n get it on the X platform. Just hit the subscription button.

And here's what you would be finding. You would find that the new comic will tell you the problem with hiring the low bid hitman. So Dogbert is in the role of a hitman and you see what happens when you take the low bid for your hitman. It doesn't go well.

But here's the more interesting thing. I also publish whatever comic ran exactly 10 years ago from whatever date today is. So the comics that ran exactly 10 years ago are so on point for right now. It's about humanoid robots being introduced into Dilbert's house and you know what goes wrong. And oh my god, did I call it 10 years ago? You have to see it to see how on point it is for today anyway. So go take a look at that.

In other news, well we'll get to the hard news in a minute. I like to ease you into it with some lesser hard news.

So apparently Ye is making a buzz on social media. I think he's got a new album out and he's apparently off his meds. And I'm not going to tell you any of the things that he said in all caps shouting like crazy on X. But let me tell you, it looks like he's off his meds. It's just absolute mental illness. There's no other way to look at it. He says he's off his meds, by the way. He thinks he was misdiagnosed as bipolar so now he thinks he's autistic. He is not autistic. I'm pretty sure that's not right, but I don't know. We'll see.

In other news, simulation alert! Simulation alert! Simulation alert everybody! Simulation alert!

Here's how you know you live in a simulation. The confirmation vote for the new budget chief. Democrats try to delay it. They try to delay the vote for somebody named Russ Vought. That's right, his name sounds like "Rush the vote." And they delayed the vote for Russ Vought. That's all. That's the whole story. Simulation alert.

Meanwhile, there's a Michigan Democrat state legislator who decided to announce that she's going to sterilize herself, actually already has, to avoid giving birth in Donald Trump's America, according to the Gateway Pundit, Colleen Lineberger.

So I would regard this as a combination of mental illness and probably something she wanted to do anyway that had nothing to do with anything. She's 36, hasn't had a kid. I guess you know how much sex she was having, but she won't be having any extra Democrats.

The most important story of the entire year: one of the DOGE team members used to go by a secret name online, Big Balls. And Big Balls said some pretty inappropriate things. Yeah, pretty inappropriate. And once that all came out, you would be surprised to hear there's somebody who was once working for USAID but now works for the Wall Street Journal who outed that DOGE person. Huh. Feels like everything's coming together and now we understand. Every time you hear that somebody like Liz Cheney or AOC were birthed by the USAID funding, you have to say to yourself, is this really describing the entire structure we see? That all the people that we know to be turds came from the same place. That would be kind of a big coincidence.

Anyway, so the best part is that CNN did a part in this in which Aaron Burnett and Kara Swisher were talking about it. Because you just can't have somebody working on your team named Big Balls who once said offensive things online under a pseudonym. Anyway, what's the point of having a pseudonym if you can't be anonymous?

But here's the best part. I believe that the media thought that they would hurt Musk and his effort by giving a lot of attention to Big Balls. And I don't think they know much about Elon Musk because Big Balls is the funniest thing you could possibly do. And the more you talk about it on CNN, the happier I am. I think you should do the whole segment on Big Balls. There should be more of a special. I'd like to see them delve deeper into it.

But here's the thing. And I love the fact that they thought they were defeating the monster. You know, they would think that Elon Musk is the monster. And so the way they thought they would defeat him is talking about Big Balls. That's really feeding the monster. I mean, if you're really afraid of him, don't feed him stories about Big Balls. He's going to be dining on that all day, so to speak.

So there's one thing missing with this story and I think you can all tell what's missing. You know what's missing, right? It doesn't have a clever name yet. So we need to have some kind of a name to talk about this scandal about the Big Balls. I'm going to go first. I'm going to call it Scrotum Gate. Scrotum Gate, everybody. Do you like that? So whenever we talk about it, it'll just be Scrotum Gate.

Now Elon is running a poll on X to see if he should bring him back. By the way, Big Balls quit once the news got out and I can understand that. But Elon wants to bring him back. Now here's my take. If somebody who is a teenager or 19 years old said something that we all agree is absolutely inappropriate but did it anonymously, I don't have a problem with it. Because every 19-year-old boy is saying deeply inappropriate things all the time. And if he was doing it anonymously, he knew that it was not something that you could put in the public domain. Somebody else put it in the public domain. So my problem is not with anything he said, because I just can't blame a 19-year-old for having inappropriate thoughts, especially a man, a 19-year-old male. It's all we have is inappropriate thoughts. Do you understand what a 19-year-old male is? That is a person who is non-stop inappropriate thoughts. That's all we do at that age. Do we grow out of it? Sometimes. Sometimes not all the time.

Anyway, Big Balls might be back, but we'll keep an eye on Scrotum Gate.

Fox News says that a big consulting firm, PwC, they're going to have a big conference this summer trying to get high-performing college students an opportunity to work for their company. Oh that's good. Yeah, big consulting company wants to make sure that the high-performing students get to check out their job offerings. Oh wait, it specifically excludes white and Asian applicants. So it's a DEI policy or something like it. So apparently not everybody got the memo that if you openly discriminate against white and Asian applicants, it's not going to end well. It might not go your way in the long run. So maybe rethink breaking the law.

All right, I got to look at this comment because it looks interesting. Ron Paul says on X, look behind the curtain has revealed a horrific truth. Nearly the entire mainstream media worldwide has been funded by the US government under the USAID. From the BBC to the New York Times and Politico. At this point it might be easier to find out who USAID does not fund. Well that does seem approximately true.

And I saw a video online. I couldn't tell if it's a new one or an old one. I think it's an old one, so you tell me. It was Pam Bondi talking about how many times Bill Clinton had been on the Lolita Express with Jeffrey Epstein. Apparently he hadn't been on the plane just a couple of times. He'd been on there multiple times and traveled internationally with Epstein. And that plane had a bed in it. That's all you need to know. And apparently they stayed friends for years, whereas Trump removed him from his life fairly early on. So is that a new clip or an old one? What's all the 27s?

All right, so that's out there.

So Trump has tried to fire the Federal Election Commission commissioner Ellen Weintraub, but she says it's illegal and the president can't fire her. We'll see. But she was appointed by Bush and apparently they can only be replaced if they resign or their term expires. Wait, let me read that again. According to legal experts, an FEC commissioner can only be replaced if they resign or their term expires. Wait, what? Who the hell has a job that they can't be fired from? Who the hell has a job that they can't be fired from unless you're elected? And even if you're elected, you can be fired. You know, it's got to be an impeachment, but there's a process. Are you telling me that there's somebody in our government who's in charge of the elections who can't be fired? Are you serious? I hope I'm reading this wrong. Do I have this wrong? The most important person, the head of the spear for our entire democracy, can't be fired? Oh my God. You think that the well of corruption and badness is deep? I've never seen anything like that. Have you? Have you ever heard of somebody who can't be fired for any reason? That can't be right. There must be. Everybody can be fired for cause, right? But apparently not, according to legal experts. Wow.

The Daily Mail has a story that looks fake to me. They're saying that there's unconfirmed plans that Trump's trying to end the Ukraine war in 100 days and that he wants to get a ceasefire by April 20th. And that the deal would freeze Russia's place. They get to keep what they have. Ukraine would not join NATO. And that would be the deal. Now I guess this comes from a sketchy source and then the Daily Mail picked it up. So it's two sketchy sources. The Daily Mail is not full propaganda but it's not right 100% of the time either, you know, like most things. So I don't think this is anything but maybe a test balloon. My best guess is that it's a way for the government to float an idea to see what people think of it. So as an idea, floating a test balloon is a good one, but I don't think it's a real story. Feels like just testing out the water. We'll see.

So Senator Fetterman has weighed in on the RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard nominations and he will not vote for them. So he will not vote for either Gabbard or Kennedy. Now we don't absolutely need his vote because Republicans can get it through if they're all together. But I was amused by Nicole Shanahan's reply to the X post about this. I'll just paraphrase. She said it better but you know, here's just my summary. Fetterman is a slob who wears gym clothes and doesn't go to the gym. He's a slob who wears gym clothes all day and doesn't go to the gym. In other words, health is not high on his list.

All right, so here's somebody who apparently doesn't have any appreciation for good human health or he would act like it. He'd go to the gym, he'd lose weight. He acts like he has no appreciation for the biggest issue in the whole country, which is our kids have chronic diseases and they'll have no good life. That's a pretty big problem and he's against it.

Separately, Fetterman also said that he thought the Democrats don't have much chance of winning men back because he said he's been warning about it and that the Democrats have become sort of the party of whiny women. And that not only were white males leaving the Democrat Party but black men, Hispanic men. And it's pretty broad and obvious change. But the interesting thing is he thinks they can't get it back, meaning that Fetterman believes he is in the party that's anti-men. That would be according to all the men who changed sides because they want to be on the side that's not anti-men. DEI is anti-men.

What do we got here? Okay, so Ellen Weintraub, the head of the FEC that Trump is trying to get rid of, she once was in private practice at Perkins Coie. So if you understand Perkins Coie, that's like the heart of the Democrat legal dirty tricks. Well, I won't call them that. I'll just say they're the legal arm of the Democrats where much has been done the Republicans don't like. So we can see why Trump's getting rid of her. It makes sense.

But let me close on the Fetterman. So Fetterman knows that he's on the anti-male team and he stays there. Now if he tried to become a Republican, I'm sorry, that door is very closed right now. You're not going to become a Republican if you're turning down Kennedy. You're dead. I mean not physically dead. You're done as a political entity that anybody on the Republican side's going to care about. So you're a piece of shit from my perspective and you should expect that. Scott Pressler is coming for your job. Not to take the job but to make sure that there are more Republicans registered in Pennsylvania. And he said so, by the way. I'm not speculating. Scott Pressler, Nicole Shanahan, they're going to take him out. And I don't know if that means he'll be primaried, but that's what Nicole Shanahan promised, that she'd be primarying people who go the wrong direction on the Kennedy vote. And Scott Pressler says it directly, you know, we're coming after you basically. So Fetterman, I think his political fortunes are now over because he just made an unrecoverable error.

Allegedly, according to Wired, Elon Musk's DOGE is working on a chatbot. So they're going to create a chatbot called GS allegedly. And it would be part of, you know, maybe some of it would be to analyze the complexities that DOGE is looking into. But some of it would be maybe a replacement for some of the functions of the government. You know, if you had a really good AI, it could do a lot of stuff.

Now I'm a skeptic because my own experience with trying to create an AI agent, even though it was last summer and a lot has changed, I don't believe AI can do that. I don't believe AI can create an agent that can do general stuff that a human could do. I don't think it's anywhere near it. So the AI is super smart but when you try to get it to do the job of a person, it's, you know, it hallucinates and it's hard to know when it's going to do it. They can't look up data reliably. So the only way it would work is if it's sort of an interface layer but all of the real important work is just regular programming. You know, just it initiates something that looks into a database. That's not AI. So if it's the interface for things that are not AI, it could be great.

So I don't want to judge. I obviously let me just say the obvious. The people who are working on this know a lot more than I do about AI. So if they think it can work, you would be kind of dumb for me to bet against it. But from my understanding it can't work unless it's just an interface to regular programming. We'll see. Someday it will work. I don't think it's there yet.

All right, you know we're going to talk about USAID. I got more to say about that. But Thomas Massie says, now if you're brand new I'll just give you the quick update. USAID is a 50 billion dollar whatever funded entity within the government that does things for the State Department, sometimes the CIA, sometimes the Pentagon. This is the Mike Benz explanation of the world. And it's been basically gutted by DOGE for all the alleged waste and, you know, fraud. The waste would be funding things that are not good for anybody. That would be the claim.

But Thomas Massie says I'm concerned that the House and Senate will fully fund USAID in March just like we did in December, although he voted against it. He said the argument from Republican leadership will be that they need Democrat votes to pass the omnibus to avoid a government shutdown. Oh my God, I hate how right he is. So Massie is pretty good at seeing around corners and telling you what's coming. How do we beat that? Because the whole omnibus thing is essentially a criminal process. It's a criminal process because it allows the people of Congress to not do their job and get tons of money for things that will help them get reelected. I don't know if it's illegal but certainly in intention and in a de facto way it's just criminal.

The omnibus is when they put all the spending in one big thing and you could just say yes or no. But they put all kinds of crap in there and then they say well if you say no to the crap you're the one who shut down the government and children will die, which is an exaggeration. So yeah, we have a system that guarantees that USAID will be fully funded. Think about that. We just nuked it and the corrupt government is so advanced at this point it's evolved almost to its own creature. The corruption is self-healing. We have a self-healing corruption designed machine. If you take out the heart of the machine, USAID, that might be the most important beating organ in the whole machine, completely removed. And in one month it could be reinstated because it's a self-healing corrupt system. And they'll just use the omnibus as the argument for why it must be refunded.

Now if it's not done with the omnibus, and I don't know what would stop it, they could do the same thing with onesies and twosies. Well but this one's important. Well you cut all the funding but this one's important. And just try to wear down Marco Rubio and the State Department which absorbed the USAID function.

So let me tell you, if you think USAID is defeated, not even close. We're not even close to defeating it. It's sort of like the Terminator. You know, okay good news we shot the Terminator. Uh oh, he's reforming. He's self-healing. So it's coming for you.

Did you know according to Leslie Kimovitz, I don't know if this is a good source or not but it's a good example of the kind of news I'm seeing on social media. I'll give you the following warning. There will be claims about USAID funding that are not true. Trump just reversed the Biden decision on plastic straws. We're getting our plastic straws back. Yes, USAID's coming back but so are plastic straws. So it's a tie.

All right, so according to Leslie Kimovitz, and remember the umbrella for this story and a lot of others is they might not be true. There are going to be a whole bunch of claims about USAID funding that if you looked into it, it might mean not exactly what the claim is but could be close. But the claim is that USAID in 2016 gave $310 million of taxpayer money to a Palestinian cement factory. Well now on the surface you'd say to yourself, well if you're going to have a modern country and you're going to develop, you're going to need some cement. So maybe we funded one of the main things they needed to rebuild, this good quality local cement. I wonder where the cement went. Well maybe some of it went for factories to build some factories, maybe some housing. But maybe it's how they built their Hamas tunnels.

So the real concern is that no matter what our intentions were, it may have been just siphoned off and taken to build, not siphoned off but they would have actually built the cement plant but the cement plant may have been allegedly some part of the tunnel building. $310 million. Do you think we got our money's worth there? I don't know. That one feels a little too on the nose, doesn't it? Remember I tell you the one way to spot fake news quickly is it's too perfect. What would be the most perfect story somebody could make up about USAID? The most perfect story would be it built the Hamas tunnels. Now it might have. I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying oh boy is that one right on the nose. So if you have to bet on it, I don't know if it's a safe bet. It's a little too clean. So just beware that when you hear these stories that are a little too perfect, there may be a reason they're too perfect. But they also might be true. So it's hard to say.

Yesterday I posted on X that it seems to me that maybe we could close the entire budget gap, the deficit, the entire thing just by getting rid of fraud. And that's a big claim, right? Because we're talking about $2 trillion. So I honestly think that if we got rid of all fraud in all forms of the government from military to Medicare fraud to everything else, we might close the entire gap. And I thought, well you know it just is how it feels. It's not really, I haven't done the math. But Elon Musk saw that comment that I made and he modified it in the comments. He said that maybe getting rid of fraud would close one half to one third of the deficit. One half of the deficit is a trillion dollars. A trillion dollars per year, not a trillion dollars over many years, one year. Now that's the person who's looked into it the closest. He knows more than any of us now about what he's found and maybe even what he's likely to find. He thinks there'd be a trillion dollars of something that we might call waste or fraud. I think that's right. I think it's a trillion at least. You know I thought it was two but I'm going to go with his estimate because he's closer to it.

Here are some examples. Jesse Watters had a good rundown on some of the examples of things that USAID was doing. Now here's the problem and I'll get into this in more detail. The fake news, the corporate news is reporting that USAID is a charitable organization doing all kinds of good things all over the world. And that defunding it means that people will die by the millions. So people will die.

So when Jesse and other people give the list of the fake looking wastes of money, and I'm going to list them in a moment, you might say to yourself, oh if we get rid of the fake ones then all we'll have left is the real charity and maybe the real charity makes sense. Some people would say now the fake news is covering this like it's a charity being removed story. The real news, the MAGA Republican version of what's happening is that USAID has always been a fake organization that is designed to overthrow other countries and also control the United States. So those are completely different stories.

But here's what's interesting. The fake news is pretending like there's only one version of the narrative. They're not even telling you that the other narrative is wrong. They're just ignoring it. What's that tell you? If they told you that the narrative that it's a CIA front, if they told you that was not true and they said why and they showed their work, well then maybe you could compare their version with what other sources are saying and maybe make up your own mind. But they're acting like there's only one narrative. They're actually ignoring the main claim. And the main claim is the biggest scandal in American history. You know, maybe since I don't know, maybe since slavery. But it's the biggest story I've ever seen since I've been alive. Would you agree? I mean wars are big in their own way so you know you can't ignore wars. But in terms of a scandal this is the biggest one I've ever seen by a thousand. This is not even close to anything I've ever seen. This is enormous. That's one narrative. Why can they ignore what half of the country thinks is true and is digging into the details of it and completely coming up to speed? They're just ignoring it. Now that tells you that they're fake news. So if you're wondering are they fake news? Yes, turns out they are.

Here are some of the things Jesse Watters says they funded. $6 million for tourism in Egypt because Egypt certainly couldn't do any tourism without an extra $6 million. You know as Jesse points out they have pyramids. They have pyramids. You'd be lucky if you could stop people from going there. I mean you'd have to close the border to stop all the people who want to go in there to look at the pyramids. The one thing they don't need is some help with a tourist destination because again they've got pyramids. They have pyramids.

All right, $2 million to help the British Broadcasting Company value the diversity of Libyan society. I didn't make that up. We're paying the BBC, British entity, how to value the diversity of Libyan society. Now that can't be real. How is that real?

$1 million for a gay group in Armenia. What? $20 million for Iraqi Sesame Street. Okay. $2 million for trans surgeries in Guatemala. $235 million to the National Democratic Institute. Well that sounds fine, right? We like democracy and it sounds like that's what they're working on. It's right in the name. So $235 million. But a lot of that money went to executive compensation. So the real meaning of all this funding is everything about the government funding seems to be a way for Democrats to get a payday. And some anti-Trump Republicans, they all seem to have one foot in some form of either USAID or somebody that USAID funds or something.

Also an NGO. I saw an estimate from Alex Jones that there are 1.5 million NGOs but 1.1 million of them are left leaning. Is that possible? Somebody in the comments said 55,000 at the very least. There are thousands, thousands of these entities that get funded by our government, your taxpayers, your tax money. And it seems to be mostly for controlling America, controlling other countries, and for people to get paychecks so that they can get this easy funding from your money. Basically it's just a transfer of wealth to Democrats, the wealthy Democrats. It's not even the poor Democrats. That's what it looks like.

Well according to Grok, and I should warn you that all of the AIs are not up to date on this story. They're up to date on what people are saying but your AIs are going to tell you there's no evidence that the CIA has anything to do with USAID. That's what your AI will tell you. But Grok tells me that all the spending of USAID is transparent. It's transparent so everybody could have always seen it. And that the GAO, Government Accounting Office, can audit it. So don't worry about the spending being wrong because you can see it. It's transparent. You know the names of the places it's going to and you also know that there's an auditing function so it could get audited by the government to make sure they're not doing anything wrong. So you good with that?

I hope you're good with it because I'm starting an NGO. So the name of my NGO is going to be called America Doing Awesome Things for Gay Climate Scientists and Democracy. Now that sounds like a joke but it's not very far from the name of the other NGOs. So the first thing you do is put a name on your NGO and a primary purpose that looks like it's good and then you hide behind that goodness and do all your evil behind it. Because you can get your paycheck, you can do your influence peddling. But as long as people come after you. So if you come after me after I get funded from my America Doing Awesome Things for Gay Climate Scientists and Democracy, I'm going to say whoa, look who's coming after me. Apparently you don't like gay people. You're a bigot. And you're anti-science because why else would you be coming after me for trying to fund climate scientists? So you're anti-scientist. You're anti-gay. You're opposed to democracy. I mean all those things are right in the title of my NGO. So clearly I'm doing good work and you're some kind of a bigoted piece of crap science denier. Get out of here. Get out of here. And I'm going to tell all the other Democrats to stay away from you. God you're such a terrible person. You're awful. How could you even come after me when I'm so virtuous? Just look at the name of my NGO. It's right there in the name.

All right, so there's that.

Also according to the Washington Examiner, taxpayers also funded Chinese research. Representative Claudia Tenney, Republican, she's got a bill she's introduced to stop funding our adversaries. Now you would think that's something we weren't doing. Your common sense would say we're not funding any adversaries. What are you talking about? How could it possibly be true that we're funding adversaries? But between 2015 and 2021 the US provided $29 million directly to Chinese entities for research and development. I think that included Wuhan. These are real things I think. Now remember the umbrella caution. There are going to be claims that aren't true and I'm not sure I'll know which ones are not true. But the general thrust of it is still the same. Directionally these are largely fake things.

Now is it true that it also does good things such as helping countries battle AIDS? Yes, that's called a cover. The reason that they do good things is so you can't pull their funding. If they're doing good things, the government, let's say the foreign government that allows USAID funded things in, probably can't handle the problems themselves such as an AIDS epidemic or any other major problem that a smaller country can't handle. We come in and say we can handle that. And the government says well we can't do it ourselves and it is destroying our country so yeah come on in. And then you can't kill it because if you try to kill the funding you're going to say that you killed people with AIDS.

Elon Musk just posted "I love Donald Trump as much as a straight man can love another man." Oh God, he likes causing trouble.

All right, so let's see what else is. So CNN says the concern about these big government payouts to media organizations such as Politico are fake. So no, the media is telling you that if you think the media is taking money to change the reporting, that's fake, people. That's just fake. And the example they give is that Politico which has two I think two main businesses. One is Politico the publication but another one is a very expensive subscription thing that has extra data and things that are not in their public political thing. And the claim was that $8 million flowed into the pro part of the Politico, not the publication. And that it came from not just USAID but maybe a bunch of entities that are also NGOs and kind of operate the same.

So do you think that $8 million of subscriptions, do you think that was an appropriate expense for all kinds of different parts of the government? They all needed a subscription to this thing. Does that sound real to you? Now Politico is trying to make the distinction that buying a bunch of subscriptions to one part of their business has no influence on their coverage in the other part of the business. That's for the stupid people.

Let me tell you how you can bribe people. Oh how many lines of business do you have? Two? Well we'd like to influence one of those lines of business. Okay great, we'll give you millions of dollars if you'll do with that line of business what we want you to. Excellent, you got a deal. But can you do us a favor? Don't write the checks to something that looks like that line of business that you want us to influence. Instead could you write it to the other line of business so it looks like you're just buying a regular product like anybody would? So I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm just saying that's exactly what it looks like happened. There's no such thing as people are uninfluenced by money. Millions of dollars? Yeah, no influence at all. Millions of dollars. Nobody believes that.

And as I read,