do you like freedom? You like freedom, don't you? If you want freedom, Biden is your one. Because after he's done all of that, in a Janis Joplin kind of way, you'll finally be free. Because freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

They would take your candidate away. They will take your guns away. They will take your free speech away. They will take your access to accurate information away. They'll take your RFK Jr. away. And after they've taken everything away and you can only walk down the street getting punched in the face, you'll finally be free because you'll have nothing else to lose.

Now you say to yourself, "But Scott, at least I can enjoy some nice food." No, food's giving you cancer. No, you have nothing left to lose. You say, "Well at least I can scroll through my phone." No, no, mental illness. Can't scroll through your phone. Just going to make things worse, right? "Well at least I can go outside." Well if you do you better put on your sunscreen. If you're going to go outside put on your sunscreen. Sunscreen might kill you people say from the chemicals. So you'll die if you go in the sun or you don't go in the sun because you won't have enough vitamin D. So basically you've got lots of options is what I'm saying.

Attorney John Eastman looks like he's going to get disbarred for helping Trump in the fake insurrection that the Democrats who are saving democracy have convinced you actually happened. Now one of the ways that the Democrats saved democracy is that they threw away some of the testimonies that would have been, let's say, helpful to Trump and the other J6ers. So they're helping democracy with a show trial in which they throw away the exculpatory information to save democracy.

I feel a lot safer. In fact right now, since I'm being completely censored from all contact with Democrats, don't I feel safer? Of course I do. And freer. Because now that I don't have ability to broadcast to people who might have their minds changed by anything I say, I feel much freer. Much freer. Nothing left to lose.

Well the simulation has been tapping us on the shoulder and kicking us in the shin and grabbing us by the balls and saying, "Are you paying attention? This is a simulation." How do I know? Well it couldn't wink any harder. Here's an example. The Daily Show has been resurrected with Jon Stewart. And somebody decided that the best way to decorate his entire set is behind him it has the words "The Daily Show" but surrounding him on his desk and on the side walls and everywhere else they've abbreviated it to TDS.

So yes, I swear this is true. Jon Stewart sits among a hundred acronyms that say TDS and then presents TDS in the real world. I swear to God that's happening. Now you tell me we're not in the simulation. Seriously. You're watching Trump embark on the third act of all third acts exactly as I told you he would and you don't think we live in a simulation?

Have you ever seen me change the world? Watch the comments. Have you ever seen me change the world? How is that possible? Well I'll do it again.

So there's a story in Yahoo News about a Utah gubernatorial candidate Phil Lyman. And I guess he said some things about the bridge collapse and he referenced diversity and DEI. Now I do not think that the bridge collapse is caused by any diversity or DEI. You know they don't know exactly what the problem is but I think that's the least likely possibility. Some are still saying it might be some kind of a cyber attack. I wouldn't rule it out. But I think by far the most likely is just happens. And sometimes it happens when you're near a bridge. That's my guess.

Now I could be easily talked out of that. It wouldn't take much more information to be convinced it was a cyber attack. You know I'm sort of 60-40 that it was just an accident. I'm at zero that it was anything racial. I don't see any evidence of that.

But back to this story. The Utah gubernatorial hopeful Phil Lyman, I think more that he was just bolstering a story that he's against DEI and was using it as an example. Probably wasn't the best example. But in the process of doing a hit piece on him, Yahoo News mentioned that one of the terrible things this poor guy did — this Phil Lyman who's running for Utah governor — and if you can believe this, this bad behavior, it was so bad that they needed to call it out in the article. And you know people live complicated lives but they found one of the worst things he's ever done. And I feel bad even bringing it up because you know poor Phil Lyman he doesn't deserve this. But since it's been reported I feel I can mention it.

Well this poor guy, this really happened. He reposted one of my posts on X. Yeah, yeah. Now if you saw a story in which a major part of the story was that this guy, my God how could he, he posted one of my posts. Now how did they describe that? Let me check their exact wording. They said they describe me as the Dilbert cartoonist. Dilbert with a D. The Dilbert cartoonist. And I was called a conservative commentator, right wing.

All right. So the two things they described about me are completely wrong. I'm not the Dilbert cartoonist — wait, I am the Dilbert cartoonist. No, they said Gilbert. I'm not the Gilbert cartoonist and I'm not conservative. The times that I agree with conservatives are every time they say something that's obvious. And you know it's just obvious, right? Am I a conservative because I like strong border control? Well according to them if I don't want massive migration uncontrolled, what if I don't want my government to be massively censoring the citizens? Well what am I, some kind of conservative reactionary? Like what exactly is the policy that they could look at to call me a conservative? Because every single thing that I agree with conservatives on and it's a pretty long list of things I agree with, they're all just common sense. I don't take any religious take on anything, right? I have no religious point of view. So how do you call me a conservative?

So here's your news. Now do you remember the G-man theory? G-man noticed that whenever there was a story about physics, his expertise, he knew it was all wrong. But then he would read the next story that wasn't his expertise and he would forget to question it because he thought, "Well it's in the news, probably true." Then one day he realized, "Wait a minute. If 100% of the things I know about are wrong, what does that say about the rest of the news?" And of course that was the insight that unlocked everything. Of course it's all fake.

Look at this example. It's a story in which I'm a central player of the story and the only two things they said about me are dead wrong. Now that got through editors. It wasn't just a writer. It got through editors, probably more than one. Anyway here's the bigger part of the story. So I've been saving the big part of the story.

Imagine if you will I'm a central part of the story and it's being used to slime this one individual Phil Lyman. Don't you think that if you're going to mention that he reposted my post, what's the minimum logical thing you would do? If the story is about something I posted and it was on the topic of DEI, what's the minimum you would do? You would link to it, am I right? You would link t