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, Processed Food Disorder, Thomas Massie, Speaker Johnson, TikTok Ban, Elon Musk, Free Speech, Jeff Bezos Washington Post, Fascist America, Blackmailocracy, Tucker Carlson, SCOTUS IG Bill, Adam Schiff, Jamie Raskin, Supreme Court Nullification Bill, Maxwell Azzarello Immolation, RFK Jr., President Trump, J6 Committee, Bennie Thompson, Young Male Voters, High Gas Prices, US Critical Infrastructure, Title IX Modification, Bill Maher, Katherine Maher, Leticia James, Trump Trial Bond, Baltimore COVID Funds, DEI Baltimore Mayor, 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
That you can't even believe with your small human brain.
Well, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard, gel or styne, a kenton, sugar, 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 of the day that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Oh, oh.
Well, we do have to mention that it's 420 day, and today you can do the fun exercise of trying to decide if I waked and baked before the show.
you Now, I'm not going to give you any hints.
You have to use your own judgment.
Did I wake and bake or did I stick with coffee today?
No hints.
We're just going to do the show.
All right.
I just saw a quote by Elon Musk.
I guess he was at some event in the Can't Go to the Great, had a clip on it.
And Elon said, the history is written by the victors.
Well, yes, but not if your enemies are still alive and have a lot of time on their hands to edit Wikipedia.
So history is written by the losers.
Now, I think I told you that a while ago, and I think maybe everybody's noticed.
It's literally true that the losers are writing the history.
Because the people who are doing the academics, the textbook writers, they all seem to be a certain kind of people.
And they're not the people who crushed it.
So I think the losers are rewriting history to maybe try to win.
Which would be a good strategy.
I wouldn't mind.
I'd do the same thing.
All right, sports arenas, according to Axios, they're seeing an increased demand for non-alcoholic drinks, because apparently there are more people embracing the dry, or they call it damp lifestyle, where they cut down and quit drinking alcohol.
Now, what do you think caused a decrease in alcohol use?
Because you would think that the pandemic would have increased it, And you wouldn't really expect it to go down all the way, you know, especially if people got used to it.
Well, what exactly would cause people to drink less?
Part of it might be the availability of weed.
Some people may have just gone to weed, but we can't say that because that would encourage people to do drugs.
So I think one of the things that the news can't report Because they don't feel comfortable reporting it.
They say, probably there's an alternative that's legal that wasn't legal before.
It may just be a alternative thing.
The other possibility is that more people have heard that alcohol is poison and that that reframe is having some impact.
Maybe.
Could be.
Just that people come to the same realizations at the same point.
Could be just a whole bunch of people saying, hey, Why is everybody obese?
Maybe alcohol is part of it.
You know, it could be just something in the air.
Everybody comes to the same idea at the same time.
But alcohol is decreasing in popularity.
I believe it's also decreasing in popularity among the young.
I think high school kids are drinking way less.
I've heard that anecdotally.
I'm not sure if it's true.
Well, how about the other things that are killing us?
Wall Street Journal is reporting today that your food is killing you and that if you eat wrong, it affects your ability to think.
How many of you already knew that if you have a bad diet, it makes you stupid?
And not just in the long run.
It'll actually make you stupid for that afternoon.
How many of you knew that?
Now, I knew it from my own experience.
I didn't know it was necessarily scientifically true, but I knew beyond a doubt that if I ate the wrong kind of food for breakfast, my afternoon was done.
Now, we used to think that's some kind of, oh, your stomach is diverting energy from your brain to digest your food.
Do you remember being told that when you were a kid?
That that morning, that afternoon slump, Was only because it was food.
It's just food or no food.
If you eat food, you get a slump and you get a brain fog.
Well, it turns out that it depends what food you eat.
If you ate a big breakfast with saturated fats and sugar, you know, you had a, you had your donut and cereal and that sort of thing, uh, that by the afternoon you'd be stupid, basically.
I'm sort of summarizing the science, but basically it makes you stupid.
Now how many of you noticed that in your own life?
Is there anybody who said, oh yeah, I've seen that in myself.
I've definitely seen it in myself.
Yeah, and that's why I take such caution to make sure that breakfast doesn't ruin my day.
Breakfast is the worst meal of the day and will ruin your entire day if you overdo it.
Whenever I see somebody healthy, if you ask them what they eat for breakfast, it's usually minimal.
Or something pretty, pretty protein filled.
So here's the important part about this, is that the Wall Street Journal has elevated it to, you know, a national story.
So it's like a story right in the front of the Wall Street Journal, that our processed food is killing us.
And there's somebody named Gearheart, Who is doing some research, I guess.
And Gearheart and colleagues are saying that there should be a new mental health disorder called ultra-processed food use disorder.
Or highly processed food use disorder.
And it should actually be included in the psychiatrist and psychologist manuals.
Do you think that that's appropriate?
Do you think that a food preference disorder should be part of the psychological literature?
I'm going to say yes.
That actually seems completely appropriate to me.
So once again, I'm finding that the world is going in my direction.
If they're drinking less alcohol and they're realizing their processed foods are killing them, then they're definitely on my team.
And they at least agree with me.
I can't say I'm influencing it, but on the other hand, I do think I live in a simulation, and I do think I can influence it.
So the fact that it's all going my way?
I don't know.
Maybe that means something.
Maybe it doesn't.
Thomas Massey is talking about Speaker Johnson, who is a Republican like Massey, but not one that he's liking too much.
Uh, Thomas Massey says, uh, the swamp tasked Mike Johnson with three betrayals of America.
Number one, pass an omnibus that spends more than Pelosi's omnibus.
Done.
Number two, reauthorize domestic spying without warrants.
Done.
And number three, uh, send a hundred billion to wars around the world.
Now he hasn't done that yet, but he's trying to do that today.
So this afternoon they'll have a vote to send your money to other places.
Here's my prediction.
The TikTok ban got stuffed into that package.
So if they vote for the bill, it bans TikTok after six months if they don't sell it.
In my opinion, the TikTok part will kill it.
Meaning that I think TikTok is worth too much money to too many people for Senate to have a majority against it.
So I think the TikTok bill might have been a clever poison pill.
It might have been a way to kill the whole bill.
If you put the TikTok thing in here, people can't handle that.
So my prediction is that I don't think TikTok can be banned because I don't think our politicians are operating independently.
If we had an independent body of politicians doing whatever they thought was right in a republic, Probably yes.
Because that would be the right thing, and it would represent the smartest decision.
But, given that we don't have anything like that, and our government appears to be totally rigged, I'm saying that that's probably a poison pill.
So I'm going to vote that the bill gets rejected.
They may not say it's because of the poison pill TikTok, but I don't see a world in which TikTok gets approved.
Now, there is one possibility in which it could be the ban could be approved.
You know that Steve Mnuchin and some other people are looking at and trying to buy whatever assets TikTok would sell them to reproduce it with an American flavor.
If the CIA is behind that, and they might be, then the CIA would be happy if it became an American entity that they had to back door to.
So it could be that the CIA wants the TikTok ban, because that would give them more leverage and more spying ability in the United States than TikTok necessarily would.
Because a Chinese-controlled company doesn't want to give the CIA a backdoor, but an American-controlled company might have no choice.
So if you assume that the CIA is behind the TikTok part of the bill, then it probably indicates it will be passed.
So actually, if it gets passed, I would say that's a pretty good indication that the CIA said, yes, do selling TikTok to get control of it.
So it could go either way.
All right.
Elon Musk has said that the ban on TikTok would conflict with the First Amendment and it is not what America stands for.
Well, here's the problem with reasoning from analogy, which I'd never expect to see Elon Musk do, except you have to respect that he's running a major free speech platform.
If it were my job to run a major free speech platform, I would be against banning TikTok, because that would sort of be my fiduciary responsibility to the company, you know, to make it clear that free speech has got to be the higher, you know, the higher standard.
However, Analogies never really work, and TikTok is not like any other American entity.
And we have plenty of history of banning things from children if it's dangerous.
So this isn't a free speech issue, it's a child protection issue.
If you see it as free speech, then absolutely it should be allowed.
If you see it as something damaging to children, Such as porn or excessive violence or something hypnotizing them to kill their parents, right?
There'd be lots of things you wouldn't want children to see, but you would never call them free speech, would you?
If you were banning hardcore porn from a six-year-old, would you say, oh, you're taking away the six-year-old's free speech?
No, of course not.
Of course not.
You would say it's about the endangerment of a child.
So I think that the free speech frame is the wrong one for analyzing TikTok.
I think that it should be legal for adults everywhere, no matter who owns it, and it should be illegal for anybody under 25.
Now, you can argue with me whether that should be 18, and that's the argument I want.
Right?
If I say 25 and we compromise on 21 or 18, I'm still Happier than if it hadn't been banned under 18.
And some people say, but Scott, kids can just have access to it anyway.
And they say, Scott, it's up to the parents to ban it, not the government.
To which I say, have you ever been a parent?
Let me, if you're not a parent, maybe that makes sense.
But let me explain to you what every parent in modern America knows.
Now, if your kids are already grown, you don't know this.
So just stay out of the conversation if your kids are already fully grown.
If you have kids today, you can't get them off of social media unless it's illegal.
Good luck.
It has to be illegal.
And then you've got a chance.
I mean, you can't really stop teenagers from smoking cigarettes.
But the fact that it's illegal, Helps a lot.
It helps a lot.
Right?
And it's probably one of the reasons that marijuana is being used more by teenagers is that it's not as illegal as it was.
It's still illegal.
It's still illegal for kids.
But once it got moved into the, it's sort of like alcohol category, you should naturally expect the kids will do more of it.
So yes, it's up to the parents, but the parents need a little help.
And that little help is if the government can say it's illegal at your age, That would go a long way to helping the parents.
So I'm going to disagree with Musk, but I'm going to respect his stand for free speech, because if I ran a free speech platform, I think I'd say the same thing he's saying.
Is that fair?
Is it fair to say if I were in his position, I would say the same thing he's saying?
Because I think he has a bigger, sort of a bigger role in the free speech debate, but I don't.
I mean, I can just look at all the variables.
So I can disagree with him while completely respecting his position on that.
But I don't know that he would disagree about banning it for children at some age.
I mean, I don't know what his position is, but if I said, what about children under 12?
I think he'd say yes to banning it for children under 12.
And then it gets dicey, you know, once you get to the teenage years.
All right.
So Tucker was on Joe Rogan, made some news.
It's both things you've heard, but every time he says it, it's just mind blowing.
So according to Tucker, he's had people who really know how the government works, actually elected officials at high levels, tell him that they're frightened to death of the intelligence agencies in our own country.
And that basically the intelligence agencies are running the country.
Now that, that comes from Tucker.
Who tells us he's not guessing, he personally knows the people who are in this situation, and they will tell you privately, yeah, we're scared to death of the CIA, and we think they're in all our business, and they could put us in jail for anything they wanted, and they could block anything, they could fund anything, block anything.
Basically, we're afraid of them.
Now, if you're afraid of them, it means they're in charge.
So, if you believe you are living in some kind of a Democracy, republic, you haven't been for a long time.
Now, here's something I said in the Man Cave last night, but I'm going to say it again.
Suppose you'd been around when the founders were designing this system, and they were saying, all right, we need something like a democracy, but we can't really trust all the uneducated people to vote, so it's not going to be a real democracy.
It'll be something we'll call a republic.
Then the people will vote for their champions, to represent them, but then you'll get the smart champions who will be the ones in charge.
Now, what else would we like?
Well, we'd like some free speech.
Oh, gotta have that, because without free speech, the whole thing falls apart.
I think you'd all agree, right?
So you want your free speech, and then you want your free markets.
So you want capitalism and free markets.
Now you've got a really good system that will last forever, right?
Well, here's what.
If you would put me in charge of it, as one of the founders, you said, here's the system we're going to build.
If I thought that technology would never improve, I would say, that looks like that could be a good system.
Because free speech can't really hurt anybody.
Free speech meant I could talk to the people who are within shouting distance.
Right?
Free speech meant I could talk to people who are within shouting distance.
That's it.
How much damage could I do if I can only talk to people who are within shouting distance?
That's the limit of my technology.
Oh yeah, I could write a letter and have a guy on a horse deliver it.
Yeah.
But if I owned a newspaper, Suppose I owned a newspaper.
Well, now my free speech is sort of a powerful tool of influence.
Who owns newspapers?
Rich people.
So even if I were a young person designing the Constitution with the founders, here's what I would have said.
All right, hold on a second.
You got your free speech.
Which basically is going to give all the power of influence to the newspapers, because newspapers existed.
So I would say, and newspapers are owned by rich people, and the poor uneducated only know what they're told.
So it looks like you're designing a system that will concentrate all the power in the rich, because the rich can not only contribute to campaigns and get people elected, but they can control the means of communication.
Now, let's fast forward a little bit, and you've got the internet.
Now your free speech isn't just a question of the people in shouting distance.
Now, if you're influential, you could have a million followers on X, you could start your own podcast.
Suddenly, free speech is a super, super powerful and dangerous thing.
But what happened to the newspapers?
Are they controlled by rich people?
Yep.
Do you think that Jeff Bezos wanted to own the Washington Post?
Think of everything that Jeff Bezos cares about and does.
He's building high-tech, he's making a rocket to go into space, he's redesigning commerce itself, and he wanted to own a newspaper.
There's no chance he wanted to own a newspaper.
Do you know who wanted him to own a newspaper?
I assume our intelligence agencies.
I assume they went to him, and as they can to every rich person in America, they said some version of this.
Do you know how big the business is that you do with the government?
You know, the government puts a lot of money into your AWS service, you know, your servers and stuff.
Billions of dollars.
And, you know, they're only doing that because we put a good word in there.
In Congress's ears.
Or the military, whoever.
So, we could probably make you billions of dollars poorer, and we could even pass some legislation that's bad for Amazon.
Oh, there's a million ways we could destroy Amazon.
And nobody would even know we did it.
It would all just be like background noise.
The public would never even be aware.
Just your company would go out of business.
Or, you could buy the Washington Post, And then we continue controlling the coverage, but you're going to pay for all their losses.
So if you lose a few hundred million dollars per year on the Washington Post, because you know you can never make it make money, and by the way, do you see Jeff Bezos with all of his entrepreneurial powers trying to make the Washington Post profitable?
I don't see it.
Don't you think if he was really like that was his baby, like he really wanted to make news work, It would look completely different by now.
Because he's an inventor.
He's an entrepreneur.
He would have changed it completely.
But it's sort of the same.
Which deeply suggests he didn't buy it for his own purposes.
It looks like he bought it to keep Amazon alive.
Because if he doesn't buy it and control it for the benefit of the people who do control the country, he can't run Amazon anymore.
Something bad will happen.
Something bad will happen.
Of many, many things.
As Schumer says, they have six ways from Sunday, or something like that.
So here's what I think.
I think that our system, as it was designed, the design guaranteed that we would become a fascist country.
And that we are indeed a fascist system.
And let me define fascist.
My understanding of fascist Is that the country is not a democracy or anything like it, not a republic, but rather the only power is the government, which is sort of a permanent government and the big companies.
That's our current system.
Our current system is that the intelligence people help our big companies operate overseas.
You know, they say, Hey, you can't do that to our big company overseas because we have a military and we have a government and we're backing this big company.
So if you mess with this big company, we're going to come at you with all of our other tools.
So now we can operate in other countries.
So the government and the big corporations have always worked together and they, they have a symbiotic relationship.
So the big companies can fund the government and you know, their, their lobbyists can give money to people and stuff.
And then the government needs that money.
And the intel agencies can make the government do whatever they want.
So you basically have a system in which, by its design, there was only one way it could go.
If you knew that the internet would happen, you could have easily predicted that rich people, the elites, the elites who own companies, plus the elites who are in office, Are all working together and that we don't have anything like a democracy republic, then none of that is actually real.
And that all of it has been artificial theater for the benefit of the public.
Now it does appear, especially with all the Bush dynasty and Clinton dynasty stuff.
I mean, it looks like our presidents have been selected by the intelligence agencies for decades.
Yeah.
Cause everybody's either.
An ex-CIA head, or they're CIA adjacent, or they're related to somebody who was in the CIA.
A lot of coincidences.
A lot of coincidences there.
So no, it looks to me like the government has been a fascist entity, but it couldn't have been anything else.
If you looked at the original design, if you add free markets, that lets the rich people get richer, if you add freedom of speech, It means that you and I can talk to each other and it makes no difference, but if you want to talk on the internet, the rich people will make sure that you don't say anything they don't like.
You'll get banned.
You'll be suppressed on the internet.
So the free speech was a power that the rich could exploit, that the poor could not.
So the non-rich people would just get kicked off of social media.
And you can be pretty rich and still get kicked off of social media, see Alex Jones.
He was pretty rich before he got kicked off.
But he wasn't, he wasn't oil company rich.
He wasn't bank rich.
He was just rich for like a person.
So there we are.
If you add free speech and free markets to something like a republic and wait, it guarantees you'll end up with a fascist system.
But here's the interesting part.
It might be the best system.
I hate to tell you.
No, obviously the system would be deeply rigged for the elites, but the alternatives might be worse because the alternatives give you stuff like, you know, everything you don't like, basically.
You don't want the uneducated population to be in charge because you wouldn't be a powerful country.
So it might be that the fascist combination of big companies and big government at least protects you from other countries pretty well.
And that your biggest risk is another country dominates you.
And that if you only solve that one problem, they keep other countries from messing with you because you're more powerful than them.
It might be that's the only lasting system there is.
It might be that every other system ends in conquest by the bad guys.
So if you tell me it's necessarily the worst system we could have, I don't know.
It might be good for some things and terrible for others, but I don't know if there's a better one.
So that's where I see things.
Uh, the other thing that, uh, so Tucker basically confirmed that we have a blackmailocracy and that the government is not in charge.
It's the, the intelligence agencies, just what you thought.
But then, uh, Tucker also said that, uh, That there's some kind of, not UFOs, so Tucker doesn't believe that something is coming from another planet, but he does believe the phenomenon of whatever these unidentified things are is real.
Now, he believes that U.S.
servicemen have died as a result of contact with them, and that it might be some kind of spiritual thing.
I think none of that could possibly be true.
I don't think any U.S.
service people died because of a UFO, whether the UFO came from another planet or was spiritual.
I don't believe any of the spiritual stuff or any of the UFO stuff.
I do think there's a good chance that Tucker got Sidney Powell.
Remember I told you that that whole Kraken thing with Sidney Powell sounded like somebody told her a story so ridiculous About the Venezuelan general getting into the machines, that it would guarantee to ruin her forever.
And it did.
So from the first moment, I thought, why is this reasonable attorney person saying something so obviously outrageous that if this doesn't turn out to be true, her entire life is ruined?
Didn't turn out to be true.
Entire life was ruined.
And then we have Tucker.
Who has secret information he can't tell you about, from secret people, saying that there's some phenomenon that's real.
And then he goes on television, and he tells you the phenomenon's real.
Do you think that that makes his credibility greater?
That he believes in demons and angels?
Nope!
It pretty much makes a guarantee that half of the country will never listen to anything he ever says.
So, there's that.
So I wonder where he got that information, but I don't think any of it's true.
That's my take.
There's a bill to hold the Supreme Court accountable.
So it's a Representative Schiff.
Oh, Schiff and Raskin, the two people most associated with the intelligence agencies.
The two most corrupt Republicans, famously the most corrupt.
They're both trying to establish an office of the Inspector General within the judicial branch to ensure that there's ethical standards and that they're protected from undue influence.
Now, you can see right away that that's an attempt to create a legislative entity that can control the Supreme Court and remove the separation of powers.
This is exactly what it looks like.
This is a fascist country that sent out their two lead fascists, Raskin and Schiff.
Neither of these people are legitimate.
They're just ops.
It's fairly obvious if you've been watching them over the years.
They're not just politicians.
They're working for somebody.
Probably our country.
But they're working for somebody that's probably not just in politics.
It's probably the intelligence agencies.
It looks like it.
Because they seem to be deeply, they're up there with their eyeballs in every hoax.
It can't be that it's always the same two people who are in every hoax.
Like the leaders of it.
Yeah, that's not an accident.
So this would be an attempt by the intelligence people to take out the only remaining source of checks and balances.
Which is there are more conservatives on the court thanks to Trump.
It's exactly what it looks like.
It's an attempt to take out the Supreme Court as a powerful entity in this country.
Right in front of us.
And by the way, there's not really a second way to interpret this.
There really isn't.
This is exactly what it fucking looks like.
Exactly what it looks like.
Meanwhile, there was a guy that set himself on fire in front of the Trump trial.
You probably heard about that.
And he was, of course, people are trying to say he was a Trump supporter.
But no, a Trump supporter did not set himself on fire in front of the Trump trial.
It was somebody who donated to Democrats every year.
There's a photo of him with Bill Clinton.
He's as Democrat as you could possibly get.
And he lived, by the way.
The other way you know he's a Democrat is he set himself on fire and lived.
That's pretty much the entire Democrat policies.
Let's see if we can set the country on fire, but critically, we want to survive it.
You know, with major burns, we'll never be the same, and it'll be the worst experience we've ever had, but that's a good idea.
Do you think this guy who set himself on fire burned for two minutes and lived?
Oh, somebody says he died.
He lived for a day, I guess.
If you're saying he died, that means he died recently, because he was alive when they took him to the hospital.
But anyway, it seems to represent the entire Democrat policies.
So he had a rambling manifesto, which was clearly crazy, but not crazier than the people who have not yet set themselves on fire.
Let me say it again.
He was clearly insane.
You could tell by the manifesto.
But his manifesto was no more insane than every single night on MSNBC.
And no, I'm not joking.
That's not hyperbole.
That's not a clever little humorous thing I threw in there.
His manifesto was not that far from what you watch every night on regular television.
So the television he watched was just like him.
The world is ending.
You know, everything's so bad.
Better set myself on fire.
Well, I saw some new polls saying that RFK Jr.' 's numbers are starting to decline.
So he's around 7%.
He's been as high as almost 20% at one point.
But I think the polls don't tell you his chances.
Because his chances depend on neither Biden nor Trump making it to the starting line of the election.
And that is much greater than 7%.
I put it at 30%, just my own personal estimate based on what I know about the world.
I would say there's a 30% chance that neither Biden nor Trump are viable candidates by Election Day.
By viable, I mean that Trump could be in jail or indicted for something worse, and Biden could be a vegetable.
If Biden is a vegetable, and it probably won't make a difference unless it happens by the summer before the convention, but I'd say there's at least a 30% chance that neither Biden or Trump make it to the start line.
So don't look at polls.
RFK Jr.
has an absolute path that's every bit as good as the other two.
I think it's a three-way tie.
Not by votes.
But by the likely outcome of what's happening to the other people.
You don't think so?
Well, do you know that Benny Thompson, he's a Democrat, he's introduced legislation on Friday that you would lose your Secret Service protection if you're convicted of a federal or state offense.
Do you know who Benny Johnson is?
Or Benny Thompson?
Benny Thompson.
He was the head of the January 6th Committee, the corrupt January 6th Committee.
Benny Johnson would be at the top of the list of people who would go to jail if Trump becomes president, in my opinion.
I think he would certainly go to jail, because the January 6th Committee all belong in jail.
And at this point we have pretty good information that it was a rigged process, and that they hid exculpatory evidence.
And if that's not insurrection or a big crime, I don't know what it is.
So, Benny Thompson probably knows that if Trump gets in office, the entire power of the presidency will be focused on destroying him.
And should be.
That would be the correct response, would be to completely destroy Benny Thompson and everybody who was on the corrupted January 6th Committee.
The January 6th Committee was an insurrection.
They tried to control the country through a corrupt process.
So, yeah, I mean, it's about as illegal as you can get.
So yes, he's trying to get Trump killed, literally, right in front of you, by seeing if they can convict him on trumped up charges.
Pass a law that removes his secret security, secret service, and then hope that something happens that naturally would happen after that.
They're trying to kill the president to cover up their crimes.
Right in front of you.
Benny Thompson is trying to kill the president, the ex-president and maybe the next president, so that he can stay out of jail.
Right in front of you.
There's nothing hidden here.
It's right in front of us.
Now, do you think that we have a republic or a democracy when they can do this right in front of you with no, there's no pushback.
No, you don't live in any kind of a country where the public has a say at all.
All right.
Um, the story that, uh, That Biden is losing young people.
You've heard this story before, but when you look at the data, he's not losing young people.
He's losing young men.
So young men are just totally abandoning Biden.
Young men did not fall for wokeness at all.
The men see it for what it is, apparently, even the young men.
So you don't have to be old and experienced to see what it is.
You just have to be male.
Apparently.
You can see the bullshit.
So, the Democrats have become the party of batshit crazy women and men who are so crazy that they're becoming women, and beta men who are something in between men and women.
So, politics is entirely a gender thing now, and everything we think about the policies It's not really about the policies, it's just men versus women at this point.
All right.
Well, over at the Mental Health Channel, that I call MSNBC, one of their hosts, Stephanie Ruhle, she was saying that the reason that gas prices are high has nothing to do with Joe Biden.
Guess what it has to do with?
Let's see, there's a political There's Trump running for president.
What would have caused the high gas prices?
Definitely not Biden.
I mean, certainly not him.
What could have caused it?
How about Russia?
How about Russia wanting to get Trump elected?
Can you fucking believe that MSNBC's audience are so stupid that they would tune in to see one of their hosts saying that gas prices are high Because they threw in the Saudis too.
Because the Russians and the Saudis want Donald Trump to be elected.
They're actually hearing that on their network.
Yeah, that's another example of losers writing history right there.
Literally the losers writing history.
Yep, batshit crazy women network.
Well, FBI Director Christopher Wray, he told us something alarming.
Apparently China has developed the capability to get into our critical infrastructure whenever they choose to, which I think means that they already have, right?
If you say that China can get into our critical infrastructure at a time of their choosing, that would suggest there's no doubt they can do it, which suggests they've already done it and they just have to activate the bad behavior.
So I think he's telling us they're already inside our infrastructure.
Am I wrong?
So, and he thinks we're, you know, maybe in our all kinds of stuff.
It might be in our water, our water services, our transportation, could be our electrical, could be our internet, could be the 911 system, all those systems.
Very, very scary.
It could be in so many systems.
Wow.
Well, this suggests an easy fix.
You know, there are a lot of troubles we have in this country where you look at it and you go, I don't even know what to do about that.
But this one, thankfully, there's an easy fix.
So the problem is Chinese hackers are in all of our systems.
But one, there's one they can't get into.
So let me show you.
So let's say this is a map of all of our systems.
And there's China trying to get in.
So you've got our water, electrical, transport, you've got the 9-11 system, the internet, all of our critical systems.
Except this one.
There's one system that nobody can get into.
It's our election systems.
And our election systems are secure in all 50 states and in every precinct.
So in order to fix all this invulnerability of our infrastructure, it's a fairly easy thing.
All you have to do is get the election people, the people who work on the technology for the elections, to tell the other infrastructure people who apparently maybe didn't go to school for technical things.
Like, I don't know too much about the people who run the water systems, but I'm guessing maybe they were possibly English majors or art history.
So what they need is the real technical geniuses that work on our election systems, which have never been hacked, and which are 100% secure from China and as well as any internal bad actors.
And likewise, our transfer electrical.
But what's the weirdest?
Is that the people in Silicon Valley who manage the internet, people who run the 911 services, That even they don't know how to secure a network.
So there's something they could learn from their betters, the better people who work on the elections.
Because I don't know if you know this, but when companies are recruiting to get their best technical people, if you're working for, let's say, the critical infrastructure like the water, 911, or the internet, transportation, something like that, you can get away with B minus talent.
But that's what it costs you.
Those B-minus technical people, all the hackers got in.
They couldn't stop the hackers.
But the election systems?
The election systems, thank God, thank God, when they hire the people for the election systems, they only get patriots, first of all.
So there's nobody who works on the election systems who could be bought off, you know, or coerced by blackmail.
They're not even influenced by blackmail.
And that's really, you know, admirable.
So Blackmail can't get to them.
And there's no way you could ever hack them because they're brilliant.
They're smarter than the Chinese.
Smarter than even our own CIA.
I mean, even Europe can't get in.
This is like so secure that China doesn't even bother probably.
They probably look at it and they go, there is no way we can get into the election systems.
But thank goodness we can get into their water and all of their other critical infrastructures.
But never, never could they ever get into our election systems.
So thank goodness for that.
Am I right?
And the aliens are demons and they're here.
It's all true.
The demons are in spaceships.
Yeah.
So things that we know.
Tick tocks, no risk whatsoever.
Aliens and demons have spaceships and they're here and they're killing American service people.
We've got a warehouse full of them.
And the election systems are the only ones that can't be hacked.
So these are the truths that we know for sure.
A lot of things you don't know for sure, but this we know for sure.
Am I right?
Well, so if China's hacking everything, here's a related story, that China's given some pandas to San Francisco Zoo.
So they got some giant pandas.
Now, my recommendation would be to check the pandas for listening devices.
I think the pandas are wired.
Do you think China's going to hack into every single one of our infrastructure except elections, obviously?
And then give us pandas that are not wired?
No.
No.
If you say anything near a panda, that goes straight to China.
The pandas are wired.
Be careful.
Don't say anything in front of a panda that you wouldn't say in front of President Xi.
That's my advice.
Well, Riley Gaines, a female athlete who's active in the trans-athlete space, trying to encourage people to stop doing that.
Um, tells us that, uh, you probably heard this, the Biden administration, uh, just tweaked title nine so that it allows, um, that your sex is whatever your gender identity is.
So that the upside of that or the upshot of it, not the upside, but the upshot is, uh, that people who were born biological males, but have transitioned would be, um, welcome to play on all the women's sporting teams.
So, if you're worried about the capability of the Democrats, who are behind most of these things, this is one of those stories that should give you some confidence.
Because in other areas, you're seeing them do some things that seem almost irrational, don't you?
But, I'd love to know the meeting where they came to this decision.
So the Democrats decided, they looked at women's sports, And they decided they had basically one problem that they could solve.
And, and the Democrats decided that the big problem with women's sports, not enough cock, not enough cock.
And so it looks like they're, they're going to unplug that problem.
Uh, I won't tell you how they're going to plug it or what kind of plug it is, but they're going to plug it.
And, um, and now women's sports will have way more cock.
In the locker room, so they're gonna have locker room cock, but also in the field.
Just lots more cock.
Now if you think, Scott, that's ridiculous.
Democrats don't make decisions based on the amount of cock.
That's crazy.
Have you seen immigration lately?
Do you see a lot of ladies coming across the border?
No.
It's mostly cock.
And the transportation unit for the cock, which is the rest of the men that are coming across.
So pretty much, the Democrats who are a party of women, they largely get together and they say, we're looking around at our men, bunch of beta men, we really need more cock everywhere.
So you'll probably see a lot more decisions like that.
Jeff Bezos building a big old rocket.
Yeah, it's all really the same thing.
They're just trying to get more cock.
Bill Maher makes more news as he does every Friday night on his show.
And he does say that TikTok is an entrapment.
Now, he doesn't like to use the correct words, which are hypnosis and brainwashing.
But he does say that the kids are entrapped.
In the sense that they're sort of encouraged to question their own sexual identification.
So, sure enough, even Bill Maher says that TikTok's a mess, and Bill Maher also says he's now buying into the fact that there is a gay agenda, and that the, quote, gay agenda is being implemented on minors.
And he showed some videos of some LGBTQ instructors saying exactly that, that they were pushing the gay agenda every way they could into their classrooms.
So Bill Maher is now pretty black belt and I think he can see it, but I would ask him to do a little tweak in his language.
Entrapment feels like he's in the wrong domain.
You are brainwashing the children.
That's what TikTok does.
It's a brainwashing device.
And sure enough.
He also talked about NPR's CEO, who shares the last name with him.
Her name is Catherine Marr, no relation.
And he says, he quoted a bunch of crazy lefty things she says, such as, Sure, looting is counterproductive, but it's founded on treating people's ancestors as private property.
She said she's someone with cis-white mobility privilege.
Mar said that she's the kind of woman who says she's Beyonce's spirit animal.
And even Bill Maher says, this is the type of person who rises to the ranks of corporate America.
Yes.
The people who say the right things, especially if they're women, can rise through the ranks because they're filtering for this stuff, not capability.
And he says that liberals are destroying meritocracies so they can create a fantasy land, but attempt to apply the rules to reality.
And he says, in other words, the behavior of someone insane There it is.
Bill Maher just went totally, Democrats are batshit crazy women.
He doesn't use the words, but he's saying it.
That his party, the Democrats, are dominated by batshit crazy women.
He couldn't say it more clearly without saying it exactly the way I said it.
But he's on the same page I am.
And that is the correct page.
And I think he sees that he doesn't have a place there.
Because he's not a beta male.
He's not batshit crazy.
He's not black.
He's not a person of color.
He doesn't have a role in the Democrat Party.
I'm surprised he hasn't been totally canceled yet.
He probably will be.
Meanwhile, over on the Trump jury for the Stormy Daniels Trump lawfare bullshit trial, They've got 12 jurors and 5 alternates.
By my count, that's, no, 6 alternates.
So by my count, that's 12 plus 6, that's 18 liars.
That's 18 liars.
Now, you know they're liars.
Because at some point in the questioning, somebody said, do you think you could be unbiased about Trump?
Yeah.
Totally.
Trump who?
President, ex-president Trump, Donald Trump.
Donald Trump.
Never heard of him.
I think I can be totally, totally unbiased.
Have you voted?
Voting?
Well, yes, I do vote, but I do it randomly.
I don't even decide who the people are.
I just live according.
Yeah, I could totally be unbiased.
In fact, I don't even think about him.
I've never even had a thought about President Trump.
It's my first thought.
Now here's the fun part.
This might be more fun than you think.
I'm going to tell you something that I probably shouldn't tell you, but I may have told you before.
I was once on a trial in which Eleven people said the accused was guilty.
And I had a problem with it.
So I hung the jury.
It only takes one person.
But that one person who hangs the jury has to be a real asshole.
I mean, you have to be a real asshole.
Well, fortunately, I was up to it.
I was totally up to the job.
Now, why did I hang the jury?
I won't give you the details, but I thought it was in the interest of justice.
Right?
It wasn't for a personal interest.
I had no personal stake in it whatsoever.
In my opinion, hanging the jury and letting this person off was the correct answer.
You should have seen the defense attorney when he talked to the jurors after, because the defense can interview you later to find out, why'd you do that?
I thought I had such a good case.
How could you possibly not find him guilty?
And I couldn't tell him the truth.
It was just something I saw that I didn't like about the case.
Now, Trump is in a Democrat country, and there are plenty of Democrats.
One assumes that almost the entire jury is Democrats.
But here's the fun part.
They're all liars.
We know that for sure.
They're all liars.
There's nothing I'm more sure of than they're all liars.
But did they all lie in the same direction?
We don't know that.
It only takes one out of 12 to be the asshole and Trump walks.
They only need one person to stand up for the country.
They only need one person to say, I've had enough.
They need one person to say, this is lawfare.
It's not justice.
We're done here.
You can't change my mind.
One person.
Now, what are the odds that not even one person snuck through?
Not even one?
Because he only needs one.
But that one person needs to have balls of fucking steel.
Or ovaries of steel if you prefer.
You need one person to set this right.
Just one.
So if you think that those lawyers are smart enough to vet all of them and know how they'll vote, it doesn't really work that way.
They really are not smart enough to know how everyone will vote.
Because there could have even been a Democrat who snuck through.
Like me.
I'm a registered Democrat.
If I were not, you know, well known for talking in public, if I were asked to be in that trial, do you know what I would say?
Actually, even me.
Even if it were actually me with my current job and my public profile.
If I were the jury, and they said, do you think you could be objective about this?
Knowing that I spent years talking about Trump should be your president.
Do you know what I would say?
I would look him right in the eye, and I would say, yes, our system requires us to be objective.
And although, like most people, I've had preferences for politics, I would never Never bring that into this situation because the justice system needs to be pristine.
It cannot be influenced by politics.
I very, very much do not want any bias to be part of this.
I will look at the evidence objectively and I will rule in this case as I would rule with anybody else in any other case because nobody is above the law.
And then I'm on the jury.
And then when I get in the jury room, I'm going to say, Fuck all of you assholes.
You're never going to change my mind.
We might as well stop right now.
Because I'm going to stop it because it's lawfare, and I don't even want to talk about the evidence.
You could be fine with your, you know, I'll just look at the evidence.
I'll do my job as a juror.
You can do that.
It's a free country.
You can choose to do that.
I'm not even going to talk you out of it.
But here's the thing.
You're never going to change my mind.
Because I will never let this injustice happen in your country.
I would never let this happen to you, you and you, you of the jury.
If I'm on your jury and you get accused of some bullshit like this, I'm going to, I'm going to hang strong for you.
I'm going to save your life if I get the chance and I'm going to do it here too.
And you're going to have to physically kill me to stop me from doing it.
So you could talk all day.
I don't want to hear it.
It's not about the evidence.
And it's not about loving Trump.
It's about, I can't live in this country under this set of corruption.
So they made a mistake and put me on the jury.
And now I'm going to fix it.
And there's nothing you can do about it.
And then I would fix it.
Just like I did once before.
So, it would take a special person to be able to put up with that alone.
I mean, they would get death threats.
They would get death threats and everything else.
So you'd need somebody who's really willing to take it all the way.
You know, you need the bravest person you've ever seen to do that.
But maybe, maybe.
All right.
Oh my God.
Here's a Letitia James update.
So Attorney General Letitia James, one of the DEI hires who's trying to take Trump down, is now asking a judge to block the $175 million bond.
And she wants to block it, the payment of it, because President Trump has not proved that he could pay it.
Now, That's a story that could only exist because the public doesn't know how stuff works.
Does she know what a bond is?
The point of the bond is that the state doesn't have to worry if he can pay.
The bond issuer pays.
If Trump decides to walk and doesn't pay, for whatever reason, whoever issued the bond pays the entire thing to the state.
It is not the state's problem that Trump can't pay.
It is none of their business.
It is a risk that the bondholder took because the bondholder operating in a free market looked at it and said, I can make some money on this because it would be a good business.
In fact, I have to tell you, a friend of mine actually bid on it.
So a personal friend of mine bid on that bond.
And was absolutely happy to do the business because it would have been super profitable.
It would have been a really profitable business.
So if, if this bond issuer doesn't want to do it, I'll call my friend and say, Hey, because he, he, he has the network.
He has the ability, he's in that business.
He can bond it.
So what do I make of the fact that Letitia James, Either doesn't know what a bond is, which seems deeply unlikely, or she's hoping that you don't know what a bond is, or that somebody else doesn't know what it is, so that she can stop this thing, so she can seize his assets.
This is happening again, right in front of us.
This is not hidden.
This is right in front of you.
So I think Letitia James should be in jail.
Literally.
But how in the world is this allowed?
She should be in jail with all the other DEI hires that are going after Trump.
Not because of the DEI part, because of the going after Trump part.
Anyway, the Baltimore mayor, he wants to take the COVID funds that they got for the city And distributed to art groups as long as they aren't white.
So they've got a DEI mayor who says that wants to take that money and make sure it doesn't go to white people to balance things out for something in the past.
How is that not blatantly illegal and racist?
It's like, Yeah, I feel like it's all right in front of us.
It's just completely racist, completely corrupt, but fear not.
While obviously, you know, so many of our systems are corrupt, we do have one thing going for us, and that one thing can save us.
Nobody can get into our election systems.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, this concludes my show for the day.
So, uh, Let's take a vote.
How many of you think that I was celebrating 420 before I got on here?
I'll tell you the truth, by the way.
I want to see your vote.
How many of you said, oh, you look a little bit like you celebrated a little early this morning?
Go ahead, tell me.
How many of you think that I 420-celebrated before I did the show?
Most of you say no.
A few yeses.
The answer is no.
No, I did not.
Have I ever done it before the show?
Yes, many times.
Could you tell the difference?
You never mentioned it.
I don't know.
You never mentioned it.
But it's not something I'm doing at the moment.
It was more of a pandemic thing.
Pandemic was very boring.
But I don't like to do it if, you know, if I can go outdoors and, you know, have a life and stuff.
I don't like to do it in the morning.
So that's where we are.
Thanks for joining on the platforms of YouTube and Rumble and X. I'm going to keep the locals people on here.
