My new book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Mollie Hemingway, Ronna McDaniel Resignation, Vivek Ramaswamy, Kevin McCarthy, Antisemite Trolls, Constitutional Amendments, Government Censorship, Gina Carano, Disney Lawsuit, Axios, Border Bill Analysis, Kyle Bass, Senator Murphy, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, J6 Insurrection Hoax, Nikki Haley’s Donors, Tucker Putin Interview, Alex Jones, Israel Hamas War, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
Never been a better time.
I'm sure of it.
And if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that are unimaginable, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard, shells or styne, a canteen 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 of the dopamine to the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Oh, that's so good.
So good.
I'll remind all of you on the various four platforms to which I am streaming that if any of you have any technical problems, it always helps to update your app or just reboot, get out, get back in.
That usually works.
Now, to begin with, The most important story, you know, there's a lot of stories in the news.
I tell myself I should worry about that or that looks like a problem for me But this one, I don't know if I can avoid this one it turns out that I Pistachio nuts sometimes can explode, according to Reddit, that if you get some moisture on your nuts, uh, there's something about the fatty acids and the, uh, I don't know, there's some kind of chemical in there that under the right conditions, your nuts will explode.
And apparently it doesn't, it might not be limited to pistachios, which by the way, some say are not nuts at all.
But, apparently your nuts can explode.
So if you're worried about the border crisis, well sure, that's bad.
But your nuts could explode.
You're worried about the Middle East?
About Ukraine?
About inflation?
Yes, those are all problems.
But also, your nuts could explode.
So keep it in perspective, please.
I would like to start today by playing a clip.
That features Molly Hemingway testifying to Congress about how completely broken our election systems, in fact, our whole system is.
Now, it's sort of a brilliant few minutes.
Normally, I wouldn't play a little clip like this on the show, but she just does such a good job of pulling it all together, if you don't mind.
Molly Hemingway, this morning, I think this was just minutes ago, really, testifying to Congress.
The American system of self-governance is under attack.
Instead of an election day where everyone votes at the same time and with the same full set of information, votes are counted quickly and everyone promptly knows and trusts the outcome, Yeah, why?
have lengthy election seasons that can last months prior to and even after election day.
Yeah, why?
The situation is so absurd that we have presidential and gubernatorial debates weeks after some people have already voted.
After.
Instead of having total security and a verifiable chain of custody for ballots being issued, cast, and counted, we flood addresses across the country with tens of millions of unsupervised mail-in ballots months ahead of elections, frequently to locations from which voters, if they're even frequently to locations from which voters, if they're even alive, have long since moved.
In the Instead of having election administration that is rigorously nonpartisan and impartial under the law, we have allowed the private takeover of government election offices by partisan oligarchs and their armies of activists who use those offices and their authorities to tilt the election we have allowed the private takeover of government election offices by partisan oligarchs
Instead of voters being able to vote for the candidate of their choice, powerful interests backed by wealthy oligarchs are working to remove the most popular candidate and the ruling party's chief opponent from the ballot in a move reminiscent of Soviet Russia.
And if that weren't enough, instead of the top candidates chosen by the people being able to fully engage in a vigorous campaign heading into an election, we have one side actively attempting to throw its opponent in prison and bankrupt his family.
Again, reminiscent of Soviet Russia.
Instead of a system of rule of law that gives Americans the same rights and due process, the Department of Justice and other partisan actors are prosecuting their opposition, whether powerful or lowly, Oh yeah.
Oh yeah.
Doing so in places where partisan juries will ensure a quick conviction.
Instead of a free and independent press that shares news and information to help inform voters, we have a press that is almost exclusively the arm of one political party.
Oh, yeah.
It is so corrupt that it is willing to perpetrate hoax after hoax against opposition party members.
Hoax after hoax.
Instead of a vibrant public square where Americans can debate issues and express their strongly held views, we have an elaborate censorship industrial complex where the government works hand in hand with tech oligarchs to suppress and blacklist debate on all the important issues that contribute to election outcomes.
This is something I know firsthand because our government worked with tech companies to censor me for my election reporting.
Allowing just one of these attacks to infect our electoral system would be a crisis.
Allowing all of them at the same time is an existential threat to our system of self-government.
In my best-selling book on how election administration has been co-opted by groups seeking political power, I reported on a new phenomenon in the 2020 election that has already severely eroded trust and needs to be addressed decisively.
In the last presidential election, non-profit groups with very strong ties to the Democrat Party and funded by one of the world's wealthiest and most powerful men, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, took over government election offices, most notably in the Democrat areas of swing states.
Since then, the efforts by partisans to further infiltrate government election offices to ensure favorable outcomes All right, I saw that in a post by Greg Price.
She's so good.
Every time I see her talk on TV, I always say the same thing.
to our system of self-government. - All right, I saw that in a post by Greg Bryce.
She's so good.
Every time I see her talk on TV, I always say the same thing.
Nobody does that better.
You know, if you wanna get to the heart of an issue, like really fast and really clean, Molly Hemingway's the best.
Anyway, I have a theme for today's show.
And the theme is that everything is corrupt.
Everything is corrupt.
Everything.
Now, I think Molly gave you a good introduction to that.
And if that didn't make your nuts explode, well, maybe the moisture on your pistachios will get it done.
But here's some news today.
The DNC Chair, Ronna McDaniel, has resigned.
Do you think that signals something?
Hmm.
Hmm.
I'm going to speculate.
I will now speculate.
It seems to me that Vivek Ramaswamy was the strongest voice asking her to leave.
There were lots of others, but he seemed to be the most prominent because he was doing it from the perspective of running for president.
Now, he's not running for president now, but he's on the short list of people being considered for vice president, at least in the conversation.
We don't know what Trump is thinking.
But does it seem a coincidence to you that Ronald McDaniel is gone, and the decision about the VP is getting close.
Let me tell you something that I suspect.
This is pure speculation.
I don't have any, no inside information.
I feel like this is a signal that Vivek is going to get the vice-presidential nod.
And the reason is, I believe that he would have said, I'm interested in the vice-president job, but not under the condition that the fundraising and the RNC chair is Rana McDaniel.
I feel like these are connected.
Now, it doesn't have to be, because there are other people, and maybe she had her own reasons, etc.
So, I think it's fascinating, the timing of it all.
I think it's signaling Vivec, but we'll see.
Here's why I say it.
If you were Vivec and you knew that there was a lot of push for you to join the ticket, wouldn't you ask for something in return?
Because that's called free money.
If somebody's already made up their mind, listen, this also works for employment.
Same thing for employment of a regular kind.
If somebody makes you an offer, it means they're already committed.
Psychologically, they've already decided, I don't want to change my mind, I want you to say yes, and then I want to work on other things.
I don't want to go back to figuring out who I hire.
So that gives you leverage, because the person who's going to say, do you want the job, doesn't want to go back and redo the whole process of finding out who to hire.
They're a little bit painted in a corner.
A little bit.
And so you could ask for something.
You can't ask for everything.
That would be a bad look.
But you could ask for one thing.
And do you know who would know that?
Vivek.
Like he would be one of the few people in the public domain who would say, huh, I recognize this situation.
If they want me, they probably would give me one thing.
So I'll ask for one thing.
I'll just make sure it looks like it's good for everybody.
So here's the one thing.
I don't think I can win under the condition that our fundraising is no good.
So you're gonna have to make this one change, and then yes, I will take the job.
Who else would have done that?
Who else, in your imagination, would have said, you know, this is actually a position where, weirdly, it's not obvious, but I actually have some leverage?
Trump.
Trump would have recognized that situation as one that, it's not obvious, but you have leverage.
I used the same technique when I negotiated my first syndication contract, and some others after that.
Once you get to the point where you've been negotiating for a long time, and you're really close, That last thing you ask for is almost free.
Because you've exhausted each other in the negotiating, and you're like, OK, but just one more thing.
You can almost always get that one more thing, if it's not a big crazy thing.
It's just, all right, I just can't talk about this anymore.
All right, you got that one thing.
That's what this feels like, but it's just a guess.
Well, interestingly, Matt Gaetz, who famously led the move to get Kevin McCarthy ousted from the leadership role, thinks that, and is saying it in public, that Kevin McCarthy would be great for the RNC chair.
Now, this is why I like Matt Gaetz.
I love the fact that he can put his entire reputation on the line, saying that this guy's the wrong guy to be the leader of our legislative process.
But at the same time, I think everybody agrees that he's excellent at fundraising.
And that's a fundraising job, the head of the RNC.
So, Matt Gaetz saying in public, fully endorsing him.
He'd be great at this.
No, I completely respect that.
The thing I love about Matt is even when I don't agree with him, and I usually do, but even when I don't, he shows his work.
Perfect.
Just show your work in a way that I can say yes or no, but don't hide the ball.
He never hides the ball.
No, I don't want him to be putting bills through.
Yes, I do want him to raise money.
He's good at that.
Perfect.
Do more of that.
All right.
My theme today is everything is corrupt and it's obvious.
So a former top prosecutor in Baltimore, a prosecutor, a person whose job it is to put criminals in jail.
Looks like she'll be going to jail for a real long time, because it turns out she's a criminal.
And she made some false statements on a mortgage application about some income from some source.
I guess it was a lie.
Now you might say to yourself, but Scott, didn't Trump do the same thing?
Didn't he exaggerate the value of his property?
Yes, there's a big difference though.
If you exaggerate the value of an asset that you know the bank is going to check on their own, and they're never going to take your word for it, that's really different.
That's actually business as usual.
That's what the bank said.
Even the bank said, we don't take their word for it.
We just check ourselves.
But this was something about income from a... I think there was some issue about income from some side company that would be hard for an external source to audit.
So that's where it gets sketchy.
Yeah, so I don't know that that's 30 years in jail worth, but they're reporting it.
So keep an eye on that.
So the people who are in charge of making sure the law is obeyed, at least this top prosecutor from Baltimore was in fact one of the criminals.
How often does that happen?
Wasn't it sarcastic?
Are you saying that the... What did you say was sarcastic?
I'm seeing the notes.
Do you mean Matt Gaetz?
No, I read the Gates thing.
I didn't think it was sarcastic.
I'll read it again, but it looked to me like it was real.
All right.
I hear your note.
All right.
I'm going to double down on the fact that the anti-Semites or alleged anti-Semites on X, of which there are quite a few of them, especially lately, they don't seem real.
And the reason I don't want to give completely away what the tell is.
Because if I give it away, then they won't do the tell, and then I won't be able to tell who's real.
But they're really obviously not real.
Can you see it, or is it just me?
Do you all see it?
There's a commonality to them that's different from what they used to look like, you know, even when it wasn't an election year.
It's very sudden, and it seems organized, and my guess would be it's exactly what it looks like.
Exactly what it looks like is a paid attempt to make the X platform look like it's where all the bad stuff's happening.
Now, if you say to me, Scott, you conspiratorial idiot!
Why are you always thinking it's like, why couldn't it be the simplest explanation?
Which is, there's just a lot of anti-Semites in the world and they're just on the platform.
Why can't you go for the simplest explanation?
Well, they don't look real, number one.
Or even close.
They don't seem to be even a good representation of somebody pretending to be one.
But the other thing is, this is normal business.
Did you know that?
Did you know that in the first Trump election there were, in fact, maybe the second, there were, in fact, a paid army of trolls whose job it was to come after people like me.
They've already come after me twice this year, and they come in waves, and they all come at once, and they all say the same things, and then they all disappear, right?
And it's been confirmed.
We know how it was funded, and we know who was behind it.
You know, there's no question that it happened, etc.
So, what are the odds that they're doing that trick again?
Well, apparently it's perfectly legal.
Nobody went to jail for it.
They talked about it in public.
So, yeah.
I would say it's obvious that somebody's paying somebody to pretend to be anti-Semitic.
Lots of people.
Because they all have their same little arguments.
And again, I'm not going to tell you how I can tell that you're not real, but you've got to tell.
All right.
There's a Chinese dissident.
You've probably heard of him.
He's an artist named Ai Weiwei.
Really?
His first name is spelled AI.
Is that the best name for an artist in 2024?
His name, his first name is AI.
I-Y-Y.
I-Y-Y?
Yeah, I'm pronouncing his name wrong and I apologize.
Anyway, he says that China's, that the U.S.
has basically become the same as China in terms of its political censorship.
He says, I grew up within the heavy political censorship in China.
Today in the West, you're doing exactly the same.
Does that sound, does that sound fair?
It's exactly the same?
Yep.
Yup, it is.
It's exactly the same.
To me, I don't see any difference at all.
It's state-sponsored.
Now, you may have seen me on the X platform say that we should have a constitutional convention, and of course you dismissed it as crazy, right?
Crazy.
Now, here's what I should have clarified.
I'm not talking about removing anything that's in the Constitution.
Keep it all.
No subtractions.
Let me say that again.
I do want a constitutional convention, but no subtractions.
We need to add a few things because of something that could not have been foreseen when the founders put it together.
What they couldn't have foreseen is a level of internet communication and coordination which allows a whole bunch of bad behavior to happen.
Essentially everything that Mollie Hemingway just mentioned is all the stuff that you can do because of big money and big communication and organization.
So it wasn't really something that you could do so easily when the Constitution was founded.
So let me give you an example.
In my view we should add to the Constitution Then not only is there free speech, but our government cannot use outside non-governmental sources to further censorship.
Don't you think that needs to be added?
Because right now it's completely legal for the government to massively censor you.
They just have to put pressure on private companies to do it.
It's the same thing.
So that's something that could not have been contemplated when the founders put the Constitution together.
Am I right?
How would they ever have been able to contemplate that?
Now, if they could have contemplated it, do you think that they might have been inclined to say, oh, you can't cheat, you know, you can't do it by using private companies to do your bidding?
Oh, there you go.
Mark Levin has added me.
He's got some amendments he's looking for for the Constitution.
I guess he wrote a book about it.
But to me, that's an obvious one.
Is there anybody who would disagree with that being clarified and added to the Constitution?
Any disagreement?
To say that you can't use private companies just to do the thing that you're not allowed to do directly?
And that's probably not the only one.
Here's another one.
How about a constitutional requirement that you can't use computers to count your votes, and you have to do your elections on one day, and have a result in one day?
What about that?
Because that's something that, again, the founders probably never imagined, that there would be mass mailing of ballots, and, you know, a vote from home.
That probably was never contemplated.
So now that it is a reality, we could just add a little juice to it and say, don't do that.
Now, I think Molly Hemingway stopped short of saying what I'm going to say, but why would you design an election system the way it's designed right now unless the intention was to cheat?
Am I right?
You know, design is destiny.
You know, I spent much of my working career before I became a cartoonist surrounded by engineers.
So I worked in big companies where I was just, you know, it was all techies and engineers.
And when you're around engineers, you start seeing things as systems.
You don't see them as this one thing.
You always say to yourself, if I replace this piece of equipment, is that going to break something else in the system?
So you're just always seeing the system.
If you look at the system designed for elections, they're designed to cheat.
They're not designed poorly.
That would be different.
If they were designed poorly and somebody found a clever way to cheat, I'd say, ooh, maybe tighten that up a little bit.
But our systems are not designed poorly.
They are intentionally designed for one purpose that I can see.
If you were from outer space and somebody said, you don't know anything about America, you don't know anything about humans, but just look at their system.
Was it designed to make cheating easier, or was it designed to eliminate cheating?
What do you think the alien from the advanced planet would say about that?
You already know.
It is intentionally, and obviously, designed for cheating.
I don't think there's even the slightest doubt about that.
And both parties.
If you think I'm blaming the Democrats, nope!
Nope.
Not blaming the Democrats.
It's obvious that both parties have some kind of interest in keeping it a non-democratic process.
It's obviously not a democratic process.
All right, as you know, Gina Carano, actress who was fired from the Disney World because of her conservative points of view, and they misinterpreted some things she said to give themselves an excuse to part ways with her.
But, as you might also know, Elon Musk had offered that if anybody lost their job, or were harmed by something they said in their free speech capacity on the X platform, that he would put some legal money behind your defense, or your offense in this case, to go after anybody who fired you for your political free speech on X.
And so he's backing her lawsuit.
I think it's defamation.
I think.
Is it defamation or is it unfair firing or something?
I don't know.
But it's all sketchy and Musk is backing him.
But here's the interesting thing.
Musk got, anonymously, somebody sent them an internal Disney document that confesses their internal plan to discriminate against white people.
It's actually in writing.
Now, the way they say it is, you know, your movie must have this much diversity.
Same thing, right?
Your script, you know, must have this much diversity, etc.
So, right down, they've got a number of categories that must be diverse in a certain amount.
There's only one way you can get there.
You have to discriminate against white people to get to that point.
So, not only is it in writing, it's in really clear writing.
No ambiguity at all.
There it is.
Somebody's posting on the Locals platform.
On the Locals platform, they can post images.
So when I talk about stuff, often the image will appear in the comments.
One more reason to be a Locals subscriber.
Anyway, here's what I think.
There's also separately an article about how companies are rebranding their DEI.
Because they know that they have some legal risk for discriminating so overtly against white men in particular.
And so they don't want to say it directly, and they know that DEI has gotten such a bad name, they're literally just going to change the name.
Isn't that wild?
And companies are saying it overtly.
Oh yeah, DEI's got a bad name, so we're just gonna hide it.
We'll just build it into everything so it's just everywhere, but it doesn't have a name.
Yeah, and ESG is the same thing.
Now let me ask you this.
If you have to change the name of something and pretend you're not doing it, Because the public is incensed that you would be such horrible, horrible turds that you would be involved in such a thing?
Maybe you should rethink what you're doing.
If you have to hide it from the public, maybe you should rethink it.
Let me say that again.
You're a big corporation with stockholders.
If you ever have a fucking meeting in which you say, maybe we should hide what we're doing from the public, you already have made a gigantic fucking mistake.
And if you're even spending one second talking about how to hide it from the public, Oh my God, you're lost.
So, what I'd like to see, and normally I would hate to say this, but some big corporations have to be destroyed before anything's going to happen.
And the reason they have to be destroyed is that nothing short of it will change anything.
They actually have to go out of business.
And maybe Disney will be the first one.
I think they have enough money that they can stay in business.
But I'd like to see somebody on the scale of Disney literally just be put out of business.
Because that's the size of the crime.
The size of the crime is you should be out of business.
That's the size of it.
It would be like we found out tomorrow that Disney was a secret pedophile ring.
I don't think they are.
But imagine you found out that tomorrow.
Would you say to yourself, oh, well, once you get rid of the pedophile problem, the rest of your business is pretty good.
So we don't want people to lose any jobs.
So just the fact that you were a massive pedophile ring, they're not.
I'm just using this as an example.
Would you ever say to yourself they should stay in business?
Absolutely not.
You should say every single person should lose every penny they have involved with that company.
Well, you would?
Okay, you're a good libertarian.
But I would say this is as bad.
Racial discrimination, overtly, right in front of the world.
It's in the same class.
I would say it's equally, completely evil.
You know, one of them maybe is more of a, you know, emotionally we would say there's a bigger victimhood with children and stuff.
But I would say they're both like a 10 out of 10 in evil.
It's 10 out of 10, so you can't get worse than 10.
There's no 15.
Alright, so good luck to Gina on that.
Let's see, according to Axios, that's the punchline, according to Axios.
Did everybody get the joke?
Axios is so non-credible as a news source that whatever follows according to Axios is... Like, you could actually do the punchline first, and then you can do the setup.
Punchline, according to Axios, The United States economy grew faster than any other large advanced economy.
Wow, by a wide margin.
It's not even close.
The U.S.
economy is killing all these other smaller economies.
So, do you think that Axios, which is clearly a Democrat-leaning organization, do you think that they covered everything that you need to know about this story, or did they just put out a little piece that is coincidentally really good for the incumbent?
Joe Biden.
Oh, well, of all the things you could have covered today, why did you dig so deep to find this little statistic and build a story around it?
Is it because we needed to know?
Is it because Joe Biden would look better if he did it?
Now, is it newsworthy?
Absolutely.
Should Axios cover something like this?
Yes.
Everybody else should too.
Is there anything left out?
Yes.
Yes.
There are a few things left out.
Number one, what exactly, which part of Bidenomics made it happen?
What did he do?
Was it the mumbling?
Was it the forgetting the name of the President of France?
Was it starting the wars?
It probably was the wars, wasn't it?
Yeah, I'll bet it was the war.
Because if you fund anything and run up debt doing it, your GDP looks awesome.
So all you have to do is run up your inflation, although to be fair, the inflation would be in the other countries as well, so that doesn't explain the difference.
But it does get your GDP above zero.
I mean, this would be a different story if ours was zero, and the others were slightly negative.
We wouldn't be bragging about it so much.
But if you add inflation to it, you know, our zero becomes two point something, and the others are not as good.
But, Can somebody in the alleged news business ask somebody who is a Democrat, what part of Bidenomics made the GDP go up?
What part?
I'm pretty sure it's just funding wars.
And that's what they're bragging about?
If you leave out, it's because we funded wars.
I don't know if it is, but it seems like a good hypothesis.
And what if it's just that the American financial engine is just incredible?
What if it's as simple as, you know what?
You can look everywhere in the world and the United States financial engine and our entrepreneurs are just better than others.
What if it's just that?
Which, by the way, would be a tremendous story.
I'd love if that were the case.
You think it's AI and video stock?
But AI is not creating a lot of GDP yet, is it?
Not yet.
AI might actually reduce GDP in the short run.
It will increase the value of companies, but that doesn't show up in the GDP.
So the GDP should show some layoffs from AI in the short run.
In the long run, one imagines it pays off.
All right, let's talk about that border bill that's still a mystery.
As I asked, I said the other day that something's going on.
There's something about the way the border bill was created or who's behind it that is not cool, and it's also not ordinary, and it's not business as usual.
There's something else going on.
And Elon Musk weighed in on that same point, and asked, who wrote it?
Now, allegedly, this Chris Murphy guy was the co-author.
And he says, I'm the co-author.
And I say to myself, seriously, what does author mean to you?
What does that word mean, that you're the co-author?
Does that mean you sat there with your laptop and you wrote the first draft?
Because that's what, in my world, that's what an author means.
There could be an editor after that who fixes it for you.
But whoever writes the first draft is the author.
Do you think Chris Murphy wrote the first draft of this thing?
No.
No.
It's always somebody else.
It's always somebody who's an expert at it.
Some lawyer, lobbyist, somebody.
But here we have this thing that is like the biggest topic, and the person who says he's the author is obviously lying about it.
We don't even know who wrote it.
We don't even know who wrote it.
Now, get back to Molly Hemingway's summary of the whole enterprise being corrupt.
There's something going on here, but it gets deeper.
So, Kyle Bass points this out.
He says, the imbeciles writing the border bill snuck this beauty into the text.
Now, try to hold on to the top of your head.
Just try to hold the head on, because it's going to explode.
And keep in mind that it took until today for you to hear it.
It took until today for you to hear it.
And did it come from our government?
No, it came from Kyle Bass, who apparently took the time to look at it.
Just listen to this and see if your head doesn't explode.
This is actually in the text of the bill.
Quote, aliens from non-contiguous countries, in other words, not Mexico, Non-contiguous countries shall not be included in the sum of aliens encountered.
What?
It's a border bill for which I understand 85% to 90% of all the people coming across are not from Mexico at the moment.
Is that true?
Most of them are not from Mexico.
But did you know that the border bill had in it that limit that they had doesn't include the non-Mexicans.
And that's not the first thing they tell you?
That's not the first thing they tell you.
You have to wait a few days and Kyle fucking Bass has to tell you that.
I love Kyle Bass, by the way.
He's great.
What?
Who wrote that?
Who wrote that and why?
You're telling me Chris Murphy sat down and said, I think we won't count the people who were the majority of the migrants?
Really?
What's going on here?
What is going on here?
And how in the world did some Republican sign off on it?
Because there was a co-author.
Some Republican said yes to that.
Langford, is that who it was?
Did he know it was even in there?
Did he even read it?
I doubt it.
Doesn't look like it.
And, and did you know that the limits on, you know, there's some kind of limit, like if 5,000 people, whatever, get encountered, then there's some kind of change that they make.
And the changes, they just take all the people and shunt them toward the legal points of entry, where all they have to do is say, hey, how about asylum?
And we say, sure.
In theory, it wouldn't change even the flow.
It wouldn't change anything.
And this somehow got all the way to the final round where they were going to vote at it as part of a comprehensive package, including funding for Israel and Ukraine.
I don't know how this could be more broken.
This is beyond anything I've ever seen.
I've never seen anything like this.
And even Ted Cruz says Mitch McConnell has to go.
Ted Cruz just said in public, unambiguously, that the leader of his own Senate, the Republican leader, he has to be fired for this.
I tell you, Ted Cruz, he seems more like a patriot to me every day.
He's on my very short list of people who appear to be trying.
He appears to be trying.
To make things better in the country.
I do not see that from the rest of our politicians.
I just don't see it.
And he's very consistent about this.
So when his own guy, like, not only his own guy, but, you know, Mitch frickin' McConnell, you know, the most, you know, senior, important person in the party, who's not Trump.
Ted Cruz just says, plainly, he's gotta be fired over this.
Good job, Ted Cruz.
I love the fact that he didn't say, we need to look into it.
Or he didn't say, maybe somebody should work with Mitch.
He said, you need to be fired for this.
Absolutely.
Yeah, Mitch needs to be fired for this.
He absolutely needs to be fired.
And by the way, it has nothing to do with politics.
I'll say it again.
Whatever is going on here, everybody involved needs to be fired.
So was it Langford and this other?
You can't really fire these elected professionals.
But whatever happened is so dirty and so wrong that we need to really dig in to find out what happened here.
So Mike Lee, also one of the ones we trust, he said in a post, this feels like an elaborate practical joke.
He was talking about the border bill.
Doesn't it feel like that?
It doesn't look like somebody tried.
It doesn't have any, there's no indication that somebody actually tried.
It actually looks like it was either a joke, like actually a joke, like literally a joke, like somebody was kidding.
That's what it looks like.
I don't think that's the truth.
But here's another hypothesis.
It looks like this is what allows the Senate to separate the spending bill from Ukraine from the border bill.
Remember, the Republicans were going to hold up the border bill, I'm sorry, they were going to hold up Ukraine funding until they got a border bill.
And then what happened?
For some reason they were given a border bill that absolutely nobody could approve, and now you know what's going to happen?
Now they're going to separate them.
Why do you think this will be the first time a bill got separated?
It's because they think they can get the Ukraine bill funded separately.
This is so dirty.
To me, it looks obvious.
To me, it's obvious that it was a poison pill and that the border part was intended to be killed by both teams so that they could get funding for Ukraine, because Ukraine is probably where some of the important members of Congress do their money laundering.
It looks like somebody who's making money on Ukraine tanked the border bill for no reason other than to get a clean Ukraine bill because they think they can embarrass Congress into passing it.
That's what it looks like.
Or it's a practical joke.
But I'll tell you what it's definitely not.
It's definitely not a bunch of people doing the work of the people.
And it's definitely not politics.
If you think this is politics, that's not what's going on.
Whatever we're seeing is not politics at all.
Something deeper and dirtier and darker than that.
I don't know what it is.
So here's my suggestion, and I do mean this literally, this is not hyperbole.
They need to shut down Congress and just don't do any business until you figure out what happened here.
Because everything else is less important than finding out how we got that border bill.
We need to know that before you can do anything else because I've lost all You know how much trust that we have in Congress before but at least we figured they could limp through you know with their political theater and stuff it it felt like It was an ugly process, but somehow it lurched forward and that was good enough.
But now this is different.
We've left the realm of politics and we're in something else, but I don't know what.
And so I would literally say, no more votes.
We just got to get a committee together and we got to tell the American people, ideally in two weeks, because you don't want to be shut down forever, just shut it down and say, we need to tell the American people what we just did.
We the Republicans need to confess what we just did.
Now, if they can find out what the Democrats did at the same time, that'd be great.
But you need to shut it down, and you need to find out why this happened.
You need to tell us, or you don't give fucking any support from now on.
Because whatever happened needs to be explained, and I can't go on.
I can't take you seriously for anything else.
You don't get a penny.
You don't get a penny.
Now, will that happen?
No.
Because the system is too dirty.
Now, I say the same thing about the election, by the way.
And again, it's not hyperbole.
And I'm not joking, even a little bit.
I'm not positioning or negotiating or persuading.
We need to cancel the election.
The presidential election.
Because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans feel that our current design will be credible, no matter what the answer is.
If Trump wins, the Democrats are going to be marching in the streets because they'll say they don't believe the election.
If Biden wins, The Republicans are going to be back to whatever protesting they do for the same reason.
The minimum you need is a system that both sides say, I hate the result, but at least you counted the votes right, or at least it wasn't broken.
You need to figure out how to make our system credible.
And then you can have the vote.
And by the way, there's plenty of time to do it.
Because what I would suggest is just getting rid of the machines and getting rid of the mail-in ballots.
So subtracting things doesn't take a long time.
And then they would just add, you know, print some extra ballots between now and November.
Completely doable, right?
Just make sure it happens all in one day.
Now, of course, the federal government doesn't control the states.
Blah, blah, blah.
But there's probably some way they could do it.
There's probably some way we could force it through.
Because what would be the point of having an election that causes a civil war and you know in advance it's going to happen?
If you know in advance that people aren't going to trust the outcome, you need to stop, figure out how to make them trust it, and then do it.
Because the trusting the election is really, really, really, really Really, really important.
That's not optional.
You got to get that right or nothing else matters.
All right.
The Alaska National Guard looks like they're sending some assets or forces to help Texas guard the border.
Let me ask you.
Is Congress working if the states are sending military assets to compensate for the fact that we can't guard our border?
Do you need to know anything else?
There's nothing else to know.
If the states are actually organizing military assets because the government won't protect them, we don't have a government.
Whatever is happening is not politics.
There's something else happening.
Otherwise, you wouldn't get this happening.
I'm not too unhappy about that.
I do like the fact that there are still a number of Republicans.
Who are willing to say, we can't do this unless it matches the law or the Constitution.
And Mayorkas, although he seems intentionally not doing his job, that doesn't seem to be impeachable.
You can intentionally do the opposite of what you were hired to do.
It's not a crime, exactly.
It's just really, really bad.
So I guess in a weird way, I'm happy that there are enough honest people who say, you know, I just can't go there.
I can't make it a crime when it's not a crime.
So I appreciate that.
But I like also that they held Mayorkas at least accountable in the world of public opinion.
That's better than nothing.
I've called it a win because it surfaces the problem a little bit.
All right.
The FBI apparently arrested some man who was like a militia kind of guy who was planning to fire sniper rounds into some explosives to blow up something at the border because he doesn't think the government's protecting the border enough.
It's a Tennessee man.
Now, I'm surprised there hasn't been more of that.
Don't you expect to see, and I don't recommend this, this would be a very bad idea, didn't you expect to see volunteer snipers at the border?
I feel like somebody who was a sniper to begin with could just set up a position and take out, you know, not the migrants, that would be the worst thing in the world, but the cartel.
Because you can usually identify the cartel person, you know, the one waving people through and stuff.
And again, I don't recommend it, but it has to be taken in the context of not having a functional government.
If we had a functional government, even imagining that this could be a positive thing would be way beyond the line.
You know, the government needs to handle this, not the people.
But we don't have a functional government when it comes to the border, and again, Wouldn't you like to know why?
Because I don't know why.
But it's a fact.
So this poor gentleman will have great legal problems.
And I don't recommend it, because anybody who does this sort of thing is going to have the same kind of outcome.
It's going to be bad.
But I'm kind of surprised that we're not seeing more of it already.
You're saying that he'll be impeached next week?
All right, you're going to have to explain how that's going to work.
So I don't see him being impeached.
All right.
You might be right, but you can inform me later.
Well, rapper Meek Mills, another notable public famous black guy, says he posted a picture of Trump and Vivek.
And he said, wait till you all see who the black people in poverty are voting for.
Is that foreshadowing?
Now, how many days in a row are we going to see a prominent, respected black person saying, you know, maybe Trump?
Maybe?
I feel like a dam is about ready to break.
Now, I'm hearing that it's primarily the black men and that the black women are still You know, more solidly Biden.
But at some point, if every day or so, there's another prominent black leader who says, you know, you might want to keep your options open, I feel like the dam will just break and it'll just become a thing.
It's right on the border of becoming a thing.
It's not a thing.
But it's getting close to being a thing.
There's a report that Trump will have an easier time staffing the White House if he wins, because the Republicans are lining up and they're not embarrassed whatsoever.
And I'm really, really happy about that.
And the reason I'm happy is because it means that we now have digested and we understand that January 6th insurrection was a hoax.
And once you realize it was a hoax and you see the entire, let's say, portfolio of corrupt behavior from the Democrats, including primarily the open border, Trump does look like the adult in the room.
The fact that he went from this crazy, dangerous guy that was toxic to the most reasonable solution to our biggest problems, and he didn't do much to make that happen.
That's the beauty.
What changed wasn't Trump.
Not much.
I mean, Trump is still the same guy.
What changed was it's now obvious he's been right for years.
That's what changed.
So the people who say, you know what?
I get that this could be trouble for me, but why wouldn't I want to be on the team that's been right for years?
And now it's obvious he's right for years.
So I think that might be a big plus for Republicans.
There'll still be a bunch of people who are never Trumpers, but I don't think we need them.
All right.
Apparently Nikki Haley is, according to the press, and I quote, I think this was in The Hill, raking in cash.
What?
Nikki Haley, as of the reporting today, as of today, is raking in cash.
How do you explain that?
How do you explain that?
Have we ever seen a situation where somebody was totally behind and couldn't possibly win, and they were still raking in cash?
Huh.
Here's my question.
What are the people giving her cash know that you don't know, and I don't know?
Because what you and I know is it's a waste of money.
What do they know that we don't know?
Because the people giving the cash are not the dumb people, they're the smart people.
The people giving her cash know more than you.
They don't know less than you, they know more than you.
What do they know?
I can only think of a couple of things.
They either think that Trump's going to jail no matter what, No matter what, as in no matter what the legal process should have done, or they think he's going to be taken out with, let's say, greater prejudice.
I cannot imagine any scenario in which raking in cash for somebody that far behind makes sense.
Now, some say that they're pushing for her to be vice president.
That's not going to happen.
And they know that's not going to happen.
Who in their right mind believes Trump is going to allow Nikki Haley to be his vice presidential candidate?
There's no Republican who thinks that, is there?
And if no Republican thinks that, it's not going to happen.
So I reject the theory that they're trying to get her placed as a vice president.
They must want her to be the candidate.
So, what's going on here?
Again, I ask, this isn't politics.
Whatever this is, has nothing to do with politics.
Am I right?
Whatever's happening at the border has nothing to do with politics.
Whatever's happening with Ukraine and Ukraine funding, and the way Tucker Carlson's being treated in the press, that's not politics.
That's something else.
And we don't know what it is.
But the something else is pretty big.
And I don't know if it's all the same something else, or it's just a bunch of mysteries.
All right, so let's talk about Tucker.
Apparently Tucker's already talked to Putin, that's what we think.
And I'm gonna give you some Alex Jones advice that he gave to Tucker.
And say what you will about Alex Jones.
Listen to this advice, and you tell me that this isn't the best advice anybody ever gave.
You ready?
Allegedly, the interview's already in the can, but the way Alex Jones explains, the Tucker's production crew likes to really work over the material and make sure it's a nice, tight little product before they release it, which would suggest it might take several days before you see it.
Alex Jones says, you don't have several days.
You'd better put it out right away, because there's something coming for you, probably.
And probably the only way you can protect yourself is to have already published it.
If they can stop it from being published, they're going to do it.
You've got to publish it so that they don't have the option of stopping it.
Is Alex Jones correct?
Yes.
On a risk-reward basis, Alex Jones just gave the smartest real-world advice I've ever seen.
What is the risk of putting out this with some, let's say, imperfect editing?
Almost nothing.
Almost no risk to put it out right away in its raw form.
No risk.
If you told people we didn't edit it, then people would say, oh, not edited.
I get it.
What is the risk of waiting a few days to put it out?
Well, I wouldn't put a percentage risk on it, because I don't know.
But whatever the percentage is, it does include death.
It does, literally, include the option of death.
So, I don't know if you're fully appreciating the amount of guts this takes Tucker and his whole team.
Are you fully appreciating the level of Patriotic bravery that's involved here?
I mean, this is some serious danger.
And yeah, Alex Jones, good advice.
So I don't know if Tucker's gonna take that, but the EU, can you believe this?
There's some member of the EU who's talking about putting a travel ban on Tucker, because the EU doesn't like an American talking to a Russian.
For journalism.
For journalism.
The European Union thinks that they should ban Tucker from his normal right as a human being to travel to free countries, including theirs, because he interviewed, under the journalism, you know, condition, Putin.
There's something so wrong with that that I almost don't know even what to say.
How about the European Union should take care of Ukraine on their own?
How about that?
How about you take care of Ukraine?
That's your neighbor.
You're on your own, fuckers.
If you ban Tucker Carlson, there's no way I think any Republican should vote for any funding for Ukraine.
That's your problem.
Yeah, EU has money.
They still have money.
They can still drive cars and buy new clothes.
So if their existential threat seems too big, well, maybe they can fund it.
How about you don't even threaten an American journalist?
Fuckers.
How about you don't threaten our fucking journalists?
How about you don't do that?
If you want funding to keep you from being overrun by Putin, if that's what you think's gonna happen.
I don't think that's gonna happen, but... Yeah, too far.
That's too far, Europe.
How about fuck off?
Just fuck off.
Here's Glenn Greenwald again, a treasure to the world.
I won't say a national treasure, he's more of a global treasure.
He said, who are the American journalists who conducted even minimally adversarial interviews with Zelensky?
I'm drawing a blank.
That's all you need to know, that Tucker Can't be allowed to talk to Putin, and nobody talked to Zelensky with any, you know, critical approach.
And then Elon said, and I quote from a post on X-Day, Elon Musk said to Glenn Greenwald's point about nobody interviewing Zelensky, to be fair, it's hard for them to talk while giving a blowjob at the same time.
All right, well, I think that pretty much sums it up.
You know, I started by saying that Molly Hemingway was the best communicator in politics, but Elon's right behind her.
He's right behind her.
Hamas has a great fake counter-proposal.
The funny part is that Hamas is pretending this is serious.
It's obviously just for, you know, propaganda purposes.
But they've got this idea that, oh, why don't we do this phased approach where we release some people and, you know, you do some ceasefires and then, you know, we'll get some other friendly countries to, you know, work with us and, you know, we'll We'll rebuild Gaza.
None of that's going to happen.
Not any of that could possibly happen.
Not even a little bit, not slightly.
Why did they put out that proposal, if they know it's a complete non-starter?
They put it out so they can say they had a peace plan that Israel rejected.
Yeah, of course.
Yeah.
No, I do think that Netanyahu has to have absolutely no negotiation over all of the Hamas people being killed.
The fighters.
You know, the people who are involved in it.
They all have to be killed.
Or jailed forever, or whatever it takes.
Yeah, there's no way Israel's going to play that any other way.
And when I say they have to, I don't mean that's my opinion or preference.
I mean, that's simply going to happen.
So, having an opinion on something that's going to happen is useless.
It's like, ugh, I have an opinion it shouldn't rain today.
Well, it's gonna rain anyway.
My opinion didn't really have any connection to the weather.
And it's the same with Israel.
All of your opinions of what Israel could do, should do, not relevant.
This is not like other things where if public opinion was, you know, great enough.
No, no, not in this case.
In this case, public opinion has no value whatsoever.
Israel is just going to do what they do.
And here's what I think.
I think if Hamas weaponizes their kids against Israel, you should expect Israel to take your land.
Now, I want to be clear, I'm not saying that's a good thing.
I'm not in favor of it.
I'm not recommending it, I'm not endorsing it.
But I'm also not un-endorsing it, and I'm not saying it's bad.
Do you know why?
Because my opinion doesn't have any value to anything.
What does my opinion have to do with them?
I'm just saying, as an observer, who has no role in any of it and don't want to have any influence on it at all, if you saw a situation where your enemies weaponized their children, their children, to grow up and kill you or die trying, then if you decide that your response to that is to take their land permanently, you should expect that.
That should be the normal thing you should expect.
And so that looks like that's going to happen.
It looks like Israel will expand, you know, its biggest expansion in its history, I guess, since the founding.
And when this is looked at 200 years from now, if everybody's still here, you know, at least if the countries are still somewhat the same, they're going to say it was a genius move by Israel.
And yeah, what are you going to do?
You know, once their children have been weaponized, Just take their land.
Because you can't fix that situation.
That's something they control.
You can't, you know, take their children from them.
So once they've weaponized their children, you just have to treat it like a virus.
And when I say I have to, I don't mean it's my recommendation.
I don't mean it's my preference.
And I'm not endorsing it.
I'm saying there's only one thing you can do.
So if somebody does the only thing you can do, What am I gonna say about that?
It's the only thing you could do and then if you decide that after you've You know put up with this that you want to just take their land and keep her forever.
I Say the same thing.
Well, would it matter what my opinion was?
It's just gonna happen, but I do think it was a free pass.
It's a free punch I think if your enemy weaponizes their children and To die trying to kill you for the rest of your life, no matter what.
You could take their land.
Yeah, I wouldn't have any moral or ethical qualms about that whatsoever.
Now, it'll be a huge problem.
You know, it'll cause terrorism forever, and there'll be a pariah in the international community.
But if you weaponize your children against them, they can take your land, and I'm not going to complain.
I'm going to observe, and I'm not going to endorse it.
But don't ask me to complain on your behalf.
That's the best way to say it.
Because I don't want to go anywhere near endorsing it.
I don't want to be anywhere near endorsing it.
I'm an observer.
It's just that I can't possibly support the Palestinians in this situation.
So I'll just watch.
We'll just observe and what happens, happens.
Saudi Arabia said that they will not engage in diplomatic relationships with Israel until there's an independent Palestinian state and an end to the war in Gaza.
Is Saudi Arabia playing this correctly?
Because remember, The whole point of Iran's, allegedly, that Iran was trying to put a wedge between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and if Saudi Arabia acknowledges the wedge and says that they will do what Iran wants them to do, apparently, which is not deal with Israel, does that mean that October 7th worked?
And that Iran's strategy worked, and that Saudi Arabia is giving them a victory.
Is that what's happening?
What would you say?
What would you do if you were Saudi Arabia?
Or more to the point, what should America do?
Because are, I don't know, are they an ally?
Do you call Saudi Arabia an ally?
Or is that maybe taking it too far?
We work productively with them.
So is that good enough to say ally?
Yeah, we sell them weapons.
I'll say ally.
Yeah, if we sell them weapons, I think they're an ally.
I feel like they're close enough.
You know, that doesn't mean everything they do we're gonna like, obviously.
But I'm going to endorse Saudi Arabia's play from a political perspective.
The one thing I keep seeing out of the Saudis is good judgment.
Would you agree?
I feel like every, lately, you know, the last few years since the Prince, except for the Bonesaw incident, which if they hadn't got caught, you know, maybe that would have been a good idea for them too.
But, again, I'm not endorsing any murderers or evil, I'm just observing that it may or may not have helped their national interests.
But the Saudis, they do seem like quite credible and rational players.
Would you agree that they seem rational?
Like, whenever they make a play, you say to yourself, hmm, yeah, I can see that.
I see why they did that.
I think this is the right play.
It's just not good for Israel.
It's not good for the United States.
But that's not their job.
Saudi Arabia needs to do what's good for Saudi Arabia.
And my reading of the situation is they can't just act like the Gaza War is not happening.
Yeah.
What bone saw?
So once again, I'm going to give credit to Saudi Arabia for, I think, rationally pursuing their national interest in a way that I can completely understand.
It's just not good for me.
It's just not good for Israel.
But hey, you know, they have that right.
So I think they're probably just gonna keep their heads down and wait for a better time.
Patience would make more sense than, you know, just causing more trouble.
So I think the Saudis are playing it correctly, and it also gives them some negotiating position, right?
So that's smart.
The Saudis are also good negotiators.
That's why there is, you know, I think that's why the Abraham Accords even exists, is because the Saudis are good negotiators.
So, and America and Trump was a good negotiator, and Jared Kushner.
So, that's all I got for you today.
In the best live stream you're going to see today.
And I'm going to say thanks for joining X-Platform and YouTube and Rumble, too.
Coming to you from the Rumble Studio.
And you should buy my book, Reframe Your Brain, if you haven't already.
Look at the reviews.
If you have any question about it, just look at the reviews.
And you will be convinced quite quickly, I think.
It's probably one of the most impactful books to change your life of anything you could ever touch.
And that's real.
That's, you know, obviously I'm marketing, but it's also real.
It genuinely is the most impactful book probably you could ever touch.