“It’s an insurrection.” Well, no, not really. Because that was not the intention of any of the people who had attended. “It was an insurrection.” Yeah, but it really wasn’t.

So if you get into the arguing over what the word means, then they have a chance of at least a tie because people who don’t pay attention to the news will think, well, half of them say it’s an insurrection and half of them say it’s not, sort of a tie, so I’ll just go with my team that says it is. It’s not a tie. It’s not even close to a tie. There probably wasn’t one person there who thought that they could take over the government by walking around unarmed and trespassing. Not one person thought that that would take over the government.

Anyway, so that’s what word thinking is when there’s no argument, but they’re trying to get you to accept their words.

Meanwhile, Trump’s been over in Asia trying to make deals. I guess he might have made a deal for some soybeans. I can’t tell if this is a good deal or a bad deal, but twenty-five million tons and twelve million tons immediately. So Bessent was announcing that and also he rents land to farmers who do soybeans. So Bessent went over there and got a deal that was good for Bessent. Was it good for anybody else? I have no context to know whether that would be good for anybody else, but certainly would be good for the soy farming landlords.

Sorry, I just needed that extra sip. All right, what else did he get? But that’s not all. We’ve got reports of other deals that Trump made. Let’s see. So we got the soybeans. So that’s good for the farmers. What I wonder about, and I don’t know if we’ll ever find this out, did our farmers grow a bunch of soybeans and then have to throw them away because they didn’t have any place to sell them? Have they already wasted the soybeans that they grew or do they have a bunch of stored up soybeans that are just ready to go and that this is just pure good news? I don’t know. Because if they already lost the whole season, which they might have, right? Isn’t it possible that farmers lost the whole season? That would put a lot of people out of business. So I don’t know how good or bad this is. Does it save us? By us, I mean the soy farmers. I don’t know.

But I guess the president and President Xi, they met, but they did not talk about Taiwan or the deal for TikTok. And I think that was the right play because it’s not like they were going to make a decision on Taiwan while they were there for an hour and a half. And it’s not like I don’t think the TikTok deal needed any extra approvals, right? He didn’t need Xi to say yes because they already said yes. So it doesn’t make sense that they would have talked about those. Those were lower priority for the meeting, I think. But they did talk about other stuff.

And Trump says he’s going to drop the tariff by ten basis points, ten percent, because China promised to do more on fentanyl. Does that sound like a win for the United States? We lowered their tariff because the tariff had been put on because they weren’t doing enough about fentanyl. But Xi said he would try harder on fentanyl. That’s a nothing. Unfortunately, that’s a nothing. Try harder. No, he’s not going to try harder. That’s a nothing. But we did reduce their tariffs, so they got a something. So China got a something, but it was also something artificial because Trump has simply made up the tariff. So Trump, Xi got something that didn’t have any actual value because it was just something that Trump made up. I’ll give you more, you know, I’ll increase your tariff. And then he took away the thing he made up. So that’s sort of a break even.

We were not getting enough help with fentanyl. We’re still not going to get enough help with fentanyl. That’s a nothing. So apparently this deal of tariffs reduced for fentanyl help, to me it looks a little more like we gave them nothing in return for nothing. To me, that’s just nothing. Love to be wrong. I would love to be wrong about that.

And then apparently China is not going to bother us on the rare earth minerals. They’re going to be somewhat unrestricted, but they can change that on a dime, right? China can change their mind on the rare earth minerals in five minutes. So does it really mean anything when they say they’re not going to try to restrict our rare earth minerals? To me, it looks more like they want to make sure that they can corner that market and not encourage us to create alternative sources because I think they know that they would have more power if we believe that we had a secure supply of rare earth from them only or if they’re the biggest source. So I got a feeling that’s strategic than being a good friend. You know, they’re like, “We’d rather maintain our total power over your rare earth. So for now, we’re going to sell you all you want.” Sort of like a drug dealer. So I don’t know. It’s better that they’re not restricting it at the moment as long as we don’t pull back from our effort to diversify our sources. I don’t think we are.

All right. What else do they agree on? That China is going to quote discuss the microchip restrictions with Nvidia. Is that anything? So they agree that somebody’s going to talk to somebody. So China’s going to talk to Nvidia. But Nvidia doesn’t get to approve or not approve the chip sales. That’s the government. So the people who can’t make the decision are going to talk about it. That’s a nothing. Again, it’s a nothing. But maybe it looks good on paper.

And then according to the Coobei letter on X, I didn’t see it anywhere else, but allegedly one of the agreements is that China and the US will quote collaborate on Ukraine. Do you think the US and China are going to collaborate on Ukraine? No. No. That’s a nothing. That couldn’t possibly be a thing. No, that’s not going to happen. And that there’s talk that a real trade deal, a more comprehensive trade deal might be coming. Maybe. I don’t see it.

So it could be that the only real thing on this list of accomplishments and you know, you’ve been with me long enough, you know I’m totally pro Trump, right? You know I’m totally pro America, pro Trump. I don’t think he got anything. Is that okay? Everybody okay with that take? I don’t think he got anything. But he didn’t lose anything. I don’t think he lost anything.

Did you see the body language when they were doing the extended handshake? God, that looked awkward, didn’t it? We’ve seen Trump shake hands with every kind of leader in the world and it always looks like he has some kind of physical dominant advantage over them. Well, President Xi obviously, you know, he’s operating at a high level and he knows what the handshake means and he knows what it looks like and he’s a big guy. He’s physically a big guy. So Xi held tight and he just kept his President Xi face. He didn’t get pulled in by the charisma. He was absolutely charisma resistant. And I didn’t see any other leader who ever even tried that.

So if you were going to grade them on their body language, it was a tie. And well maybe Xi won because he was not affected in any way by the handshake and you’re looking for him to be affected. So it looked very awkward. They looked very uncomfortable. There was no point where they looked like buddies but you know Trump’s trying to sell it as they’re best friends and they can work together which is good by the way that he should Trump should be acting like you’re my friend. We’re going to do great. China and the US can grow together. Those are all the right messages. So he’s doing the right messaging.

But no, Xi is very clearly holding his cards close to his chest. He’s not giving up anything. And you know Trump did a good job of complimenting him, saying he was a great leader of a great country. And I think those are both true statements. He’s a strong leader of a great country. So saying that is smart and good politics.

All right. What else? And also Secretary Bessent says that Trump’s coming back with two trillion in added investments. That’s not from China. That’s from the other countries, Japan, South Korea, etc. That’s pretty good. I don’t think any president has done as well as Trump in bringing business to the United States. Nobody’s even close, right? Is it fair to say that nobody’s even tried this hard to make the US the dominant place you do business?

Well, it’s a little out of order, but I was going to talk about Trump was giving a speech somewhere over there and he was talking about making America the easiest place to do business. And that is the smartest thing you’ll ever see for the US because the contrast, he didn’t have to say it out loud. The contrast is that it’s dangerous to do business in China, right? Did any of you catch that? When he was giving his speech, it looked like he was just talking about the US. We’re going to make the US the easiest place to get a permit, the easiest place to get approved, the best systems, presumably the best court systems, etc. That’s important. He didn’t say that, but that’s important.

So he’s consciously saying, I’m going to brand the United States as the best place to do business. That would be worth the whole trip. That reframe of America is the best place to do business in the context of all of us knowing, but we don’t even have to say it out loud anymore, that China is the worst place to do business because it’s going to be hard to get permits. If you get things approved, it might be yanked back. They’re going to spy on you, steal your IP, put every obstacle in the way, and then eventually steal your entire business if they can. Comparing America. You can be free, you can get here, you can set up shop, you can get a permit, you’ll get approved, the legal system will treat you right. That’s no competition. That is just no competition.

And Trump knows a winning play. So by making it a big deal to brand the US as the best place to do business, he’s sort of bringing together a bunch of things that we know to be true or could be true, which is the easy to get a permit. It’s not true yet. He has to make that true, but he can do it. This is one of the strongest, best plays you’ll ever see an American president do. It would be hard to top that as the smartest, best, most capable thing you could do if you’re president. Really, I’m just blown away by how smart that is. It seems like only a simple thing, but other people could have done it, right? If you say to yourself, “But Scott, that’s just a simple thing. It’s just a thing he’s saying in a speech.” Anybody could have said that before, right? But they didn’t. It’s the saying it that matters. The saying it matters.

Well, are you following the story of Arctic Frost? That was the legal project that Jack Smith was going after the Republicans, going after Trump. But what we know now is that part of that effort, Ted Cruz is telling us about it, is that the Department of Justice under Biden issued 197 subpoenas for 430 Republican entities and individuals. The Democrats, once Biden was elected, were literally hunting Republicans.

Do you remember when Bill Maher mocked me last week for saying that Republicans would be hunted if Biden got elected? I said that back in 2020 on X. He mocked me for that. He mocked me for saying they would be hunted while at the same time one of the biggest stories in the country is the Republicans were being hunted. Now, maybe he thought I meant with a gun and in some cases that too, but I didn’t mean that necessarily with a gun, just that they would be hunted by people who wanted them harm. I could not have been more right about this. And that’s not even counting the January 6 civilians. This is the elected Republicans. My god. Oh my god.

Now, it’s being called, of course, worse than Watergate. And you know I’m totally biased on this topic, but isn’t it worse than Watergate? It looks like it to me. Watergate was a tiny little thing when you look at it in the rearview mirror especially. You know it seemed bigger then of course because the news told you it was bigger but in the rearview mirror this looks a lot bigger. A lot bigger, like a hundred times bigger. So we’ll see where this goes. Probably nowhere.

Eric has a post on X. He was noticing on *The View* that Whoopi Goldberg was being especially stupid. I think he called her ironic. And she was talking about the Biden auto pardon. So this is Whoopi Goldberg on *The View*. And she says she wants the Biden admin, I’m sorry the Trump administration to quote stop investigating a man who is no longer in office. This is Whoopi on *The View*. Stop investigating a man who is no longer in office. Meaning Biden.

Now, did I mention that this is the same time as the Arctic Frost story is one of the biggest stories in the country? You know, the part where the Biden administration couldn’t stop investigating Trump after he was out of office at the same time. The same time it’s one of the biggest stories. And she’s saying, “Stop investigating a man who’s no longer in office.”

And here’s what Whoopi said that they should be talking about and worrying about. Are you ready for her priorities? All right, so it’s 2025 and these are Whoopi’s priorities. Soybeans solved. Epstein files don’t really exist. And those narco boats. She wants to make sure that we’ve identified them as actual criminals, not just kill them. So those are her three priorities. Soybeans solved. Epstein probably imaginary. I doubt there’s any files. And narco boats that probably the government is doing exactly what they should be doing. We just don’t know the details.

What’s missing? Do you see anything missing from the list? How about crushing national debt missing? How about their biggest concern used to be, say it, climate change? Yeah, we’ll talk about climate change a little bit too. So what happened to climate change? Suddenly that’s not a big deal. It’s all about the soybeans and the Epstein and the narco boats.

I would like to make my own list of the least important things to me. The least important things. Soybeans, Epstein files, and narco boats. I’m kind of interested in all of them. They’re interesting in their own little way, but they’re the smallest problems I have in the world. But Whoopi, she’s got to get those soybeans and Epstein files solved. Climate change, not so much.

Let’s talk about Thomas Massie and the many dust ups with President Trump. So JD Vance was asked at one of the Turning Point USA events recently. He was asked why Trump is going after Thomas Massie, which he is trying to primary him. And here’s JD’s explanation, and I’ll give you my take on this. He says, “It’s one thing to disagree with the party on an issue. Voting against the party on every single issue. Every time we’ve needed Thomas for a vote, he’s been completely unwilling to provide it. That’s why Trump turned his ire on Massie. We could never count on him for some of the most difficult votes. I say that as someone who knew Thomas well before I got into politics.”

All right, here’s my take on Thomas Massie. What JD is leaving out of his explanation is why he does it. Why would you leave out why he does it? Now, I’m not like an expert on every single thing that Thomas Massie’s ever done, but can you answer this question for me? Is it not true that his resistance to Republican things is always based on the Constitution and always based on an accurate reading of the Constitution? Am I wrong about that? That our problem with him is that he can accurately read our own Constitution and then he acts upon it. There may be some exceptions where there’s just something he knew more about than the government. You know, he’s into allowing farmers to sell things directly. I think that’s one of his issues. I don’t know if the rest of the government or the Republicans disagree with that or not. I mean he has some other issues, but I think JD, if you wanted to be fair about this, and you know, to be fair, his job is to support the president. His job is not to be completely transparent. He’s a supporter of the president, and that’s his right role. So within his role as vice president, this is totally acceptable the way he framed it.

But as a consumer and as a fan of Massie, I just need to say I like one person who’s supporting the Constitution, even if he’s a pain in the ass. I will accept his pain in the ass because it doesn’t seem to affect too many votes. How many times has he been the only one who determined which way the vote went? Has that ever happened? Or is he just reliably not in their column? Because if he’d actually changed the outcome of things that I cared about, maybe I’d reassess. But I don’t think he actually changes any outcomes. I think he’s just not reliably in their column. So anyway, I’m pro Massie. I completely understand the argument that winning is more important than maybe some niceties. But I like my Constitution and I like that there’s one person who will risk everything to remind us what’s in it.

Well, Obama is talking. He was at some event and said some scary Obama sounding things that I’ll criticize in a moment. He said, quote, “Part of what we’re going to have to do,” who is we, the government, the Democrats? “Part of what we’re going to have to do is to start experimenting with new forms of journalism.” Uh-oh. Already there’s a problem. “And how we use social media.” Uh-oh. “In ways that reaffirm facts and separate facts from opinion. We want diversity of opinion.” No, you don’t, you liar. “We don’t want diversity of facts.” That, I think, is one of the big tests of social media, by the way. “It will require some government regulatory constraints.” There it is. There it is. He wants some government regulatory constraints.

Now, the way I read this is he wants the government to be in charge of telling you what’s real and what isn’t real. Is it a fact or not a fact? Well, the government will help you with that. What’s that called? It’s called censorship. It’s the dumbest thing.

But here’s my take. Doesn’t it feel like old thinking to imagine that we know our facts are true? Can you tell me which domain we’re confident that we know the facts are true? What about those employment numbers? What about our food pyramid? What about all the pandemic data? What about our GDP? What about the inflation numbers? There’s not a true number in the country, people. There is no real reliable fact that any of us will ever agree on. So what makes this seem like an opinion from the seventies? It just feels old. It’s like Obama hasn’t noticed that everything from climate change to everything is fake. It’s all fake.

Once you realize that all the facts are fake and always will be, it’s just an idiot idea to follow the facts. There was a time when we all thought that made sense, right? If ten years ago, maybe more, let’s say twenty years ago, if twenty years ago he had said exactly this, we have to make sure that people are following facts because if they’re not following the facts, we’re all in trouble and the government will be helpful in helping you know what the facts are. Twenty years ago, I would have actually thought that was a thing. And I would have given that serious consideration knowing that there’s a censorship risk there. But I would have given that serious consideration because I would have thought, well, we’re definitely better if we follow the facts, right? Wouldn’t you say that? Following the facts has got to be better than not following the facts.

And then fast forward twenty years to 2025 and you learn the brutal truth of life. There are no facts. There are no facts. There are only narratives. There are claims. There are lies. There are lucky guesses, but there are no facts, people. There are no facts. So this is all bad. This is really just Obama saying, “We want to control what you think is true.” That’s what this is. We don’t want that.

I saw a video yesterday of I guess one of Joe Biden’s closest advisers, a guy named Mike Donilon had been I guess he was being interviewed about his Biden experience and they made him admit that he had millions of dollars on the line for keeping Biden in the race. Now you know what the problem was, right? Didn’t you know that there had to be some financial thing going on that Biden’s advisers were keeping him in the race? It always seemed to me that there would be this big class of professionals who literally would have millions of dollars apiece that were on the line if he got elected, right? Not only would they get paid for helping him get elected as this Mike Donilon said he would get up to four million if Biden became president again. Four million.

And coincidentally, Mike Donilon did not think that he should pull out of the race, right? So we all watched Biden looking like a vegetable. But the guy closest to him, who obviously knew what the situation was, had millions of dollars on the line if he lied to us and said he’s fine. Now, I’m not sure that he lied because I can’t read his mind, but I certainly wouldn’t trust the guy who’s got millions of dollars at stake.

There’s a video Libs of TikTok has a video that I don’t know exactly who this group is, but it’s a group of Democrats, I guess, who are planning to surround the Capitol on November 5th, which they call one year since the fascists got into office. And they’re going to try to increase their number of people around the Capitol until the current administration resigns. So they’re literally planning an insurrection. No exaggeration and no word thinking. So it would be word thinking if it were not an actual insurrection they were planning, but they even talk about it as removing the government before the term is over. So if you’re trying to use a protest to remove the government before the government would normally be done, that’s an insurrection, right? I mean what else would you call that? So I’m not doing word thinking. That’s just what they say they’re doing.

I don’t know who this group is. Looked like a small group in a room. I don’t know if we have to worry about them yet, but the fact that they’re even talking about that is just wow.

So as you know, Bill Gates made some news by saying that maybe climate change is not the crisis that people thought and maybe we should spend our money on feeding people and taking care of our other biggest problems. And people like me made a lot of noise about that. What’s interesting, there’s a lot interesting about this. We’ll talk about it. What’s interesting is that we’re all trying to read his mind and trying to figure out what was Bill Gates thinking before and is he really thinking now and why did he make this pivot? Well, I don’t know. So I always warn you that you can’t read his mind.

I saw that Mike Cernovich is going hard at him reasonably and calling people naive. I think he used the word naive if you think that all he did was look at the facts and adjust to the new facts. And I would agree with Mike that although I can’t read Bill Gates’ mind, I doubt it had anything to do with facts. It might have to do with the fact that he has now got approval for his Gen 4 nuclear power plant that he’s invested in because if that works out, there’s going to be he’s going to make more money from nuclear power than he’s ever made before in any other thing. I mean he could be the richest person in the world just because of Gen 4 nuclear power. I mean that would be enough.

So when somebody has a big financial incentive to say yeah let’s go strong on energy and don’t waste our money so much on these other things we’ll put it all in this area. It might be just financial but again I can’t read his mind so I don’t know. But according to Harry Enten who did a survey or looked at the numbers on CNN, he’s their data guy on CNN. He says that the climate change message has not worked for thirty-six years. So back in the year 2000, forty percent of the public I guess were alarmed about climate. Forty percent. That was in the year 2000. By the year 2020 it had gone up to forty-six percent were concerned and then after 2020 it dropped. So by 2025 only forty percent back to where it was in 2000.

So from twenty-five years of climate alarmism didn’t move the needle at all. Twenty-five years of massive propaganda in one direction didn’t move it at all. Where was Trump the whole time? Trump was saying that climate change was a hoax the whole time. Not necessarily the warming part, but the way it was treated as a crisis was a