Episode 3064 CWSA 01/06/26

Good morning.

Come on in.

Always good to see you.

If I sound like I'm slurring my speech, I am.

I've got a little bit of paralysis on one side.

Um, and also my meds make me so dehydrated that I can barely move my tongue.

So, forgive me for that, please.

and prepare for the simultaneous sip.

This is coming up once we get a thousand people which will happen very quickly.

Make sure you have your beverage beverage.

All right, 1,000 people, it's time.

I know why you're here.

You're here for the simultaneous sip and all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tanker shell for sign, a kine jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

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

The thing makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

It happens now.

That's some good seven right there.

Good seven.

Well, let's start out by saying happy fake insurrection day, January 6.

Do you remember when you thought it was ridiculous to imagine that Democrats would be playing uh complicated hoaxes on the public?

It didn't seem like a thing that anything that could actually happen, right?

And then you found out about the Russia collusion hoax.

Oops.

It turns out they can run a major hoax against the country.

Then you found out about the fine people hoax and you said to yourself, "How is it even possible that the mainstream media went along with that hoax?

How is that even possible?" And then again, you said to yourself, "Wow, I didn't even think that could happen." But there's two examples where it happened.

And then the the one that is the biggest FU in the world is that uh the January 6 insurrection hoax.

Now, if you're new to this and maybe the first time you've heard me talk about it, here's how you know that the January insurrection hoax was a hoax.

Now, what I'm talking about is the hoax that Trump knew knew that he lost the election and the people he sent to the capital to protest also knew that the election was clean, but they were trying to overthrow the country.

Now, that entire hoax depended on nobody in the mainstream media.

nobody asking the asking the people who attended the uh the protest why they were there and they would have found out that not a single person believed that it was a clean election and they were hoping to overthrow the government.

It was the biggest assumption that drove the entire hoax.

And not one not one legitimate legitimate not one mainstream media ever took a protester in and said, "Did you really believe that the election was clean?" Because none of those existed.

Every person who was there, I'll bet you, plus Trump himself, I'll betcha, believed that they were seeing an obviously rigged election and they wanted to slow things down until they could be sure it had not been rigged.

Now, that narrative got reversed by the hoaxers.

The hoaxers knowing that this is actually good technique by the hoaxers.

The hoaxers knew that if they could get there first with their narrative and say that no, he knew it was a good election.

He was just trying to overthrow the country.

If they could do that and they could they could ram it down our throats every day, especially with the help of Hollywood uh theatrical people and then they would put on this whole January 6 um publicized Hollywood produced thing so that every single day you would see their narrative and Trump was now out of office so he couldn't really push his narrative uh as much as normally you could.

So, I call today happy fake insurrection hoax day and uh I hope we never see anything like that again.

But the the ability of the Democrats to to sustain a gigantic, you know, multi-year hoax with lots of moving parts.

They can absolutely do that.

And we've seen it now multiple times.

Well, would you be surprised to hear there's a new study that says that coffee might actually protect your heart from area from atrial fibrillation.

Maybe I saw this on a post by Dr.

Domin who tells us that it may work which is the right way to do it.

It doesn't mean that this one science or this one study is valid.

It just means there is a study.

And so it's like a 50% chance that it's real.

You know, if you look at all studies, about half of them turn out to be reproducible.

About half of them are not.

Well, there's going to be a bunch of technical excuse me, there's going to be a bunch of technology announcements this week.

because uh the cons consumer electronic show is happening and a lot of robots.

So the LG the company LG claims it has a robot that can fold laundry and make you breakfast.

Will it?

And uh do some basically easy labor around the house.

You know the basics.

Now, until somebody buys that robot, and it's probably not exactly for sale yet, until somebody buys it and tries it and tells me it works, I don't believe it.

I don't believe it.

Now, I don't know how they made the demonstration work, but they probably limited the demonstration to one kind of breakfast, you know, one one type of laundry and just train the hell out of those few things.

And I even wonder, is it AI driven?

Because when I read about it, it didn't mention AI.

So, did they just skip AI and say, "All right, it's going to be more like your AL exa at home.

you you have to give it the right command and it's programmed to do those specific things, but you couldn't teach it to do anything else.

I don't know.

My guess is it's a little overhyped.

A little bit.

So, um, you you knew this was coming before, but I have more to say about it.

So, RFK Jr., Secretary Kennedy um he reminds us that Trump had asked him to look at childhood vaccines and to see why we differ from other countries and you know maybe that maybe they're doing it right.

So after exhaustive review, says Kennedy, of the evidence, we're aligning US childhood vaccine schedules with international consensus, which a lot of people think was probably the the more conservative and safer way to do it.

Uh while strengthening transparency and informed consent.

Now, every part of that sounds good so far.

Uh he says the decision to change the schedule um protects children, respects families, it rebuilds trusts.

If if it works out, yes, absolutely.

So, I'm a little unclear on the changes themselves, but what I read online is that they would go from 84 to 88 doses for a child, which would be given basically, you know, very soon after birth down to around 30.

Now, presumably that number of what the ones that got cut from the 80s down to 30 were the ones that the science suggests might be a problem.

I I think we're still in the in the territory of we can't be 100% sure, you know, how these all work together or which ones were the problems.

But if you took a a good let's say rational scientific whack at it and you thought okay we don't we don't know how all this works together but these bunch are the ones that have all the signals.

So if we remove the signals but don't remove the parents ability to get those when they want it just wouldn't be required.

That feels like really playing the odds right.

So, here's what I'm hoping.

It's too it's very it's too soon to know if this will maybe change the autism rates or change something else because maybe the data was bad.

Maybe the one that was the problem is still in the mix.

We don't know for sure, but it looks like exactly the right process.

You know, I always talk about a system is better than a than a goal.

Well, the goal would be protect all the children.

The system would be that we make sure we have the best science and we're looking at it continuously and all that.

But what I want to add to this, this is so much in the category of something that only Trump could have gotten done.

And when I say only Trump, obviously it required RFK Jr.

Trump is the is going to go down in history.

If this works out, oh my god, there there's not going to be any question who was the best president of all time.

Like it would just remove all doubt.

And what I like about this in particular is that I've said this for years and and I love it that Trump has a unique ability to build a pirate ship when you need a pirate ship.

Right.

So, he brought on, you know, one of the most famous names in Democrat politics, RFK Jr., and put him in a high-risk situation, and he has so far, in my opinion, performed beautifully.

Now, no other president could have done that because they didn't know how to build a pirate ship.

Now, when I say pirate, I don't mean in a negative way.

I just mean a collection of people that would not normally be on the same team, you know, working in the same direction, but he makes it work.

Um, and so watching Kennedy not just change a goal, but to change the entire system uh that got us to where we are is just breathtaking.

It's just breathtaking.

And only Trump could have done that.

And I think only RFK Jr.

could have gotten as far as we've gotten.

so far.

So, full standing ovation for that.

But again, we'll have to see.

We'll have to see if it works out.

But everything looks smart.

Well, I saw in the maze account on Axe.

Uh he was he was reposting a compilation made by Grabian Grabian.

want to give I want to give credit to him.

But Grabin is one of these uh online uh what would you call it?

Online meme I guess and uh was reminding us that back in 2024, it seems so funny now that the Harris Walsh team was sending him a memo to start calling JD Vance weird.

You remember that?

Uh, and they they wanted to basically paint Vance and everybody who's a, you know, Trump supporter as weird.

And you you see the compilation and you can see how forced it was and you can see obviously they had talking points.

Now, does that even happen on the right?

Uh, obviously pro.

Trumpers often will say the same thing as other pro.

Trumpers, but I'm not aware of anybody getting a memo to do it.

Usually, if somebody hears something that works, they say, "Oh, that sounds good, so I'll just say it, too." Um, but I don't think it happens on both sides.

If I'm wrong about that, let me know.

I've never seen it.

So, as a student of persuasion as I am, um, it made me wonder who came up with the idea.

It's obvious that the campaign was probably the one who said do this, but who came up with it?

Was it a professional?

Here's what I think it was.

Now, this would be speculation.

I think the Democrats, feeling like they're not good at persuasion, hired somebody who claimed to be good at it.

And the people that they hired, again, just speculation, um, would would try to use science to back what they were recommending.

And one of the things that science consistently shows is that conservatives don't like icky stuff.

If something's non-standard, conservatives just go and that is sort of built into their brains and almost something they can't change.

So the idea here would be that somebody said, "Aha, if you look at the science, the thing that would turn off other voters on the Republican side is to know that they were backing something weird." And so far that actually tracks with what I would, you know, what I would recommend about uh persuasion if I were on their team.

But why didn't it work?

Because it definitely didn't work.

And I speculate that it didn't work because it was so stunningly unnatural.

It was so obviously a talking point and not something that they were feeling in any important way and nobody cares about weirdness.

Um, you know, it just has a free floating idea.

Uh, so I think the inauthenticity of it made it impossible to work.

But then um as I've talked about at length, time goes by and they came up with the idea or maybe mom donny did of talking about affordability.

Now when anybody talks about affordability either side that connects.

So that was probably a real good play.

Trump had to but here's the flaw in their plan.

Trump has probably had enough time that he could address enough affordability issues that it would sort of take it off the table a little bit.

And his technique of going directly at energy prices as a way to make basically everything less expensive.

Um he has time to make that work.

So he knew right away and he tried to co-opt it that if he started talking about affordability and he started doing something about affordability, it would take their their main good attack they've ever had somewhat off the table.

So he has to perform and we're watching of course uh as he's doing things that would in fact lower energy costs if everything goes right.

Uh and there's probably enough time for that to work its way through the system again if he gets energy prices lower uh and affect everything.

So once again, Trump has better better approach to things.

All right.

So you know, we've all been trying to figure out what is the real reason for the action in Venezuela.

Is it really about drugs?

Well, drugs might be part of it, but I think all the smart people at this point are saying it's not the only reason, and it might might not even be the top reason, but it it creates it creates the possibility of doing what we wanted to do in Venezuela.

So, I was listening yesterday to Glenn Beck.

uh he was telling us his ideas for wh why we went to Venezuela and it was very persuasive um because he's a good communicator and he's a smart guy.

So when he described it, you what the real play was very very convincing I have to say.

But then as these things often go, I read the comments and I see a push back on it and I thought, oh well, there might be a problem with the data.

So if there's a data problem that would suggest maybe we don't have the right take on this, I'll tell you what that is.

So Glenn Beck's take is that the real value of the Venezuela action is that it would put pressure on China because there's so much oil that comes from Venezuela that ends in China that it would be putting pressure on China.

And if is if uh Iran goes at the same time, which looks like it might, I still still won't bet on it, but it looks like there's pretty good chance that Iran will will fall.

But we could potentially deny um China from some large percentage of their total energy.

If they're denied their total energy, it would be hard for them to say mount a war in Taiwan.

uh it would be hard for them to dominate the world if they're struggling for oil and there's such a large uh percentage of what they get from Venezuela and Iran that um that makes perfect sense from a military Monroe doctrine point of view.

Now, when you first hear this argument, um, it's very convincing, but the problem with the data is I've seen numbers all over the place about how much China is getting from Venezuela.

Um, and I don't trust the numbers.

So, it could be there's not as much pressure on China as we assume it is um, if the data is wrong.

Now, the other piece of data that somebody questioned and made me go, "Oh, is that Venezuela has I don't know if I have the right units I'm talking about here, but like 300 billion barrels or something of oil." And then somebody said that that was never true.

that the claims that Venezuela had the most reserves of oil were claims that were made by some prior administration so that it looked like they were more powerful than they were.

And that the real number of usable oil because remember it's Venezuelan oil is kind of dirty.

So there only I think three refineries in the world that can even process it.

But so that the real number might be closer to 25.

So, we've been told it's 300, which would be among or the biggest reserves, but it might be just 25 when you when you get down to how much you actually refine and how much could you get to.

So, that's a big question mark, right?

If anybody has some uh visibility on that, I would love to know what is the most credible number for the reserves.

Uh if we did this to get access to an enormous part of oil, then it definitely looks like a good idea.

If we did it because there's so much oil that was going to China that it would completely change their strategic calculation, it looks like a good idea.

But if either of those numbers are not what we think they are, then I don't know what we're getting.

Uh, I do love um Trump's uh take that we're just taking back the oil they took from us because first of all, I think that's true.

And it's hard to argue against taking back what somebody stole from you, right?

Well, Bill, um, and I also, uh, I'll probably say this a lot of times, but hold on a second.

One of the most important things you need to know that I believe Trump knows better than anybody is that countries and organizations and movements they either grow or they shrink and the United States was in a shrinking position in the world.

was becoming, you know, less influential, uh, less rich compared to other people, uh, relatively speaking.

And what Trump did is reverse that.

So, he's found ways to turn the US into a growing entity.

If you're not growing, you are definitely shrinking.

One of those is an existential threat.

And one of those guarantees, not guarantees, but gives you a real good chance for a better future.

So, uh, if you feel uncomfortable with whatever the president is doing, the military is doing, the thing you should look at is, is this making the US stronger and growing or is it working in the other direction?

If the answer is yes, this makes the US grow and be more important, I would argue that that is probably more important than whatever your moral or constitutional arguments are, which are also important.

You know, it's not like I'm blind to ignoring the Constitution, if we should ever do that.

Uh it's not like I'm in favor of military action if we can avoid it.

It's just a simple fact that you're either growing or shrinking.

And as soon as you put that frame on it, then everything that Trump has been doing lately makes perfect sense, especially uh asserting the Monroe Doctrine like it's never been asserted before.

All right.

Bill O'Reilly was on News.

Nation talking to Leela Infinard and he had a interesting speculation which I immediately agree with.

Uh but he he warns you that he's not basing this on reporting.

This is based on just his understanding of the world and it's close to my understanding of the world too.

He says that about Venezuela, that the CIA, which has heavily infiltrated the Venezuelan and Colombian governments, they know everything was going on and that they must have made a deal with the Venezuelan military.

And the deal would look like this.

You step aside because we're coming in to get Maduro.

And that's the only way on earth that the US special forces could have snatched Maduro without any conflict at all.

Now, were you wondering why Venezuela didn't put up more of a fight?

Specifically, the military just stood down.

Um, and I have long speculated that there was no way that, you know, I agree with this speculation that there's no way that could have been so bloodless relatively.

I think there were some 32 people who might have died on the, you know, I don't know if there were Cuban bodyguards or what, but there were some casualties on the Venezuelan side.

The only way I could understand that is if we've got a a deal in the back.

Now, that deal would include um that maybe the Venezuelans can act tough as long as they don't fire anything, as long as they do what we're told.

So you see the vice president who's now the president of Venezuela uh talking tough about the US.

That probably has to happen.

She she probably has to talk tough.

But as long as uh she understands that we'll send the military if she doesn't do what we want and as long as the CIA has built relationships there that can tell them exactly how to get out of the way.

maybe there's some bribery involved, etc.

Um, I think that's probably the answer to the hidden questions.

Like if you knew that the CIA had been working for years, probably to be in a position to say, "Okay, military, come on in.

We'll turn off we'll turn off the response." Uh, that would explain everything, wouldn't it?

But again, this is not a fact.

Um, I I believe there's more we don't know about this situation than there is that we know.

You know, we're deeply in the fog of war, you know, in a sense war.

Uh, what we will learn about this in the coming years will probably be a lot more than we actually know because I don't see that I don't see the CIA telling us the truth.

It's not even their job to tell us the truth.

in fact telling us the truth might work against our interests.

So I I think that's true.

Now listen to Steve Miller who was on a recent interview.

He said uh about the Venezuelans.

He said they told Rubio made clear they will meet the terms.

This is the Venezuelan government as it is right now.

They told Rubio made it clear they will meet the terms, demands, conditions and requirements of the US.

So, if they're telling Rubio they're going to do what we want, but you hear them talk tough t talk t talk t talk t talk t talk t talk t talk t talk t talk t talk t talk talk talk talk talk tough in public, it all makes sense, doesn't it?

All right.

Um, according to Senator John Kennedy, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which took took our money and funneled it to NPR and PBS, is uh officially dissolved.

Now, there was probably a time when I would have thought, man, I hate to see my government defund, you know, a a place that gives me the news.

But what we know recently about any of these mainstream media entities is they're definitely not helping.

That they were not really additive to the country.

And so when you see cuts to these venerable institutions, what president could make a cut to a venerable institution?

Only Trump.

He's like the only one who could do it.

But it doesn't work every time because there's a court ruling.

Newsmax is reporting uh that Trump had tried to cut a big part of the uh National Institute of Health funding for scientific and medical research to these big colleges and institutions.

But a three a three judge panel just ruled that he can't do that.

Um I I don't I'm not good enough on the legal stuff to know why he can't do that, but that's a ruling.

Um now there's an argument I hear on what I'm going to call my side that I don't think holds up.

And maybe that's the problem, too.

So part of the argument for making cuts to places like Harvard is that a few of the big institutions it it doesn't apply to all of them but the biggest ones have these enormous endowments that means that people have donated massive amounts of money and they have that money for for uh various Harvard use.

So the argument went, if you already have so much money, why does the government need to give you any more?

Because the endowment doesn't get spent every year.

It just sits there and grows.

Here's what people generally don't know about the endowments that you should add to your knowledge bank.

Uh most of them, and I think most is the right word, but some large number of them are not available for anybody who wants to use it for anything.

They are for specific purposes.

So in other words, a billionaire would say, I'm going to give you a billion dollars to use for this specific purpose and if you don't use it for that, you know, it'll get clawed back or you don't get to use it.

So the Harvard does not does not have the freedom to use the endowment any way they want.

So it can never be a full replacement for government funding.

I'm in favor of the cuts and the pressure it puts.

Um, just that's just a fact you should know about.

Well, here's a story I find creepy and I hate it.

But Senator Mark Kelly, who had been a a member of the military, uh he's being what they call it sanctioned and demoted and his pension is being uh pulled by a secretary of war Pexath.

The reason being that he was part of the six people who made that video uh encouraging the military to not obey illegal orders.

Now, I'm pretty sure that was always the law that they should not obey illegal orders, but by putting attention on it and, you know, trying to focus on it, it seemed like the real play here was not to make the country a better place.

It looked like the play was to destroy the um chain of command.

So if the uh if the commander-in-chief gave an order, then the individual military people could say, "hm, that looks illegal to me." So, you know, Kelly told me I could ignore it.

H maybe I'll ignore it.

Now, you could easily see how that would destroy the, you know, the cohesion and the everything about the military.

and it clearly seemed designed to be political and not anything anything about national security.

So I think what he did was arguably something insurrectionist, seditionist, traitorous.

Um at the very least it was not intended to help the country militarily.

That's what I think.

That's just my opinion.

So under that frame take, you know, punishing him essentially by taking away some of his uh his military uh benefits like his retirement grade stuff is really expensive and he did fight for the country.

So the reason it's creepy is that I just hate being in a position where Pete Higgs would even have to wrestle with this as a question.

We never should have been here.

On the other hand, it is so hard for me to see a member of the military punished for something that other people would say.

That's just free speech, Scott.

So, let me say I love it because you have to have a response and you have to recognize it for what it was.

But I hate it because it's it's a military man.

All right.

Here's a story I'm going to tell you that's more about the fact that the story can be told than it is about the point.

And I saw Elon uh Musk boosting this on X.

So Lauren Chen on X uh wrote this piece that I'm sure you could not have said this five years ago.

You would be so cancelled, but I think now you can say this stuff.

So she said that people often say the developing world is poor because the Western world colonized them and stole the resources.

But she points out that uh when the colonizers left, let's say Hong Kong and Singapore being two examples, um that they they left them in good shape, meaning that the people were trained to take over.

They did take over and then over decades you could say that it totally worked.

So that was a case where you you can decry the colon col colonialism that would be fair but you can't decry the fact that the colonizers tried hard to make sure that the people they left um thrived and sure enough they did.

But here's the point that I don't think you could have said five years ago that Africa has never worked.

that the colonizers who colonized Africa um often found out that they couldn't train the locals to take over.

And her point is uh that you have to recognize that in every case the colonizers probably every case the colonizers tried very hard to leave the locals in a good position to take care of themselves.

And some places for reasons we don't have to get into some places like Africa, it didn't work once, it just never worked.

And that that probably has to do with I'll just say the word culture.

So at the very least it had to do with culture.

But because this is obviously a landmine kind of topic.

So I'll go back to my original point.

It's not about me arguing that this is true or false.

It's about the fact that she could say it out loud and not get cancelled.

And the only reason for that is that she's on X.

You probably couldn't say it in many places, but you can say it on X.

So, that's a big change for free speech.

Sorry.

One of the uh one of the side effects of whatever's going on with me is that I have these little burping burping attacks.

All right.

Except uh culture is not a bad word.

I'm answering the comments.

Culture is not a bad word, but it opens up that Pandora box of, you know, why and we don't need to get into that.

Well, the Rasmmanson poll, which is coming out today, said this was poll was taken before the Venezuela action, right?

That 48% approved of the US seizing oil tankers.

I think that was a plurality.

So, there were more people who approved it than didn't.

And um they also had this opinion when Trump said, quote, "You remember they took all our energy rights?

They took all our oil not long ago and we want it back." 54% of voters agree with that.

So yeah, I was telling you earlier that that's a strong frame.

Well, proven.

It's proven that that was a strong frame.

Uh they took our oil and we're taking it back.

That's a Rasent poll you'll see later today.

Well, Megan Kelly had an interesting opinion on Venezuela that she talked about on her Sirius XM show and I liked it.

This is a good opinion.

Um she said that when I turned on Fox News yesterday and I'm sorry, but it was like watching Russian propaganda.

There was nothing skeptical.

It was all rahrh cheerleading.

Let's go.

Now, that was also my opinion that uh the Fox News was basically all down for this right away.

Now, I would make a distinction between My lips are a little numb, so I can't tell when I have something on.

I'd make a distinction between um cheering for the successful military operation, which seems fair, uh and I think they were definitely happy about it and their their uh their viewers were happy about it.

And so you could see why they would be pretty rah about the military part.

But Megan Kelly's point is that that's just the first the first act.

If we don't succeed in building some kind of a government with Venezuela that is not only uh works for the Monroe document but works for the locals and doesn't cause us and does not cause us to have some war with boots on the ground.

Well, if all that happens, then it'll be one of the most successful operations of all time.

But uh Megan points out that we don't have a great reputation for building other countries up.

I would argue that we did a good job in Japan um you know helping them become a thriving nation.

I think after World War II would argue that we did a good job in Germany you know to the extent that we were helpful on that.

So, it's not impossible that when you're talking about Venezuela, pretty educated place, pretty westernized, that we could make that work.

And probably only Trump could make that happen, too, because I think he knows how to make a deal.

He's smart enough not to disband the government like in Iraq, which was a failure.

So, yes, I'm with Megan Kelly.

That first act 100% The first act was impressive.

To me, it looked America first.

To me, it looked like a genius, strategic play.

But we still have to wait for the second and third act.

It might get tougher before it gets easier.

All right.

The V Roma Swami has apparently announced that um he's going to not be on Instagram and X for a while.

I don't know how long, but he says it's too easy to give a distorted sense of the public's concerns.

Now, that's a true statement, wouldn't you say?

That if you're on X, even though X is the free speech, you know, champion of the world, that you still get in your bubble, you know, so it does form bubbles.

There's no way around it.

And I do think that if you got all of your sense of what the public wants from X probably would be distorted because you know even Vive would be in a bubble of some kind.

Not of his choosing it might not be the bubble he wants but it just happens because of the way you know algorithms work.

But here's my question to Vake that he will never see.

What is a better way to get to the truth?

At the moment, there's nothing better than X.

And I would say there's nothing close.

I wouldn't trust AI.

Maybe someday, but I don't trust it now.

I wouldn't trust the mainstream media.

I wouldn't trust well, anything.

So, while his his uh concern seems spoton, I'd love to know what he thinks is the alternative.

What alternative is there?

Well, we'll see.

We'll see if that lasts.

According to the FDA, well, not according to, but the FDA approved a uh little device you wear on your forehead that gives you some electrical signals and can turn off your depression.

So, apparently, it's been well tested and passed the FDA's bar.

And what it is is like a little headband thing that knows exactly where to send these low inensity transcranial direct current stimulation.

You know the TDCS.

So it delivers it to the frontal cortex where apparently they know that would make a difference.

So here's my question.

Well, and it's it's being compared to pills which we don't see as a good treatment for depression.

So, if it's better than pills, and apparently this the uh early studies are stunningly successful.

We'll see what the long-term effects are, but apparently there's a long-term effect.

So, it doesn't just work while you have it on.

It's reprogramming your brain.

Now, why I think this has a good chance um is because pills don't work.

Um not everybody can take a walk and touch a tree and get better.

Um it has just a huge impact in their life.

So, I'm just being optimistic.

That might be a big thing in the future.

Well, our Technica is reporting that in California, my silly state, uh there's a new law that just took effect about privacy.

And apparently, as of January 1st, Californians can ask to be opted out of the whatever services there are that collect data and sell it.

So, I guess it's cal privacy.

So, is that is that good or bad?

I can't tell.

You know, it seems like a good intention thing that would give people um control over their own data.

That sounds good, right?

But will AI suffer?

You know, does it make AI not work for you?

What what if AI knew me because I didn't report this stuff, but it didn't know you because you did?

Would AI work better for me because it would know all my habits?

So, and would there be a black market that popped up that would just fill the space where the legal stuff became illegal?

And so, they just say, "Well, black market." So, there might be some unintended consequences, but I'm going to be optimistic about that, too.

All right.

Here's an interesting interesting story.

Um, as you know, or maybe you don't, that um, Steve Hilton is running for governor of California.

Now, you might be aware that it's a very difficult thing for a Republican to get elected as governor in our current situation in California.

So, how do you break through?

you know, h how do you get through if you're a Republican?

You know, it's a blue state.

Everything's working against you.

Well, it looks like Steve might have found a way because he and uh I think one other person running for California state controller, uh Herb Morgan.

So the two of them, it looks like they put together a website called Califraia to take whistleblower reports of fraud.

And then apparently they've already done this.

They've built it and they're getting lots of whistleblowers telling them where the fraud is.

Um, which seems to be amazingly useful and exactly what we want.

Now, how many times have I told you that being useful, just in general, being useful is a really good place to be.

I've never really seen a situation where a candidate did something this useful um while running for office.

And so the genius of this is that he can already say this is the sort of thing I can give you at the time when people are most interested in this sort of thing.

Now you know I didn't know too much about Steve Hilton but when I see this kind of a signal I automatically say okay first of all that's a strong strong play.

I'm very impressed.

Secondly, if this is an indication of who he is and how he operates and how he thinks, oh my god, that's just so strong.

So, I'm going to upgrade my I think he's actually leading in the polls now because it's, you know, the polls are kind of distributed.

But Steve, if you can do this sort of thing and it's not some kind of oneoff, which I don't think it is actually, and you could be of service to the state in exactly the way we want you to be.

This is important to me, very important to me.

Um, he's obviously very good as a public figure.

Um, he has lots of experience on TV.

So, and you need that, right?

You need to be good on TV or it doesn't work.

So good for you.

Steve Hilton standing ovation.

Meanwhile, speaking of fraud, Caroline Leit, leave it.

Lev it or leave it.

Um confirmed that the Minnesota fraud that we've all heard about so much is going to be the subject of a all hands on deck across the entire government effort.

We are surging resources.

So, apparently the Department of Homeland Security um will surge 2,000 agents.

Uh the FBI is all over the place.

We're freezing money uh cutting off funding for all these fake daycarees and other things that were part of the part of the uh fraud.

So, here's my question.

Under the Harris Walsh administration, should that have been the outcome of the last election, would we first of all even know about this uh the fraud?

Would we even know?

I mean, a You.

Tube uh fellow is the one who's being credited for uncovering it, but it all had been uncovered for years.

We've known for years that there was a problem there, just not the details.

Would the censorship regime of Biden and Harris have talked to You.

Tube and said, um, suppress this video would because they, you know, we have a long history of Democrats putting pressure on platforms to censor things.

You don't think they would have censored that story?

I don't know.

Um, but think again how important it was that we dodge the Biden/H Harris administration, you know, for at least for the current term.

Um, this could have only happened under Trump.

The surging is exactly the right thing.

It's what the public wants.

It's what the situation demands.

Only Trump.

Well, in energy news, according to New Atlas, there's a company that's asking for some kind of government approval that I believe they will get to take the type of uh nuclear reactors that are already in naval ships and have been operating for 70 years without trouble and to use that design for domestic energy production.

Now, I don't know if you remember this, maybe I started 10 years ago talking about how nuclear should be bigger and should be more of a focus.

And one of the things that Mark Schneider taught me at the time was that we already had a design that was used in the military, the Navy especially, and it didn't have problems and you could build them small and they would be driving battleships and stuff like that.

Now, I think the first part of the request, and it's really sort of a two-parter, is that the company wants to take the existing um nuclear processors that are on ships, but only the ones that are being decommissioned.

Um so, if they're being decommissioned anyway, you know, you don't want to waste a perfectly good nuclear reactor, right?

So they want to take those and um presumably you modify them and stuff but use them they would take them off the ship for so they wouldn't be using them on the ship.

They they would take them off the ship and repurpose them.

But here's the good part.

They also want to build new ones because there wouldn't be enough, you know, there wouldn't be enough that would be Yeah.

submarines that are in submarines.

uh wouldn't be enough decommission ships to do that to make much of a dent.

So they want to take the design that's been proven over 70 years and it would cost about you somewhere in the $2 billion range to create a modular reactor versus what we see with the big nuclear with the big reactors which could be you know tens of billions of dollars.

So, it's smart, it's wellproven, and it's economical.

And I think they only need approval from the Trump administration to, you know, do this sort of thing.

So again, optimistic.

Speaking of optimism, uh, one of the products at the Consumer Electronic Show is a leaf blower, an aerospace power aerospace powered quiet leaf blower that cuts noise by 70%.

Do you know what a plague the leaf blowers are in high-end neighborhoods?

Oh, I I hate to be like a rich person complaining, but there's at least one to two days uh every week where it becomes impossible to take a nap or anything because either your own gardener is right outside or your neighbor's gardener is right outside and it's so freaking loud.

Now, you might say, "I'll bet that's expensive and I'll bet your gardener your gardener is not going to want to pay for that." And then I thought to myself, I'll buy it.

If my gardener was willing to take this product and it worked, yeah, I don't I don't know.

I'm not sure it's for sale.

It might be just announcing that it will be.

I would immediately go to my gardener and I would say, I will buy this for you if you'll use it.

I assume he'd say yes because it doesn't give up anything in performance.

Then uh I would figure out who the other gardeners were, like my neighbors gardeners, and I would say, you know, you should do the same thing.

Just buy one for your gardener and and you'll make all the neighbors happy.

If they said no, then I would say, at least the immediate neighbors, I would say, well, I'll buy it.

You know, I have some extra cash, so let me buy your gardener one of these.

So I wonder if the way it will spread is that the homeowners will buy it for their gardeners even though that's not their, you know, not their responsibility really.

Well, according to science clockish Gupta's Gupta is writing that Stanford's doing a new approach to AI uh that solves the following problem.

Have you ever have you ever wondered why AI can create a uh video of somebody doing something that looks exactly like a person doing something, but if you try to tell the AI to do exactly what the AI is showing in a picture, it can't do it.

And the reason is that the videos are created by just um by just predicting where pixels should be on the screen.

But what they'd like to do is use the the AI's imagination, they call it, where it can create a picture of somebody doing something and tie that to what the AI learns by having it learn by its own dreams.

So before it tries to do something, let's say you have you want your AI robot.

So before it does anything, it first imagines it in pixels and then then the part they're working on that I guess are getting close is to figure out how the AI can learn from its own pixel pattern.

So if it created a a dream basically, which would just be an AI video, if it created one that was, you know, folding a certain kind of laundry, you know, can you say, "All right, learn from your own picture how to do this." So the physics the physics got mouths right.

So the the idea is to add the physics to what it can already imagine.

Yeah.

But most of the AI has passed the six figure problem.

Um now the AI is so much better.

So maybe that's a big deal.

Well, also talking about my silly state, according to U-Haul, uh, more people are leaving California than any other state for the sixth year in a row.

Holy shoot.

We have the highest state income tax in America and uh, lots of other problems.

Let's talk about Greenland.

Things are changing in Greenland.

So, Steve Miller was on a show asking if he was asked if the US would use military to take Greenland.

Now, what would have been the answers to that six months ago?

If he had been asked, will will we use the military to conquer Greenland?

I feel like he would have said something like, we don't need to do that, you know, because we can find a way to avoid that.

But, you know, it's very important critically.

We're definitely going to do something to make sure that we're not vulnerable there.

But, you know, no boots on the ground six months ago.

How did he answer it yesterday?

He said, quote, "Nobody is going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland." Uh that sounds like they've moved from wanting to deciding.

It seems to me that if Trump, you know, ends up being super successful, as I think he might be in Venezuela, that the idea of sending in the military is definitely on the table.

Now, obviously, Greenland would not have any way to respond, right?

They don't have a military.

Um, Denmark doesn't have really a way to project force over here in any meaningful way.

So, one assumes that that would not happen until the CIA um had enough insight or control over the locals that they would know for sure that um if the military went in, they would step aside.

And further, Steven Miller says, "The real question is what what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland?" Oh, here we go.

Here's a good reframe.

What is the basis of their territorial claim?

What is the basis of having Greenland as a colony of Denmark?

He said, "The United States is the power of NATO.

For the United States to secure the Arctic region to protect and defend NATO, this is so good.

And NATO interests, obviously, Greenland should be part of the United States." So, we have definitely moved from wanting Greenland to deciding we're going to take it and we're going to use our military to do it if necessary.

Now, obviously, there would be lots and lots of work before anything like that happened to either make it easy to take him over or to find a way that we didn't need to.

So, what would Denmark do if we if we told them, "Hey, Denmark, on Tuesday, we're going to surge the military into Greenland.

We're going to annex it.

Um, and you're going to set you're going to stand aside." What would they do?

They would complain to whom?

Other people would complain.

But how much impact would that have?

Would the UN say, "Stop doing that?" And if they did, we might say, "We're the only power that the UN has.

Step aside." And I think that uh Trump pushing the uh the Monroe doctrine is so far as I think this could be more popular than not popular.

Um the door is wide open.

to to me it seems like a done deal that before the end of Trump's term we will have functional control of uh Greenland and people will hate it at first and they'll say oh authoritarian and they will eventually say uh here's here's a reframe too almost nobody lives on a place that was once uninhabited by anybody if you Look at the history of just about every country.

It's about somebody had that land and then somebody took it from them.

Right.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is the end of my prepared remarks.

I'm going to talk privately to the good people of locals and in 30 seconds we'll be private.

I want to thank you again.

Oh, let me give you a specific thank you.

I hope you're aware that your existence and the love and uh attention that you give me is absolutely irreplaceable and I'm very blessed and I uh appreciate you more than you could ever know.

So, if it seems like um I'm acting selfishly sometimes, well, maybe I am because I enjoy this experience of being useful if I can more than anything I like.

So, thank you.

Thank you.

And we'll see you again tomorrow.

All right.

Where's my cursor?

Good morning. Come on in.

Always good to see you.

If I sound like I'm slurring my speech,

I am. I've got a little bit of paralysis

on one side. Um, and also my meds make

me so dehydrated that I can barely move

my tongue.

So, forgive me for that, please.

and prepare for the simultaneous sip.

This is coming up

once we get a thousand people

which will happen very quickly. Make

sure you have your beverage beverage.

All right,

1,000 people, it's time. I know why

you're here. You're here for the

simultaneous sip and all you need is a

cup or mug or a glass, a tanker shell

for sign, a kine jug or flask, a vessel

of any kind. Fill it with your favorite

liquid. I like coffee. And join me now

for the unparalleled pleasure, the

dopamine hit of the day. The thing makes

everything better. It's called the

simultaneous sip. It happens now.

That's some good seven right there.

Good seven. Well, let's start out by

saying happy fake insurrection day,

January 6.

Do you remember when you thought it was

ridiculous to imagine that Democrats

would be playing uh complicated hoaxes

on the public? It didn't seem like a

thing that anything that could actually

happen, right? And then you found out

about the Russia collusion hoax. Oops.

It turns out they can run a major hoax

against the country. Then you found out

about the fine people hoax and you said

to yourself, "How is it even possible

that the mainstream media went along

with that hoax? How is that even

possible?" And then again, you said to

yourself, "Wow, I didn't even think that

could happen." But there's two examples

where it happened. And then the the one

that is the biggest FU in the world is

that uh the January 6 insurrection hoax.

Now, if you're new to this and maybe the

first time you've heard me talk about

it, here's how you know that the January

insurrection hoax was a hoax. Now, what

I'm talking about is the hoax that Trump

knew knew that he lost the election and

the people he sent to the capital to

protest also knew that the election was

clean, but they were trying to overthrow

the country.

Now, that entire hoax depended on nobody

in the mainstream media. nobody asking

the asking the people who attended the

uh the protest why they were there and

they would have found out that not a

single person believed that it was a

clean election and they were hoping to

overthrow the government. It was the

biggest assumption

that drove the entire hoax. And not one

not one legitimate legitimate not one

mainstream media ever took a protester

in and said, "Did you really believe

that the election was clean?"

Because none of those existed.

Every person who was there, I'll bet

you, plus Trump himself, I'll betcha,

believed that they were seeing an

obviously rigged election and they

wanted to slow things down until they

could be sure it had not been rigged.

Now, that narrative got reversed by the

hoaxers. The hoaxers knowing that this

is actually good technique by the

hoaxers. The hoaxers knew that if they

could get there first with their

narrative and say that no, he knew it

was a good election. He was just trying

to overthrow the country. If they could

do that and they could they could ram it

down our throats every day, especially

with the help of Hollywood uh theatrical

people and then they would put on this

whole January 6 um publicized

Hollywood produced thing so that every

single day you would see their narrative

and Trump was now out of office so he

couldn't really push his narrative uh as

much as normally you could. So, I call

today happy fake insurrection hoax day

and uh I hope we never see anything like

that again. But the the ability of the

Democrats to to sustain a gigantic, you

know, multi-year

hoax with lots of moving parts. They can

absolutely do that. And we've seen it

now multiple times.

Well, would you be surprised to hear

there's a new study that says that

coffee might actually protect your heart

from area from atrial fibrillation.

Maybe I saw this on a post by Dr. Domin

who tells us that it may work which is

the right way to do it. It doesn't mean

that this one science or this one study

is valid. It just means there is a

study. And so it's like a 50% chance

that it's real. You know, if you look at

all studies, about half of them turn out

to be reproducible. About half of them

are not.

Well, there's going to be a bunch of

technical excuse me, there's going to be

a bunch of technology announcements this

week.

because uh the cons consumer electronic

show is happening and a lot of robots.

So the LG the company LG

claims it has a robot that can fold

laundry

and make you breakfast. Will it? And uh

do some basically easy labor around the

house. You know the basics.

Now, until somebody buys that robot, and

it's probably not exactly for sale yet,

until somebody buys it and tries it and

tells me it works, I don't believe it.

I don't believe it. Now, I don't know

how they made the demonstration work,

but they probably limited the

demonstration to one kind of breakfast,

you know, one one type of laundry

and just train the hell out of those few

things. And I even wonder, is it AI

driven? Because when I read about it, it

didn't mention AI. So, did they just

skip AI and say, "All right, it's going

to be more like your AL exa at home. you

you have to give it the right command

and it's programmed to do those specific

things, but you couldn't teach it to do

anything else. I don't know. My guess is

it's a little overhyped.

A little bit.

So,

um, you you knew this was coming before,

but I have more to say about it. So, RFK

Jr.,

Secretary Kennedy um he reminds us that

Trump had asked him to look at childhood

vaccines

and to see why we differ from other

countries and you know maybe that maybe

they're doing it right. So after

exhaustive review, says Kennedy, of the

evidence, we're aligning US childhood

vaccine schedules with international

consensus,

which a lot of people think was probably

the the more conservative and safer way

to do it. Uh while strengthening

transparency and informed consent. Now,

every part of that sounds good so far.

Uh he says the decision to change the

schedule

um protects children, respects families,

it rebuilds trusts. If if it works out,

yes, absolutely. So, I'm a little

unclear on the changes themselves, but

what I read online is that they would go

from 84 to 88 doses

for a child, which would be given

basically, you know, very soon after

birth down to around 30.

Now, presumably that number of what the

ones that got cut from the 80s down to

30 were the ones that the science

suggests might be a problem. I I think

we're still in the in the territory of

we can't be 100% sure, you know, how

these all work together or which ones

were the problems. But if you took a a

good let's say rational scientific whack

at it and you thought okay we don't we

don't know how all this works together

but these bunch are the ones that have

all the signals. So if we remove the

signals but don't remove the parents

ability to get those when they want it

just wouldn't be required.

That feels like really playing the odds

right.

So, here's what I'm hoping.

It's too it's very it's too soon to know

if this will maybe change the autism

rates or change something else because

maybe the data was bad. Maybe the one

that was the problem is still in the

mix. We don't know for sure, but it

looks like exactly the right process.

You know, I always talk about a system

is better than a than a goal. Well, the

goal would be protect all the children.

The system would be that we make sure we

have the best science and we're looking

at it continuously and all that. But

what I want to add to this, this is so

much in the category of something that

only Trump could have gotten done. And

when I say only Trump, obviously it

required RFK Jr.

Trump is the is going to go down in

history. If this works out,

oh my god, there there's not going to be

any question who was the best president

of all time. Like it would just remove

all doubt. And what I like about this in

particular is that I've said this for

years and and I love it that Trump has a

unique ability to build a pirate ship

when you need a pirate ship.

Right. So, he brought on, you know, one

of the most famous names in Democrat

politics, RFK Jr., and put him in a

high-risk situation, and he has so far,

in my opinion, performed beautifully.

Now, no other president could have done

that because they didn't know how to

build a pirate ship. Now, when I say

pirate, I don't mean in a negative way.

I just mean a collection of people that

would not normally be on the same team,

you know, working in the same direction,

but he makes it work. Um, and so

watching Kennedy not just change a goal,

but to change the entire system uh that

got us to where we are is just

breathtaking. It's just breathtaking.

And only Trump could have done that. And

I think only RFK Jr. could have gotten

as far as we've gotten. so far. So, full

standing ovation for that.

But again, we'll have to see. We'll have

to see if it works out. But everything

looks smart.

Well, I saw in the maze account on Axe.

Uh he was he was reposting a compilation

made by Grabian Grabian. want to give I

want to give credit to him. But Grabin

is one of these uh online

uh what would you call it? Online

meme I guess and uh was reminding us

that back in 2024,

it seems so funny now that the Harris

Walsh team was sending him a memo to

start calling JD Vance weird.

You remember that? Uh, and they they

wanted to basically paint Vance and

everybody who's a, you know, Trump

supporter as weird. And you you see the

compilation and you can see how forced

it was and you can see obviously they

had talking points. Now, does that even

happen on the right?

Uh, obviously

proTrumpers often will say the same

thing as other proTrumpers, but I'm not

aware of anybody getting a memo

[laughter]

to do it. Usually, if somebody hears

something that works, they say, "Oh,

that sounds good, so I'll just say it,

too." Um,

but I don't think it happens on both

sides. If I'm wrong about that, let me

know. I've never seen it.

So, as a student of persuasion as I am,

um, it made me wonder who came up with

the idea.

It's obvious that the campaign was

probably the one who said do this, but

who came up with it? Was it a

professional?

Here's what I think it was. Now, this

would be speculation. I think the

Democrats, feeling like they're not good

at persuasion, hired somebody who

claimed to be good at it. And the people

that they hired, again, just

speculation,

um, would would try to use science

to back what they were recommending. And

one of the things that science

consistently shows is that conservatives

don't like icky stuff. If something's

non-standard,

conservatives just go

and that is sort of built into their

brains and almost something they can't

change. So the idea here would be that

somebody said, "Aha, if you look at the

science, the thing that would turn off

other voters on the Republican side is

to know that they were backing something

weird."

And so far that actually tracks with

what I would, you know, what I would

recommend about uh persuasion if I were

on their team. But why didn't it work?

Because it definitely didn't work. And I

speculate that it didn't work because it

was so stunningly unnatural.

It was so obviously

a talking point and not something that

they were feeling in any important way

and nobody cares about weirdness. Um,

you know, it just has a free floating

idea. Uh, so I think the inauthenticity

of it made it impossible to work.

But then

um as I've talked about at length, time

goes by and they came up with the idea

or maybe mom donny did of talking about

affordability.

Now when anybody talks about

affordability either side that connects.

So that was probably a real good play.

Trump had to but here's the flaw in

their plan.

Trump has probably had enough time that

he could address enough affordability

issues that it would sort of take it off

the table a little bit. And his

technique of going directly at energy

prices as a way to make basically

everything less expensive. Um

he has time to make that work. So he

knew right away and he tried to co-opt

it that if he started talking about

affordability and he started doing

something about affordability, it would

take their their main good attack

they've ever had somewhat off the table.

So he has to perform and we're watching

of course uh as he's doing things that

would in fact lower energy costs if

everything goes right. Uh and there's

probably enough time for that to work

its way through the system again if he

gets energy prices lower uh and affect

everything.

So

once again,

Trump has better better approach to

things.

All right. So you know, we've all been

trying to figure out what is the real

reason for the action in Venezuela. Is

it really about drugs? Well, drugs might

be part of it, but I think all the smart

people at this point are saying it's not

the only reason, and it might might not

even be the top reason, but it it

creates it creates the possibility

of doing what we wanted to do in

Venezuela.

So, I was listening yesterday to Glenn

Beck. uh he was telling us his ideas for

wh why we went to Venezuela and it was

very persuasive

um because he's a good communicator and

he's a smart guy. So when he described

it, you what the real play was very very

convincing I have to say. But then as

these things often go, I read the

comments and I see a push back on it and

I [clears throat] thought, oh well,

[gasps] there might be a problem with

the data. So if there's a data problem

that would suggest maybe we don't have

the right take on this, I'll tell you

what that is. So Glenn Beck's take is

that the real value of the Venezuela

action is that it would put pressure on

China because there's so much oil that

comes from Venezuela that ends in China

that it would be putting pressure on

China. And if is if uh Iran goes at the

same time, which looks like it might, I

still still won't bet on it, but it

looks like there's pretty good chance

that Iran will will fall. But we could

potentially deny um China from some

large percentage of their total energy.

If they're denied their total energy, it

would be hard for them to say mount a

war in Taiwan.

uh it would be hard for them to dominate

the world if they're struggling for oil

and there's such a large uh percentage

of what they get from Venezuela and Iran

that um that makes perfect sense from a

military Monroe doctrine point of view.

Now, when you first hear this argument,

um, it's very convincing, but the

problem with the data is I've seen

numbers all over the place about how

much China is getting from Venezuela.

Um, and I don't trust the numbers. So,

it could be there's not as much pressure

on China as we assume it is um, if the

data is wrong. Now, the other piece of

data that somebody questioned and made

me go, "Oh, is that Venezuela has I

don't know if I have the right units I'm

talking about here, but like 300

billion barrels or something of oil."

And then somebody said that that was

never true. that the claims that

Venezuela had the most reserves of oil

were claims that were made by some prior

administration so that it looked like

they were more powerful than they were.

And that the real number of usable oil

because remember it's Venezuelan oil is

kind of dirty. So there only I think

three refineries in the world that can

even process it. But so that the real

number might be closer to 25.

So, we've been told it's 300, which

would be among or the biggest reserves,

but it might be just 25 when you when

you get down to how much you actually

refine and how much could you get to.

So, that's a big question mark, right?

If anybody has some uh visibility on

that, I would love to know what is the

most credible number for the reserves.

Uh if we did this to get access to an

enormous part of oil, then it definitely

looks like a good idea. If we did it

because there's so much oil that was

going to China that it would completely

change their strategic

calculation, it looks like a good idea.

But if either of those numbers are not

what we think they are, then I don't

know what we're getting. Uh, I do love

um Trump's

uh take that we're just taking back the

oil they took from us because first of

all, I think that's true.

And it's hard to argue against taking

back what somebody stole from you,

right?

Well, Bill,

um, and I also,

uh, I'll probably say this a lot of

times, but hold on a second.

One of the most important things you

need to know that I believe Trump knows

better than anybody is that countries

and organizations and movements they

either grow or they shrink and the

United States was in a shrinking

position in the world. was becoming, you

know, less influential,

uh, less rich compared to other people,

uh, relatively speaking. And what Trump

did is reverse that. So, he's found ways

to turn the US into a growing entity. If

you're not growing, you are definitely

shrinking. One of those is an

existential threat. And one of those

guarantees, not guarantees, but gives

you a real good chance for a better

future. So, uh, if you feel

uncomfortable

with whatever the president is doing,

the military is doing, the thing you

should look at is, is this making the US

stronger and growing or is it working in

the other direction? If the answer is

yes, this makes the US grow and be more

important, I would argue that that is

probably more important than whatever

your moral or constitutional arguments

are, which are also important. You know,

it's not like I'm blind to

ignoring the Constitution, if we should

ever do that. Uh it's not like I'm in

favor of military action if we can avoid

it. It's just a simple fact that you're

either growing or shrinking. And as soon

as you put that frame on it, then

everything that Trump has been doing

lately makes perfect sense, especially

uh asserting the Monroe Doctrine like

it's never been asserted before.

All right. Bill O'Reilly was on

NewsNation talking to Leela Infinard and

he had a interesting speculation which I

immediately agree with. Uh but he he

warns you that he's not basing this on

reporting. This is based on just his

understanding of the world and it's

close to my understanding of the world

too. He says that about Venezuela,

that the CIA, which has heavily

infiltrated the Venezuelan and Colombian

governments, they know everything was

going on and that they must have made a

deal with the Venezuelan military.

And the deal would look like this. You

step aside because we're coming in to

get Maduro. And that's the only way on

earth that the US special forces could

have snatched Maduro without any

conflict at all. Now, were you wondering

why Venezuela didn't put up more of a

fight?

Specifically, the military just

stood down.

Um, and I have long speculated that

there was no way that, you know, I agree

with this speculation that there's no

way that could have been so bloodless

relatively. I think there were some 32

people who might have died on the, you

know, I don't know if there were Cuban

bodyguards or what, but there were some

casualties on the Venezuelan side.

The only way I could understand that is

if we've got a a deal in the back. Now,

that deal would include

um

that maybe the Venezuelans can act tough

as long as they don't fire anything, as

long as they do what we're told. So you

see the vice president who's now the

president of Venezuela uh talking tough

about the US. That probably has to

happen. She she probably has to talk

tough. But as long as uh she understands

that we'll send the military if she

doesn't do what we want and as long as

the CIA has built relationships there

that can tell them exactly how to get

out of the way. maybe there's some

bribery involved, etc. Um, I think

that's probably the answer to the hidden

questions. Like if you knew that the CIA

had been working for years, probably to

be in a position to say, "Okay,

military, come on in. We'll turn off

we'll turn off the response." Uh, that

would explain everything, wouldn't it?

But again, this is not a fact. Um, I I

believe there's more we don't know about

this situation

than there is that we know. You know,

we're deeply in the fog of war, you

know, in a sense war. Uh, what we will

learn about this in the coming years

will probably be a lot more than we

actually know

because I don't see that I don't see the

CIA telling us the truth. It's not even

their job to tell us the truth. in fact

telling us the truth might work against

our interests. So

I I think that's true. Now listen to

Steve Miller

who was on a recent interview. He said

uh about the Venezuelans. He said they

told Rubio made clear they will meet the

terms. This is the Venezuelan government

as it is right now. They told Rubio made

it clear they will meet the terms,

demands, conditions and requirements of

the US.

So, if they're telling Rubio they're

going to do what we want, but you hear

them talk tough t talk t talk t talk t

talk t talk t talk t talk t talk t talk

t talk t talk talk talk talk talk tough

in public, it all makes sense, doesn't

it?

All right.

Um,

according to Senator John Kennedy,

the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,

which took took our money and funneled

it to NPR and PBS, is uh officially

dissolved.

Now, there was probably a time when I

would have thought, man, I hate to see

my government defund,

you know, a a place that gives me the

news. But what we know recently about

any of these mainstream media entities

is they're definitely not helping.

That they were not really additive to

the country. And so when you see cuts to

these venerable institutions,

what president could make a cut to a

venerable institution?

Only Trump.

He's like the only one who could do it.

But it doesn't work every time because

there's a court ruling. Newsmax is

reporting uh that Trump had tried to cut

a big part of the uh National Institute

of Health funding for scientific and

medical research to these big colleges

and institutions. But a three a three

judge panel just ruled that he can't do

that.

Um I I don't I'm not good enough on the

legal stuff to know why he can't do

that, but that's a ruling. Um now

there's an argument I hear on what I'm

going to call my side

that I don't think holds up. And maybe

that's the problem, too. So part of the

argument for making cuts to places like

Harvard is that a few of the big

institutions it it doesn't apply to all

of them but the biggest ones have these

enormous endowments

that means that people have donated

massive amounts of money and they have

that money for for uh various Harvard

use. So the argument went, if you

already have so much money, why does the

government need to give you any more?

Because the endowment doesn't get spent

every year. It just sits there and

grows. Here's what people generally

don't know about the endowments that you

should add to your knowledge bank. Uh

most of them, and I think most is the

right word, but some large number of

them are not available for anybody who

wants to use it for anything. They are

for specific purposes. So in other

words, a billionaire would say, I'm

going to give you a billion dollars to

use for this specific purpose and if you

don't use it for that, you know, it'll

get clawed back or you don't get to use

it. So the Harvard does not

does not have the freedom to use the

endowment any way they want. So it can

never be a full replacement for

government funding. I'm in favor of the

cuts and the pressure it puts. Um, just

that's just a fact you should know

about.

Well, here's a story I find creepy

and [clears throat] I hate it.

But Senator Mark Kelly, who had been a a

member of the military,

uh he's being what they call it

sanctioned and demoted and his pension

is being uh pulled by a secretary of war

Pexath. The reason being that he was

part of the six people who made that

video uh encouraging the military to not

obey illegal orders.

Now, I'm pretty sure that was always the

law that they should not obey illegal

orders, but by putting attention on it

and, you know, trying to focus on it, it

seemed like the real play here was not

to make the country a better place. It

looked like the play was to destroy the

um chain of command. So if the uh if the

commander-in-chief gave an order, then

the individual military people could

say, "hm, that looks illegal to me." So,

you know, Kelly told me I could ignore

it. H maybe I'll ignore it. Now, you

could easily see how that would destroy

the, you know, the cohesion and the

everything about the military. and it

clearly seemed designed to be political

and not anything anything about national

security. So I think what he did was

arguably

something insurrectionist, seditionist,

traitorous.

Um at the very least it was not intended

to help the country militarily.

That's what I think. That's just my

opinion.

So

under that frame

take, you know, punishing him

essentially by taking away some of his

uh his military uh benefits like his

retirement grade stuff is really

expensive and he did fight for the

country. So the reason it's creepy is

that I just hate being in a position

where Pete Higgs would even have to

wrestle with this as a question. We

never should have been here. On the

other hand,

it is so hard for me to see a member of

the military punished for something that

other people would say. That's just free

speech, Scott.

So, let me say I love it because you

have to have a response and you have to

recognize it for what it was. But I hate

it because it's it's a military man.

All right.

Here's a story I'm going to tell you

that's more about the fact that the

story can be told than it is about the

point. And I saw Elon uh Musk boosting

this on X. So Lauren Chen

on X uh wrote this piece that I'm sure

you could not have said this five years

ago. You would be so cancelled, but I

think now you can say this stuff. So she

said that people often say the

developing world is poor because the

Western world colonized them and stole

the resources. But she points out that

uh when the colonizers left, let's say

Hong Kong and Singapore being two

examples, um that they they left them in

good shape, meaning that the people were

trained to take over. They did take over

and then over decades you could say that

it totally worked. So that was a case

where you you can decry the colon col

colonialism

that would be fair but you can't decry

the fact that the colonizers

tried hard to make sure that the people

they left um thrived and sure enough

they did. But here's the point that I

don't think you could have said five

years ago that Africa has never worked.

that the colonizers who colonized Africa

um often found out that they couldn't

train the locals to take over. And her

point is uh that you have to recognize

that in every case the colonizers

probably every case the colonizers tried

very hard to leave the locals in a good

position to take care of themselves. And

some places for reasons we don't have to

get into

some places like Africa, it didn't work

once, it just never worked. And that

that probably has to do with I'll just

say the word culture. So at the very

least it had to do with culture.

But because this is obviously a landmine

kind of topic. So I'll go back to my

original point. It's not about me

arguing that this is true or false. It's

about the fact that she could say it out

loud and not get cancelled. And the only

reason for that is that she's on X. You

probably couldn't say it in many places,

but you can say it on X.

So, that's a big change

[clears throat]

for free speech.

Sorry.

One of the uh

one of the side effects of whatever's

going on with me is that I have these

little burping burping attacks.

All right. Except

uh culture is not a bad word. I'm

answering the comments. Culture is not a

bad word, but it opens up that Pandora

box of, you know, why and we don't need

to get into that. Well, the Rasmmanson

poll, which is coming out today,

said this was poll was taken before the

Venezuela action, right? That 48%

approved of the US seizing oil tankers.

I think that was a plurality. So, there

were more people who approved it than

didn't.

And um

they also had this opinion when Trump

said, quote, "You remember they took all

our energy rights? They took all our oil

not long ago and we want it back." 54%

of voters agree with that.

So yeah, I was telling you earlier that

that's a strong frame.

Well, proven. It's proven that that was

a strong frame.

Uh they took our oil and we're taking it

back. That's a Rasent poll you'll see

later today.

Well, Megan Kelly had an interesting

opinion on Venezuela

that she talked about on her Sirius XM

show and I liked it. This is a good

opinion. Um she said that when I turned

on Fox News yesterday and I'm sorry, but

it was like watching Russian propaganda.

There was nothing skeptical. It was all

rahrh cheerleading. Let's go. Now, that

was also my opinion that uh the Fox News

was basically all down for this right

away. Now, I would make a distinction

between

My lips are a little numb, so I can't

tell when I have something on.

I'd make a distinction between

um cheering for the successful military

operation,

which seems fair, uh and I think they

were definitely happy about it and their

their uh their viewers were happy about

it. And so you could see why they would

be pretty rah about the military part.

But Megan Kelly's point is that that's

just the first the first act.

If we don't succeed in building some

kind of a government with Venezuela that

is not only uh works for the Monroe

document but works for the locals and

doesn't cause us and does not cause us

to have some war with boots on the

ground. Well, if all that happens, then

it'll be one of the most successful

operations of all time. But uh Megan

points out that we don't have a great

reputation

for building other countries up. I would

argue that we did a good job in Japan

um you know helping them become a

thriving nation. I think after World War

II would argue that we did a good job in

Germany

you know to the extent that we were

helpful on that. So, it's not impossible

that when you're talking about

Venezuela, pretty educated place, pretty

westernized,

that we could make that work. And

probably only Trump could make that

happen, too, because I think he knows

how to make a deal. He's smart enough

not to disband the government like in

Iraq, which was a failure. So, yes, I'm

with Megan Kelly. That first act 100%

The first act was impressive.

To me, it looked America first. To me,

it looked like a genius, strategic play.

But we still have to wait for the second

and third act. It might get tougher

before it gets easier.

All right. The V Roma Swami has

apparently announced that um he's going

to not be on Instagram and X for a

while. I don't know how long, but he

says it's too easy to give a distorted

sense of the public's concerns.

Now, that's a true statement, wouldn't

you say? That if you're on X, even

though X is the free speech, you know,

champion of the world, that you still

get in your bubble,

you know, so it does form bubbles.

There's no way around it. And I do think

that if you got all of your sense of

what the public wants from X probably

would be distorted because you know even

Vive would be in a bubble of some kind.

Not of his choosing it might not be the

bubble he wants but it just happens

because of the way you know algorithms

work. But here's my question to Vake

that he will never see.

What is a better way to get to the

truth?

At the moment,

there's nothing better than X. And I

would say there's nothing close.

I wouldn't trust AI.

Maybe someday, but I don't trust it now.

I wouldn't trust the mainstream media.

I wouldn't trust

well, anything.

So, while his his uh concern seems

spoton,

I'd love to know what he thinks is the

alternative.

What alternative is there?

Well, we'll see. We'll see if that

lasts.

According to the FDA, well, not

according to, but the FDA approved a uh

little device you wear on your forehead

that gives you some electrical signals

and can turn off your depression.

So, apparently, it's been well tested

and passed the FDA's bar. And what it is

is like a little headband thing that

knows exactly where to send these low

inensity transcranial

direct current stimulation. You know the

TDCS.

So it delivers it to the frontal cortex

where apparently they know that would

make a difference.

So here's my question. Well, and it's

it's being compared to pills which we

don't see as a good treatment for

depression. So, if it's better than

pills, and apparently this the uh early

studies are stunningly successful.

We'll see what the long-term effects

are, but apparently there's a long-term

effect. So, it doesn't just work while

you have it on. It's reprogramming your

brain. Now, why I think this has a good

chance

um

is because pills don't work. Um not

everybody can take a walk and touch a

tree and get better. Um it has just a

huge impact in their life. So, I'm just

being optimistic. That might be a big

thing in the future.

Well, our Technica is reporting that in

California, my silly state, uh there's a

new law that just took effect about

privacy. And apparently, as of January

1st, Californians can ask to be opted

out of the whatever services there are

that collect data and sell it.

So, I guess it's cal privacy.

So, is that is that good or bad?

I can't tell. You know, it seems like a

good intention thing that would give

people um control over their own data.

That sounds good, right? But will AI

suffer? You know, does it make AI not

work for you? What what if AI knew me

because I didn't report this stuff, but

it didn't know you because you did?

Would AI work better for me because it

would know all my habits?

So, and would there be a black market

that popped up that would just fill the

space where the legal stuff became

illegal? And so, they just say, "Well,

black market." So, there might be some

unintended consequences,

but I'm going to be optimistic about

that, too.

All right. Here's an interesting

interesting story.

Um,

as you know, or maybe you don't, that

um, Steve Hilton is running for governor

of California. Now, you might be aware

that it's a very difficult thing for a

Republican to get elected as governor in

our current situation in California.

So, how do you break through? you know,

h how do you get through if you're a

Republican?

You know, it's a blue state.

Everything's working against you. Well,

it looks like Steve might have found a

way because he and uh I think one other

person running for California

state controller,

uh Herb Morgan. So the two of them, it

looks like they put together a website

called Califraia

to take whistleblower reports of fraud.

And then apparently they've already done

this. They've built it and they're

getting lots of whistleblowers telling

them where the fraud is. Um, which seems

to be amazingly useful and exactly what

we want. Now, how many times have I told

you that being useful, just in general,

being useful is a really good place to

be. I've never really seen a situation

where a candidate did something this

useful

um while running for office. And so the

genius of this is that he can already

say this is the sort of thing I can give

you at the time when people are most

interested in this sort of thing.

Now you know I didn't know too much

about Steve Hilton but when I see this

kind of a signal I automatically say

okay first of all that's a strong strong

play. I'm very impressed. Secondly, if

this is an indication of who he is and

how he operates and how he thinks, oh my

god,

that's just so strong. So, I'm going to

upgrade my I think he's actually leading

in the polls now because it's, you know,

the polls are kind of distributed. But

Steve, if you can do this sort of thing

and it's not some kind of oneoff, which

I don't think it is actually, and you

could be of service to the state in

exactly the way we want you to be. This

is important to me, very important to

me.

Um, he's obviously very good as a public

figure. Um, he has lots of experience on

TV. So, and you need that, right? You

need to be good on TV or it doesn't

work. So good for you. Steve Hilton

standing ovation.

Meanwhile, speaking of fraud,

Caroline Leit, leave it. Lev it or leave

it. Um confirmed that the Minnesota

fraud that we've all heard about so much

is going to be the subject of a all

hands on deck across the entire

government effort. We are surging

resources.

So, apparently the Department of

Homeland Security

um will surge 2,000 agents. Uh the FBI

is all over the place. We're freezing

money uh cutting off funding for all

these fake daycarees and other things

that were part of the part of the uh

fraud.

So, here's my question.

Under the Harris Walsh administration,

should that have been the outcome of the

last election, would we first of all

even know about this uh the fraud? Would

we even know? I mean, a YouTube uh

fellow is the one who's being credited

for uncovering it, but it all had been

uncovered for years. We've known for

years that there was a problem there,

just not the details.

Would the censorship regime of Biden and

Harris have talked to YouTube and said,

um, suppress this video

would

because they, you know, we have a long

history of Democrats putting pressure on

platforms to censor things. You don't

think they would have censored that

story?

I don't know. Um, but think again how

important it was that we dodge the

Biden/H

Harris administration,

you know, for at least for the current

term. Um, this could have only happened

under Trump. The surging is exactly the

right thing. It's what the public wants.

It's what the situation demands. Only

Trump.

Well, in energy news, according to New

Atlas, there's a company that's asking

for some kind of government approval

that I believe they will get to take the

type of uh nuclear reactors that are

already in naval ships and have been

operating for 70 years without trouble

and to use that design for domestic

energy production.

Now, I don't know if you remember this,

maybe I started 10 years ago talking

about how nuclear should be bigger and

should be more of a focus. And one of

the things that Mark Schneider taught me

at the time was that we already had a

design that was used in the military,

the Navy especially, and it didn't have

problems and you could build them small

and they would be driving battleships

and stuff like that. Now, I think the

first part of the request,

and it's really sort of a two-parter, is

that the company wants to take the

existing

um nuclear processors that are on ships,

but only the ones that are being

decommissioned.

Um so, if they're being decommissioned

anyway, you know, you don't want to

waste a perfectly good nuclear reactor,

right? So they want to take those and um

presumably you modify them and stuff but

use them they would take them off the

ship for so they wouldn't be using them

on the ship. They they would take them

off the ship and repurpose them. But

here's the good part. They also want to

build new ones because there wouldn't be

enough, you know, there wouldn't be

enough that would be Yeah. submarines

that are in submarines. uh wouldn't be

enough decommission ships to do that to

make much of a dent. So they want to

take the design that's been proven over

70 years and it would cost about

you somewhere in the $2 billion range to

create a modular reactor versus what we

see with the big nuclear with the big

reactors which could be you know tens of

billions of dollars. So, it's smart,

it's wellproven,

and it's economical.

And I think they only need approval from

the Trump administration to, you know,

do this sort of thing. So again,

optimistic.

Speaking of optimism,

uh, one of the products at the Consumer

Electronic Show is a leaf blower, an

aerospace power aerospace powered quiet

leaf blower that cuts noise by 70%.

Do you know what a plague the leaf

blowers are in high-end neighborhoods?

Oh, I I hate to be like a rich person

complaining, but there's at least one to

two days uh every week where it becomes

impossible to take a nap or anything

because either your own gardener is

right outside or your neighbor's

gardener is right outside and it's so

freaking loud. Now, you might say, "I'll

bet that's expensive and I'll bet your

gardener your gardener is not going to

want to pay for that." And then I

thought to myself, I'll buy it. If my

gardener was willing to take this

product and it worked, yeah, I don't I

don't know. I'm not sure it's for sale.

It might be just announcing that it will

be. I would immediately go to my

gardener and I would say, I will buy

this for you if you'll use it. I assume

he'd say yes because it doesn't give up

anything in performance.

Then

uh I would figure out who the other

gardeners were, like my neighbors

gardeners, and I would say, you know,

you should do the same thing. Just buy

one for your gardener and and you'll

make all the neighbors happy. If they

said no, then I would say, at least the

immediate neighbors, I would say, well,

I'll buy it. You know, I have some extra

cash, so let me buy your gardener one of

these. So I wonder if the way it will

spread is that the homeowners will buy

it for their gardeners even though

that's not their, you know, not their

responsibility really.

Well, according to science clockish

Gupta's Gupta is writing that Stanford's

doing a new approach to AI

uh that solves the following problem.

Have you ever have you ever wondered why

AI can create a uh video of somebody

doing something that looks exactly like

a person doing something, but if you try

to tell the AI to do exactly what the AI

is showing in a picture, it can't do it.

And the reason is that the videos are

created by just um

by just predicting where pixels should

be on the screen. But what they'd like

to do is use the the AI's imagination,

they call it, where it can create a

picture of somebody doing something and

tie that to what the AI learns by having

it learn by its own dreams.

So before it tries to do something,

let's say you have you want your AI

robot. So before it does anything, it

first imagines it in pixels and then

then the part they're working on that I

guess are getting close is to figure out

how the AI can learn from its own pixel

pattern. So if it created a a dream

basically, which would just be an AI

video, if it created one that was, you

know, folding a certain kind of laundry,

you know, can you say, "All right, learn

from your own picture how to do this."

So the physics

the physics got mouths right.

So the the idea is to add the physics to

what it can already imagine.

Yeah. [clears throat] But most of the AI

has passed the six figure problem.

Um now the AI is so much better. So

maybe that's a big deal.

Well, also talking about my silly state,

according to U-Haul,

uh, more people are leaving California

than any other state for the sixth year

in a row. Holy shoot.

We have the highest state income tax in

America

and uh,

lots of other problems.

Let's talk about Greenland.

Things are changing in Greenland. So,

Steve Miller was on a show asking if he

was asked if the US would use military

to take Greenland. Now, what would have

been the answers to that six months ago?

If he had been asked, will will we use

the military to conquer Greenland? I

feel like he would have said something

like, we don't need to do that, you

know, because we can find a way to avoid

that. But, you know, it's very important

critically. We're definitely going to do

something to make sure that we're not

vulnerable there. But, you know, no

boots on the ground six months ago. How

did he answer it yesterday?

He said, quote, "Nobody is going to

fight the United States militarily over

the future of Greenland."

Uh

that sounds like they've moved from

wanting to deciding.

It seems to me that if Trump,

you know, ends up being super

successful,

as I think he might be in Venezuela,

that the idea of sending in the military

is definitely on the table. Now,

obviously, Greenland would not have any

way to respond, right? They don't have a

military. Um, Denmark doesn't have

really a way to project force over here

in any meaningful way. So, one assumes

that that would not happen until the CIA

um had enough insight or control over

the locals that they would know for sure

that um if the military went in, they

would step aside.

And

further, Steven Miller says, "The real

question is what what right does Denmark

assert control over Greenland?" Oh, here

we go. Here's a good reframe. What is

the basis of their territorial claim?

What is the basis of having Greenland as

a colony of Denmark? He said, "The

United States is the power of NATO. For

the United States to secure the Arctic

region to protect and defend NATO, this

is so good. And NATO interests,

obviously, Greenland should be part of

the United States."

So, we have definitely moved from

wanting Greenland to deciding we're

going to take it and we're going to use

our military to do it

if necessary. Now, obviously, there

would be lots and lots of work before

anything like that happened to either

make it easy to take him over or to find

a way that we didn't need to.

So, what would Denmark do if we if we

told them, "Hey, Denmark, on Tuesday,

we're going to surge the military into

Greenland. We're going to annex it. Um,

and you're going to set you're going to

stand aside." What would they do? They

would complain

to whom?

Other people would complain.

But how much impact would that have?

Would the UN say, "Stop doing that?" And

if they did, we might say, "We're the

only power that the UN has. Step aside."

And I think that uh Trump pushing the uh

the Monroe doctrine

is so far as I think this could be more

popular than not popular. Um the door is

wide open. to to me it seems like a done

deal that before the end of Trump's term

we will have functional control of uh

Greenland and people will hate it at

first and they'll say oh authoritarian

and they will eventually say

uh here's here's a reframe too

almost nobody

lives on a place that was once

uninhabited by anybody

if you Look at the history of just about

every country. It's about somebody had

that land and then somebody took it from

them. Right.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is

the end of my prepared remarks.

I'm going to talk privately to

the good people of locals and in 30

seconds we'll be private. I want to

thank you again. Oh, let me give you a

specific thank you. I hope you're aware

that your existence

and the love and uh attention that you

give me is absolutely

irreplaceable

and I'm very blessed and I uh appreciate

you more than you could ever know. So,

if it seems like

um I'm acting selfishly sometimes,

well, maybe I am because I enjoy this

experience of being useful if I can more

than anything I like. So, thank you.

Thank you. And we'll see you again

tomorrow.

All right. Where's my cursor?