you follow all your conspiracy theories, you know that there's been one that's been bugging me from almost day one.

it bugging me because I just don't see it as possible in the world that I live in.

Anything's possible and I could be totally surprised.

But the the conspiracy theory goes, and you've all heard it, that uh Netanyahu intentionally allowed security to be lapsed or lacks so that the attack would happen because that would help him politically stay in power, but also, you know, to do what he wanted to do anyway in Gaza.

How many of you believe that that's what really happened?

Now, I understand why you would believe it because it's it's really hard to look at the the size of that security lapse and imagine that was an accident, right?

If you're just looking at it from the outside, you say to yourself, how in the world could all of that be accidental, right?

And that's a good place to start.

It's a good starting place because I'm curious too.

But now that the the military has taken this much responsibility, does it change your opinion?

Because if the military is taking responsibility and they're they're naming names and a lot of them and they're firing them, they must be finding things that these military people did wrong.

Now, do you believe that these military people would all take what must be one of the worst consequences you could get in the military other than other than being wounded, I suppose.

Um, one of the worst things would be to have your own military accuse you of being responsible for October 7th.

Do you think that there are this many people, I don't know how many there are, but let's say dozens.

Do you think there are dozens of people in the military who would be willing to take responsibility for October 7th trying, you know, living among the population that would know that they had taken responsibility?

And you would do that what?

To cover up for Netanyahu, would you?

Do do you believe that that's like a a possible thing that would happen that dozens of people at the officer level, we're not talking about grunts, talking people in leadership, would they all take the fall for for October 7th, the most maybe the most shameful thing that's ever happened to, you know, any Israeli in decades?

I just don't see it happening.

So, um, while I do think that Netanyahu is opportunistically using the situation to his advantage, that's not a big surprise.

But it's hard for me to imagine that he planned it, he executed it, dozens and dozens of people in the military had to sort of stand down from their responsibilities.

And then after it was all over, none of them became whistleblowers.

They all just they all individually took the rap for October 7th.

I mean, there are a lot of things you could take the rap for, but not that.

That would be like the worst thing you could ever take the rap for if you didn't do it, especially right.

So, this doesn't really add up to me.

And I'm gonna say that the the new revelation that the military is uh dismissing people and naming names.

They're naming names does kind of make it look like a military failure more so than it seems likely to me it would be a government failure.

Now, in case you're wondering, uh Israel is not paying me to do anything.

They don't pay me for anything.

And uh it's not my job to uh support Netanyahu.

I'm not a supporter and I'm not a supporter of Israel or anybody else except the United States.

I'm a I'm an America first kind of guy.

And when I talk about Israel, I'm not talking about even my preferences.

We're just observing and trying to understand it.

But uh it's up to them to defend it.

Well, I'm hearing today in the New York Post that that Thomas Krooks guy who tried to assassinate the president and then got shot himself uh that he had all kinds of social media presence.

Didn't we hear that he didn't have a social media presence or am I confusing him with somebody else?

But it does seem to me that um months later we're learning about this would be assassin things that uh how did it take so long to hear that?

Boy, talk about fog of war.

That fog of war lasts apparently a year or more.

All right.

Uh the $7,000 check.

Does does anybody think I'm being paid by Israel?

Uh what does Glenn Greenwald not believe?

There was a press on the ground.

There was press on the ground.

I Yeah, you know, I just don't believe any of those stories.

Some of them might turn out to be true, but um it's hard to believe anything in that domain.

All right, people.

I think I've said what I need to say.

I'm going to say a few words to the local subscribers, the wonderful local subscribers.

I hope you got something out of this today.

Did you?

Did anybody learn anything today that they might not have gotten from the the regular news?

Uh, I hope so.

And uh I'll be private in 30 seconds with locals who I call my beloved my beloved subscribers.

Beloved subscribers coming at Yeah.

Hey, there you are. Get in here, people.

We're getting ready for the show of

shows.

Best part of Monday.

You won't want to miss it.

Call your friends. Get your dog.

Alert the media.

All right, let's make sure I got your

comments going.

Boom. Perfect.

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization is

called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time.

But if you'd like to take a chance on

elevating your experience to levels that

no one can even understand with their

tiny shiny human brains. Whoa. All you

need for that is a tanker gel, a canteen

jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill

it with your favorite liquid. I like

coffee. And join me now for the

unparallel pleasure, the dopamine of the

day. The thing that makes say

everything. It's called simultaneous

sip. And it happens now. Go.

Disgusting.

Don't ever have coffee with

prescription medication. It doesn't go

well at all. All right. So, let me grab

my notes. And uh wait, what's wrong with

my notes?

Something happened to my notes. Oh, it's

the 2026 Dilbert calendar that

accidentally jumped into my hand to

remind you that it's available at

amazon.com. It's the only place you can

get it.

And it's got comics on both sides. And

it'll make you so happy. Well, I can

barely express how happy you'll get.

Barely.

All right.

Oh, you're a beast of a man. I'm no

beast. You're a beast.

All right. Let's look at all the

interesting stories today.

Um there's a new theory about why kids

are doing poorly in school

as if they needed another reason. It's

the uh laptops.

So apparently, as we know, if uh

children are allowed to watch

television, their brains will rot. And

if children are allowed to have

smartphones,

their brains will rot. And if they're

allowed to have iPads,

you know, their brains will rot.

However, here's the good news. If they

if they have laptops, which apparently

more and more kids do as they go to

school, um that's very predictive that

they will do poorly in school because

apparently they spend a lot of time just

messing around on the laptop and not as

much time learning. Did you know that

apparently they know that if you write

your notes with your hand like as in

handwritten notes that you'll remember

your notes better than if you typed

them. I knew that. So one of the things

that I used to do is try to activate as

many different senses and parts of the

brain as I could when I studied back in

my studying days. So, sometimes I'd draw

a picture of the thing. Sometimes I'd

uh, you know, sometimes I'd write it by

hand. Sometimes I'd write it more than

once.

So, I try to try to just engage every

possible,

you know, physical and mental sense to

wrap it around the idea. I was trying to

remember. And that's your tip for the

day.

tell your your uh school age child how

to do that. All right, here's the most

surprising story of the day.

[clears throat] I want you to see if you

can guess the direction this story will

take. H this will be a tough one.

According to the Gateway Pundit, the

Chicago Teachers Union uh has been put

on notice because apparently they they

failed to do a financial audit for half

a decade. That would be five years for

those of you who went to Chicago

schools.

[gasps]

So, let's see. What do you think

happened when a Chicago teachers union

who took lots of money from their

members and then for five years didn't

tell anybody where it went? Huh? Chicago

teachers union large bunch of money

seems to be missing and nobody can say

where it went. What happened? Well, it's

the world's most predictable outcome. If

it's a large organization and they

haven't done an audit,

guess what? They stole it.

Is it ever anything else? Do Do you

think they're just going to find that,

hey, oh wow, this is kind of a surprise.

Turns out we just didn't spend the

money. We have all this money to refund

because we just didn't spend it.

No, that probably didn't happen. Um, I

have two ways to look at this. Number

one, the opposite of the word audited is

what?

So, they were not audited. What is the

opposite of audited?

Embezzled.

If you're not auditing your large pile

of money, you're embezzling it every

time. It's not just sitting there doing

what you wanted it to do. Somebody's

embezzling it. All right. Uh here's the

alternate post. I was going to do this

on X. So instead of saying the opposite

of is embezzled, which I thought was

pretty clever, fairly clever. Uh I add

another po post that I thought was

almost as good. It was just quote, "Hey,

what happened to our unwatched pile of

money?"

Hey, what happened to our unwatched pile

of money?

Well, have I ever taught you anything

about unwatched piles of money? Have I

taught you nothing? If there's an

unwatched pile of money and you wait

long enough,

yeah, it's exactly what you think.

Meanwhile, I saw a story uh Wall Street

apes had this on X that Democrats

apparently laundered, that's their word,

laundered, 93 billion dollars

uh during the 76 days between when Trump

got elected and he took office.

So, the Democrats just very quickly

distributed 96, no 93 billion.

Huh.

I wonder where this story will go. $93

billion. Was it audited

or was it unaudited?

H

seems to have been unaudited.

Unaudited.

So there was a 93 billion pile of money.

It was unaudited.

How could I ever predict what would

happen here? Oh, I've got an idea. Is a

lot of it missing?

Well, not all of it. Scott, don't be so

cynical. It's not all missing. They did

manage to claw back uh what uh

24 billion. So, only 69 billion left

[laughter]

to be recovered. 69 billion.

You know, I don't know if that means

that a few people got a lot of billions

or did they just sort of say, "All

right, who's a Democrat? You're a

Democrat. Here's $1,000."

How do you even steal $69 billion? That

would take a lot of work. Uh, in other

news,

you know, we always talk about uh repeat

offenders with crime. The City Journal

is reminding us, I don't know, I don't

know if these numbers are right or real.

They don't even look real, but uh

allegedly

uh in New York City

uh 327 people account for onethird of

all shoplifting arrests.

327.

What does that imply for how many

committed the crimes? This is just the

arrests. I mean, you have to try pretty

hard to get arrested for shoplifting

these days. And uh those 327 people have

allegedly been arrested 6,000 times.

And then in Oakland, there allegedly 400

people were responsible for the majority

of homicides.

Wait, what? There are 400 people in

Oakland who are responsible for the

majority of the homicides. The majority.

I I was frightened to death that there

are 400 murderers in the town next to

me. 400 murderers. And apparently

they're murdering more than one person.

I I don't know the average murder per

murderer, but looks like looks like

they're pretty busy.

You know, I was thinking of becoming a

criminal. uh early in my career and then

I thought, "Oh, am I going to be one of

those lazy criminals who just does a

crime or two and then retires or goes to

jail or am I going to be one of these

industrious serial criminals who who who

robs a thousand banks?" And I thought,

"Well, I don't want to be a lazy

criminal. I'll be one of these ones,

these repeat offenders."

Anyway, uh I'd like to know how many

murders a piece the murderers are doing.

All right, here's my

I remember in California when we had

this uh three strikes law. So when it

was first being contemplated

contemplated and I would be reading the

news and I wasn't really that involved

with any politics at all. wasn't really

following politics in any way and

certainly not in the state. It wasn't

following any state politics. And then I

heard people arguing that if you locked

up all the repeat offenders after their

third offense, it wouldn't make any

difference to the crime rate.

And I thought to myself, wait, what? If

you put in jail the people who are doing

the crimes, that will not reduce the

crime. Can you explain how that doesn't

work? And the only way that you could

explain how locking up the repeat

offenders doesn't work is if the people

who were not planning to do more crimes

compensated by saying, "Whoa, it looks

like they locked up the repeat

offenders. I'm g I'm going to have to

increase my my crime per person to

compensate for the the locked up repeat

offenders. Otherwise, there isn't really

any possible way that locking up the

people doing the crimes

ends up with the same amount of crime.

That's not really possible. And here

again, I feel like we we devolve into

that just ridiculousness,

the ridiculousness

of imagining that wouldn't work. It

would work. It would just be really bad

for the people getting locked up. They

wouldn't like it at all. Or maybe they

would. I don't know. I can't get in the

mind of a serial criminal. Well,

speaking of bad behavior,

there is a hilarious story of a VP at

Campbell Soups company. And for some

reason, there was a an ex now an ex

employee who recorded the VP over lunch.

[laughter]

And here are some of the things that the

VP of Campbell Soup. Now, this is the VP

of it, I think. So, it wasn't the

marketing guy, but uh the VP was caught

on

uh caught on audio, I guess, recorded as

saying, and I quote, "We have for

poor people." Meaning that their

product is for poor people. He

goes, "Who buys our I don't buy

Kai Campbell's products barely anymore.

It's not healthy now that I know what

the in it. [laughter]

Remember this is a VP at Campbell Soup.

It's not healthy now that I know what

the in it. [laughter]

He goes, "Bioengineered meat. I don't

want to eat a piece of chicken

that came from a 3D printer."

[laughter]

That's the actual VP of [laughter]

of Campbell Soup.

bioengineered meat. I don't want to eat

a piece of chicken that came

from a 3D printer.

Well, maybe it's just me, but I'd like

to offer that guy a job.

I would love to have a an executive who

was that honest.

All right. Apparently, this is all

there's some lawsuit by a former

employee, but that's pretty bad. I

didn't know you could just record people

over lunch. Kind of depends what state

you're in, doesn't it? In my state, you

couldn't do that. That would be illegal.

All right. Uh so we'll see where that

goes. That that will soon be a Dilbert

uh comic, you know. Yeah, it will be.

Dilbert comic about the uh one of

Dilbert's executives being recorded

talking honestly about the products.

Yeah, that's coming. That's coming.

Well, I saw just before I went live,

Eric Dohy was posting about this that uh

Trump is going to introduce maybe

tomorrow some kind of healthc care price

cuts act.

What do you think that'll be about?

I don't know the details, but a few

other things being mentioned.

Um it would halt Obamacare premium

spikes. I don't know how.

And the plan reportedly includes some

kind of deposit mechanism, some kind of

health savings account.

Is that a good idea? I don't know. It It

seems like something that might work in

the long run, but you know, in year one,

you'd have to get those accounts up.

Um, it would also end the premium hikes

and zero premium subsidies and stop

massive fraud known as quote ghost

beneficiaries. Would it? Well, I don't

know. That's a big claim. And Trump

recently said, "I'm calling today for

insurance companies not to be paid, but

for this massive amount of money to be

paid directly directly to the people so

they can buy their own healthcare." Does

anybody understand what that means?

Because I don't.

I have no idea what it means to say

you're going to pay the people directly

instead of the insurance companies,

wouldn't that be the same as singlepayer

insurance?

What does that mean? If if you ignored

the insurance companies and you simply

had I don't know, the government, who

who is it who's paying? I guess it would

be the government paying the people.

I don't know. So, I got lots and lots of

questions. I don't know who is going to

take the lead on uh this program, but um

I don't think that would make you

self-insured, right? That would make you

self-insured in a way, but you'd still

need something like the government

backstopping you.

Otherwise, it's not really health

insurance.

It's not insurance. If you're if you're

insuring yourself, that's not very much

insurance.

Private health costs or what? Do some of

you actually understand this? I'll try

I'll try to catch up on it today because

I don't have an opinion on any of it yet

because it's a little too hard to figure

out how it all fits together. But if the

Trump administration puts their best

people on explaining it, we might find

out soon. [clears throat]

Maybe. Maybe something's going to

happen.

All right, I'm going to make a bold

prediction today. Bold prediction for

technology.

So, you know how for the past, I don't

know, few years, I've been saying too

often, "Oh, there's a new story about

some company making a claim that they

can make a a battery for cars that last

twice as long and blah blah blah." But

you never see that battery. And it's

usually because it's some kind of lab

development, not really a real world

development yet. You know, it would take

years for it to reach the real world.

Well, speaking of the real world,

um,

over in China, according to Notebook

Check, uh, some big, uh, China

automotive group is announcing that

they've developed, uh, an actual, uh,

an actual manufacturing capability for a

battery that would go, they say, about

twice as far as the current battery. So

about 620 mi, but everybody knows that's

an exaggeration because it's a Chinese

battery estimate which tends to be about

one/ird higher than reality. However,

this one they've they've completed the

first large capacity

production line.

So now they have the technology,

but they're just finishing the tweaking

of the production line to actually

produce the mass mass production. So

here's my pred here's my

uh prediction.

When it comes to technology,

there's there are some technologies and

batteries are definitely in that

category. That's why they're interesting

to me. Where a little bit improvement is

just a little bit of improvement. Ah,

it's 10% better. I'll save some money.

Now it's 20% better. Maybe I'll buy an

electric car. So when you get these 10

and 20% increases in in capacity, it's

really good and it helps your industry

and maybe sometimes you can predict that

that means things will develop faster in

the electric car space, whatever. But

you're going to reach a point, and

here's my prediction, that 2026 is when

we reach the point

where if you were to double capacity,

and a lot of the new battery

breakthroughs, they make that claim

anyway. They claim they double capacity.

You don't have to predict which one of

them ends up being the dominant one, the

one that works. All you have to know is

that there are a whole bunch of

technologies that might, if they could

figure out how to produce them, double

your capacity. If we were to double our

current capacity,

it would just change everything.

Suddenly, robots are not just practical,

they're cheap. Uh, electric cars would

be everywhere. Self-driving cars would

be everywhere. It' be the only way you'd

go anywhere. and you'd be able to build

um networks that capture the sun power

and you still have plenty of capacity to

make it all the way overnight. So I

think 2026 is going to be the year of

the battery and it I realize that

there's a dog not barking in this space

which is I don't believe Tesla

brags about their new battery technology

too far ahead of time. Do they? But when

would you ever learn that Tesla came up

with a new battery technology and had

already built out a mega factory to

produce it in mass quantities.

You'd probably find out around the time

they opened the factory, right? I don't

know that they would tell you years in

advance and it would take a little while

to get that up and running.

So, the thing I'm expecting is that

Tesla will have a substantial battery

upgrade

announcement that'll have that'll either

be announced or implemented in 2026. So,

2026, the year of the battery.

All right, let's see if you could do

what I could do, which is anticipate

this science according to the University

of Cambridge. And I want you to listen

to this carefully so that you can see if

you're as smart as I am. Um, apparently

they already knew that improving your

diet

could improve your weight. That's

something they already knew. They

already knew also that exercise

could improve your weight.

So they knew that diet worked and they

knew the exercise worked. So what did

they give funding to test? Well, they

got funding to test if you combined

eating right with exercise if the two of

them would get you a better result than

if you only done if than if you only did

one or the other.

What do you think? I'm not going to tell

you the surprising result. Do you think

that if you knew that diet works and you

know that exercise works, if you did

both of them right, what would happen?

Na

na. Did you get it? I think one of you

buzzed in. That's right. If you do two

smarter things that definitely work and

every single person in the world knows

it, you're going to get a better result

than if you did one thing.

No, really. Really? I'm not making that

up. That's that's science.

Well, next time you don't need to do

that science. Just ask Scott.

So, I guess we're still talking about

the uh six Democrats who did that video

urging people in the military not to

follow any illegal orders.

Have you noticed a pattern?

There's a pattern. And the pattern is

that Democrats

consistently find things that didn't

need to be done and then they do them.

They they're finding new ways to be

useless. What what would be more useless

than creating a video to remind people

in the military

not to do the thing that every one of

them already knows not to do

and reminding them also that they should

talk to their JAG officer if there's

some gray area? Do you think that short

of having that short of having that

video by the six Democrats in Congress

that if that had not been made, do you

think our military would be out there

doing a bunch of illegal orders? Would

they be all confused because they

wouldn't know how to handle this? Or is

it the one thing that you all know

whether you're in the military or not in

the military? That would cover

everybody. Is it the one thing that

every one of us knows without being told

by a special video made by Democrats?

I'm pretty sure they already know it. Or

do you imagine that this is happening

all over the military? Hey, Bob.

I was thinking of shooting uh you maybe

murdering one of our uh one of our

compatriots and then stealing his money

and uh then pinning the blame on

somebody else. What do you think? I

don't know. Would that be illegal? Oh,

yeah. It would be illegal. It' be

illegal. But is it a good idea? Hm. I

don't remember a boot camp, but I'll bet

somebody mentioned something about that

once. Don't do illegal orders.

Yeah. No, somebody said that. I'm

positive I'm positive that some

somewhere in my training they told me

not to murder people because it's

illegal. It's illegal and you're not

allowed to do illegal things just

because you're in the military. Well,

why did I even join the military if I'm

not allowed to do illegal things? Well,

I don't know. Sounds like a mistake.

Cuz I joined it just to do illegal

things. Now, what could be less useful?

Seriously, what could be less useful

than telling people in the military the

one thing that every person in the

military already knows? I'll bet you

couldn't find one piece of knowledge or

information

that had as many people knowing that you

can't do it.

It'd be hard to match it. All right, but

here are some funny things coming out of

that. Number one,

uh, apparently they're getting a

nickname. This the sedicious six.

I saw that on social media. I don't know

if it's catching on yet, but it's very

funny. the sedicious sex.

Now, I had to I had to check with AI to

figure out what sedicious means versus

let's see what are the other words they

use around this, you know, insurrection,

sedition,

treason,

right? Those are all the words that they

use. And um I guess I guess Trump

suggested that if anybody is involved in

sedition, they should be executed.

Now, he didn't name them, but people

kind of connected the dots and said,

"Hey, I think Trump's saying that maybe

maybe they should be executed." Now,

here's the problem,

and you may have spotted this on your

own because I've gave you some hints

before today. Have I ever told you, and

yes, I have, that you can predict

Trump's reaction because he'll always

take the strongest

path. Now, that doesn't mean he's

serious about it, and it doesn't mean

that that strongest path will ever

happen. But if you're just talking, as

in he's talking about what you do about

these sedicious sex, if you're just

talking, you can kind of guarantee in

advance that if there's one thing to be

said that's the strongest thing, even if

it's the wrong thing, if it's the

strongest thing, you know, Trump's going

to say it, right?

And so far, that's worked out for him.

But it does create this uh set of uh

evidence that the the Democrats would

use that he's a he's a fascist

authoritarian.

So you can

you see the problem? So the problem is

if you were to artificially create a

situation as a Democrat in which there

was no space left

for the strongest opinion except for

something that's over the line.

Would you consider it over the line to

talk about executing members of Congress

for making this video that didn't need

to be made under the assumption that

really the reason for the video is to

try to turn the military against the

sitting uh sitting government?

Well, there's a lot of mind readading

that would be involved in in that. But

um

so here's the problem.

If the Democrats get smart enough, and I

worry that that's what just happened. If

they get smart enough, are they not

going to realize that they can trap

Trump into saying what is over the line

by going as close to the line as they

can and and sort of leaving him not much

space for whatever would be the

strongest thing to say? Now, did he say

the strongest thing you can say

when some members of your government

make this kind of a video? Yeah. Yeah,

that's the strongest thing you can say.

It's not even the law. [laughter] It's

not even the law that you can execute

people for uh what would be I guess they

would say sedition, which is an unproven

allegation at this point, right?

Sedition is not the death penalty. I

didn't know what was so I had to ask uh

Chat GBT. Now if Chat GBT told me the

truth and did not hallucinate then

treason could in some cases be the death

penalty. But even that would be rare.

And treason is when you're working with

a foreign country to undermine your

current country. That's not what's being

alleged. What's being alleged is

sedition which is people within the

country trying to change the government

outside the constitutional uh mechanism.

And then there's insurrection

which would be you know some version of

trying to do it from the inside also not

necessarily implying there's any foreign

country involved. So, it's the foreign

country involvement

that pushes you toward maybe execution,

but even then probably not. It would be

a rare rare occurrence.

So, uh here's my open question. Did the

Democrats become suddenly smart enough

that they knew that if they did this

ridiculous thing that didn't need to be

done, which is a video telling the

people in the military exactly what

every one of them already knew. Don't do

any illegal things. [laughter]

Don't follow follow any illegal orders.

Like I'm not in the military and even I

knew that. Is there even one person

who's in the comments? Let's say, is

there one person in the audience right

now? Show me in the comments. who didn't

know this, whether you've ever been in

the military or know anybody who's in

the military or had any contact with the

military, didn't you know that they're

not allowed to do illegal things? Like,

they can't just go murder people because

their their senior officer told them to.

You all knew that, right? So, if we

acknowledge that the that it's probable,

can't read their minds, but it's

probable that the Democrats who made

that video were completely aware that it

did nothing useful, but that it would

bait Trump into saying the strongest

thing you would say in that domain. And

the strongest thing you would say is

what he said. And then they got their

little food for the day. Their food for

the day is, can we trick him into saying

something that we can determine or we

can define as being authoritarian or

fascist? Yes. Yes. We tricked him into

saying the strongest thing. Now, as I

told you, it's almost I I think I've

said every time, but maybe that's too

strong. When Trump's instinct is to take

the strongest position, even if it's not

practical or, you know, something that

could ever happen in the real world, it

still makes him look like the strongest

person in every conversation. And in the

long run, that's going to pay off

because sometimes you just need a strong

leader. And you're going to look around

and go, "All right, well, I don't like

everything he's ever said, but I have to

admit, we need a strong leader right

now, and you can't beat that. that

that's the strongest leader we've ever

seen, at least in my lifetime.

All right, so here's my question. How do

we know that the Democrats did it just

because they're stupid

and combined with TDS?

Did they think this was actually

something the country needed?

How many of you think that? Because I'm

just thinking, what are the possible

explanations for why they even made that

video?

stupid,

right? They'd have to be stupid because

they'd have to know. They'd have to

realize that there's no point in it.

Doesn't change anything. And then or

they just have TDS or they're stupid and

they have TDS. Does that explain it? I

don't think it does,

honestly. And I don't know the answer,

so I'm just speculating, too. But if I

had to guess,

I feel like there's somebody over on

that team who is smart enough to know

that this would be a a way to generate

these artificial he's an authoritarian.

He's a fascist. Just look what he did.

We'll keep this in the news forever.

I I feel like it's intentional, like

like it's some kind of a trap they set

up. Now, the real question is this. Can

you trap Trump? Is he trappable?

Well, Megan Kelly found out he wasn't

that trappable the first time he he did

a debate with the Republicans. Remember

the very first debate? Uh, you say these

terrible things about women. That's a

trap. You That's a trap. There's no way

you're going to get out of that. Only

Rosie O'Donnell. Oh, okay. I guess there

is one way to get out of it. So while I

while I am sure it's a trap,

whether intentional or not, that's

that's still open. But it it functions

as a trap. Would you agree? Everybody

agrees with that, right? Even if it's

not intentional

on the on the part of the Democrats, it

functions as a trap.

And did did Trump walk right into it?

We'll see because once he I think once

he recognizes

that it's a trap and by now he certainly

has. Of course he has. Um he's going to

have an unpredictable

which is what he did with the with the

Rosie O'Donnell move. It's just

unpredictable. He's probably going to

have an unpredictable response.

So what I would look for is what happens

next because to me it looks like the

Democrats had a pretty good play. It

look it looks like it looks like they

couldn't possibly be as dumb as they're

acting. So, I'm going to guess that they

knew what they were doing or at least

one person over there did and created

this situation where they can generate

this new these new headlines that are

based on nothing. They just created a

situation that wasn't there. Pretty

clever.

But watching Democrats find new ways to

be useless never gets old. Um, and then

of course each of the Democrats involved

has now been asked multiple times by the

media, can you uh give me an example of

one of these illegal orders? And so far

they've been smart enough not to give

examples.

And instead they say, well, some version

of it's not that it's already happened.

It's that we're worried that it will

happen. To which I say, isn't that every

problem in the world? Every problem in

the world is just something that they're

worried will happen.

Shouldn't you worry about some things

that are actually happening? Let me tell

you something that's actually happening.

We're overspending and running ourselves

into debt.

Let me tell you something that as far as

I know hasn't happened and probably

won't. the US military uh obey obeying

obviously illegal orders

doesn't feel like a big problem.

It hasn't affected me yet, but their

argument would be someday in the future

this might happen. Yeah, I see in the

comments somebody saying color

revolution. You are correct. So, this

could be just one this could be just one

move within a larger set of moves that

we would call a color revolution. What

would that involve? Well, it would

involve um getting some street muscle

check. They did that. They did the

anti-Tesla stuff, the no king stuff.

Street muscle. Um, it would involve

trying to create a narrative that the

media can carry forever that says one of

them is a bad egg and must be removed.

Check. They're they're now creating the

narrative. And now the press is uh

trying to decide if they're going to be

duped.

So, I guess uh Alisa Sluten, one of the

six, was on uh this week in ABC and

asked some questions and did not have

any examples of any illegal orders. I

don't think anybody else has, but her

defense her defense of why they did it

involved a reference to Nuremberg

and the movie A Few Good Men.

And somehow she made an argument which

is funnier if you actually hear her say

it that that uh the existence of

Nuremberg

and the existence of that movie uh are

somehow

somehow support them making that video.

I'm not even going to try to try to

explain that argument. It's so stupid.

It's just funny. Um

all right, that was funny.

And uh and when asked if she believed

that Trump had issued any illegal

orders, she did the to my knowledge, I'm

not aware of things that are illegal.

And now, uh, one of the one of the six,

the sedicious six, [laughter]

Representative Jason Crowe, uh, now he's

saying that he's got a problem because

he's getting death threats and bomb

threats

from what I imagine would be people who

are on the other side of the political

aisle. And he says it's very disturbing

stuff. When you have the president of

the United States threatening to execute

and to hang and arrest using this

rhetoric, people listen to it. Well,

he's not wrong, is he? He's not wrong. I

mean, I think he had an example that he

played and stuff. So, yes, if the

president of the United States, be it

Trump or be it Biden, says something

like, uh, you know, these other group of

people are bad people. Whoever it is,

you're going to give some nuts who's

going to take a shot at him. So, did

this create a super dangerous situation

for these six Democrats? Yes, it did.

But was this situation going to create

itself?

No.

Was this situation something that Trump

dreamed up? Was Trump sitting sitting at

home and his boxers and and the uh the

White House and thinking, "I've got an

idea. If I can just trick them into

making a video that doesn't need to be

made, then I can uh say that anybody

would do that should be hung and then

some crazy person will go hurt them. Do

you think that happened? Or do you think

Democrats created a situation that

absolutely did not need to be created

by making the video in the first place

and accusing the person that maybe some

of you voted for

of being a fascist dictator

authoritarian?

Which one of those created the

situation?

Representative Jason Crowe, I will give

you Trump worsened it. Can we agree on

that? I'll give you that. Trump worsened

it. But who created it? [laughter]

Who created the situation that just

didn't need to exist? Was it the video

that six people created that didn't need

to be made to tell people what they

already knew and offered absolutely

nothing except the opportunity for Trump

to all it did was create an opportunity

for Trump to say these people should be

hung even though he didn't say that

about them specifically technically

people connected the dots and assumed

that that's what he's telling. So I'll

give you that. I will give you that.

Democrats. Trump worsened the situation.

He didn't create it.

You're going to have to own creating it.

But but as a supporter of the president,

I will own worsened it. I will own that.

All right.

Um and I don't and and by the way, I'm

not in favor of it in case I need to say

that clearly. Not in favor of that level

of narrative.

But I accept that it happened and it

happened on my side. Is that okay?

I accept that I'm on the side that where

that happened and that I have some

responsibility for it, don't I? Would

wouldn't you agree as as a member of a

team, certainly a, you know, longtime

supporter of the president. I have some

responsibility for that. And I'm going

to take my responsibility right now,

which is maybe it's time to back off on

that a little bit. Yeah, maybe just a

little bit. Back off on that. Yeah, we

don't we don't want to be killing

anybody for their political opinions.

Not all of you will agree with this. I

get that. And by the way, I I accept

that, too. I accept that some of you are

not going to agree that there should be

any softening of that position. But do

you really want do you really want your

elected representatives to be hung over

a dumb video that obviously they were

just not clever enough to know how this

would turn out?

I don't know that that feels like I

would not be benefited by that in any

way, but the country would would be

harmed by it. So no, I don't want to see

anybody hung over their political

speech, even if it's pretty raw like

that was. That was pretty raw on the uh

on both of their parts really.

Well, Zoron Mumani was on uh one of the

weekend shows and he was asked if uh he

thinks Trump is a fascist. Remember

that's the same question he was asked

when uh he was in the Oval Office.

Um and uh he didn't get to answer it,

but he answered it on TV and he said uh

basically yes. He said, "That's

something that I've said in the past and

I say it today." All right. So, I will

give him credit

that Money has not backed off from

saying that Trump is a fascist. He's

he's doubling down. But does that make

sense when you also know that they had

something like a productive conversation

about affordability and they think they

can work together to get that done?

Does that make sense? Does does that

compute in your brain

that he says he's a fascist, but

apparently he can work with him on

getting uh affordability

because you know who's really good on

affordability is the fascists.

So

kind of weird. I I feel as though you

could criticize Zoron for working with

fascists. So, the next question I'd ask

him is, uh, Zoron, do you think it's

okay to work with a fascist?

Because he just said yes. So,

is the thing that really happened, maybe

the only thing that really happened is

that the word fascist just turned into a

non-word

because Trump actually joked about it in

the Oval Office. He said, "You could

just say yes. Just say yes is easier.

Like Trump wasn't even denying the

fascist thing. It's so harmless now.

It's so overused

and you know it's overused without real

evidence of anything that looks at least

in my opinion in that category.

So it could be that we're watching that

word become

completely disarmed

partly by Trump saying ah you could just

say yes just say I'm a fascist it

doesn't matter. And then again by Zoron

who agrees that it's a accurate word but

he can work with him. Well, if you can

work with him, it can't be that bad,

[laughter]

can it? It just makes the word look

ridiculous.

So maybe that's a step ahead.

Zero Hedge has got an article today that

uh since 2008

um the US gas pipeline

pipelines have been booming. Now, that's

the pipelines, you know, the physical

pipelines. And uh I didn't know this,

but apparently

even long before the Trump

administration, even before the first

one, uh the pipeline boom was begun. And

now we're seeing a lot of it having been

built out. So, we're going to see sort

of the benefit of it under the second

Trump administration. But if you

wondered how's the US doing in the

energy business, the answer is really

good. Really good. So the the regions,

what region? Uh

sort of the Oklahoma Gulf Coast region

is going to get a big boost in capacity

very soon. Good news. Anything that's

good for your country's energy

situation, probably good for your

country.

Um, I didn't know this was happening,

but apparently there was some big I

think maybe a 30 nation climate summit

um that was in the Amazon. I I don't

know if they found their way out.

[laughter]

That's funny just to imagine that they

all went in there and they couldn't find

their way out. No, they could. they

could find a way out. But Breitbart is

writing about this and uh I didn't know

about it probably because the US had not

participated.

So Trump said no no thank you. We don't

need need to be part of this climate

summit but uh was that a mistake

not being part of the climate summit?

Let's see what group of political people

in this country would have said we

should have gone to the climate summit.

Well, I think that would be Democrats.

Am I right? If Democrats had been in

charge, don't you think the US would

have gone to the climate summit? Yeah,

we would have. And then we would have

been part of their amazing

accomplishments. You know, I keep saying

that Democrats do useless things like

doing videos telling the military things

they military already knows. A lot of

useless things. But this one, oh no,

this is this was useful. It was all

these countries, they went into the

Amazon and then they said important

things and it took days and days, but

finally when they gave out,

[clears throat] they had applause

because they had done something useful.

Let's see. What was that? What was the

useful thing they did? Oh, uh, I guess

they agreed to quote voluntarily

accelerate their climate actions. No

specific goals.

Uh, no specific end points and no

definition of accelerate.

So,

that was useful,

wasn't it?

You're seeing the pattern, right?

It's not my imagination. The pattern is

pretty clear. This was completely a

waste of time because it changed

nothing. And Trump was smart enough to

say that looks like a waste of time. I'm

not going to go.

So, good call by Trump.

Um Ran Paul is warning. He was on the

Sunday, at least one of the Sunday

shows, I guess, and he said uh that the

the Trump coalition, if you will, the

Trump supporters could be split uh under

two conditions. There probably more of

them, but here are two of them. He says

once there, this is Ran Paul. He says

once there's an invasion of Venezuela or

if they decide to reup the subsidies and

the gifts to Ukraine uh then then Ran

says I think you'll see a splintering

and a fracturing of the movement that

has supported the president. What do you

think? Do you think that if Trump

invades Venezuela

or he starts to refund uh Ukraine that

his coalition will split apart?

I think so. Yeah, I I think that's a

reasonable prediction. But what are the

odds he's going to do either one of

those things? What are the odds that

Trump is going to refund Ukraine when

he's pulled off one of the smartest

things I've ever seen, which is not only

is he now funding Ukraine, but he's

getting he's getting our allies to pay

our military-industrial complex for the

weapons that Ukraine is going to use.

Don't we sort of win in that situation?

I think we do. Do do you think uh do you

think Trump's base is going to be mad at

him for finding out how to take the free

money off the table?

Yeah. I mean, he's basically acting like

the Chicago uh teachers union. If you

were here in the beginning of the

podcast, Trump's just acting like the

Chicago Teachers Union. Hey, uh, this

big pile of money on the table doesn't

seem to be labeled.

Is anybody claiming this money that's is

just sitting here? No. No. You? No. No.

No. Nobody claims this money. Well, what

if what if I just take it? Any

complaints?

Still no complaints. All right.

Chicago Teachers Union. That's how they

do it.

Allegedly. Allegedly. I'm just saying

allegedly.

All right. Meanwhile, the US White

House,

you know that White House, not the other

White House. The US White House

announced it's uh eliminating the

Department of Government Efficiency,

Doge. Here's how I would interpret that.

You would interpret that negatively,

wouldn't you? As in, hey, Doge was a

good idea. If they eliminate it, I will

be unhappy because it's something I

liked and I think it worked a little bit

and maybe they should have just tried

harder, but I like the Doge idea and

eliminating it seems like a bad idea.

Well, I'm not sure that's what's

happening. I will take a fact check on

this later in the day when we learn

more. But here's what I think is

happening.

I And this is something I said what, a

year ago, two years ago. Um I a year ago

at least I pointed out that Doge was

simply becoming how how the government

operated. So instead of needing instead

of needing a separate Doge department,

what made a lot more sense is what you

saw um Bill P do in the Fanny Freddy

situation. If you're running a big

government entity, you know that Trump

wants you to cut costs and he wants you

to brag about it

because he wants to cut the budget and

he wants everybody to know it. So if

you're running a big entity and you know

exactly what the boss wants and unlike

prior years, this is the real magic

part, unlike prior years, you're not

going to get a you're not going to get a

pat on the back for spending more than

your budget. But apparently that used to

happen otherwise they wouldn't all be

spending more than their budget. So at

this point you you saw people almost

competing you know heads of heads of

cabinets heads of departments you saw

them almost competing to see who could

make get the most attention for saying

I've cut the budget in the smartest best

way. So you saw Haggth talking about

budget cuts, you know, Bill PTE again.

Um, and uh, I think you can name half a

dozen others where they literally just

bragged about cutting budgets. Once you

once you've created that culture, which

apparently Trump has done, uh, then Doge

just becomes how you think about

everything. It doesn't become the

external department that needs to be

bothering you all the time. You should

be doing those things before they knock

on the door. You shouldn't need Doge to

say you need an audit. Nobody needs Doge

to say they should save money. Look

where they can cut costs. That should

just be part of the operation. So when I

see that Doge first was created, I was

excited because obviously that was a

thing that wasn't in existence that

needed to exist. But once it operated

for a while and everybody got the idea

and it it just became part of our

conversation, it became a word. I mean,

you don't even need to have the

department now. If you're if you're

running some big department in the

government, don't you think that one of

the words you would use is Doge? It

would be something like this. All right,

everybody. Um, we need to come up with

some big cost savings so I can tell the

boss that we're on board. So somebody

come up with some good Doge ideas, they

would literally use the word

to describe what they want to do, which

is have a responsible budget that you

could audit and keep keep under control.

So I'm happy that Doge went away if the

reason is they had successfully just

integrated into the thinking of the

government and I think they did. I mean

from the outside it looks like they did.

So, I would consider that an enormous

win if that's what happened. But I'll

I'll take a fact check on that, too.

I guess we've got some video Zero Hedge

says of uh some maybe drones hitting a

major power station near Moscow. Now,

you have to be careful about all the all

the reporting from Moscow and from um

Ukraine because it's all subject to the

fog of war. But the timing would be

interesting if that really happened. And

there's good reason to believe it did

happen because it would not be unusual

for Ukraine to have done a drone attack

on a energy facility in Russia. And this

would be timed somewhat uh

coincidentally or not

by the the fact that Marco Rubio just

said they had a very productive meeting.

actually the most productive. He said

the most productive and meaningful

meeting to date

that is with his Ukrainian

uh partners trying to come up with some

kind of a peace deal that they could

present to Putin

uh that would have some chance of being

negotiated to completion. So, as of

today,

the government is talking in a more,

let's say, optimistic way about the

chances of peace than I've seen in a

while. Do you think that's real?

Uh, do you think that's real?

I don't know. Because, you know, we've

been disappointed so many times where

we're like, "Oh, there's going to be a

peace deal in Ukraine any minute." And

then gets yanked away. Well, here's what

I feel. And this is going to be more

feelings than facts.

Um, so if I'm wrong,

don't be surprised because I can't give

you an argument for what I'm going to

say. I'm going to tell you how it feels.

Now, my argument, I guess there is an

argument, but it's a bad one. Um, my

argument is that sometimes you can feel

things or smell them before you can see

them and touch them. And this this is

feeling that way to me. So, I'm just an

observer of the news. I don't have any

special access to any anything in this

topic. But I observe patterns and

sometimes I don't know what pattern I'm

picking up. Have you ever had that

experience? You're like, "Ah, I feel

like I know where this is heading, but I

don't know why I know it." And it's

because there might be some pattern

you're picking up. Might be false.

Doesn't mean it's true, but it means

we're just pattern recognition machines.

When I look at the war, here's the first

question I ask. What are the odds that

the Ukraine Russia war will still be

raging

uh for the entire term of Trump's time

in office? Do you think this could run

another 3 years? Because that would put

it at seven years and it probably would

be sitting at the same place at the end

of three more years. So, I'm finding it

hard to believe that uh either Putin or

Zilinski are thinking to themselves, we

can wait this guy out, meaning Trump, we

can wait him out. I think the days of

waiting anybody out are over.

And then I would say, what are the odds

that it would end differently

if you wait three more years? And I

think the answer is there's no reason to

believe it's going to turn out

differently. Might be better, might be

worse. But the last thing that Moscow

wants is three more years of Ukraine

developing better drones. It's just

going to get worse. So if you're in

Moscow and you're in something blow up

and your lights flickered, which may or

may not be what happened again, fog of

war, you can't believe any reporting

from that area. But if you believe it

happened,

it's going to be a lot of pressure.

Could could you imagine just going three

more years and gaining nothing and it

looks exactly the same at the end of

three more years? So my first pattern

recognition

is that if if waiting doesn't seem like

it's going to get you a better result

and both sides would see that that that

seems obvious from both sides, then why

would you wait? What you would do

instead of waiting is you would look for

some excuse as to why now would be the

time. And that excuse

is Trump.

Trump is the excuse because he won't

always be there and you can't count on

even, you know, given our politics, you

can't guarantee he'll even be there in

three years. But he's there now and he's

willing to put in maximum effort to get

this thing finished. So because there's

a Trump and because it's gone four years

and because he's going to be here

another three and because we can kind of

predict that things aren't going to get

better and that drones will get more

powerful and just more things will

explode. You might as well do it now.

Now is that a good argument? Not really.

Not really. I'm telling you how it feels

and what it feels like. I'm going to

give you the the summary of what I just

said. The summary is it just feels like

it's time.

Does anybody have that feeling? And I'm

not sure I would have said that before.

Before I would have said, oh, it's

logical. You know, both sides could, you

know, they'd be better off if they do

it. So, I would have given you a logical

argument before, but now it just sort of

feels

like the even the even the words that

Marco Rubio chose, the the way that

Zilinski

is sort of sliding into a new position,

the way the Europeans are on the hook

for the entire bill.

It it's sort of all those things. the

way the way the technology is improving

to the point where it's not a you know

it's mostly robots on robots

etc.

So I think maybe something's coming that

could be good. And another way to look

at it was it feels like capitulation.

If you're familiar with investing,

there's a word called capitulation. I

mean it's a regular word, but when it's

used in in the context of uh investing,

it means that people just feel like

they're done with some investment

position. Capitulation. And capitulation

doesn't always have like a logical

uh backing to it. It just people agree

that's how they feel. It's like gh

capitulation.

I think that's what's happened. I think

maybe the the way the media will cover

it will change. I think that um there's

also a narrative fatigue.

Sometimes you just have to have a new

narrative.

And in this case, the narrative is the

story, and the story is the the reality,

the thing that's really happening. I I

feel like we're tired of waking up and

saying, "Is is Russia and Ukraine at war

still? Is exactly the same? Are the

lines about the same as they were?"

We're just fatigued

with that version of reality. So,

there's also a we are living in a

simulation argument, which is we're just

tired with that narrative. So, so our

collective consciousness will change the

narrative because we're just bored with

it. We'll get something else.

Then I would argue also that we already

know how the story ends.

We already know how the story ends. It's

a three arc or or it's a threeact movie

and at the end of the third act, what

happens? You all know how the movie

ends. Uh let me set it up for you. in in

uh scene one, Trump uh is impeached

twice and loses re-election.

But in scene two, Trump wins re-election

against against all odds. And then he

goes on this series of ridiculously

successful presidential actions, which

is what at least the Republicans would

say he's doing right now. And that's a

proper second act. So the first act is

something really bad happens to your

hero. That's the impeachment. That's the

losing re-election. That's all that

stuff. That's the first act. Second act

is usually the hero of the movie has

reached let's say some kind of plateau

of how their life could be. If it's an

athlete, the athlete is suddenly winning

all the competitions, right? Uh so so

that's happening. And then the third act

would be something that looks like, oh

no, you could never you could never get

out of this. It would be something like

the Ukraine Russia war looks like it's

unsolvable. Uh at the same time, Trump's

Trump's popularity numbers are plunging.

So he's going to have the lowest

popularity numbers in a war that he

can't stop and he's going to be accused

of being a a fascist,

whatever. And it will look like maybe it

might even get worse. And it will look

like there's no way anybody could get

out of this situation. And that's the

third act. The third act is when your

hero escapes the situation that nobody

could escape. It's impossible.

And uh then what happens after he does

the escape? What happens after he does

the impossible?

He gets a Nobel Peace Prize.

the the fact that Trump doesn't have the

Nobel Peace Prize and and that this is

brewing back there, that's a little bit

too much of a pattern for me to imagine

it's not going to go that way. It looks

like it's just going to turn into a

three-act movie.

It will look like he's doomed pretty

soon from some new drama that we don't

even see coming. And then he'll find a

way out because that's what he does. And

then he'll get the Nobel Peace Prize

and you'll be you'll be watching it in

awe saying, "How did that why was that

so predictable?"

[laughter] Because it kind of is. So

that'll be fun.

Well, Tucker Carlson was quite

provocative today on X. He posted this.

I'm gonna read just what Tucker said

because it's a big story if if his

allegations are true. And it goes like

this. So this is brand new. This just

before I came on. Uh Tucker said that

for months the Wall Street Journal has

held us has held a story detailing the

personal corruption of somebody named

Andre Yermac, the second most powerful

man in Ukraine. year has skimmed

hundreds of millions in American tax

dollars meant for Ukraine aid. Now

remember this is allegations made by

Tucker. The journal's editors can prove

that really but they're not. Instead

they're protecting Yurmach.

Why?

And then Tucker answers his own

question. He says because Yurmach is

leading Ukraine's effort to scuttle the

Trump peace plan for Eastern Europe.

what the owners of the Wall Street

Journal don't want peace with Russia.

Now remember that's that's a little mind

readading going on there because unless

they've said it I know uh you'd be

assuming that that's what they're

thinking and it might be right. I'm not

saying it's wrong. I'm just saying just

distinguish between things you can prove

and things which are allegations. So,

the owners of the Wall Street Journal,

says Tucker, don't want peace with

Russia. They want war. At the same time,

the journal's editorial page has

attacked the Trump administration for

pushing a peace agreement. And then,

says Tucker, this is true corruption

without uh informing its readers. The

Murdoch family, no, without informing

its readers, the Murdoch family, says

Tucker, is using both sides of his

newspaper to continue the war with

Russia. That's not the behavior of a

news organization.

Wait for it. It's the hallmark of an

intel agency.

Oh, damn.

Damn. I don't know how many of you have

been watching Tucker's content since he

uh got cancelled and cancelled again.

But uh he does do a lot of content about

Well, you probably didn't know this, but

the some intel agency is behind it

because I think it usually is. Uh what

do you think of this?

Do do you think that Tucker's

narrative of this is accurate?

I don't have any inside information.

I've never heard of this. Uh, Andre

Yermeck, I will say that the the Ukraine

war has the feeling of something that

rich people want to continue because it

feels like it feels like if all the rich

people wanted it to end, that would have

already ended.

What's the point of being all these

billionaires if you can't control, you

know, control civilization, too? So,

there must have been somebody who wanted

the war to continue. And maybe it's this

guy. I wouldn't know. Um, but that's a

heck of an allegation.

A heck of an allegation. So, let's keep

an eye on that one. I I think it's too

early for me to have an opinion on that

one because I'd have to see if there's

any second side to it. But the the the

allegation that the Wall Street Journal

is sort of intentionally promoting war

for the benefit of some billionaires and

maybe for the benefit of their own

company. That's a big allegation.

That's a big one. All right. Uh Glenn

Beck recently asked RFK Jr. his thoughts

on the World Economic Forum, the WF, and

RFK Jr. said, quote, "We shouldn't be

paying attention to it." Meaning the WF,

it's a billionaire's boys club that's

arranging for the world to shift wealth

upward and to clamp down on totalitarian

controls on and clamp and to clamp down

totalitarian controls on everybody else.

Now, who does that sound like?

There's one other public figure who has

talked about the World Economic Forum in

almost exactly the same terms. the

Billionaires Boys Club.

That was Elon. When Elon Musk was asked

about the World Economic Forum, he also

just sort of brushed it aside in terms

of importance and acted like it was just

a social club for rich people and that

if you thought it was more than that,

you were kind of giving it too much

power.

Yeah. So, I agree with RFK Jr.'s take. I

have not seen the World Economic Forum

uh be anything but a billionaire boys

club. It looks exactly like that. And

yes, we should ignore them. Uh unless

they become more powerful and start

affecting things. All right. In other

news, the Israeli the defense forces

apparently are dismissing the first

wave, what they call the first wave of

uh people that they say were responsible

for allowing the October 7th attack to

happen. Meaning people who allegedly did

not do their jobs well enough to prevent

it and should have. Now, apparently

quite a few people are involved in this

and they're calling it just the first

first major wave. Newsmax is reporting

on this, by the way. It's the first

major wave, but that would suggest that

there are going to be other major waves.

How many people How many people were

actually

literally physically

involved and should have done more? I

don't know how there could be that many

people. I I could see if it were one or

two or a dozen people, but once it gets

up to a larger numbers, how many people

were making mistakes all in the same

time in the same way? I don't know what

that means. Uh but

apparently they're not done. Uh so

they're going to keep looking and keep

firing people who are responsible. Now,

uh, Prime Minister Netanyahu,

um, is apparently reportedly opposed to

a state inquiry,

uh, of the government to find out if

members of the government as opposed to

the military, uh, were also responsible

and should

take some kind of action or

responsibility, I guess. So, you've got

the IDF saying, "Yes, we take

responsibility and these specific people

are being dismissed." But you've got the

government saying, "No, let's not let's

not get into this any deeper.

Maybe maybe we should just leave this

with the military."

Uh, now, if you follow all your

conspiracy theories, you know that

there's been one that's been bugging me

from almost day one. it bugging me

because I just don't see

it as possible in the world that I live

in.

Anything's possible and I could be

totally surprised. But the the

conspiracy theory goes, and you've all

heard it, that uh Netanyahu

intentionally allowed security to be

lapsed or lacks so that the attack would

happen because that would help him

politically

stay in power, but also, you know, to do

what he wanted to do anyway in Gaza.

How many of you believe that that's what

really happened? Now, I understand why

you would believe it because it's it's

really hard to look at the the size of

that security lapse and imagine that was

an accident, right? If you're just

looking at it from the outside, you say

to yourself, how in the world could all

of that

be accidental,

right? And that's a good place to start.

It's a good starting place because I'm

curious too. But now that the the

military has taken

this much responsibility,

does it change your opinion?

Because if the military is taking

responsibility and they're they're

naming names and a lot of them and

they're firing them, they must be

finding things that these military

people did wrong. Now, do you believe

that these military people would all

take

what must be one of the worst

consequences you could get in the

military other than other than being

wounded, I suppose. Um, one of the worst

things would be to have your own

military accuse you of being responsible

for October 7th.

Do you think that there are this many

people, I don't know how many there are,

but let's say dozens. Do you think there

are dozens of people in the military who

would be willing to take responsibility

for October 7th trying, you know, living

among the population that would know

that they had taken responsibility?

And you would do that what? To cover up

for Netanyahu,

would you? Do do you believe that that's

like a a possible thing that would

happen that dozens of people at the

officer level, we're not talking about

grunts, talking people in leadership,

would they all take the fall

for for October 7th, the most maybe the

most shameful thing that's ever happened

to, you know, any Israeli in decades?

I just don't see it happening.

So,

um,

while I do think that Netanyahu is

opportunistically using the situation to

his advantage,

that's not a big surprise.

But it's hard for me to imagine that he

planned it, he executed it, dozens and

dozens of people in the military had to

sort of stand down from their

responsibilities. And then after it was

all over, none of them became

whistleblowers.

They all just they all individually took

the rap for October 7th.

I mean, there are a lot of things you

could take the rap for, but not that.

That would be like the worst thing you

could ever take the rap for if you

didn't do it, especially right.

So, this doesn't really add up to me.

And I'm gonna say that the the new

revelation that the military is uh

dismissing people and naming names.

They're naming names

does kind of make it look like a

military failure more so than it seems

likely to me it would be a government

failure. Now, in case you're wondering,

uh Israel is not paying me to do

anything.

They don't pay me for anything. And uh

it's not my job to uh support Netanyahu.

I'm not a supporter and I'm not a

supporter of Israel or anybody else

except the United States. I'm a I'm an

America first kind of guy. And when I

talk about Israel, I'm not talking about

even my preferences. We're just

observing and trying to understand it.

But uh it's up to them to defend it.

Well, I'm hearing today in the New York

Post that that Thomas Krooks guy who

tried to assassinate the president and

then got shot himself uh that he had all

kinds of social media presence.

Didn't we hear that he didn't have a

social media presence or am I confusing

him with somebody else? But it does seem

to me that

um months later we're learning about

this would be assassin things that uh

how did it take so long to hear that?

Boy, talk about fog of war. That fog of

war lasts apparently a year or more.

All right. Uh

the $7,000 check.

Does does anybody think I'm being paid

by Israel?

Uh what does Glenn Greenwald not

believe?

There was a press on the ground.

There was press on the ground. I Yeah,

you know, I just don't believe any of

those stories. Some of them might turn

out to be true, but um

it's hard to believe anything in that

domain.

All right, people. I think I've said

what I need to say. I'm going to say a

few words to the local subscribers, the

wonderful local subscribers. I hope you

got something out of this today. Did

you? Did anybody learn anything today

that they might not have gotten from the

the regular news?

Uh, I hope so. And uh I'll be private in

30 seconds with locals who I call my

beloved my beloved subscribers.

Beloved subscribers coming at Yeah.