My book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Candace Owens, Dave Rubin, ADL, Israel Hamas War, Election Integrity, Rick Weibel, Stephen Richer, Kara Swisher, J6 Committee Withheld Transcript, Chris Miller, Liz Cheney, Federal Red Flag Centers, House Budget, Thomas Massie, Moscow Terrorists, President Trump, Summarizing America Post, 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
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Oh man, aren't you happy it's the weekend?
Audio is working.
Thank you, Paul.
Good to know.
Well, let's talk about all the things.
Of course, we will get to the big Russian disaster and all of that stuff, but some warm-up first.
These are warm-up stories.
These will just get you going.
Drink some coffee and feel good about this.
Brian Ramelli posts that there's a new study about how much energy we could unlock underneath the Earth.
Apparently there are these super hot rock geothermal structures that are all over the world in different places and you can just drill down and get into it and it would be enough energy just because the heat from it.
They could use the heat to convert energy and it would be enough to basically power the world many times over.
Completely clean.
Zero emissions.
It's just underground.
Now, does anybody remember, it was maybe 15 years ago, it was a while ago, I was blogging that the greatest technology of the future would be holes.
Does anybody remember that?
Because I remember that when I made it, it sounded like the least important prediction, but at the time I thought, you know, If we could ever figure out how to really efficiently dig holes, everything would be different.
You know, you'd be able to build underground gardens, you know, just everything.
You'd get free energy, water would be abundant.
You just got to be able to make holes.
Yeah, so Musk has his hole-making company, but you need one also that goes just straight down.
You know, one that just drills like crazy.
I mean, you could argue that fracking is basically a hole technology.
In a way.
Drill a hole, but make it better because you frack.
You know, get a little extra out of it.
Yeah, digging holes is the most important technology of the future.
It just sounds funny.
Anyway, I was speculating the other day, after getting a lot of troll activity, that you ever wonder what it would be like If Albert Einstein were alive today and had a social media account?
Like, what would that be?
If Einstein had social media?
I feel it would be like that.
Einstein would, you know, have an idea and he'd post it.
He'd be like, E equals MC squared.
And then the comments would come in.
And the first troll that hit the Einstein account would say, I used to think you were smart.
No wonder you're divorced.
Buy a comb.
That's how I imagine it would be for Einstein, if he had social media.
Well, Miranda Devine is reporting that the CIA stopped the Feds from interviewing Hunter Biden's, quote, sugar bro, the guy that keeps giving Hunter Biden lots of money when he needs it.
Why would the CIA prevent the Feds from interviewing somebody who seems Quite central to the understanding of the whole Hunter Biden situation.
Well, the obvious reason.
So, so the mic bends to the theory that Hunter should be viewed as a CIA asset, and that while he was making his own money over there in Burisma and Ukraine and other places, That he was probably part of a larger operation in which the CIA and the military intelligence were trying to wrest the energy resources away from Ukraine so that Putin wouldn't have it.
So yeah, it's exactly what you think.
Biden, Hunter, probably his dad, or probably, I would, my guess is that Joe Biden has been a CIA asset for the longest time, because apparently he had that job, you know, when he was a senator.
One of his committee jobs was the one that's sort of the obvious CIA asset.
So everything is basically points in the same direction.
100% of everything we see points in the direction that the Bidens are just part of the deep state CIA apparatus.
And then maybe all of our presidents in recent times have just been CIA-approved presidents.
That's my guess.
There's a report that there's a big increase in polyamory.
And it's not polygamous, so it's not like marrying more than one person.
They're just these situations where, you know, three people can be married.
Not married necessarily but living as a throuple instead of a couple and apparently this is on the rise and It makes perfect sense to me.
I believe what you're gonna see and maybe I'm just predicting what's already happening I think you're gonna see people forming let's say collections of Complementary interests almost like little tribes and So in my own life, I'm sort of, you know, drifting into that same situation, in which I have a smallish group of people that, you know, the people I like the most, family, etc.
And it's sort of a non-traditional collection of people who just like being with each other.
And if you're with people who like being with each other and they have, let's say, complementary benefits that they could, you know, do.
So, for example, there's some people who know how to do one thing.
Some people know how to do another thing and are willing to do it.
I believe that, although I will agree with you, the traditional family structure is the best if you can make that work.
The traditional family does seem to be the best deal.
When you can make it work.
I just think that the percentage of people who will be able to make that work is going to decrease every year.
And then we need something, you know, some kind of a backup plan for all the people for whom that won't work.
Because it's going to be so many people.
Because you don't want a bunch of single men wandering around looking for trouble.
You don't want a bunch of women who would have preferred to have children or some kind of a structure and just couldn't get one.
It's pretty unhealthy for society.
So I think you're going to find a whole bunch of situations where small groups of people get together.
I'll make another prediction.
You know how, um, I guess the cost of having a What they call the American Dream.
You know, the American Dream is, what is it, two or three kids and a nice house in the suburbs and a job or something.
Apparently the cost of that is three and a half million dollars now.
So the average person is going to have a real tough time achieving anything like the American Dream.
And they'll know it.
So what are you going to do?
Well, there is something that's shaping up that, in my opinion, is a natural solution.
I think there's going to be a lot of larger homes, you know, multiple bedroom homes, that a lot of senior citizens are going to be leaving because they don't need them anymore, or because they die.
And so there's going to be a glut of larger homes.
At the same time, there's going to be a decrease in families that would be the natural residents of those homes.
So, I think what you're going to see is people organize so that they basically are several roommates in a big house because nobody can afford a whole house.
You'll automatically have a babysitter.
Maybe you'll have one dog for the house.
So there's always somebody to keep the dog company and vice versa So I think you're gonna find that big houses with multiple people and maybe you might even see it happening before the senior citizen leaves so it might be a an 80 year old in the master bedroom and Three college students living downstairs.
It could be something like that.
You see a lot more of that All right, Candace Owens, as you know, parted ways with The Daily Wire.
Sounds like it was The Daily Wire's decision, not hers.
It's still a little bit unclear what the issue was.
Is that true?
You know, I've heard she wasn't as supportive about Israel.
I've heard it was some specific interviews or specific points of views.
But I don't know if it's one thing.
Does it seem like it's one thing?
Let me tell you what I know from being a public figure.
When you see a story that shows that Candace Owens, a public figure, and the Daily Wire are a bunch of public figures, where they're having some kind of dispute, here's the one thing I can tell you with total certainty.
You and I will never know the truth.
You and I will never, not ever, understand exactly what went on.
Right?
Because there's usually at least one part of these situations that nobody wants to talk about.
Like there might actually be something that nobody's even mentioned that was really the big deal.
Who knows?
Maybe it was opportunistic, they wanted to do it anyway, but they waited for something that sounded like a good reason.
Could be anything.
So, if you think you understand it, almost certainly you don't.
Almost certainly you don't.
Now, I wish well to all the entities involved here.
But, as always, I like to make the news about me.
Whenever I read a news story, I think, how can I twist this so the most important person in the story is somehow me?
That's just what I do.
I can't say it's a good thing.
I'm not proud of it, but it's going to happen.
It's going to happen right now.
So one of the things I learned when looking into this whole Candice situation.
Oh, by the way, she's going to be on Locals.
So Candice is moving to Locals.
And one more reason for you to be a Locals subscriber.
And I can tell you from my own experience that Locals has been a lifesaver.
If Locals didn't exist.
Thank you, Dave Rubin.
I could not have been as outspoken as I was, and certainly would not have been... I probably wouldn't have taken the chance of getting cancelled.
If I knew I didn't have something to fall back on, I probably wouldn't have been as outspoken.
So, I think Dave Rubin deserves some kind of free speech award.
I don't know if there is such a thing.
But the fact that he graded locals, with others of course, But creating locals and giving away that people like Candice and people like me can at least have some way to stay attached to some part of our career is huge.
It's really gigantic.
I'll give Dave double credit because it was only a few days before.
They had been saying on social media that he and Candace, in his, I think the way he said it was that they were no longer friends.
Was it about Israel?
I forget.
So, but they were, you know, disagreeing on content enough that it was personal.
And Dave immediately said, no, that's not going to stop her going to Locals, because the whole point of Locals is that people like Candace and like me can get a voice.
So congratulations again to Dave Rubin for being completely consistent on free speech and supporting it in a way that Is way more important than I think he gets credit for.
So I'll say it again.
If there's any kind of like free speech award, there probably is.
He's got to be in the running.
Just for creating one of the greatest free speech tools available.
Anyway, so one of the things I learned to look at this was that apparently the ADL have gone after Candace.
And something in me just snapped.
Because I like Candace and Um, you know, which is different from agreeing with everything she says, right?
We're all adults.
We know we can disagree and still like somebody.
I'm not sure what I disagree with.
I'm just, I have a vague memory.
There must be something I disagree with.
So when the ADL went after Candace, it sort of triggered my, uh, my own experience.
Cause the ADL went after me.
Imagine getting cancelled and having the ADL say, oh, by the way, he's a Holocaust denier.
How would you like your week to go that way?
Oh, you've been cancelled worldwide, all of your books have been pulled forever, and you'll never appear in another newspaper.
Oh, and by the way, the ADL says you're a Holocaust denier.
I'm not a Holocaust denier.
That's crazy talk.
That's pure crazy talk.
So, they would have to get this.
Now, you should be aware that the ADL, they support people who are Jewish, who are getting bad treatment.
That's sort of the dumb guy's explanation of what the ADL is.
Now, they don't work for Israel.
You all know that, right?
Like, they're not an employee of Israel.
They're an American entity.
But, pro-Israel, of course, because they're pro-Jewish.
But here's the thing.
Israel could turn them off if they wanted to.
Would you agree?
If Israel said, we disavow this group, they're all a bunch of racists, they couldn't really operate.
Now, I do know that Israel is not unified in their opinion of the ADL.
There are critics there.
But, I just saw them go after Candace.
I'm sure, unfairly, I don't even need to know the details because I don't consider them a legitimate entity.
I believe that they're just a Democrat attack dog.
And that what really mattered is that Candace was not pro-Biden.
If she had been pro-Biden, they wouldn't have gone after her.
It's as simple as that.
So, they are a totally corrupt organization, and their leader is.
I don't know about anybody else.
They might have a bunch of good people in the organization.
Let me say that.
It's just their leader is corrupt, in the sense that he doesn't seem to be doing what he was hired to do.
He seems to be some kind of political operative.
And so, because of that, I've decided to remove my support for Israel entirely.
As you know, I wouldn't say that I supported their move into Gaza.
My take was, there's nothing you can do about it.
And if it happened to you, you'd do the same thing.
That's not exactly support.
It's more observation.
But not that my support of Israel will make any difference to anybody.
But I can, in good conscience, support somebody who is letting their attack dog attack me and people I like.
Now, people said to me, Scott, how does this even make sense?
If you admit that the ADL is a separate entity, has nothing to do with, you know, Gaza or Israel or anything, you know, they just have this connection, why would you remove your support from Israel just because you think the ADL is corrupt?
And the answer is in this analogy.
Because people said to me, Scott, if you don't like cake, why are you boycotting cupcakes?
No, why are you boycotting ice cream?
Because cake and ice cream are not the same thing.
So if you're mad at cake, why are you boycotting ice cream?
That's a bad analogy, but people are saying that to me.
Here's the correct analogy.
If my pit bull is off leash every day and it goes into your yard and it attacks you and mauls you, If it does it once, that's a tragic mistake, and probably I have some liability.
But you blame the dog.
If I let that dog off leash and every single day it goes onto your yard and attacks you and mauls you, by the third time that dog has attacked you because I leave it off leash, is that the dog's problem?
Is the problem the dog?
Or is the problem me?
No, your problem as my neighbor is me.
Because I let my attack dog attack you three times in a row.
Am I right?
Does anybody disagree with that?
If I have the power to stop the dog, and I choose not to, that's on me.
It's not the dog.
The ADL in this analogy is the attack dog.
They are the pit bull attack dog of the Democrats.
Does not directly control them, but they can fucking turn them off anytime they want.
All it would take is for the government to say, we remove all support from this organization, we regard them as racist, and we want nothing to do with them.
Unless they change their leadership.
Now they could do that.
And they don't have to.
I mean, I don't put any pressure on them, because I'm not important in any way to Israel.
But I can't in good conscience Be supporting people who let their attack dog into my fucking yard every fucking day.
Right?
So as long as your attack dog is attacking me, and you can turn it off, I get that they don't work for you, but you can turn them off.
I can't be on your side.
I'm sorry.
So, with no malice, of course, to the Israeli people, who I love a lot, I'm out.
I'm just out.
So, I'll give you my summation of the situation, and then I'll probably bow out after this.
Summary.
Who is right and who is wrong?
In that part of the world, everybody's wrong all the time.
Wrong in the sense that nobody's trying to find a peaceful way to live together.
Nothing like that's happening.
That is a situation where whoever has power is going to use it to destroy the other side.
At the moment, an ally of the United States has that power and they're destroying the other side.
Do they have good reasons?
Doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter.
It really doesn't.
The group with the most power is going to oppress the group that has the least power, and that's what that part of the world is all about.
It always has been and always will be.
If the Palestinians had the better weapons, they'd be doing the same thing to the Israelis.
So, does that make the Israelis justified and moral, because they know that if the situation were reversed, it would happen to them?
Nope!
There are no good guys.
There's no good guys.
There's just people with power.
Power is the only story, and the only thing you can do is watch.
Because Israel is definitely going to do what Israel is going to do, and it doesn't matter what.
You know, even Netanyahu said, with or without Biden's support, we're going to do what we're going to do.
Now, if I were judging it from a cold, hard, immoral power perspective, is Israel doing something that makes sense?
Possibly.
Nobody knows how anything turns out.
But if you look at it from a risk-reward perspective, my take is that they're spending, for the first time, they're spending all of their Holocaust goodwill.
They may be spending it in an effort to finally, let's say, control the area well enough that it's not an existential risk to them.
If they get away with that, meaning complete dominance of the area in a way that they haven't so far, then it will look maybe 200 years from now like one of the smartest things anybody ever did.
Right?
But we have to wait 200 years to see how it turns out.
So there's no way to know if this is a good idea or the worst idea ever.
Um, so, We'll see.
From a cold, hard, you know, all that matters is power perspective, I think that Netanyahu is making what seems like a reasonable bet, but that doesn't mean it'll work out.
I also don't think they'll ever have a better chance to completely own all that territory in a more, let's say, dramatic way than this.
Now, I've heard people say, critics of Netanyahu, That he's responsible because he said he would support Hamas.
And that he even said, some people say, and by the way, nobody knows if he really said this or this is just made up.
This could be totally made up.
But one of the attacks on Netanyahu is that he allegedly believed that by supporting Hamas, He could show that the two-state solution would never work.
In other words, Hamas would act so poorly that propping them up would prove that there's no point in negotiating with that part of the world.
Now some said, but that is a cold, cynical, terrible thing and you did all the wrong things and you invited October 7th, so therefore you're kind of responsible because you created the situation which led to the October 7th attack.
And therefore, he made a mistake.
Did he?
I don't see that.
I don't see that in the story I just told you.
Where's the mistake?
The October 7th thing is a terrible tragedy, and it is completely true that Netanyahu could have foreseen that propping up Hamas would lead to terror attacks of smaller and larger scale.
So could he have known that his support of Hamas would lead them to do something like that?
Of course.
Of course.
There's no question about that, is there?
Because he always knew who Hamas was.
He supported them, I thought, completely publicly.
In the sense that they were given their own country, basically.
And they were left alone.
Not just left alone, but in many ways financially supported.
So people say, oh, he's cynical.
He really made things worse because making things worse allowed him to go to war later.
To which I say, how would that look different That explanation of reality, how does that look different from, he let Gaza rule itself the way they wanted to?
How is that different?
If the Gazans wanted Hamas, and they did, they seemed to have all the support they needed, and if Israel was giving them money that supported Hamas, how exactly was that evil?
Here, here's the money for the government that you support.
So that you can do your own thing?
How's that evil?
So what I think is that you have a perfectly ordinary situation, which is you can twist it into looking like super evil, but you have to assume that somehow Netanyahu knew that an October 7th was coming, which is ridiculous.
To me that sounds ridiculous.
So I don't think there's any difference Between he knew it was coming and anything else.
We all knew it was coming.
What, is he the only one who knew that Hamas might do some terrorist stuff if they could?
He's not the only one.
Everybody knew it.
But what was he supposed to do?
Continue to put his thumb on Gaza?
Militarily?
He withdrew and gave them a chance to turn into something different.
But, did he know all along that the continued settlements in the West Bank would cause Hamas to have enough support that, you know, they could get a little aggressive?
Probably.
Probably knew that.
So, I see somebody who is managing a risk-reward situation that was amazingly complex, and I don't think you can suss out the evil part there.
You can certainly suss out that they wanted to not have a two-state solution for all the obvious reasons.
It'd be dangerous.
Just, it'd be dangerous.
So of course they didn't want that.
Anyway, um, that's the last I'll say.
So I don't support anything Israel is doing, but I also don't not support it because it's not up to me.
I don't really have any influence there.
All right.
I saw a video yesterday of a computer expert, Rick Weibel, talking about the security problems in the electronic voting machines and counting machines, I guess.
And I think he was looking at the voting machines.
It says voting systems, but I don't know if that counts the tabulators as well as the vote things or not.
I was a little unclear on that.
Anyway, beware, if you see this, beware what I call the documentary effect.
Which is that if you only hear one side of it, wow, is it convincing.
Because that's the way it works.
If you only hear one side of any story, it's really convincing.
Right?
So, um, I did see that the, uh, who was it?
Uh, the person in charge of the elections did give a, uh, Give some pushback, which somehow didn't get into my notes, but I think I remember it.
Oh my God, I've got notes on the back of my pages.
I wondered why there were so few notes.
Well, that explains a lot.
So anyway, so the computer expert said that he looked into these machines and he found out that the passwords were all online.
And that the encryption keys were in plain text for anybody to see and that basically and there was no evidence that there had been virus protection on the machines for a few years and The bottom line is that based on his testimony and again, this would be the documentary effect Now I'm going to give you the other side of the story in a moment But the but the documentary effect if you just listen to this one guy You say to yourself my conclusion is
We don't know who won the election, and there is no way to know.
If you didn't hear the other side, and you only heard this one expert, you would very much conclude that there was no way to know who won, because the computer security was basically zero.
I think some weak Windows password was protecting the entire system, which a state actor could get through in about a minute.
So the, the reporting from one expert, and by the way, he was showing his work, like he had his laptop there and he, and he was saying, and we can get into this, blah, blah, blah.
And then he shows you, see, I just got into it.
I just activated the whole software.
So it looked really, really bad.
So then the guy who was in charge of, um, Maricopa County, because I think that's where this reporting is coming from.
Stephen Richer, Maricopa County recorder, and he said from his personal account that there are some things you need to know.
Number one, almost all voters in the United States use paper ballots.
So I think that means that the technical guy was looking at a voting machine as opposed to a tabulator that counts paper ballots.
He said most jurisdictions do a bipartisan post-election hand count.
Audit of the paper ballots to make sure it matches the tabulated count to 100%.
Any material disruption in the tabulation programming would be revealed.
And he says, number three, most jurisdictions do a post-election LNA test, whatever that is.
Any material disruption in tabulation programming would be revealed.
Okay.
So, sort of generally he's saying, That if somebody tried to mess with the machines, it would be in very few places in the country, and that number two, since they do this hand count of the paper stuff, that you'd be able to spot any problems.
What is missing from his explanation?
Oh, it's not Maricopa?
So, was the expert in a different domain than the Maricopa guy?
Somebody's saying not Maricopa, but I don't know if that refers to the machines, or that Maricopa uses voting machines.
What are you trying to tell me?
All right, so let me give you my take on this.
The explanation from Stephen Richard does not seem to directly address the issue.
Do you feel that?
That his answers, they sound like answers, but it's like they don't directly.
Now here's the question I have.
So suppose they do a hand count to make sure that the tabulators get the right answer.
Who witnesses the hand count?
Do you notice that's missing?
Who watches the hand count?
You're welcome.
If you control who does the hand count, well, you're in pretty good shape there, if you wanted to do something.
Maricopa uses tabulators, some of these things.
Corruption in key zones is all they need, that's correct.
So they would only need to corrupt a few key precincts.
They wouldn't have to do everything everywhere.
So you'd only need a few.
So suppose, and I'm not saying anything like this happened, there's no evidence of this, but how hard would it be to hack any machines?
That part looks easy.
And then if somebody did a hand count to find out something had been hacked, if they were working together, How hard would it be for the hand counters to lie and say, oh yeah, it looks fine.
We hand counted it.
Well, do we know enough that the hand counters are always bipartisan?
Does it get filmed?
Do they do the hand count on film?
I don't know.
Maybe if they did, then that would be pretty solid.
If they had bipartisan people doing the hand count and they could know that they would detect any problems with hacking, that would be a good answer.
But we don't know that.
So his answer I find incomplete.
And it says most jurisdictions do this post-election thing.
And as you were pointing out, it doesn't matter if most people do it.
It doesn't matter if most people are checking.
It only matters if those few important precincts were doing everything right.
So when I look for, let's say, evidence that Somebody is being misleading on purpose.
I look for the obvious thing that should be there that's missing, which is the audits are always done, and they're always bipartisan.
We always audit.
We could catch any problem.
See?
We could catch any problem, and they're bipartisan audits, and it's 100%.
Now that would be a good answer.
But if you just say that there are audits and this post-election LNA test isn't everywhere, it's only in most places, then I got questions, right?
Does it feel to you that the response is raising more questions than it's answering?
And let me ask you this.
Why do these machines have passwords?
If they're published online, were they supposed to be changed?
I think they were supposed to be changed so that every machine had a different password eventually.
So that suggests, even if we can't be sure that any of these security problems led to an actual outcome that was wrong, so that we don't know.
There's no evidence of that directly.
Why do they have passwords in the first place?
There must be something that you could do if you had the password that would be different than if you didn't have the password.
There's a reason a password exists, right?
So, does this indicate that every precinct lacked the ability to know that their machines were properly working?
I feel like if so many places didn't even reset the password, And if the encryption keys were published online, or in plain text, it seems to me that what the expert did prove is that whether or not any election was rigged by the mechanisms that he explained, what he did prove is that the people who were in charge wouldn't know the difference, except for the hand count.
And that raises another question.
If you're going to count by hand all the ballots to make sure it's right, why did you need the machines?
What's the point of the machines if you're not done until you hand count it?
What don't I understand there?
If every time you're going to hand count them, and you're not going to certify the election until you've hand counted them, what were the machines for?
Why don't I understand that?
Everything about this suggests that the complexity of it is designed to hide what's happening, not display what's happening.
In my opinion, our elections are designed to hide fraud, not reveal it.
That's what it looks like.
And complexity can hide a lot of stuff.
All right, here's a thing I missed.
So apparently there's an eclipse coming.
Is that right?
Is the eclipse tonight?
But I saw a story that an eclipse can have a weird effect on your animals.
And animals have been known to have erratic behavior around cosmic events.
So this is true.
I noticed that this morning, Snickers was acting erratic and it just kept getting worse and worse.
It was like, oh my God, that's so erratic.
And by like an hour into this erratic behavior, My dog had actually registered to vote for Biden.
Now, I didn't see that coming, and I think it's probably because of the eclipse, because I did not see her registering for Biden, because she's going to vote.
Now, you're going to say to me, but dogs can't vote.
Hmm.
Hmm.
Really?
Because I read the news, and it seems to me that the migrants can vote without any kind of identification.
So if you don't need to be a citizen, and you don't need to show your ID, and you don't need to show up in person, no, I'm pretty sure my dog can vote.
I'm positive my dog can vote.
Am I wrong?
What would stop my dog from voting?
Seriously, literally, literally, what would stop my dog from voting?
I can't think of anything.
She doesn't have to prove who she is and she doesn't have to show up in person.
So I'm going to take her little paw and just like put it on the ballot and I'm going to have her vote.
No, I'm not.
I'm just making that up.
But I think you should at least take into your mental model that my dog can vote.
Literally.
All right.
Uh, so the eclipse is causing animals to act erratically.
Let's see what else.
Well, this is, this might not be related, but Mark Cuban decided to endorse, uh, uh, Joe Biden.
Now I can't be sure that's because of the eclipse, but Mark Cuban has been acting erratically lately.
And it did get worse during the eclipse.
So, I mean, I can't say for sure it's because of the eclipse.
I just know erratic behavior when I see it.
How many of you saw the clip of Kara Swisher talking to Bill Maher?
And even Bill Maher couldn't get over how crazy she is?
Just batshit crazy.
Now, it looked like mental illness if you see it.
She just looked like just had serious mental illness.
And she's treated as a, like a serious commentator on important events.
And the whole time I'm just thinking, this looks like it could be a commercial for some kind of antidepressant or something.
And then I switched to another clip of Morning Joe.
Morning Joe just looks like he's having a complete mental breakdown.
It does not look like an opinion.
It looks like mental illness.
Now, I wonder, are there people on the right that look exactly that way to people on the left?
Or do they have a different, you know, filter so that everything... Do the people on the left think the people on the right are just evil white supremacists or something?
But do they also think that the legitimate people on the right, do they think they're crazy?
You know, maybe a little bit in Alex Jones' case, for example.
Because Alex Jones, didn't he actually say he was bipolar or something?
So they might actually be right in that case.
But what I see, the TDS looks 100% real mental illness to me.
No joke, no hyperbole.
I might be biased, but I'm not trying to be biased.
I mean, I'm trying to overcome any bias I have, but they legitimately look like they need help.
If you watch Kara Swisher for five minutes, and you told me that she's not in therapy, I'd be amazed.
I'd be amazed.
Because she looks like she's just got mental problems.
I don't know.
That's my take.
I can't read her mind, but she was reading Elon Musk's mind, which tells me that there's something terribly wrong going on there.
All right.
The January 6th Committee, just when you think it couldn't get worse, here's what we find out this week.
It's so bad it's laughable, but apparently Trump's prior defense secretary, Chris Miller, so he says that the January 6th Committee threatened to, quote, make his life hell If he didn't stop saying that Trump authorized National Guard deployment before the Capitol riot.
And then, apparently, Liz Cheney is noted as the, you know, the main intimidator.
And additionally, the committee allegedly withheld the transcript of a senior White House official who said the same thing Miller did, that Trump tried to deploy 10,000 troops to the Capitol before January 6.
Now, given that there are two direct witnesses of credible people who say that Trump tried to get a military there to prevent Trump from taking over the country, it kind of puts a little bit of a problem into their narrative, doesn't it?
The whole narrative is that Trump planned to stay and organized the coup.
But that doesn't work if he had simultaneously been organizing the military defense against his own coup.
And we have very good evidence that he was putting a military defense against a coup, or really against the protesters, but it would turn out the same.
It would turn out the same in the minds of the January 6th people.
In the real world, there was no coup to begin with.
No real coup happened.
It was just protests and some violence.
But now I would say that we could confirm as a fact that the January 6th committee was a fraud.
And that every member of the January 6th Committee should be in jail.
Now here's a question.
If it's illegal to lie under oath, why is it legal for the committee that's asking people the questions to lie in the same venue?
That's not illegal.
The Congress people can sit up there and lie to the witness in the same event.
They can lie to the witness But if the witness lies back, the witness goes to jail, but not the Congress person.
I'm guessing that's the way it works, right?
The Congress probably has some kind of immunity or something in those situations.
Now, but what about if somebody goes through this whole process and allegedly withheld a transcript that would have torn apart their entire narrative?
There's nothing illegal about that?
Are you telling me you can't go to jail for that?
For throwing the entire country into turmoil and putting people in jail that you knew didn't belong there, and creating a narrative that there was an insurrection?
To me, this looks like a coup.
I would think the death penalty would be appropriate in this.
Let me say it again.
If this allegation holds up, I don't think there's any law that Prescribes it but in my opinion the death penalty would be appropriate Am I wrong?
There are not many things that I would recommend the death penalty for but trying to overthrow the country is one of them Death penalty.
Yeah, I think she should be executed if the courts could find her Guilty of treason because it looks like it to me.
It looks like an attempt to Change the nature of the country through fuckery How is that not the death penalty?
So, I don't think that there'll be any legal ramifications to them whatsoever.
I also think that the general public will never know that the January 6th thing was an op in one of the worst crimes ever perpetrated on America.
They'll never know.
Because their news won't tell them.
Their news will tell them Trump tried to take over the country.
Amazing.
Amazing.
Yeah.
So don't do anything individually, but I'd love if Trump got in office and all of those people ended up in jail.
I'm sure there's no death penalty potential.
It just seems it's that bad.
All right.
The so-called budget passed.
1.2 trillion dollar package.
Thomas Massey saying that the next morning, what the hell is this evil?
He's talking about a specific thing.
A federal red flag center has been raised immediately after the budget was passed.
We find out that the budget included Money for a bunch of what they call red flag centers, so that it makes it easier for the government to take guns away from citizens.
In the budget, in the budget that just got passed, was a mechanism for removing guns from citizens.
I don't know the details, but the purpose of these so-called federal red flag centers that will be around the country, is to reduce the number of guns that people have.
How are they doing that exactly?
I guess the red flag is for people who have shown some danger specifically.
Well, so who got to vote on that?
Who decided on that?
As Thomas Massey says, it was just one of the things that was in this big bill.
Now let me say as clearly as I can, the Republican Party is garbage.
Fair?
The Republican Party is absolute garbage.
Just complete garbage.
Now, the Democrats are just as bad, but how could you possibly support the Republicans when they do this right in front of you?
The correct answer is close the fucking government.
Yeah.
I don't care how long it takes.
I don't care what the cost is.
You can't do this.
There's only one thing you couldn't do.
This.
There were a thousand fucking right ways to do this.
A thousand right ways to do it.
You would look at what should be in the budget and what shouldn't.
You would cut the things you could, because we don't have infinite money.
And then you would balance it, no matter how painful that was.
But you could balance it a thousand different ways.
There was only one thing, just one fucking thing, you shouldn't do.
Pass it.
That's the only thing that's wrong.
And every person who voted for this knows this is the only wrong answer.
They all voted for the wrong answer and they know it.
Because they can't figure out how to get to a right answer.
Complete and total incompetence.
Absolute total incompetence.
And by the way, since I like to make fun of DEI, which stands for didn't earn it, there are a bunch of white men in Congress who fucked up pretty badly.
And you just fucked the whole country.
Thanks, white men!
I can't even support white men anymore.
There's like nothing I can support.
A bunch of white men in Congress just put a spear through the fucking gut of the country because it was easier.
I guess they wanted to go to sleep.
They were tired.
Motherfuckers.
Absolute garbage, worthless pieces of shit.
Every member of Congress should be voted out except Thomas Massie.
Maybe you could keep Rand Paul.
Except for the TikTok thing.
The only one I like has a TikTok problem, in my opinion.
So, yes, our government doesn't even work a little bit.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans, just all complete garbage.
Let's talk about the Russia attack.
So, as you know, I believe there were four gunmen who came in to a mall And there was a theater or a show that was going to happen in that same complex.
They killed, uh, the numbers keep going up on 143 people they killed.
Maybe that number will go up.
Uh, just a horrible, horrible terrorist attack where they're just mowing people down and setting things on fire.
People died from the smoke and the fire and the gunfire.
Anyway, the Russian, uh, the government, uh, got control of them.
They caught some of them.
And you may have heard that ISIS took responsibility for it.
And what did I tell you when the news reported that ISIS took responsibility?
I said, not so fast.
Not so fast.
It could be ISIS.
And it still could be ISIS.
But just because they claim credit does not mean it was them.
Because remember the Las Vegas shooter?
The first hours of the Las Vegas mass shooting, ISIS took credit.
Do you remember what I said?
I was the only person in the country, only person, you can check it yourself, not one other person said this.
They're lying.
It wasn't ISIS.
And the reason I said that was it didn't match their pattern.
There are things ISIS might do, but it didn't look like that.
So this new thing, in my opinion, doesn't match their pattern.
And so I don't believe it's ISIS.
Oh, you said it as well?
So there might have been some of you who are less than the public eye who said it as well.
I'm sure that's true.
So anyway, the Russians are showing these captured guys doing what look like fake confessions.
Putin went on TV and he said, we have identified a Tajik Mossad agent responsible for the attack.
Israel will pay, but Ukraine will suffer more.
What?
There's a Tajik Mossad agent?
And what's the argument that Israel did it?
Is it because Russia is too pro-Palestinian?
Is that the theory?
And then they did say, Putin also said the terrorists were moving toward Ukraine where a window was prepared on the Ukrainian side so they could cross the border.
So he's finding a way to blame Israel and Ukraine.
So do you think it was a fake ISIS attack organized by either Ukraine or Mossad with Israel or both?
Here's what I would advise you.
It all looks like lies to me.
So I wouldn't believe Putin, and I wouldn't believe any of these people, and I wouldn't believe whatever the Americans say about it, and I wouldn't believe anything that Israel says about it.
There's literally nothing about this story you should believe.
But I'll tell you the one thing I don't believe for sure is the confession.
Because allegedly one of the gunmen who was captured said that he didn't know who hired him because it was done over telegram and it was arranged over telegram and then he executed.
Does that make sense to you?
Do you think that somebody was on telegram and got an offer to go kill a bunch of people and then certainly die or be caught and tortured and then put in jail forever and he said, that looks good, I'll probably get away with it.
Really?
If you saw the video, did any of them look like they thought they were going to live?
They were pretty darn casual about their work.
They did not act like somebody who was in a hurry.
They act like somebody who knew they were going to die as soon as the authorities got there or captured.
So they certainly didn't look like Um, people who are doing a job cause they got hired on Telegram.
That's not a job you take as like a part-time work.
That's a, I'm going to die doing this job and you know it.
So that had to be somebody who's doing it for some national interest and let, you know, cause four people are not insane.
Four people means it's not insanity.
It means it's organized and planned.
And it has almost certainly some large organization of some kind behind it.
It's not just four people made up their mind to do this.
So, do you think Ukraine is behind it?
And if they were, how would they benefit?
How exactly would Ukraine benefit if they were behind it?
I don't see it exactly.
I don't know how it could.
And secondly, How would Israel benefit from this?
In what way would Israel benefit from being behind this?
They wouldn't.
Because Israel and Russia actually have a reasonably good relationship, don't they?
My understanding is that Israel and Russia have just sort of always agreed to get along.
So, I don't believe it's Mossad.
I don't believe it's Ukraine.
And I don't believe it's ISIS.
What the hell is this thing?
Let's see in the comments.
You think the U.S.
is behind it?
But why?
Why would the U.S.
do it?
Why would Russia do it to itself?
So some are saying that Putin planned it himself.
But even if Putin planned it, you'd still have to get four people Who are willing to die for it?
How do you get four people who are willing to die for this?
If it were one person, you'd say it's crazy.
But four?
There's something going on here that doesn't make sense.
And then, how in the world did they catch them unharmed?
How in the world did they catch them unharmed?
Really?
What, they surrendered?
They no longer had their guns with them when they got captured?
I could see if they got wounded and they couldn't use their weapons and they grabbed them.
But they're not wounded.
How in the world do you go from heavily armed suicide attack to captured uninjured?
None of them ran out of bullets.
No, you use the last bullet on yourself, don't you?
They save at least one bullet for their own head.
Because they don't want to go to jail and get tortured forever.
Anyway, I'm going to say that every theory about this doesn't sound right to me.
Every theory about it sounds wrong to me.
So we'll wait.
We're still in the fog of war.
Anything could happen.
Surgical team put a pig's kidney into a living human.
So there's a person with a pig's kidney.
This raises some questions.
Question number one, is the, did the doctors who did the surgery, what are the odds that at least one of them had bacon for breakfast?
Was there anybody who had bacon for breakfast and then put a pig liver in a human?
I don't know, it would just feel weird, wouldn't it?
Secondly, if the Haitian cannibals were to eat this guy, Would they get to the kidney and they'd be like, well, this is off.
I don't know.
I was expecting something different from this kidney.
No, there are no, there are no Haitian cannibals that we know of.
There is a video of one guy eating an arm for some reason, but I don't believe that video either.
So, um, maybe this pig kidney stuff will work, but, uh, We're in weird territory now.
Now we're going to be part human, part pig, and part computer.
I want to, I want to move completely into the digital realm.
So I'm, you know, just a robot.
I'd like to do that without passing through the pig part, uh, part of my journey.
Like, I don't want to be three quarters pig guts, but everything's working.
It's like, ah, well, we'll get you a new kidney and that's working fine and But we'll notice your liver is slowing down a little bit.
You know what you need?
What?
You need a pig liver.
It's going to go good with your pig kidney.
So then I'd have a pig liver, a pig kidney, and then, you know, it'd be a few years later and they'd be like, your heart's slowing down.
Oh, what can we do about that?
I recommend a pig heart.
Pretty soon I'll be more pig than human.
And that would be not awesome.
I want to skip the pig part phase of life entirely and go right to robots, because that doesn't hurt.
Well, there was a Berkeley professor who's getting a lot of heat.
He is in trouble.
Jonathan Shuchuk is.
He's a computer science professor at UC Berkeley, and he was talking online, I guess, to some students, and somebody was asking about dating advice, and he said, and I quote, If you want a girlfriend, get out of the Bay Area.
I can stop right there.
If you want a girlfriend, get out of the Bay Area.
But there's more.
He says, almost everywhere else on the planet is better for that.
He says, I'm not kidding at all.
He said, you'll be shocked by the stark differences in behavior of women in places where women are plentiful versus their behavior within artillery distance of San Jose and San Francisco.
So here again, he's you won't be surprised to find out he's a white guy So the white professor tries to explain supply and demand to Democrats What do you think happens when Democrats find out how the real world works because you know my big theme is Is that what we think are political differences or philosophical differences are not that at all.
It's just that Democrats don't know how anything works.
They don't know how supply and demand works.
They don't know how a free market works.
They don't know how free speech works.
They actually don't know how incentives, they don't know that DEI is guaranteed.
To increase the number of incompetent employees.
And again, not because of anybody's genetics or culture or anything like that.
It's just math.
Supply and demand.
It's just simple supply and demand.
If the demand is higher than the supply, then the natural behavior is for people to look for substitutes of lower quality.
You saw it in the supply chain.
During the pandemic, when we ran out of the good stuff, good paper towels, Do you remember what happened?
Do you remember when there was no paper you could buy?
No, that never happened.
Instead, they just lowered the quality of the paper.
During the pandemic, I bought a roll of paper towels where the paper was more like cardboard.
It was just barely paper.
It was such low quality.
You could see like the pieces of stick, you know, still in the paper.
That's the way the world works.
In the real world, You don't run out of paper.
Just somebody scrapes some bark off a tree, puts it in an Amazon package and mails to you and calls it paper.
That's the real world.
You don't run out.
You just go to a lower quality thing.
Now, DEI is the same thing, because not everybody has a college education and the right experience.
So if you can't get enough of the ones you want, you don't stop your business.
You lower your standards.
That's the way the world works in every domain, from paper towels to employees.
And there's no exceptions to that.
It's just the way everything works.
So here's a perfect example.
This college professor is simply telling people that if you go where there are lots of women, or at least 50-50, your odds are going to be way better than when you're in a place where there's a whole bunch of crypto millionaires and not many women.
Because the crypto millionaires are going to get all the women there are, and then anybody who's left is going to know they have lots of options.
And if you give anybody power, what happens?
They abuse it.
No exceptions.
But you want to talk about Israel?
Who has the power?
The people who are being criticized for using it, right?
The people who have power always use it.
So, in the case where the supply and demand is imbalanced, and the women know that they're rare, and that the men don't have as many options, a bunch of techies, but they got a lot of money, that the women can hold out for whatever they want.
So, do you think that that isn't noticeable?
Do you think it's not really, really noticeable that the women in some areas act differently than the women where their supply and demand is different?
Of course it's noticeable.
Of course it is.
It would have to be.
So, here's my real question.
He's a computer science professor, so he got in a lot of trouble.
What if he'd been an economics professor?
If he'd been an economics professor, would everything be fine?
Because this would be a basic economics lesson.
Basic economics, supply and demand.
It couldn't be more basic.
So would he be fired for being an economics teacher for teaching that supply and demand is not limited to physical goods?
It's just a universal truth.
I don't know.
Maybe it would make a difference.
But he's learning that maybe he should move out of the Bay Area.
All right, there's a I don't know if you're following the college plagiarism thing, but Christopher Ruffo is all over it.
And there are some entities, I don't know who's funding them or if it's volunteer or what, but people are scouring through the, you know, doctoral theses and the papers written by the academics and the big colleges, and it turns out there's a massive problem of plagiarism.
And what's funny is that the people getting caught People are coming up with terrible arguments about why it was okay.
So some are saying, well, of course we just copied and pasted it, because there are only so many ways you can say the same point.
Does that sit well with you?
Of course we copied and pasted it, because there's only so many ways you can say the same point.
No.
I'm sorry.
You could spend one minute rewording it.
But apparently it's being defended.
And then people are angry at the right-wingers, as they would say, for calling them out for all their plagiarism.
So some are saying that the real problem is the people who are catching them, not the plagiarism itself.
Perfectly reasonable.
Anyway, it gets funnier just watching how badly they defend it.
All right, I'd like to read to you a post that has gone viral that I did, and the reason I'm going to read it is that it's got, let's see, I'll check on the number of viewers.
It seemed to have hit a chord.
So, number of views on it so far are 1.4 million.
Now, a lot of people said it was the best post I've ever made.
I don't know about that, but I'll read it to you and see if it hits you in the feels.
All right, it's a little bit long.
I said, Trump's third act has begun, and it's a beauty.
Next week, Trump could make over $4 billion when his media company goes public.
Removing all doubts about his billionaire status.
And you can stop asking if he would have been better off putting his inheritance in a savings account in the 70s.
Because I think this would put him over the top.
I said I expect Trump to leave a 15% tip for Letitia James and the Democrats because they made his windfall possible by hunting him and censoring him for years.
You could call it a bond, not a tip, if you prefer.
When the Supreme Court tosses out the unconstitutional fine, Trump gets most of his tip back.
The Democrats planned to cripple Trump financially so he couldn't spend as much in the campaign, and Trump turned Letitia James into his best fundraiser.
He does that.
He grabs the gun and he turns it around.
Lots of interesting developments lately on the topic of the 2020 election.
The simulation wants at least one of these fresh allegations to be a crackin'.
So I don't see a crackin' yet.
But it just feels like it's coming.
Trump's legal maneuvering is likely to keep him eligible for the election, so they'll probably not stop him.
That's what it looks like as of today.
You can fantasize about a heroic Democrat such as Newsom swooping in and replacing Biden, but it's looking less likely every day.
If it had always been the plan, it would have happened by now.
Looks like Biden has to stay on the job to keep the Biden crime family out of jail.
That's my personal belief.
I know people have different opinions on that.
The predictable Democrat summer hoax will add some excitement, but it will be forgotten and debunked by November.
Trump's upcoming victory is looking like it will be, as Trump says, quote, too big to rig.
And by that I mean Democrats will try to rig it anyway and get caught.
And that will be fun.
The gears of the machine have become visible.
We can all see the FBI is rotten and the DOG is weaponized.
We know the border is open intentionally.
We know the cartels are working with the government.
We know our elections are designed to not be auditable, and there's only one reason for it.
We can see Biden is not in charge.
We know the Ukraine war was always about its energy resources and who gets to own them.
We know our rising debt is ruinous.
We know our experts are liars.
We know our farmer and food industries are poisoning us.
We know our government is racist.
We know the corporate media is essentially owned by Democrats, who are controlled by intelligence entities, and they are actively brainwashing the population.
We know the First and Second Amendments and Acts Are under sustained government attack because they are the public's last defense against the government.
But we are not quitters.
And the odds do not apply to us.
So.
On that.
I will end today's show.
I'm going to talk to the people on locals for a few minutes in the after show.
But for those of you here on the combined platforms of U2 Rumble and X and Locals, I'm gonna be done with this feed and go talk privately to the subscribers on Locals.
