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, Super Bowl Politicized, Heartland Institute, Election Irregularities, San Francisco Waymo Fire, Gender Affirming Care, Mental Health, Tucker Carlson, Tara Reade, NATO Corruption, NATO Non-Expansion Deal, Zelenskyy Origin, Ukraine Corruption, Victoria Nuland, NYT Propaganda, President Biden, Hur Report Spin, Mike Lindell, Debanking, Poisonous Food Supply, NATO Trump Hoax, NBC News Propaganda, Soros Prosecutor Investigations, Vivek Ramaswamy, President Trump, Scott Adams
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Happy Super Bowl and welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams, the best thing that's going to happen to you today.
And that includes the Super Bowl.
Yeah, even with two national anthems, still not as good as this one.
Now if you'd like to take this up to levels that can only be described as super, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank of shells or a stein, a canteen jug or a 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, the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go!
Mmm.
Delightful.
Dare I say super?
Well, my theme for today is things in the news that my smart Democrat friend will never hear.
Things in the news that are well established as facts that my smartest Democrat friend, he'll never hear.
And just watch as we go how true that is.
It seems like one of those things that, you know, clearly would be some kind of exaggeration or something.
Nope.
Nope.
It's going to be fascinating.
Well, of course, the big news is that the Super Bowl is today.
And because we're America, we tried very hard To find some way to ruin one of the best things we do, the Super Bowl.
How could we ruin it?
Hmm.
Could we make it super political?
Yes!
Let's do that.
Let's make it super political.
Let's add a national anthem for—well, it's the Black National Anthem.
And I, for one, say that we can't—I can't get enough of this.
I think we should have the regular National Anthem, which I call obsolete.
And we should have a National Anthem for every individual group in the country.
Because, you know, that's what the whole point of a National Anthem is.
That each individual group gets their own.
So I would like an anthem for bald white guys.
I think I'll start writing that.
And if you're not willing to run my National Anthem, well, I guess you're some kind of a bigot, aren't you?
Yeah, we need to embrace and amplify this.
If you're complaining about the Black National Anthem, I think you're completely off base.
Because I would like to hear the Filipino-American National Anthem.
The Albanian National Anthem and maybe the Scottish, Scottish-American National Anthem.
There are a lot of Irish.
Do they have any kind of a National Anthem?
Latino, the Latino National Anthem.
Why can't we see?
Italian, exactly.
Italian-Americans, okay.
So let's get some national anthems for all of them.
Now, in all the hubbub about the Super Bowl, could we take a moment to not lose track of what's really important?
Yes, yes, sports are fun.
They're fun, and they feed our souls in some ways, but let's not lose what's important.
What's important is that just a few short years ago, there was this massive problem of our police abusing black people that they had stopped for arrests.
Huge problem.
And the public responded.
There were massive Black Lives Matter riots, which some would call protests.
And there was lots of kneeling, a lot of kneeling.
As sports events.
And a lot of people were, you know, cynical.
And they were saying, how can this kneeling and this protesting, will it really make a difference in our terrible racist country?
How could this work?
But it worked.
It worked.
It turns out there hasn't been a single instance of police abuse of black citizens since Biden was elected.
And no need for kneeling.
The kneeling is done.
Can we all just take a victory lap for a moment?
Honestly, I was a little skeptical that it would help, but it did, and I don't think you can doubt that.
So here's something that my smartest Democrat friend will probably fail to notice, that the Black Lives Matter protests and the kneeling completely worked to eliminate police brutality against black Americans, and I think we can all celebrate that.
All right, I'm moving on.
Oh, I'm trying to move on.
I'm trying.
Taylor Swift!
Taylor Swift!
I couldn't do it.
I couldn't do it.
I tried to talk about the Super Bowl without mentioning her and I literally, my body took over and something happened to me.
I couldn't actually do it.
All right, but having handled that important business, let's talk about a study.
How many of you are aware that the Heartland Institute did a study on the mail-in ballot situation and determined, through statistical means, that the 2020 election was, quote, almost certainly won By Trump.
Now the almost certainly is they do a number of scenarios and almost all the scenarios show that he won handily.
Now the without getting into the details of this study it went into let's say the irregularities and the legal violations involved, because in lots of cases there were, let's say, ballots that were counted that maybe technically shouldn't have been because of dates or some irregularity about them.
So there were a number of categories of things which happened that were unusual for that year, and if you were to basically adjust any of the irregularities, Trump wins every time, almost every time.
Now, do you believe that my smartest Democrat friend, who I often like to mention, do you think he's aware that there is a study that put a lot of effort into looking at it and came up with the answer that there's no way that Trump do you think he's aware that there is a study that put a lot of effort No, Nope.
He will have no idea that it happened.
Now, I'm not saying that he will question it.
I'm not saying that he would believe it if he saw it.
I'm saying he'll never know it exists.
Our press has gotten to the point where they can just disappear anything.
We first noticed this several years ago, right?
You notice that the press could make any story disappear?
Just imagine that there's a major study that largely proves the election was maybe not rigged.
But because of the way it was done irregularly and the way things were, let's say, overlooked that normally would have made a vote not count, it's a pretty big story.
Now, I don't know if it's true.
You know, I spend a lot of time telling you that people do the statistics wrong, and they're looking at the wrong data, and all the data is wrong.
So I wouldn't automatically assume this is true.
Don't automatically assume it's true.
That would be irresponsible.
But I'm only talking about the news.
Do you think that if the news had gone the other way, It wouldn't be in the mainstream media every single day?
Oh, yeah.
If they had done the same kind of calculation on Trump's 2016 victory, and they had found the same statistics, just they would be reversed?
You think that wouldn't be the biggest story in the country?
Of course it would.
And it wouldn't matter if the statistics were correct or not.
So the story is not even, you know, just whether or not the election was sketchy.
The story is that this can never get any oxygen.
Just it can't get any oxygen.
It's amazing.
All right.
And the one place I saw it was behind a paywall.
So the only place I saw it was behind the paywall.
It must be somewhere else by now.
All right.
Did you ever see a terrible crime that you couldn't find a way to feel bad about?
Has that ever happened to you and then you don't want to admit it?
You know, I've told you that when I see a serial murderer, But he did a really good job of planning and executing, obviously.
I always say, well, that's terrible.
I certainly feel bad for the victims.
And then there's a part of me that I don't like to admit that's a little bit impressed by the level of planning and work that went into it.
A little bit impressed.
I just don't say that part out loud.
Well, here's another one of those situations.
So apparently in San Francisco, there was a Waymo vehicle, Waymo a company, that makes self-driving cars.
And for reasons unknown, I guess a crowd decided to graffiti one of these cars, and they surrounded it, and then they broke a window, put some, I think, fireworks on the inside, and it caught on fire, and it became a big spectacle where they Big spectacle where everybody's dancing around and celebrating.
Now, I do not want to see any self-driving cars being destroyed.
For any reason.
Right?
So, everything about that is odious.
Except, I probably shouldn't admit this, but I kind of love the attack on the self-driving car.
I don't know why.
I don't know why.
I feel like it's the same reason probably the crowd responded.
You know, first of all, I'm a boy.
Alright?
I'm a boy.
So I like to see shit blow up.
Is that wrong?
I can admit it.
I like to see stuff blow up.
In fact, there's a whole Instagram page or channel or whatever you want to call it, that is just stuff blowing up.
I can't tell you how much time I spent looking at that thing.
Wow, that blew up too.
Look at that.
Is this going to blow up?
It blew up!
I never get less interested in it.
So I can kind of appreciate it, even though I disavow it.
Don't do it.
Don't catch any self-driving cars on fire.
But I totally get it.
I get it.
Just don't do it.
All right, here's my prediction for the day.
How long before a terrorist uses a self-driving car to deliver a bomb?
Yeah, you just got quiet, didn't you?
Because there's no way that won't happen.
It would be the best way to do it.
I can't think of a better way.
Now, I assume the self-driving cars will have some kind of way to indicate if a human is in it, but you don't really need to be in it.
Do you?
You know, couldn't you call a self-driving car, put a Put a dummy in it and a big, you know, dummy full of explosives in it.
And if anybody looked in the... I don't know if anybody monitors it to see if there's a human there.
But it kind of looked like it.
It's gonna happen.
There's gonna be a self-driving car that carries a bomb eventually.
So look for that.
Here's some shocking science news.
This is shocking.
So the American College of Pediatricians reviewed more than 60 studies and concluded, quote, there is no long-term evidence that mental health concerns are decreased or alleviated after gender-affirming therapy.
Huh.
It's almost like the whole thing is sort of a mass hysteria or something.
It's almost as if it's not based on either observation or science.
It's almost as if everything that you knew to be true is true.
Now, I did actually expect that some people would report better mental health.
But to say there's no long-term evidence, none?
Are you saying you couldn't find one person?
To say I'm better off?
How is that possible?
You know how I always mock studies that I disagree with?
Whenever the conclusion is something I don't like, I remind you that science is all rigged and bullshit and all the data is bad and the peer review is ridiculous.
That is when I don't like the result, where I disagree with it.
Do you think this result is true?
I don't think there's one chance in the world this is true.
Whoever did this study and found out there is no long-term evidence?
None.
Not a single person.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe you can't get a single person to say, yeah, this worked out for me.
Glad I did it.
Not one.
Now let me remind you what cognitive dissonance is.
Do you know what cognitive dissonance is?
It's when you do something that doesn't make sense, even to you.
Even to you it doesn't make sense.
And so you reinterpret it in a weird way that makes it make sense when you know it didn't make sense.
So it's how you protect your brain from thinking you're ridiculous.
So, everything I know about the world suggests that even if, let's say you took a thousand people who transitioned when they were young.
If you took a thousand people and talked to them, I would expect at least a quarter of them to say it worked, even if it definitely didn't.
Even if, and I don't know if it did or not, I'm not saying it did, I'm not saying it didn't, I don't know.
But there's no way you don't get at least a quarter of the people saying, I'm pretty sure it worked.
I think, you know, maybe I'm not happy, but I think I would have been worse off if I hadn't done it.
So how in the world is this the only survey in which 100% of the people say the same answer?
You believe that there's a survey of a large group of people about any topic, any topic at all, be it health, Be it political, be it not.
You think there's any topic where 100% of the people will say the same thing?
Any?
No, obviously this is bullshit.
Now, how many of you wanted to immediately believe it because it agrees with your political point of view?
I did.
For the first five minutes, I thought, well, that's something.
Hey, there's some evidence.
And then I think about it for like one minute, and I realize, oh, why would this be the one thing that's true?
Everything else in the news is fake.
All of it.
And this is going to be the one story that's true?
Maybe.
But the odds of it are so small, I'm going to discount this as bullshit.
All right.
So this did change my plans, though, because for a while when I was thinking that that maybe, you know, maybe I could remove my balls and I'd be happier.
I mean, I didn't really make a plan for it.
I was just looking at all the options.
I was like, you know, maybe I'd be a little bit happier.
And then I thought, maybe I could get the Apple Vision Pro, and using enhanced reality and virtual reality, I could just make it look like I had transitioned.
But I'd be the only one who knows.
Like, I'd look in the mirror, and I'd just see myself as a woman.
And by the way, not just a woman, but a woman who could do pretty darn well in sporting competitions.
And I don't like to brag.
Tucker Carlson allegedly met with more than Putin in Russia.
There's a report that says, I don't know if it's true yet, that he met with Edward Snowden and Joe Biden's accuser, Tara Reade.
She's the one who accused him of sexually abusing her.
What do you think?
Do you think he talked to them?
Now, it is making it look like... I like the fact that Tucker Carlson appears to be not afraid of anything.
But of course the narrative that's being used against him is that he's being a, what do they call it, a useful idiot?
Yeah.
That Russia's using Tucker Carlson for their propaganda.
How many of you would say that's a true statement?
That Putin is intentionally using Tucker for propaganda?
Obviously.
Obviously.
Yes.
Transparently.
Obviously.
100%.
No question about it.
Is that a problem?
That's just describing everybody who ever did an interview anywhere.
Do you know how many interviews I've done?
Do you know what my purpose of the interview is?
My purpose of the interview is propaganda.
I want me to look good.
And I want people to, you know, maybe buy my book or something.
Do you think I'm there to tell you the truth?
I mean, I don't generally lie, but I'm not there to tell you, like, the whole story.
Have I ever done an interview where I said, you know, I wrote a new book, the reviews are great, if you look at it, but to be honest, I have terrible character.
If you want the full story, the book's okay.
I mean, I'm being honest, but I'm kind of a jerk.
So maybe you should think about that and not buy that book.
Right?
I don't tell you that.
I just say the book is good.
You'll love it.
Which it is.
You'll love it.
You should see the reviews.
They're crazy.
Reframe your brain.
You should get it right away.
It'll change your life.
It'll actually change your life.
Literally, it will change your life.
But no, of course Russia is using it for their propaganda.
Of course.
But it's all transparent.
We all know it.
It still works.
It doesn't matter that you know it's propaganda.
Still works, because it does expose you to a point of view you hadn't seen before.
But I do wonder why Tara Reade is in Moscow.
It's for her safety, isn't it?
I think she was afraid of actually being killed by the Biden regime.
Do you think she had inside information?
Or was she always working with Putin?
I don't know.
I suspect she wasn't working with Putin, but Putin is smart to give asylum to people like that, to Snowden and Terry Reid.
Yeah, she alleged that she was in trouble.
I don't doubt it.
I don't doubt that she got death threats.
You know, I think people on both sides are getting death threats all the time.
Anyway, so I like that Tucker's talking to all these people just because nobody else is doing it.
And if you didn't know that the other side is pushing propaganda, you shouldn't be watching the news in general.
I mean, if you don't know that Putin is trying to push some propaganda, you're really not qualified to watch television.
That should be kind of obvious.
All right.
So there's more evidence that NATO was always the baddie, and that maybe the story we've been fed for years is completely bullshit.
Because it is.
Of course it is.
That doesn't make Putin a good guy.
No.
It just means that you've been lied to for years.
All right, let me give you an idea.
So do you know that when the German reunification was on the table, Then NATO promised that if Germany reunified, that NATO would not push further toward Russia.
And it's in writing.
That was the actual agreement.
And that was a pretty good agreement, in my mind.
Because unifying Germany is a pretty big deal.
I mean, it's a really big deal.
So if you could get that, and the only thing you had to give up is to agree... Well, I saw it in writing.
The only thing you had to give up was Expansion of NATO, I feel like that would probably be a pretty good deal.
I see some people saying it's not in writing, and you might be right.
I did see the actual writing.
So I saw the document with that clause circled this morning.
Is it true?
I don't know.
I mean, it might be fake.
But anyway, so the reporting today is that NATO has been lying.
NATO lied about Ukraine.
NATO lied about Germany.
And NATO has just been an expansionist power.
And that it's all about the military-industrial complex and the neocons pushing it.
And it was never about peace.
It was never about that.
It was about destroying Russia and getting their energy resources and degrading them and making our military-industrial complex richer.
Of course, it's always more complicated than that, but that's part of it.
Now, do you believe that?
Do you believe that NATO might have been the one that was lying and being aggressive and threatening?
Now, that doesn't mean that Putin wasn't also lying and threatening and being aggressive.
Nobody's giving him a pass.
I'm not giving him a pass.
I'm just saying that in situations like this, it would be normal that both sides suck.
And everything that we've seen about everything in America in the last seven years would suggest that NATO is corrupt.
Now, the reason I say that is that everything else is.
Everything.
Everything else has a monetary connection, which NATO has in a very big way.
Everything with that much money involved is corrupt.
Everything.
Everything is.
There's no exception.
Once you get that big, And there's that much money, it's always corrupt.
In some way, if not thoroughly, at least in major ways.
So you don't have to wonder, you just have to know it's a big entity with lots of money involved.
There's nothing else you would need to know.
Do you remember all those audits?
I don't.
Do you remember all the whistleblowers?
I don't.
Well, you don't know what's happening with NATO.
It's just like a big old slush fund as far as we're concerned.
According to Colonel McGregor, He was talking about Zelensky.
He reminds you that Zelensky was an actor, which is weird to go from actor to head of a country, but not unprecedented.
Ronald Reagan, for example.
You could argue that Trump was on TV before he was in politics.
So it's not that unusual that a charismatic person becomes leader.
But what you might not know, Is that the same billionaire that funded Zelensky's TV rise is the one that funds the neo-Nazi Azov battalion, this is according to McGregor, and also supported Zelensky for president.
With the blessing of Victoria Nuland, who some say is the CIA's operative who's just ruining Ukraine for some purpose that is hard to discern, but has to do with money and whatever.
And that Zelensky ran for office under the promise of peace, but almost as soon as he got there, it turned into the biggest war ever.
Is that a narrative that you accept, or is that just the alternative narrative?
Because the narrative of the people who would like us to fund Ukraine would be that he's this democratically elected leader in a democratic country that canceled elections.
He's only there because the United States staged a coup in 2014.
To me, it looks like every single part about the Ukrainian experience was corrupt and wrong, and not even in America's best interest.
That's what it looks like.
And so people are saying, hey, if we stopped funding, it would be a tragedy.
To which I say, OK.
Like, I don't like tragedies.
But that's not really a reason not to do it.
That's not good enough.
Because funding them created the biggest tragedy.
Do you think that stopping funding them is going to make it worse?
Yeah.
It's a money laundering headquarters, we assume.
Yes.
To me, stopping funding is the easiest decision in the world.
Because we've lost all faith that funding makes things better.
And all the evidence suggests it makes things worse.
Now let me ask you this.
Would you feel bad if the poor Ukrainian citizens ended up being managed by the evil Russian Empire?
Would you feel bad for just the ordinary citizens?
Not the politicians.
Not the generals that fought against Russia.
Not them.
They're all going to be dead.
But would you feel bad for the citizens?
Well, not compared to what they're going through right now.
Not compared to what they're going through right now.
And it seems to me that the only reason Putin has a claim at all is that his management of some areas appears to be superior, according to the locals.
You know, I'm not saying it's superior, but if there are people who would vote in a referendum and will take Putin, that means something.
I mean, assuming the referendum isn't rigged.
So I would say that there's no argument anymore in favor of funding Ukraine.
The fact that Ukraine will lose I think is irrelevant.
I think that at this point it seems obvious that any negotiated settlement would give Russia the parts they already control and probably Russia would be happy not controlling the rest of it.
At least short term.
You know, long term they might push for it in a variety of clever ways.
But I can't see any reason to support Zelensky.
I don't even see him on my side.
I don't see Victoria Nuland on my side.
Do you?
So why would I fund somebody that I can't even tell if they're on my side?
It seems like that would be the minimum requirement.
Are they even on my side?
I don't see it in any obvious way.
I see them taking my money.
I don't see them making me safer in any way.
All right.
So there were two U.S.
representatives who voted against a measure that would prevent any of the participants in the October 7th terrorist attack in Israel from immigrating to the U.S.
Now, I can't think of an easier thing to pass.
Can you imagine anything that would be easier than saying, let's not allow the terrorists who actually helped overrun Israel and murdered people and take children as hostages and all that.
And so our representative has wisely said, let's pass a measure.
Or vote on something that will keep them out of the U.S.
in case they try to get in.
And believe it or not, Rashida Tlaib and Cori Bush voted against it.
They voted against allowing terrorists, known terrorists, not potential terrorists, known terrorists, into the country.
Now, on one level, that sounds terrible, right?
Sounds terrible.
AOC voted for it.
Yeah.
But it's also very clarifying, isn't it?
This answers all of my questions.
I have no further questions.
Yeah.
These two people are not on my team.
And how they remain in government is just a mystery.
But apparently Cori Bush is way behind in the polling for re-election, so it looks like that's going to correct itself.
I think Tlaib is probably safer in her district.
Here's some New York Times headlines.
Number one.
These are both from the New York Times.
I want you to see if you can tell which one is about Trump.
And which one is about Biden?
I'm going to remove the names, all right?
So the headline without the names.
One headline is, memory loss requires careful diagnosis, scientists say.
Memory loss requires careful diagnosis, scientists say.
All right, that's one headline.
At a different time, this one.
This person, I won't mention the person, is mentally unfit, no exam needed.
Is mentally unfit?
Oh, you guessed right.
Yeah, good guessing.
Yeah.
It was an opinion piece, but the New York Times said, no, you don't need to examine Trump.
He's obviously mentally unfit.
But when Biden is obviously mentally unfit in front of all of us, you know, memory loss requires a careful diagnosis.
You're going to need to get some scientists involved in this.
And This is the news, the New York Times.
This is the primary source of news for my smartest Democrat friend.
Do you think he's aware that the New York Times has reported these two similar stories, completely different depending on who the person was?
Probably not.
Because if you're not an ex, you don't see the two stories put next to each other.
So, anyway.
All right, here's another one.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Facebook de-boosted Tucker Carlson's Putin interview by 50% at the demand of the White House.
Is that a real story?
I'm having trouble believing that that was really in the Wall Street Journal.
So I'm going to put a question mark by that.
I saw it on X, but I didn't see a link to the article.
I see some people saying true, but did you see the actual article?
Is that really?
That's like a real story?
That today, after all the attention about the social media platforms suppressing things, did they just do that like a week ago?
Or this week, actually.
That just happened?
Wall Street Journal, Jim here.
You didn't see it.
Okay.
I'm going to say that that's... Alright, we've got a confirmation that's not real.
Alright, so I'm going to back off of that.
I'm going to back off of that.
Okay?
So let's put a fake news story, like a tech, on that.
Oh, it might be a year old.
Okay.
Might be an old story.
Okay.
Yeah, there was something about that that didn't ring true.
So let's say that one's probably not true.
That's my current take.
All right.
The End Wokeness account points out that satire and reality have merged.
So here's the example.
Biden said that guns should not be in the hands of the mentally unstable.
Joe Biden, your president, said, guns should not be in the hands of the mentally unstable.
And he says that while in the throes of dementia and controlling our new nuclear arsenal.
That's right.
The man who has obvious dementia, so much so that even his own team can't help but sort of acknowledge it's there.
Controls our nuclear arsenal and has the guts to come on TV and say, guns should not be in the hands of the mentally unstable.
Now, that would sound like a joke a few years ago.
And now it's just normal.
It's just normal.
Do you think that my Democrat friend is aware that Biden has a mental problem?
Do you think he's aware?
I don't.
I'll bet you that the news he heard is that Biden mixed up some names of leaders, and then he also heard that Trump does it too, and then he remembered that he knows some old people who do that too, and then he said, that's nothing.
Mixed up some names of some people.
I'll bet you that's what he thinks.
I'll bet you he's never seen the compilation clip I saw today of Biden losing his place.
It's like five minutes of Biden saying, well, anyway.
If you see it all together, it's a pretty damning thing, but you won't see it.
You'll never see that.
You'll never see the clips, never see the compilation.
All right, now here's my favorite part of the news day.
Jonathan Turley, who you should read every day, is calling out the mainstream media's reporting and the White House's reporting on the HER report, H-U-R report.
Now, that's the one that said that Biden was an elderly man with memory problems and didn't seem, like, essentially that he wasn't fit to stand trial.
Now, how can you possibly spin that?
The only way you can spin that is if you completely own the media.
You would have to completely own it To spin that.
And let me tell you the things that, according to Jonathan Turley, the things that they spun.
Number one, did everybody notice that all the news said that the comments about Biden's mental capacity in the H.E.R.
report were, quote, gratuitous?
How many times did you hear the word gratuitous?
A lot, right?
Do you think that that was accidental?
No, of course not.
That's professional work.
That's professional.
If you can make it sound gratuitous, you've said it's unnecessary to pay attention to.
But it was actually the most important thing that happened in the world.
So the news is telling their people, the Democrats, that the most important news this week, that a real serious person said that the President of the United States is incapable And put it in writing, and put his name on it.
And he works for the Attorney General of that President.
That is the biggest news in the world.
But you can make it go away with one word.
Gratuitous.
Because if you can get people to believe it was gratuitous, by definition it didn't matter.
It was unnecessary, it didn't matter.
They're trying to convince you that the observation Doesn't count because it wasn't his job to say it.
But of course it was his job to say it.
He's supposed to give the reasons that he's going to convict or the reasons he's not going to.
And that was one of the biggest reasons.
It was literally his job to say that.
And they reported that it wasn't his job.
Right in front of you.
It's the most obvious part of his job.
And the media said, well that's not his job.
With a straight face.
And they all said it.
There's not a single Democrat supporter who's willing to say, well, obviously that is part of his job.
He's supposed to say why he's not pressing charges.
And then none of them are willing to say, well, if you say he's incompetent, he needs to be removed.
And if the Democrats are saying, no, it's not true, he's not incompetent, well, then he needs to be convicted.
Let me give you the actual things the media lied about.
This is from Turley's article.
So here are some things he said.
President Biden said that the special counsel report found that Biden did not willfully retain materials.
Did you all hear him say that?
He went on TV and says, the report has cleared me.
It says I did not willfully retain materials.
Are you aware that the report says repeatedly, not even just once, that he definitely willfully retained materials?
It says it clearly and repeatedly.
And then the president went on TV and with a big smile told you it said the opposite.
Do you think that my Democrat smart friend knows that the actual report says the opposite of what the White House told you it says?
No, of course not.
He never would hear that news.
How about this one?
Biden said that he did not disclose any classified material to his ghostwriter, but the special counsel found precisely the opposite.
It reported very directly and specifically that he did exactly that.
And then Biden got in front of the world and said, nope, the report says I didn't do it.
The opposite.
And how did the media cover that?
They didn't fact check him.
They didn't fact check him.
I'm just beginning.
Again, this is from Jonathan Turley, who's a superstar.
You should read all of his stuff.
Biden said that the material that he had was not highly classified with, quote, that red stuff around the corners.
I guess that's what indicates it's really super classified.
In fact, her report found that the material was, quote, highly sensitive, including an Afghanistan related memo from the National Security Advisors to Barack Obama in 2009 marked top secret.
It was actually marked top secret.
So, do you think my Democrat friend knows that?
No.
Biden said that all of his materials were locked or in lockable filing cabinets.
We all saw the video of the boxes falling apart in his garage.
Every single person in America saw pictures of them just sitting in the garage.
But he said every single one was locked in file cabinets, or it was locked in his garage with his Corvette.
I think I heard him say that.
But how many people have access to a garage?
I don't know about your town, but in my town, our garage doors are open all the time.
I mean, it's just common that people have their garage door open, because there's not really any real crime where Biden lives.
And as Turley points out, Biden was working off of teleprompters when he told these lies.
That means that a number of his staff made him stand in front of the public and say the opposite of what the report said.
And that that was okay.
And there's nobody in the media who's reporting what Turley is reporting.
In, you know, sort of the mainstream stuff you see on TV.
Nobody's reporting this.
He actually got up and said, hey, good news, the report says the opposite of what it says.
That happened right in front of you.
While we watched, that all happened.
Right in front of us.
Amazing.
So here's an interesting fact of things happening the opposite of how you think they should.
In theory, Biden's open borders were bringing in more voters for the Democrats.
And I know you've, probably everyone watching this has said that to be true.
No, he's bringing in voters.
Elon Musk has said it's true.
And it's obviously true.
They're bringing in people who they believe, they might be wrong, but they believe will be Democrat voters.
Now, but what's actually happening?
But what we observe is the opposite.
No matter how many come across, and the more they come across, the better Trump's poll numbers look compared to Biden.
So they're bringing in Democrat voters by the millions, and the net result is that the number of Democrat voters has been decreased by millions.
Has anybody noticed that the more Democrat voters they bring into the country, illegally, The fewer Democrat voters there are.
Because he's lost, you know, at least black men have bailed out to some degree.
So if the polls are correct, the more people who flow across the border to someday be Democrat voters, the more likely Trump will win.
But here's the thing.
Are you worried that the election will be rigged?
Is anybody worried that the election will be rigged?
Yeah?
I would like to remove all of your concerns about that.
For all of you who are worried that the election will be rigged, you should not worry about that.
Do you know why?
No, not until I tell you.
Do not worry about the election being rigged, because it doesn't matter who wins, the media will tell you that Biden won.
The media has gotten to the point where the election results could be 10 to 1 for Trump, and they will simply tell you Biden won.
They can actually do that at this point.
Now, I'm being hyperbolic.
I don't think they'll actually do that.
But I'm not joking about the following.
This is not a joke.
They have now created a media brainwashing enterprise that is so powerful and has so many layers, they literally, literally could show you the result of Trump winning the most votes, take it off the screen, and tell you Biden won, and actually sell it to the American people.
They could actually sell you the opposite of the poll results.
You don't believe it?
They just sold you the opposite of the H.E.R.
report.
They sold you the opposite of the report on Russia collusion.
They sold you the opposite of the Finding People hoax.
We elected a president Whose primary theme was a hoax that everyone in the media knew was a hoax, I think.
I mean, I think they all know it.
Just think about that.
Now, if you think that he can't run on a hoax, well, he did run on a hoax, and you watched it right in front of you.
You don't think we have a point, we've reached a point where the media can just tell you who won, no matter who won.
We have.
I'm not predicting it.
But we have literally, this is not hyperbole, we have reached a point where this is within the realm of completely practical behavior.
They could actually jail you for protesting it, am I right?
Would you go all January 6th?
Some people would, but I wouldn't, because I would just end up in jail.
I'd end up eating it.
If they just told me that Biden won, I don't think there's anything I could do about it.
And you couldn't either.
Just think about that.
They can now just tell you who won, and they can sell that.
Completely.
Completely.
They accused a YouTube movie for an attack on the embassy.
All right, so that's just a mind-blowing thought that they can ignore the election results no matter what they are.
But here's the good news.
At least our social media companies are totally legit.
Here's a story from a Doge designer who says that Meta has suspended the Facebook and Instagram accounts that were tracking Taylor Swift's private jet.
Now apparently the jet travel is public information, but you'd have to know where to look for it.
So there was some gentleman who had been reporting wherever Taylor Swift's jet is.
So I guess Taylor's people must have complained, and now Facebook and Instagram dinged him.
However, they did not ding him for tracking Elon Musk's private jet, and both of them are still running on Facebook and Instagram.
That's right.
They kicked off the accounts of tracking Taylor Swift, but not Elon Musk.
Are there any questions?
Are there any questions about whether or not the entire system is rigged?
The entire system is rigged.
Yeah.
Jack Posobiec points out that SNL was joking about debanking not even being a real word, but apparently Mike Lindell, the MyPillow guy, got debanked this week.
Mike Lindell just got debanked.
In other words, he can't do financial stuff.
Why?
I assume it's just politics.
I assume.
So let's see.
Our financial system is rigged.
The social media companies except for X are rigged.
What else is rigged?
Well, I'm going to keep saying this, not because it's new, but because it saves lives.
So if you don't mind, I'm going to save a few lives.
And you've heard it before.
Once again, I saw another old video of old New Yorkers walking down the street, and every one of them was a good weight.
They all looked healthy.
It is, of course, our food supply.
Our food supply is completely destructive.
Do you think your news is reporting that?
Well, maybe not the big news.
You know, there might be like individual blogs and articles and stuff about it.
But it is insanely obvious that the entire industry is killing the country.
Now, I've told you that, you know, I had horrible health problems for a few years during the pandemic of, you know, not related to vaccinations because I started before the vaccinations.
And, you know, great inflammation and, you know, I was gaining weight, but I thought, oh, it's just age related.
You know, everybody gains a little weight.
But as soon as I took wheat, sweets and processed foods out of my diet, My weight just dropped down to my perfect weight, stayed there, ate all I wanted all day long, as much as I wanted, as long as it was healthy food, and all of my inflammation went away.
Yeah, all of my inflammation.
I was actually giving up on exercise for a while, because it hurt too much.
Now I can sprint.
I can run all over the place.
Yeah.
So it was all it was just food.
It was just food.
And I saw Bill Ackman made a similar comment today that the food or food is probably a problem.
So, yeah, our food supply is totally rigged.
Our big pharma?
Totally rigged.
Our politics?
Totally rigged.
Our media?
Totally rigged.
But at least the financial system?
Oh, never mind.
Here's what I'd like to see.
I would like to see Congress, if there's any kind of a process, I don't know if there is, I'd like to see Congress do some kind of a resolution or something, or maybe a congressional inquiry, to find out who's the president.
Literally.
I want to know who's making the decisions.
Because it might be Jill.
And I feel like we need to know.
Now I don't know if there's any way to find out, I don't know if there's any kind of official, I don't know if there's an official process for doing that, but don't you think the Republicans need to make at least a show of it?
That they should at least make some noise that we don't know who's running the country.
Putin doesn't know who's running the country.
And apparently as far back as Bill Clinton days, if you believe this story, When Bill Clinton was initially interested in maybe Russia joining NATO, he came back and said, I was told we can't do it.
Meaning that he had a boss.
Or bosses.
Yeah.
Probably the CIA.
So I think that Matt Gaetz or somebody should, or maybe, you know, MTG should just try to ask who's in charge and actually find out who makes the decisions.
Now, of course, the White House will say, it's the president.
There was a study by a Cambridge academic who suggested that if Harvard hired its professors on a meritocracy, there would be almost zero black professors.
Do you think that's true?
That's true because you want to believe it's true.
Yeah, I don't know.
It's based on a study.
Based on a study by one person.
Is that credible?
No.
It's not really credible.
But if you wanted to believe it, it would give you some backup.
Here's what I think.
I think it's obviously true.
That there would be fewer, because that's the whole point of DEI, is to goose the system, you know, where it wouldn't exist on its own through normal means.
So there's certainly some distortion there.
But why is it that we keep acting like you can fix it once people are adults?
There's literally nobody who believes that, right?
Like, who thinks that you can have a poor education And then, as long as Harvard lets you in anyway, everything's gonna work out.
Well, it's really just the admissions process.
No, it's the poor education.
All of the problems we're trying to solve in our adults are already too late.
And why can't we focus on the school systems?
It's because the teachers' union is enormous, and they have a lot of money, because there are a lot of teachers, And they control the Democratic Party.
So the Democrats can't fix the problem that they are the cause of.
Systemic racism is 90% Democrats supported by teachers unions, and therefore we can't fix the schools.
If you could fix the schools so that every kid of every color and income could get a quality education, which should be a national goal, if you could fix the schools so every black kid had a really good shot at a good education, assuming their home life supported it, you don't think you'd get way better diversification?
And everybody would be completely happy with it.
Like, who would bitch about it if everybody got there the same way?
Nobody!
You know, nobody bitches about sports.
I mean, except jokingly.
Nobody bitches that there are a lot of black people in sports.
You know, way beyond the numbers in the population.
Do you know why?
Do you know why I don't bitch about that?
Because every single one of them got there on merit.
Every single one of them.
No exceptions.
I don't think there was ever one black guy who got into professional sports because he was black.
Probably never.
I mean, not in the modern world.
So, no.
Why don't we work on the thing that every single person agrees on?
School isn't good enough.
It's even worse in black communities.
And if you don't fix that, nothing else matters.
Nothing else matters.
Everything else will look exactly the same forever.
So I'm sort of bowing out of the adult diversity conversation a little bit.
I mean, you can't get away from it entirely.
But it seems so stupid to talk about the thing you can't fix when there's a thing you can fix that we're ignoring, and that it would fix the other thing as well.
All right, the latest hoax, you probably already heard it.
We were wondering what would be the summer hoax about Trump.
And the summer hoax is that he wants to encourage Russia to attack NATO allies who don't pay their bills.
Really?
Really?
Now, first of all, did he say that?
Something like it.
Yeah, I mean, that's not an exact quote, but he did say that, and we don't know if this really happened, he said that a member of NATO said, are you saying that if we don't pay our bills to NATO that you won't protect us if Russia attacks us?
And Trump reportedly said, as if this conversation really happened, we don't know, but he reportedly said, that's right, you're on your own.
Now, is there anybody watching this live stream who is so dumb that they don't know exactly what he was doing there?
Is there anybody dumb enough that I need to explain this?
I'm going to act like there's somebody dumb enough here that I need to explain it.
This is called a combination of a dad joke and really good negotiating technique.
Because if the NATO countries know they'll be protected without paying, why would they pay?
No, of course he's supposed to say, I won't protect you if you don't pay, even if it's not true.
He's supposed to say, I won't protect you unless you pay.
That's exactly what the president is supposed to say.
And in fact, we can even laugh at you after we say it.
Yeah, yeah, we're going to let them take over your country and turn you all into slaves.
Oh yeah, if that's what you want.
But hey, the other thing you can do is just pay your bills like everybody else.
But if you don't, and Russia attacks, you know, in fact, I think he even went further.
Didn't he say, like, he would support Russia attacking or something?
It was something like ludicrous.
Now, if you don't understand that he doesn't mean it, I mean, in the real world, he's gonna do whatever makes sense, always.
But he certainly should tell them he won't protect them if they don't pay their bills.
That's exactly what you want your president to do.
And so they're turning into, he hates NATO.
Now, by the way, he used the same technique, negotiating technique, with Putin, and he brags about it.
That he would nuke Moscow.
Now, as Trump said, well, maybe there's a 10% chance he believed it.
That's all I needed.
I just needed to put a little, you know, doubt in his mind.
Well, that's what he's doing with the NATO countries, if it really happened, that story.
He's just putting a little doubt in their mind.
Maybe I won't.
But you probably would protect us anyway, right?
Maybe I won't.
Maybe I won't.
That's exactly what he should say.
I don't know how many times Trump can do exactly the right thing, and then the Democrats will find a way to make it sound like exactly the wrong thing.
Not only did he do exactly the right thing, he did it funny.
That's like a home run with a little extra.
Yeah, a perfect negotiating stance.
You pay or we won't protect you, perfect.
There's literally nothing I would change about that.
You could not improve that with any change.
That is 100% absolutely perfect persuasion.
So they're going to say he doesn't like NATO.
So that's your hoax for the summer.
The summer hoax.
We're waiting for it.
Who's reporting the hoax?
NBC News.
Now, remember, you have to know the players.
It's not enough to know the facts.
You have to know the players to make it all make sense.
NBC News.
Typically understood to be a CIA asset, which is just in the propaganda brainwashing business.
Not really news.
That's what people say.
I don't have personal information about that.
But here is their headline on X. Former President Donald Trump said he would encourage Russia to, quote, do whatever the hell they want if it attacked a NATO country that didn't pay enough for defense.
Referencing a conversation from his presidency.
So of course they went with the hoax without any reference to the fact that it's the obvious thing to do.
That it was the obvious thing to say and it was the right thing to say.
They just report the hoax.
And then the Hill also reported it similarly.
All right, you remember Nate Silver?
Ney Silver was famous for being a statistical, statistical, what would you call it?
I don't want to call him a genius.
Let's say he was famous for his statistical takes.
But he's definitely a free thinker now, and he's not going to be kind to either side if they don't deserve it.
And I'm really starting, a guru, a statistical guru.
Let's take that.
Statistical guru, I like that, thank you.
But he hits hard at both parties now, and so he's a must-follow in my view.
Anybody who can criticize both parties with complete full throat, he doesn't hold back anything for either side.
I just respect that, even if I don't agree, I respect it.
So here's what he said about, he said, you don't demonstrate your seriousness that Trump is an existential threat to democracy by going through the motions to re-nominate an 81-year-old with a 38% approval rating, who 75% of voters think is too old, without giving anyone a choice, because that's just how things are done.
Pretty well capsulized right there.
Pretty well.
All right, and Hillary Clinton has said, even she says, that age is a legitimate issue about Biden, but that Trump is only three years younger, and that Biden is out there campaigning vigorously.
What?
Biden's out there campaigning vigorously?
I don't think he's done anything vigorously in ten years.
Except lie.
But this could be a cat-is-on-the-roof situation.
Because if Hillary Clinton is saying that age is an issue, although she says it's for both of them, I feel like that might be the way that the Democrats are getting softened up.
You know, even your most trusted Politician on the Democrat side, Hillary, who we all love and respect, and, you know, she's a certain age herself, so, you know, she would know, and gosh, you know, maybe we should take seriously this age thing.
Yeah, it could be the cats on the roof.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, is there any big story that I missed this morning?
I realized that I stopped reading all official news sites unless they're linked by a post on the X platform.
So I think I might be missing some stuff now.
There's a there's a Tesla S equivalent for Well, I don't know about that.
Trump made fun of Haley's husband?
Really?
I didn't see that.
What else we got?
All right.
So, I'm going to reiterate my suggestion from the other day, because the more I thought about it, the more I liked it.
If you believe that George Soros is destroying America by funding everything bad, from Black Lives Matter to eight district attorneys, then would it make sense for some rich billionaire on the Republican side to do investigations of everybody he funded?
Because I believe that everybody in the local scene, they're all corrupt.
I believe that everybody in the local scene, they're all corrupt.
I I think you could, you know, investigate any mayor of a big city, and you'd find corruption.
I think you could investigate basically every political member of every big city, and you would find corruption.
You just have to look for it.
Now, generally speaking, I'm very much opposed to looking for crimes.
You know, just like, oh, show me the person, I'll show you the crime.
It's very Stalin-esque.
But if you believe the country is being destroyed by the funding of one man's family, you should target everybody he funds until it's too dangerous to take his money.
So let's say you send to jail three district attorneys that were Soros-funded, and you make it clear that you're investigating all the rest of them.
And you're looking—you're going to look for anything.
And you're going to give them the lawfare problems of all time.
And it's completely legal.
Now, just as it's completely legal for George Soros' foundations and families to give money in the ways he's doing it—he seems to be doing it completely legally—it would also be completely legal to fund somebody to investigate, using totally legal means, the potential corruption of a political figure.
As long as nothing illegal was done in the investigation.
It could be just talking to people they know and asking for, maybe paying for whistleblowers.
Put up an award.
How about an award program for whistleblowers, specifically for Soros-funded entities?
How about that?
You don't even have to do the investigation.
You could just say a million dollars for every whistleblower that can bring down a Storos-funded person.
Because you wouldn't have to do a thousand of them.
You could do three of them and the rest would quit.
They'd be like, I'm out, I'm out.
You know, we're all being... Because as soon as the pattern is established that everybody Soros funds is going to be taken down, and I believe at this point that would be a legitimate political process, that they should all be targeted for elimination.
And I think it's just too dangerous to live in a country where Soros is controlling it.
So, while I normally would never recommend that you target a citizen who has not been You know, accused of a crime by the normal process.
I think this case is a special case.
I think that there's no justification for what Soros is doing except destruction.
And under that special case, I could get pretty aggressive.
All right.
Yeah, I guess Vivek was invited up to give a little speech at Trump's rally yesterday, which is causing people to imagine that Vivek would be the favored VP pick.
I'll say again, anybody who's not Vivek is going to look like a real mistake at this point.
If Vivek is not selected, it's going to look like a mistake.
Would you agree?
And that's different from other years.
I've never said that before.
I've never said that there's a mistake you could make with the Vice President, because you don't normally even think of that as the biggest deal in the world.
So normally you could get a, you know, Mike Pence, you could get a, you know, Kamala Harris.
It kind of doesn't matter that much.
You know, you can have your Dan Quayle and still get along fine.
But I would actually see, if he doesn't pick Vivek, assuming Vivek would say yes, if he doesn't pick Vivek, that would look like just an obvious mistake.
Which is not the kind of mistake Trump makes.
By the way, did you hear his, in his introduction, Trump used two adjectives to describe Vivek.
Do you remember what they were?
Smart was one, what was the other one?
Young.
Young.
Young and smart.
Now those were the first two words that came into his mind.
That's what he actually thinks.
And what would be better for America?
Younger and smarter.
I would love to see Trump Like actually deal directly with the question.
Could you have a vice president that's that capable?
Would you feel comfortable with that?
Because I want you to see the answer and you're going to be surprised.
Because I think Trump would say, actually I'm positive.
I'm just positive that Trump would say, are you kidding?
Smarter is better.
Why wouldn't I?
Smarter is better.
That's the end of the story.
I'm sure that's what he really thinks, too.
I do not believe that Trump is even a little bit threatened by super smart people.
I don't think that threatens him even a little bit.
I think he just says, you're on my team?
Excellent.
Let's get some stuff done.
All right.
Yeah, everybody always says the number one qualification for a VP is the ability to be president.
They don't always pick somebody like that, but we do see that the ability to be president is a pretty low bar at the moment.
Let me ask you this.
Is there anybody watching this, now that you see that Biden is actually the president, is there anybody who thinks they couldn't do the job?
Like you, personally.
Oh, you think you can do the job?
So you think you couldn't as well as Joe Biden is doing right now?
Does anybody believe that?
I spent most of my life thinking I could never be capable to be a president.
You know who ruined it for me?
Bill Clinton.
I used to think I was smart enough to be a president until I saw Bill Clinton.
And every time I watched that guy, no matter what you think of his politics, every time I watched him, I would say to myself, okay, I'm not that smart.
How does he remember all those leaders' names?
So to me, it was obvious that he was just extra.
And I think Obama is crazy smart, too.
You know, even if you don't like him, he's crazy smart.
But, you know, Reagan, you know, when I watch the old Reagan videos, I've watched a few recently, I was much younger when Reagan was president, so I'm not sure I was paying attention too much.
My take on Reagan, he's way smarter than he was given credit for.
Has anybody had that, has anybody had that realization?
I swear I spent all the time he was president I believe the narrative that he was not that smart.
But then you see him talk, and I'd forgotten how good he was.
He was a great communicator.
But you forget.
You forget how good it is.
When you actually watch it again, let's say with the perspective of time, and you see what our current leaders do, and then you see what he was doing, and they called him the dumb guy, he looked really smart.
In a practical way that matters more than anything else.
So that's all I got for today.
Thanks for joining on the X and Rumble and YouTube platforms.
Another great show, I'm sure you'll agree.
Things my smart Democrat friend will never know and never see.
