Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/
God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Election Irregularity Accusations, Election Result Confidence, Manufacturing Job Claims, Democrat Hoax Mesh Network, CNN Scott Jennings, Kamala Border Visit, ICE Criminal Migrant Report, ICE Border Report, ISIS Migrants, Kamala Harris Border Speech, Inebriated Hand Gestures, Democrat Legalized Crimes List, Felony Charging Reductions, DEI Problems, Frank Luntz, Scott Presler, Republican Registration Surge, Hezbollah Leadership Reduction, Hydrogen Powered Drone, All Robots & Drones Warfare, Trump Zelenskyy Meeting, President Trump, Government Bureaucrats Reduction, Democrats Fat Promotion, 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
Well, if you didn't notice, the Dilbert comic is up.
It's the Dilbert Reborn comic.
Now, normally Dilbert... Well, not normally.
The Dilbert comic and the Dilbert Reborn comic, typically, they don't do any politics.
So this isn't really politics.
It's just Dogbert picking up on a meme.
But I thought you'd like it.
Let me read it to you in case you're listening.
Dogbert says to Dilbert, they're just sitting around the breakfast table, and Dilbert says, I'm sorry, Dogbert says, when the hunter's bullet grazed my ear, I dropped to the ground out of instinct.
Then I jumped up and looked at the pack of wolves I had come to lead and yelled, bite, bite, bite!
And he's raising his fist like Trump did.
Your story, and then Dilbert says, your story is inspiring, but derivative.
And Dogbert says, I didn't want to reinvent the wheel.
I mean, stick with what works, right, people?
Stick with what works.
Anyway, that's available only on the, you have to subscribe to see Dilbert Reborn.
Either on the Locals platform, scottadams.locals.com, or, or, where's the show?
I'm trying to open it.
Here it is.
Huh.
Um, or you can see it on, uh, the X, uh, the X platform.
If you subscribe.
Oh, by the way, the 2025 Dilbert calendar is available for presale.
The desk page a day desk calendar made in America for the first time.
And it's at, uh, if you go to Dilbert.com, you'll see the link for a presale.
It's the only place you can get it.
It's not going to be on Amazon.
Not now or ever.
And it won't be in bookstores.
Only one link.
It's the only way you can get it.
Made in America.
Do do do do do do.
Good morning everybody and welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams.
The greatest experience of your life.
If you'd like to take this up to levels that nobody can really understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is...
A cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gel, a cistern, a canteen, jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine, the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
The best.
I wonder if the coffee is making me healthier.
Well, there's a new study that's discussed in Brinkzone that coffee increases your testosterone and your anaerobic power.
That's right.
A little bit of coffee and you'll be stronger and have more testosterone.
Want me to prove it?
Watch this.
Yeah!
Woo!
All right, this is really good fabric on this t-shirt, and I didn't want to hurt it anyway.
But trust me, I could have if I'd tried a little harder.
Well, here's the kind of stories I see every day lately.
So the Michigan mail-in ballots are now only going to be counted if there's a proof of signature.
This is a gateway pundit reporting this, to which I said to myself, wait a minute, are you telling me that in the past The Michigan mail-in ballots didn't need any signature verification?
The most basic thing you would do?
No, no.
And wait a minute, wait a minute.
Are you telling me that they're only just barely fixing this in time for the election?
That's right.
Just a few weeks before the actual election.
But thank goodness.
Thank goodness there's no other irregularity to report about the election.
Well, Jim Jordan has accused the Department of Homeland Security Secretary of stonewalling the Ohio election integrity, according to Raw Story.
So, Jim Jordan says the Homeland Security is refusing to respond to requests from Ohio's top election official for Federal citizenship verification records.
I guess they want to make sure that the people who are voting are citizens, but the Department of Homeland Security is stonewalling them.
Hmm.
Do you know how many stories I see every day, almost all of them on X, about something that is clearly broken in our election system and somebody is trying to fix it?
Now, sometimes successfully, sometimes they get stonewalled, but If we have a pristine election system that we are quite all sure has been perfect, why are so many things getting fixed?
Do people who we elect in various states, are they so dumb that they don't know the elections are perfect the way they are, and they think they're fixing something that ain't broke?
Or is it stuff that's really obviously broken?
And was obviously broken before.
And yet, the news that you thought was real told you, well, we know those elections were good.
Yeah, you can know what you don't know.
That's what the news told you.
Here's a list of things that can't be known that we know.
But wait, that can't be known.
Yeah, but we know it.
Right, but there isn't any way to know it.
But we know it.
Well, how do you know it?
Well, we didn't look into it.
No, not looking into it is not how you know things.
Well, there were no complaints that we saw, but you just said you didn't look into it.
That's right.
So, if you don't look into it, you can be sure what happened?
Exactly.
And that's actually what the news has been telling us for years.
And people just sit at home going, uh-huh, uh-huh, didn't look into it, must be a good election.
I can think of no better evidence of a good election than we didn't really look into it.
Oh no, by the way, it's designed so you can't fully audit it.
Yeah, just normal stuff.
Nothing to be concerned about.
How many Democrats will hear either of those stories today?
How many Democrats are going to hear about Michigan not checking signatures in the past?
Oh my god.
Or that We're not entirely sure who are citizens and should be able to vote.
Do you think any Democrats will hear that?
No.
No, it'll be basically zero.
Let's see.
What does the public think about election integrity?
Well, it used to be that Republicans were confident in the system and Democrats thought it might be a little sketchy.
But according to Gallup, that is somewhat reversed, and now the Republicans think the elections are more sketchy than the Democrats, but both sides think they're a little bit sketchy.
So 57% of those polled by Gallup said that they will be only somewhat confident in the accuracy of the election, where 24% say they're not too confident and a whopping 19% say they're not confident at all.
I would have added those two together.
But only 57% of the public thinks they're very or even somewhat confident in the results.
Does that sound about right to you?
Does that sound like a system that's been designed to make us confident that we know what happened?
No, I don't think you can get to only 57% think the election is fair and reliable, unless it's designed to keep you from knowing who won.
Our elections, let me say it again, are very obviously, very obviously designed so you don't know who won.
I think that's the only thing you need to know.
If you spent a few minutes looking at the design of the system, and then I said to you, all right, would you know if the post office threw away some ballots?
No, you wouldn't.
How would you know that?
How would you catch that in an audit?
There's no way to catch that.
No, it's uncatchable.
If I told you that a state actor, whether it's the CIA or some other country, had worked with an insider at one of the voting machines or tabulator companies and had hacked it with the help of an insider to cover up any trail, would you be able to spot that?
No, you wouldn't.
No, there's no way you could catch that.
What would be the most obvious way that anybody would cheat?
Well, one of those ways.
How about if somebody was a non-citizen, and yet they got a mail-in vote, and then they voted.
What part of the process checks all those names against real voters?
Well, maybe some states do, but not all of them.
So the most obvious ways that anybody would think of, you know, if you were going to think of a way to cheat, none of them are checkable.
The most obvious ways you would cheat.
And so to imagine that you could know who won an election is sort of just naive.
But there we are.
CNN did a fact check on Kamala Harris' claims about manufacturing jobs.
So she said something about Trump being bad and losing manufacturing jobs and Biden being good and getting them back.
But apparently it was just wildly, you know, incorrect.
Just a lie, basically.
But CNN fact-checked them.
Now here's my question.
Have you noticed the selectivity of CNN's fact-checking?
How many votes do you think got changed because somebody exaggerated or had a wrong data about manufacturing?
None.
None.
No, even if the Democrats heard that this was a fake claim and it was a lie, there's probably not even one Democrat who's going to change their vote because somebody exaggerated or, you know, said something about manufacturing jobs.
You've got two candidates who both say they want to bring manufacturing back to the U.S.
Both of them are going to use hyperbole about their numbers.
Both of them are going to choose a period of time that makes their thing look good.
Both of them are going to pad things.
It has no effect on the actual outcome of the vote.
Now, you know it would if they fact-checked the hoaxes.
If they fact-checked all the hoaxes every time she used one, that would affect the election.
Because nobody thinks that an ordinary lie told by a politician is different or even noteworthy.
Nobody cares.
It's just part of the process.
But if you told the CNN and MSNBC viewers that their entire worldview was created by a mesh network of hoaxes that the media creates, that would change some votes.
Because we saw it.
A number of the people who said, I've been a lifetime Democrat, but I changed my vote.
The number one thing they point out is... What's the number one thing that people mention when they say they changed to give up the Democrats?
The fine people hoax.
The fine people hoax is the tentpole hoax.
Meaning it's the one that keeps all the other hoaxes alive.
If you believed the fine people hoax, Then you accepted as a given that Trump was the worst person in the world and would say any crazy thing.
Now, since the fine people hoax is not true, then suddenly all the other hoaxes, once you learn it's not true and how they did it, and how And how blatantly it was done.
I think the thing about the fine people hoax is that you didn't have to really do research to find out it was a lie and that the entire left-leaning media landscape were all in on it.
They all knew the truth because they had the video too.
So that one's a real, you know, that one just makes your brain go, wait a minute, what?
How badly were they lying to me?
Because it's one thing when a candidate tells a lie, like I said, you just expect that.
But when the entire media landscape coordinates with the Democrats to tell you a lie like the Fine People hoax, that can change your mind.
When you find out that you were a victim of that, and that there are 20 more just like it, there are 20 more.
The Fine People hoax was just the 10 poll.
You still needed other, you know, polls to To hold things up.
But the main tentpole was that one.
And I'd like to say that I'm happy that I worked for seven years to debunk it.
You know, Steve Cortez, Joel Pollack, we all worked like the three of us just like work like maniacs for three years.
Every time that popped up to make sure that people saw the counter, you know, the debunk.
Anyway, Harris goes to the border, which gives... I don't think anybody's having more fun in the last few months than Scott Jennings, who is... I guess he would represent the Republican opinion on CNN.
Now, I'd like to give CNN a little bit of credit.
I think it's prudent to call balls and strikes and not just be, you know, in the bag for one team completely.
So the fact that Scott Jennings is not only very effective in his communications on behalf of Republicans, but he does get a lot of screen time.
He gets a lot of screen time.
He shows up in clips.
And he's doing a hell of a job.
If you haven't watched any of Scott Jennings debunking of the CNN people while they watch, you have to watch it, not just for what he says, Because he does a great job of framing things.
But you have to watch the faces of the panelists when they're forced to listen to the truth on CNN.
Because they all know they're liars.
They're completely aware of what they're doing.
So when they give him time and they let him talk, you just have to... I reposted a few in X if you want to see them.
You just have to see the faces while they listen.
They try to do the smug smile.
But the smile says, I know, you got us.
It's sort of a... You know, I'm doing an impression now, if you're hearing only audio.
It's that the smug smile, it's toothless.
So a real smile shows your teeth, usually.
Here's a real smile.
See, here's a real smile.
It's all teethy.
Here's a smile that says Scott Jennings is making you look like you have a brain the size of a squirrel, and a million people are watching him do it while your face is on the screen.
Yeah, see, that's the face when you're being dunked on by Scott Jennings on CNN.
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
I'm happy.
I'm happy, but not happy enough so you can see my teeth.
Mm-hmm.
I'm so happy.
Look at my smile.
I'm not even bothered by it at all.
I'm not even bothered by being called out as a ridiculous propagandist right in front of the world.
Look at me smiling.
It's not bothering me a bit.
So that's hilarious.
I recommend it.
Here's what Scott Jennings said when Harris went to the border.
He said, arsonist returns to scene of crime.
I told you he's good at reframing.
Arsonist returns to scene of crime.
And we're done.
I could continue talking about this topic of Kamala Harris visiting the border, but everything I say is just going to fit under this one reframe.
Arsonist returns to scene of crime.
Do I need to tell anybody that the Biden administration is 100% responsible For everything we see, or that she was the border czar, or if you don't like using common words for stuff, just in control of things at the border in some general way that never happened.
Three and a half years of complete, absolute failure to the point where it looks like intentional treason.
We don't know that it is, but it sure looks like it.
You can't fail harder than she's failed and Biden has failed at the border.
You can't fail harder than that.
And she returns to the seat of the crime like an arsonist.
Anyway.
And, uh, Scott Jennings points out there was a huge tactical mistake to just make sure that people were really paying attention to the border.
While Harris tells you it's a giant problem while you say, but you caused the problem.
Why are you now acting like you don't know what caused it and Why are you there?
You should be hiding in shame for what you've done.
And the fact that she went to the border and simply made the border issue more prominent in the news?
Yeah, that's what mattered.
What didn't matter were her clever little arguments and stuff about it.
Nobody cares about that.
All they care about is we spent more time thinking about criminals coming across the border.
Now, as luck would have it, the ICE report came out at the same time, saying that the number of criminals, literally murderers and rapists, were in the tens of thousands.
The ones we know about.
Imagine how many people that maybe murdered somebody and got away with it, and still came here.
So at the same time the public is being exposed, we hope, maybe no Democrats ever saw that data, but it was national news, at least on the right.
And I think Scott Jennings mentioned these numbers too, so he penetrated the CNN audience with that.
So at the same time, we're seeing massive unreported, until now, numbers of criminals that we have deliberately, deliberately led into the country.
At the same time, we're seeing reports that ISIS, ISIS is sneaking people into the country.
At the same time, we're hearing that maybe, I don't know, Hezbollah or some other damn thing is coming in with shoulder-mounted missiles, and there's a bunch of assassin teams coming in through the border, and there are tens of thousands of Chinese military-looking people coming through the border.
We let everybody in.
It's the biggest failure in American politics.
Yeah, let me say that.
Let me say that with a little bit of confidence.
In the history of American government, opening the border the way it was done, is the biggest mistake in American history.
If you could come up with a better example of a bigger mistake, I don't know.
Now, and the thing is, we haven't seen the price of that yet.
The price is yet to be paid.
Because we're letting in a whole bunch of terrorists at the same time Iran is going to go to war with Israel, maybe.
We'll talk about that.
And what would Iran do?
What have we been warned by the people who know how things work in this world?
What is Iran going to do if, let's say, Iran itself is attacked, as opposed to its proxies?
They're going to attack inside the United States.
Your lights are going to go off.
Because Iran is not, you know, a Me Too follower kind of a country.
They have abilities.
They got skills.
And they're probably already in our cyber.
They probably have already penetrated some of our systems.
They almost certainly have agents with weapons in the United States.
Not that they're necessarily going to do an October 7th attack.
But they could certainly do things that we weren't sure if it was them or somebody else.
So, it is, in my opinion, the biggest blunder in all of American government history.
I don't think there's a second place to that.
I guess what's different about it is that it was obvious it was a blunder before they did it.
I mean, it looks so much like Somebody was trying to destroy the country.
It doesn't even look like this was ever a serious thing that somebody thought was a good idea.
It simply looks like somebody had a plan to destroy the country.
I'll talk more about that.
Speaking of which, Harris looked at the Trump border wall.
So she had to stand in front of the border wall that Trump built.
Which at one point in 2019, she'd called it Medieval Vanity Project, and now she's all about building some more.
How do the Democrats not notice what's going on?
But they don't.
They don't seem to notice.
Anyway, former Navy SEAL Sean Ryan, who's got a podcast, he was on Joe Rogan, and he said the Taliban is Funneling terrorists into the U.S.
to the southern border for some kind of October 7th-style attack.
Now, I don't think Iran would want to do an October 7th in the United States.
But ISIS might.
ISIS might.
So that's all coming in.
And at the same time, Harris has called for a pathway to citizenship for millions of the migrants she let into the country.
I don't know how you could be worse.
To create the biggest blunder in American history, and then to top it by saying, let's give them citizenship so they can also vote.
The level of incompetence is way beyond anything I could call accidental.
It doesn't look accidental.
Nobody could be this dumb.
I mean, nobody could, really.
So she gives a speech after she went to the border, and I would like to say, as far as I could tell, when she gave her speech, she was not inebriated.
And I thought she did a great job.
So it was a teleprompter speech.
At first I thought maybe it was impromptu and I was more impressed, but then when I looked at it, oh, it's teleprompter.
But the teleprompter She does really well now, so I guess she's been doing a lot of practice on the campaign trail.
But man, she read that teleprompter.
She did not cackle.
She had all the right motions and everything.
But I did note a few problems.
Oh, number one, if you'd like to know when she's inebriated and when she's not, there's a tell that is guaranteed.
Now, I think you can tell by Just the way she talks and everything.
But there's one tell for whether she's inebriated, and she definitely wasn't.
She was in full control and did a good job in her speech.
Here's her hand gestures when she's not inebriated.
They're crisp and they're smallish.
So she'd be like, dupe, dupe, crisp, tight, controlled.
So when she's talking, her hands are very much part of a good Now, I'm going to give you the impression of when she's inebriated.
Shoulders moving, and hands are not tight.
They're all over the place.
Let me tell you what we're going to do.
You watch for it.
Tight hands versus loose hands.
If you wonder if she's sometimes inebriated in public, you only have to watch her speech where she's not.
Once you see her operating at 100%, as she was during her speech, there's no doubt that the other thing is inebriated.
There's no doubt at all.
And you can even see that she's picking her spots.
When she does a national speech or a debate, definitely not inebriated.
Not a sign, not a suggestion, not a hint, nothing.
But when she's talking to a friendly, like a student or a little group of people who love her, she's drunk as a fuck.
We see this so many times, there's no doubt about it, or inebriated in some fashion.
The other thing I haven't heard anybody say yet, but let me be the first to point it out.
So she gives a speech that was largely about her, you know, getting serious about the border.
Did anybody notice that the speech was all about her?
Here's what I expect when you've got a massive border problem and somebody's running for president.
Here's what I'm going to do about the border.
I'm going to build a wall.
I'm going to reverse the executive orders.
I'm going to get rid of this fake asylum thing.
So that's what you would say if you came there to tell people how you're going to fix something.
But she's got a little problem because any of those ideas, if they sound good, somebody's going to say, so why didn't you do that already?
Joe Biden says you're in charge of everything.
So she can't really come out and say, here's a bunch of stuff I'm going to do.
The only thing she said specifically is she wants to create a path to citizenship, which is making the problem better or worse?
Worse.
The only concrete suggestion is something that, whether you're on the left or the right, you'd say, well, that's creating an incentive to come here.
That's worse.
That's not better.
That's worse.
But here's the part that once you hear it, if you listen to it again, listen for this.
She only talked about herself.
The only time she talked about somebody else, she talked about the poor migrants, the non-citizens.
What she didn't talk about is the pain and destruction so much that's coming on the American citizens.
So here's her talking about the border.
I was a prosecutor.
Okay, we're not hiring you to be a prosecutor.
I have toured the tunnels.
Okay, I mean, we all know there are tunnels.
Does that make you a little extra qualified because you've been in one?
You wouldn't believe how smooth the walls are of the tunnels under the border.
Okay, well, you know, maybe it could be true that Trump is not aware how smooth the walls are on the tunnels under the border.
That's not much of a selling point for you.
Trump doesn't even know how smooth the walls are.
It's not like he's in favor of the tunnels.
So she had, she just went on forever.
The entire time I listened, I didn't hear it all, but the entire time I did listen, she only talked about herself and none of it was relevant.
You're a prosecutor, got it.
So because you're a prosecutor, And your entity prosecuted some people in this context.
What do you know that I don't know?
Do I not know that fentanyl is coming across the border and probably killed my stepson?
Everybody knows that.
Do you not know the cartels are in charge at the border?
Do you not know that millions of people have come?
What is it we don't know that we're now educated because we know you were once a prosecutor and that the walls of the tunnels were shiny?
You got nothing.
You got nothing, lady.
Meanwhile, the border patrol said yet another lie.
As with all things border related, she was nowhere to be found when we needed her.
She ignored the border problems that she created over three years and separately admitted that the immigration system under her and Biden was broken.
So she said she was going to fix the problem, but Isn't that really admitting that she's the source of the problem, too?
Because it didn't happen under Trump.
He had it fixed.
Well, the Amuse account on X says that Kamala Harris did some election interference by creating some campaign ads in which they had two people saying that they used to be Trump supporters, but now they're in Pennsylvania, and now they're not.
Well, it turns out that was fake.
They were not real voters.
Well, they might vote.
But they were actors who have always been lifelong Democrats.
So they got two lifelong Democrat actors to pretend that they switched.
Here's my question for you.
How hard would it be for Trump to find some prominent Democrats who switched to him?
Well, not too hard.
RFK Jr., Elon Musk, Scott Adams, Sachs.
There's a pretty long list.
Tulsi.
Yeah, there's a long list.
He wouldn't have to hire an actor.
Trump would not have to hire an actor to say, I used to be Democrat, but now I just can't do it anymore.
But she had to hire actors.
They couldn't find any real people.
That should tell you something.
All right, so here's my summary for today.
I mean, I'm not ending, but this will capture my thoughts.
I think it's kind of stunning the degree to which Democrats have legalized crime while turning the Department of Justice, who should be fighting the crime, into the criminals.
In other words, lawfare, etc.
So let me just give you some examples.
So here's examples of Democrats Who are basically legalizing crime.
Now that's a little hyperbole when I say legalizing crime, but I'll give you the examples and you'll see why the hyperbole fits.
They wanted to defund the police.
They wanted to stop arresting shoplifters up to a certain dollar amount, which caused stores to close, a massive crime.
They're letting the homeless control the sidewalks with everything that brings with it.
They're creating an asylum path for migrants who are willing to lie.
The migrant process is a legal process, but not if you lie.
If you lie and say that you're coming for asylum, but you're really not coming for asylum, they have legalized that crime.
They've essentially made it legal to lie that you're here for asylum because nobody's going to get punished for it.
And it's the obvious way to go if you're coming in.
They created the sanctuary cities to thwart any legal processes about the, uh, the immigrants, uh, lie about the amount of, uh, crime incoming.
So they lied about how much crime is coming across the border.
They allowed teams of assassins and terrorists into the country.
Um, They're pushing DEI, which is literally legalized discrimination against white people, white males.
That's illegal.
They censor Americans via proxies.
This is the Mike Benz stuff, where we know that the State Department and the Democrats get European and other entities, Brazilian, to do the things that they couldn't legally do to citizens.
So they just use external entities to put the pressure on X and other platforms, etc.
So there's censoring.
They want to take your guns away, of course.
The rhetoric encourages assassinations, in my opinion.
They've got elections that can't be fully audited, which supports criminal acts during the elections.
And in Manhattan, apparently 60% of felonies are reduced to misdemeanors.
So that's Alvin Bragg.
60% of felonies are reduced to misdemeanors.
Now, some are always.
I mean, that's not the first time that's ever happened.
But 60% feels like a lot to me.
And the lesser charges, they're just released.
All right, so that's a case of the Democrats making effectively legal, not technically legal in every case, but effectively legalizing crime across a whole broad range of important topics.
What did that do?
It made the entire country unsafe and inner cities extra extra unsafe.
But at the same time that they were making criminals legal, they were making the people whose job it is to fight crime They turned them into criminals.
So they turned the criminals into illegal things.
Like, oh yeah, you could just say asylum and you could come in.
Ah, you could take up to $950.
Still technically illegal, but we're not going to do much about it.
Right?
So they legalized crime across a whole broad array of categories.
And then they took the people who were supposed to fight that crime and they literally turned them into criminals.
Because the lawfare against Trump, in my opinion, is purely criminal.
Um, the J6 are, um, you know, the, the degree to which they were overcharged, in my opinion, is just purely criminal.
And they've canceled a lot of people for supporting Trump in the media and supporters, and they've gone after his supporters who are trying to take him down.
And if you put all this together, it looks like a plan to destroy America.
It looks intentional.
Now, I usually avoid any kind of conspiracy theory that deep.
I try to.
Because when you just look at a bunch of patterns, it's easy to convince yourself that the patterns mean more than they do.
But holy hell, that's a lot of pattern!
Let me give you Yeah, and apparently ICE has known, which means the administration has known, they let in 663,000 people with criminal histories, 13,000 were convicted of homicide.
Convicted!
And they let them into the countries.
16,000 for sexual assaults and 1845 facing homicide charges.
Now, speaking of Shaun Ryan and his podcast, I'm going to ask you for a favor.
I watched a clip in which he had an author on just recently, Sean Ryan did, and I didn't catch the author's name or the name of his book.
So if you saw it, and you probably did, or maybe you could Google it for me, could you put it in the comments, the name of the author, once I tell you what the topic was, you'll recognize it, so that he gets his due credit?
Because the author was very Very convincing.
And here's a story that I heard from the author on Sean Ryan's podcast.
I'm interested if you've ever heard this before.
So Obama wanted DEI, and how it happened that it was everywhere in the country was somewhat clever, and I'd never heard this before.
So you've got a president who wants, you know, DEI to be a big thing, and he worked with John Brennan.
And also with the various government entities.
And the idea was, if you could get the government to push DEI and to really embrace it, and also you hire a lot of people for those agencies that are under the DEI umbrella, that further will make DEI a big thing.
But here's the part I didn't realize before.
That if you make the government entities and agencies all DEI advocates, they're going to force companies to be DEI because those companies need approvals and need to work productively with entities within the government.
So all you have to do is get the government to push DEI.
And then the government will push each of the agencies and people who have some control over individuals and companies can then push it themselves.
And apparently John Brennan has said it's one of his greatest accomplishments or the greatest accomplishment of his career was bringing DEI to the CIA when he was in charge of it.
I believe that over 50% of the CIA now is women, and that was part of his accomplishments, he says.
So, when I look at DEI, which is literally illegal, that is tearing the country apart, and has created a system which guarantees incompetence, not because of the individuals, Not because of anybody's genes or culture or chromosomes or DNA or anything like that.
That's separate.
That's not in the conversation.
It's just that the pool of applicants to fulfill DEI is smallish.
And if you have to do it, you're going to just hire less qualified people.
And what we should see under a DEI environment Within one decade, you should see every major institution crumble.
That would be the prediction that you could predict on paper.
And again, not because of anybody's DNA, not because of anybody's race or culture.
Nothing to do with that.
It's just that if you force a constraint on a thing that's barely working in the first place, which is, you know, the economy.
The economy is always, you know, delicately Between, you know, working great and failing.
There's always that small difference between huge economic success and, well, that didn't work.
And DEI is, by far, enough to move you from the great economic success to everything fell apart.
And we're not sure why.
Just everything we tried to do didn't work.
You made a phone call to tech support, they couldn't help you.
You know, basically, nothing works.
So, we are in that phase.
We are, we are in the predictable stage of everything fucked up because we have too many incompetent people in every organization.
And it was intentional.
Now, if you ask them, they'd say we're trying to make, you know, the organizations look like America and make sure everybody has opportunity.
I like all of that.
You know, on paper, I like it all.
It's just if the only way you can implement it is a bunch of managers saying, I'm going to get fired unless I hire somebody who's a DEI person.
And even if I can't find a good one, I'm going to have to take a chance until everything falls apart.
And that's where we are.
Everything's falling apart.
And honestly, it's mostly DEI problem.
More than anything, it's DEI.
Now on top of that, everything's more complicated every year.
So in theory, an average person who could do a reasonable job at something, no longer can.
So the complexity of everything makes it so if you're not in the top 20% of capability, you're not going to be able to do anything.
Everything's just too hard.
Back when you just had to milk a cow, almost everybody could do it.
All you had to do was shoot an animal and skin it?
Well, most people could do it with a little bit of practice.
But most people can't do most jobs.
Now they're just too complicated.
Anyway, Frank Luntz says that for the first time in a long time, there are more people registered as Republicans than Democrats in the entire country.
Did you see that coming?
I did not see that coming.
I have to admit, that one snuck up on me.
Because you know what it is about Republicans that really stands out?
And I've always loved this about conservatives and Republicans.
They're really about just getting the work done.
They're not so much about making sure that everybody knows it.
So there's something about this number that says to me that Republicans just got to work and said, we can't give up the country.
If there are more Democrats than there are Republicans, we're all dead.
And so since the obvious solution to having more Democrats than Republicans is you register more Republicans, they did.
Now again, Scott Pressler gets, you know, a huge bit of credit for what he did, especially in Pennsylvania, but there must be a lot more people working on this.
I don't know, is this the Lara Trump part of the world?
I'm not sure if what she's doing is directly or indirectly related to this.
Now, some of this might be that the Democrats did such a bad job that people are hiding as independents, because I think that happens.
If Biden is just embarrassing, people will say, let's say I'm an independent.
Yeah, not my fault.
Sure, I voted for him, but now I'm independent.
Now I'm independent.
So some of it is fake.
People just hiding because they don't want to take the heat.
But it's never been this way before.
And it's not even that close.
There's 48% Republican and 45% Democrat.
Now, there's still so many.
Wait a minute, this can't be right.
How's that?
No, that's not right.
These numbers can't be right, because that would mean that the independents are No, this can't be right.
I thought Independents were about a third of voters.
Am I wrong about that?
The last time I saw these numbers, the Independents, Democrats, and Republicans were roughly about the same number?
And this would suggest that there are very few independents, so that can't be right.
All right, I'm gonna pivot.
My pivot is there's something wrong with these numbers.
It could be that they're only comparing people who registered one way or the other, which, you know, I would need more detail to know if that's what's happening.
But, let's say that, uh, let's say the numbers are true.
What would that suggest would be the likely, um, vote?
If there really are more Republicans registered than Democrats, who would win the, not the electoral vote, but the overall national vote?
It should be the one who's got the most people registered, because that's what it's been before.
There were more Democrats, and sure enough, they won the national vote even when they lost the electoral college.
So, what would be the result, hypothetically, if these numbers held, and let's say independence, we don't know this, but let's say independence matched these ratios.
I think independence are going to be far more for Trump.
But let's say it's just this much.
That would suggest a landslide.
Right?
If Trump wins the popular vote nationwide, the electoral vote is a landslide.
Now, I need somebody smart to tell me I'm wrong about that, but I think I'm right.
So you've got the national polls.
Which, depending on how they weight things and how they ask the question and, you know, some assumptions that they make when they collect their data, they look a little sketchy, don't they?
Now, the national polls sometimes say Kamala's ahead, sometimes by a lot.
Sometimes they say Trump's ahead, sometimes by a good amount.
So the national polls appear to be completely funky and unreliable at this moment.
But do you think that we can accurately count how many people have registered as Republicans versus Democrats?
Yes, because that doesn't require an assumption, and it doesn't require any—there's not much room for weaselness.
It's probably just the data that you're either registered or you're not.
So if you're going to believe one, what would be more believable?
That the Republican registrations have surged, which would indicate a landslide for Trump?
Or that the individual polls, which we've never trusted in the past and always seem to get mysteriously accurate right toward the election?
Sort of in October?
Do you know what the October surprise is yet?
One of them.
There's probably going to be lots of them.
Have you figured out the October surprise?
Well, if this is true, the Republican registrations have now outnumbered Democrat registrations, this election is over.
In terms of voting, I'm going to agree with Eric Weinstein that we don't know if Trump will become president because the bad actors Looks like there's no limits to what they'd be willing to do, and I mean actually no limits.
So, I think Trump probably has a dominant position, and it looks like a landslide if nothing changes.
But remember, gonna be lots of changes.
So here's what I think will be your October surprise.
Now, can't guarantee it, can't guarantee it, but the pollsters are all gonna be showing a landslide by Election Day.
Because if they don't, if they don't, then next election you're going to say, um, there was a landslide and you weren't even close.
Why should we listen to you again?
Why should we pay you for your, for your stuff?
Why should we ever report what you said again?
So it becomes really important for the pollsters to end up in the top five, top 10.
So if they're way off a few weeks before election, which is what?
October.
The October surprise is going to be the polls.
Now, you knew it was going to happen, but here's the surprise.
It's going to be bigger than you thought.
I think the surprise is going to be the degree of pollster shenanigans that are happening in September are beyond what you imagined was possible.
That's what I think will be your surprise.
Now, I could be wrong, right?
It'd be easy to be wrong about this.
But if you see the people on the streets, I just saw another person on the street thing where they're asking just young people who they supported, it seems to be Trump every time somebody goes on the street.
And even if maybe it was always, you know, close to half and half, the Trump supporters who are young, We'll say it out loud with no embarrassment whatsoever, as if it's the cooler thing to do now.
And once you see how many 20-something people are, you know, just yelling Trump into the camera, so happy to support him, perfectly happy that they're seen by their other fellow students, seen by whoever's going to see the video, there's nothing holding them back.
Trump, and I think, I think it's because eating the dogs.
I think eating the dogs, eating the cats, is what made him popular with young people.
Well, plus, you know, the assassination attempt was, you know, remarkable.
You know, the fight, fight, fight part.
But the cats and the dogs thing is still trending on TikTok.
And when you see people's reaction to him, and you see the number of people who are still dancing to that, Something's happening.
Something big's happening.
All right, of course, you know the big news as Israel took out the head of Hezbollah with a gigantic set of bombs, bunker busters, I guess.
So, here's what happened.
See how impressed you are by this.
So, Hezbollah has, like, reportedly, I don't know, 100,000 rockets that could be fired at Israel.
If they were to fire them all at the same time, or in big waves, then the Iron Dome would have a tough time getting them all, just because of the numbers.
So really the threat that Hezbollah had was that we'll fire them in big waves at the same time.
It wasn't really a risk if they did, you know, one here or there.
The Iron Dome could get them and chances are it wasn't going to hit anything anyway.
So, what do you think it takes for Hezbollah to fire all of their stuff at the same time?
Well, coordination, obviously.
Coordination.
And what does that take?
Well, some kind of communication.
What does that take?
Well, you're going to have to use some kind of digital communication.
And apparently, because they thought the cell phones could be too easily tracked by Israel, they had moved to pagers and walkie-talkies.
Which, as you know, Israel found a way to make explodey.
So once all their pagers and walkie-talkies exploded, what's next?
Well, the first thing that you might not realize is that they may have lost their ability to coordinate an attack.
Because if they don't do it all at the same time, they're just wasting their missiles.
Send up three missiles, Israel knocks down three missiles, and you're done.
So if you can't shoot them all at the same time, you've lost your only weapon.
You know, the one that anybody's worried about.
So I can't say for sure that they lost that ability, but they haven't launched a big wave of missiles.
And they did lose all of their leadership.
And the last guy that was left said to himself, huh, I'm going to have to figure out how to rebuild and get things coordinated again, but I better not use any digital means.
So send out the runners and get the, the, I don't know, the third level down of commanders because the other ones have all been killed and we'll, we'll meet in my, uh, my command bunker.
Yeah, we're, Whatever's left of the leadership of Hezbollah, after most of it's already been killed, we're going to meet in my well-known command bunker.
My well-known, well-identified command bunker.
Knowing that there are obviously spies working, because without the spies, Israel would not have been able to kill all of the top guys, commanders, already.
Wherever they were.
They got them all.
Which very heavily suggests there's an insider who's saying, um, he's in a blue car, he's heading down the street now.
So, the head of Hezbollah, clearly not a strategic genius, decided to get what was left of Hezbollah to meet him in person in his command bunker.
Well, what do you think happened then? I'm not supposed to laugh at war.
But did this really happen?
Did Israel really figure out a way to kill all the leaders and then make sure that the new team of leaders all went in the same place at the same time and that they would know where they were and when they were there?
And then they would drop a bunch of bunker busters on it and just make it a hole in the ground?
Well, there's nothing funny about this situation, but Hezbollah had been telling a lot of lies, and Israel decided to debunker him.
That's right, they debunkered him.
And when they were done, the thing that used to be called the Command Bunker looked a lot like Justin Bieber's sphincter after a ditty party.
I'll just let you live with that one for a while.
Take your time.
Take your time.
Whenever you're done, we'll get back to it.
Okay.
Yeah.
Look like Justin Bieber's a sphincter, sphincter after a ditty party.
Anyway, uh, we don't see them, uh, firing back a whole bunch of missiles.
Uh, Iran apparently had a big old meeting and Iran thinks some people are saying Iran is going to send some, um, Somebody said Iran might send some troops to Lebanon.
I don't know if that's a good idea for them, but, uh, it gets better.
Apparently, uh, Israel hacked the airport control tower for, uh, for Lebanon, Beirut, I guess.
And, uh, since we know that Iran apparently was shipping in supplies and weapons to Hezbollah, They got to the control tower, took it over with hackers, and told the planes they better turn around because they're in trouble if they land.
And there's some evidence that one of the planes that was coming from Iran to Lebanon turned around immediately.
Turned around immediately.
Which means it was probably full of weapons.
Don't know for sure, but maybe.
Well, if any of this is true, Uh, Israel basically just rewrote all the war books about how you do anything.
The, the level of brilliance that appears to be here.
Now, remember this is still fog of war propaganda.
We're getting a version of the news that says Israel is beyond brilliant, so just be careful that you're maybe not seeing all the warts.
Maybe things weren't as clean, and maybe there was some luck involved.
We don't know everything, but if we're just Judge it on the surface, it would be the greatest military strategic success of my life.
I mean, the amount that I am impressed by what Israel's done militarily.
And again, I want to, if somebody is new to me, I don't back Israel because they don't back me.
It's not my job to back Israel.
Now they're an ally, and I take that seriously, but I'm an American.
So I'm sitting over here caring what's good for me.
You know, Israel is just something I'm observing.
And sometimes I say to myself, all right, if that happened to America, how would we act?
Well, we're full of DEI, so we couldn't get, we couldn't pull that off, but I wish we could.
I wish we were that smart.
Anyway, um, there's a, uh, There's a new drone.
South Korea made a drone that works on hydrogen.
It's a hydrogen drone, Tech Time says.
It's got a 5,800 mile range and can stay in the air for hours compared to 30 minutes for a normal drone.
So if you've got something that can lift some weight and can go 5,800 miles and stay in the air for hours, the degree of warfare you can do with small drones, because these would be smallish ones, is a whole new level.
So, I don't know how close we are to an all-robot war, where it's just drones in the sky, because you don't want to waste a pilot, and, you know, robot dogs on the ground.
We're pretty close.
We're pretty close.
We might actually get to the point where if the robots on one side defeat the robots on the other, that the humans will just surrender.
Rather than send humans to fight their robots, which would just be slaughter, we'll just say, all right, your robots beat our robots.
We don't like it, but you're in charge now.
You own our country.
We're getting there.
I think you'll see it in your lifetime.
Judge Chuck can According to Jeff Clark, she's gaming with the timing of things so that a few weeks before the election, there'll be some kind of reveal from Jack Smith.
So Jack Smith, the DA, he's got some materials that we haven't seen, but the redacted version might come out mid-October.
Now, whatever A prosecutor of Trump produces in mid-October is going to be bad for Trump.
Now, do you think it's a huge coincidence that the badness would come out at the very worst time?
Do we expect that whatever badness he produces is real, like actually in context and accurate?
Nope, I do not believe that.
I believe that they would, because remember, Department of Justice are criminals, and the criminals are now legal.
So this would be the Department of Justice.
Now they're criminals.
Um, so the criminal thing to do would be to make up a bunch of shit and know that there's no time to correct it before the election.
And, and just depend on the, uh, the fake news to say it's all true.
And then after the election, you do the fact check.
It's like, Oh, yeah, I guess, I guess this wasn't as true as we thought.
Sorry about that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Sorry.
That's what it looks like.
Well, one of my favorite things yesterday was that Trump and Zelensky met.
Now, that's unusual because Trump is not the sitting president, so you have to be delicate about what you can and cannot do in that situation.
I loved the press conference after, where Trump, his 6'3", is standing over Zelensky, his 5'6", or whatever he is, and Zelensky just looked like he'd just been punished by his parents.
Like, he looked like a defeated—he didn't look like Zelensky of old.
Give us weapons, we'll fight every day, we'll win.
And Trump is just saying, What was Trump saying?
He was saying, basically, it's over.
We need to negotiate a deal.
We'll just figure out who gets what land.
We'll sort it out.
Now, that's when Zelensky, in the past, would have said something like, no, we will fight.
We must get every inch of land back.
We will never quit.
They can't steal our land.
The best he could do Because he knows there's a good chance he's going to be dealing with Trump in the future.
The best he could do is remind us that Russia is on Ukrainian land.
And so when they negotiate, you know, that should be top of mind.
But even he was talking about negotiating.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
So now Zelensky seems on board with negotiating and obviously some kind of land agreement will have to happen.
Putin, of course, is interested in negotiating.
And there are the two sides.
Who's not interested in negotiating?
Democrats and the deep state and the military-industrial complex.
But if you put Trump in there, there's nobody left who wants the war.
Zelensky doesn't really want any more of it.
You know, he'd love to win, but doesn't seem to be an option, so forget about that.
Yeah.
All it takes is a President Trump.
Now, when he'd been saying he could get it done in a day, you know, that's hyperbole.
Nobody could do it in a day.
But basically, he could.
Because all it takes is Trump to be President, and then there's nobody in the game who wants to keep fighting.
Because Ukraine and Russia definitely don't.
They definitely don't.
And as long as Trump doesn't, there's nobody left.
So yes, he could wind it up as soon as he gets in there.
I wonder if Trump actually worried that he could end the war before he got in office and before there's even an election, so that it wouldn't count in his benefit on the election.
But if you want to end this war, you now have a 100% Obvious way to do it that you control as a citizen.
You can just vote for Trump and this war is over.
It really is.
All right.
Bill Maher had a show last night.
We always talk about him.
He is, you know, I know it bothers some people that Bill Maher is always at discussion the next day because blah, blah, blah.
Um, but he is a, a good indicator of what people are thinking.
And on that basis, it's fascinating.
And he actually said that we should defend Ukraine.
And that it's basically so little money for the United States that we're getting some benefit of degrading Russia.
We're protecting our ally.
Kind of an ally.
And this is what Maher says about the money.
He says that basically none of us can tell the difference.
The amount of money we spend in Ukraine, you're saying that you and I don't feel it?
To which I say, have you heard of inflation?
Now I don't know how much of the, let's see, if our deficit per year is in the over a trillion dollar range, is it like 1.3 trillion?
Somewhere in that range?
And how much do we give to Ukraine every year?
A few hundred billion?
Do we spend a few hundred billion per year?
So maybe 15% of our deficit?
Something like that.
And then, of course, we have to build up our own military, because we're sending our own bullets over there, so we've got to buy our own bullets or something.
So, he is correct that we cannot identify the difference in our life from the Ukraine expenses.
I can't identify, okay, how much of my inflation was because of that war.
It might be 10%, but it's also not ending, and the amount we're spending isn't really the total issue.
It's about whether we should be having a war with a nuclear power, and what are we getting from it?
And is it worth $200 billion?
And if we've got $200 billion extra to spend on anything, is that where you want it to go?
Because $200 billion is real money.
Anyway, so far it's been $10 billion here, $7 billion there.
I don't know what it adds up to.
All right.
Vivek Ramaswamy says that Musk is super hardcore about firing federal employees working with Trump.
And I saw this on the George account, good account to follow on ex-George.
Ramaswamy said, it looks like Elon will use Ozempic on the government's fat.
And here's a quote, Elon's pretty hardcore.
And Vivek says, I said 75% of the federal bureaucrats, he said you need to put at least 75.
So Elon Musk's correction to Vivek, who wanted to get rid of 75% of the bureaucrats, was you should say at least.
How much do you love that?
How much do you love that if you can imagine that you could ever get rid of 75% of the bureaucrats, that you should really be saying more?
I guess.
I just love that.
I don't know that they can get rid of more than 75%, but the fact that he's not going to be limited by your 75% estimate, I love that.
It's at least 75%.
Anyway, according to the Gateway Pundit, Antonio Graceffo, writer, He's got an argument in their opinion piece that liberal policies are driving up our obesity rates.
Now up to 40% of the adults, or is it everybody, 40% are obese.
I don't know if that's 40%.
Oh yeah, it is adults and 20% of children.
Now when I saw that opinion, I said to myself, I don't know if I want to read this.
Because I don't think he's going to convince me that liberal policies are making people fat.
Because I said to myself, how?
How are liberal policies making anybody fat?
Explain that.
And he talked about how school gym classes are cutting way back, so kids are less active in school.
And I said, hmm, public schools?
Okay, Democrats pretty much have a lock on everything that happens in a public school, so yeah, I guess, okay.
Yeah, less physical activity, sure.
Then there's fat acceptance.
The idea that Democrats are pushing the idea that you don't need to lose weight, you're perfectly healthy, nobody should judge you.
And while I agree with the notion that I don't like fat shaming, there's no question that the public attitude toward it has an impact on how people act, right?
If people say, you're fine, you can be any way you want, there's going to be more people overweight if the public says cruelly, don't be like that.
There's probably going to be less of it.
People are going to try harder.
Now, there might also be some food-related illnesses, but that's a separate question.
I'm talking about anorexia, for example.
There are food deserts now in a lot of poor areas because the crime was so high that places that would sell you healthier food, like a grocery store, just said, we're out.
There's still McDonald's, so good luck.
That feels fair.
And then, of course, the pandemic and the lockdown had some lasting effects.
So I'm not sure how much of the obesity is because of liberal policies, but I do think that Antonio made his case.
He made his case.
It's just we can't tell what percentage of the whole problem is caused by that, but it's not making it better.
Anyway, there's now jets that are going to be able to do automatic takeoffs and landings, according to CNN.
And if you didn't know this, and this is weird, the more advanced planes could already land in bad weather and stuff.
Well, it could land autonomously.
So even if the pilot dropped dead, the advanced planes could just land.
And the landing, some say, the machine would do it better than the pilot.
The pilot can make a human error, the machine's much less likely.
But what I didn't know is that the planes were not equipped to take off without a pilot.
Which seems weird.
It seems like taking off would be easier than landing.
But taking off is actually harder.
I mean, or it can be.
So it's actually a big deal that airplanes are learning to take off on their own, at the same time that robo-taxis are coming on.
So the idea of having a human sitting behind a steering wheel for anything, it will be largely defunct.
Except for recreational stuff like, I don't know, maybe your fishing boat or something.
Anyway, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I wanted to say that's worth saying today.
We'll keep an eye on whatever is happening with Hezbollah and Israel, but as I've said before, if Israel is going to get tough with its enemies and neighbors, there's never been a better time in history to do it.
Because first of all, it seems like they have, you know, a good handle on the military strategy, obviously.
But also there's no leadership in the United States.
So that if they can get themselves a little bit pregnant, you know, make sure that they're well into a war against Hezbollah or Iran or whoever they decide to go to war with.
If they do it now, Trump won't be able to stop him because he's now president.
And Biden's barely a president and Harris is out in the road.
So if you were going to make a big move and you're Israel, it's going to happen now.
So I would expect maximum chaos.
But there's also a possibility that Israel will have a surprisingly fast and good result in Lebanon.
Because a lot of the Lebanese I'm hearing are not so pro-Hezbollah.
So if Israel could find a way to be, let's say, accurate enough to take out Hezbollah without killing much in the way of innocent Lebanese people who don't like Hezbollah either, they might be able to find a workable situation there.
Maybe.
Imagine how different that would be if Lebanon were no longer an enemy of Israel, or at least parts of it.
So, Hezbollah being bad actors and Hamas being bad actors, maybe something can change.
We'll see.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I have for you.
I'm going to talk to the local subscribers privately because of their awesomeness.
