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, Climate Change Models, Figure AI Humanoid Robots, NYT Bias, WaPo Bias, Keith Olbermann, Home Garden Protein, CR Omnibus Passage Pressure, Free Speech Suppression Funding, Mystery Drones, Trump Legacy Media Lawsuits, Questionable Election Polls, Michael Cohen, Fed Agencies Funding Reuters, Anti-Musk Reuters, Anti-Trump ACLU, J6 Investigators Investigated, Liz Cheney, Cassidy Hutchinson, Anti-Musk Elizabeth Warren, Anti-Evil Federal Czar, Mike Benz, DEI Illegality, American Airlines DEI, Jeffrey Sacks, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
It's the best thing that'll ever happen to you, but if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid, I like coffee, and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of The dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better today with a little bit of oxytocin for free.
It's called The Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
Insanely good.
Okay.
Well, here's an interesting thing.
According to Steve Newman on X, it says someone needs to try this.
Pick a thousand published scientific papers at random and then have AI look at them for errors.
What would happen if you took a thousand published, peer-reviewed scientific papers and then just had AI check them for errors?
Well, I think I told you that there was a study about black ladles and black kitchen utensils.
The black plastic would leach off.
And then it turns out they just made a calculation error.
They were off by a factor of 10. It wasn't that dangerous after all.
Well, it turns out that AI could have spotted that.
So if they had run it through AI, it would have spotted it right away.
And then Mark Andreessen, seeing Steve Newman's comment about that, said he would, if somebody wanted to do this as scale, he would fund it.
As scale.
In other words, instead of testing a thousand random scientific papers, Why don't you do all of them?
Just find out how many mistakes there are in the whole thing.
Yeah, it would be far more interesting to know the entire situation than to know that statistically half of them are bad.
I'd rather know which half, at least in terms of the calculations.
So I think the only thing you would find would be errors in calculations or something like that.
All right.
Oh, here's some good news.
According to the atmospheric chemistry and physics, whatever that is, did you know that back in 2020, there was regulations, regulations were introduced to remove the sulfur content from shipping fuel?
So that's great.
And I guess it worked out because now there's way less sulfur being spewed into the air.
So that's all good news, right?
Oh, wait.
It turns out that removing the sulfur from the air is going to greatly contribute to global warming.
What?
So, there's no such thing as a good idea.
You know, somebody's like, I got an idea.
We have all this sulfur coming out of the fuel from the ships at sea.
What if we had some regulations to reduce that sulfur?
And now they did.
Sound like a good idea.
Nobody wants to be breathing all that sulfur.
Except that it looks like it might have a big effect on climate change and kill us all!
No, it won't kill you.
But here's what I ask every time I see something like this.
So, are you telling me that this was not in the climate models?
And if it wasn't in the climate models, what assumption do you make?
Do you assume that sulfur is removed from the fleet fuel?
Or do you assume it stays in?
And if you assume that it gets removed, what did you assume about how much that would change climate?
And if these assumptions are big and they change the result enough that it matters, Why did we think the models were good before we made these changes?
That's right.
Climate models are nonsense.
The Wall Street Journal has a story that I can't believe is real.
Like, I can't believe that they really ran this story.
So it's a story about how the...
I guess you'd call them...
Not virtual reality, but enhanced reality where you put the glasses on and they look sort of like real glasses.
So they're these Ray-Bans that Meta, Facebook, now has.
And one of their journalists, Joanna Stern, I guess, tried them out and said they're sleek, they're stylish, and something you'd actually want to wear.
Except they ran a picture with the words, they're sleek and stylish, and finally something you'd want to wear.
And I'm no fashion expert, but my take was they were not as sleek, they were not as stylish, and it's definitely something you wouldn't want to wear.
Except for me.
Do you know why I'd want to wear them?
Because I already wear glasses, so nobody would know.
Yeah.
So if you already wear glasses, and, you know, I've tried LASIK, looked into LASIK, but it isn't for me.
It doesn't work.
Wouldn't work on my particular situation.
So if I can't get rid of my glasses, the next best thing is to put all of you in glasses.
This is almost as good As when I was in, what, my 20s or maybe my 30s, and I was prematurely balding, and then suddenly cool people were shaving their heads, and I was like, wait a minute, are you telling me that I could just shave my head, cut it short, and it wouldn't look so terrible because famous people are doing it?
And sure enough, maybe it'll happen with glasses.
Did you know that Florida has some kind of law that goes into effect January 1st where porn purveyors would have to ask for your driver's license to be uploaded in order to watch porn?
So if you live in Florida, you're not going to be able to get Pornhub anymore because Pornhub didn't want to make that change just for Florida.
And I ask you, how many of you, well, it's the wrong crowd, because obviously nobody who's watching this has ever even looked at porn even once.
But if you know anybody, like a family member or something who looks at porn, how many people would be willing to upload their driver's license minutes before they were going to look at porn?
So that your driver's license could be definitively linked with every image that you look at.
Who in the world would look at that?
Well, here's something that they don't report in the news.
I don't know if any of you have noticed, but porn has practically been eliminated from the internet.
So little by little, You know, companies are trying to clamp down.
It's almost non-existent.
You know, my guess is that the only porn that you'll ever see is virtual reality.
I think we're...
I'll make a prediction.
Three years away from no human porn on the internet.
It'll all just be virtual reality.
Won't be real people.
That's what I think.
And will you have to show your ID? Well, not if you're using AI to make your own.
So in three years, you'll be able to just say, hey, AI, I have these interests.
Make me some clips.
And it will.
So yeah, Pornhub is basically dead in the long run.
The company that makes robots called Figure, they now have their Figure version 02, and they've got one that's operational on a BMW production line.
So this is an actual humanoid robot that already has a job.
Now, I think it's more prototype and they're Making sure that they can tweak it to make it work.
But it's sort of working on a BMW line.
But here's the big deal.
You know how I always tease the AI and robot business?
Because for my entire life, robots were always slow.
Even if you just saw them in a fictional movie where it wasn't even a real robot, they would always move very slowly.
And I always thought, what is that all about?
Like, why can't a robot move faster?
So I guess this new one is 400% faster.
It's not up to human speed yet, but getting close.
That does suggest that it can get to human speed at some point.
And it's a game changer.
So apparently, you know, if you want to mark the data on your calendar...
This is just about the day in history that a humanoid robot went to work.
It just worked on an assembly line.
We're there.
So, you know how you imagined this all your life?
You imagine, someday, is it just going to be a humanoid robot on that assembly line?
Here it is.
Today's the day.
All right.
Did you know that a Chinese company...
It seems to be the dominant manufacturer of home internet routers that have been linked to cyber attacks.
So there's a worry that the dominant, you know, the primary home internet router in the United States is susceptible to hackers or China's control.
And according to the Wall Street Journal, there's some talk about banning them.
It's the top recommended choice, I guess, on Amazon.
How in the world did we get to this point where the majority of internet connections in the United States run through Chinese equipment that isn't secure?
We're finding this out today?
Today?
Here's another thing I found out today.
I was reading a seemingly well-informed post on X. Was it the Something Squirrel?
Guy who reports a lot about Ukraine.
But he was talking about how the United States has no defense for any airborne attacks and couldn't possibly ever have one.
But we've tried lots of times.
Basically, we're totally vulnerable for anything that comes in the air.
And I don't think we have really anything that would stop drones or missiles or almost anything.
Basically, the country is too big.
Borders are too big.
You're not going to stop a swarm of anything.
So we're very vulnerable.
I'm not sure I knew that as much as I know it now.
Well, you may have heard that a top aide, former top aide, The Harris campaign said that it doesn't make sense for Democrats to do interviews with the New York Times and the Washington Post.
And the reason is that the readers of those magazines are already going to vote Democrat, or those newspapers.
So somehow, the New York Times and the Washington Post made themselves irrelevant to national politics.
Because you already know what they're...
So they've already hypnotized and brainwashed their audience to the point where talking to them doesn't add anything because they've already hypnotized their audience.
How could you even call these publications the news if a major candidate for president thinks, ah, their readers are so brainwashed that new information won't change any opinions?
So I'm certainly glad I'm not associated with the newspaper business anymore.
That kind of worked out pretty well for me.
And then related to that, there's a scoop, and Axios is talking about this, that they're trying to get new bosses, top editors at the Washington Post, and people who are being considered for it are like, no thanks, because they don't trust that Bezos is going to be sufficiently anti-Trump.
So the Washington Post is having trouble hiring anybody good because the people who are good and experienced at publications don't want to work anywhere where it might be balanced.
That's a real thing.
That you can't get the best people in the business to work at a publication that might become balanced in the future.
It's not even balanced now, but they're worried it might become balanced.
Somebody says, that squirrel guy is a Ukrainian shill.
Yes, the account that I referred to is pro-Ukrainian, but probably doesn't matter to the question of whether the United States has a workable air defense.
But yes, that's a good point.
So...
Now, here's a little story that I don't know enough about, but it's suggestive of things to come.
There's some reporting on social media that Tim Pool and his TimCast operation might be doing some kind of a deal or selling the operation to the Daily Wire.
I don't know what that means exactly, so I don't know if that means they would continue operating but have some kind of operational deal with the Daily Wire or something.
So whether or not that happens or we notice any difference there, I'm not sure if it's anything we'll even notice.
But somebody mentioned in the comments before the show, because I do a little show before the show, just for the local subscribers, somebody mentioned the idea that the mainstream media might start buying up podcasts.
And I thought...
Oh my God, that's probably going to happen.
So at the moment, podcasting is the new shiny thing.
And if you work for that old mainstream media, you feel like you're with the dinosaur technology, where else all the cool new podcasters are moving the needle and controlling the country.
But if those mainstream media companies are owned by billionaires, which they largely are, the billionaire can just buy the podcasters.
So they can just say, all right, I'll buy these top six podcasters.
I'll put them together and make it some kind of a podcasting network and maybe put them on TV. And I thought, that feels like it's inevitable.
Because although I would definitely not want to be bought by any kind of mainstream media, I'm kind of a special case.
But...
You can imagine if they backed up the truck, you know, or if I were in a different place in my life, you can imagine if they backed up the money truck, that I might say, I wasn't really planning on working for ABC News, but how much were you willing to pay me?
So I think we're going to see...
I think we're going to see podcasters moving to mainstream media if they've done well and they want that big paycheck.
So that could ruin the entire podcasting atmosphere.
We'll see.
Keith Olbermann, according to Fox News, Keith Olbermann wrote some article in which he's giving advice to MSNBC. Now, the funniest thing to me is that Keith Olbermann's giving advice to MSNBC, and I would love for MSNBC to take all of his advice, because it's so good.
He wants the network to stay committed to its anti-Trump content, and he thinks the network should fire Mika and Joe The Morning Joe hosts because they met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, so they're too corrupted now.
They've been ruined by association with Trump.
And he says, change the damn name of the network.
I guess he doesn't like the Microsoft part of that.
He wants the network to be called self-explanatory F-Trump TV. Now, the whole thing reads like it's a prank, like you can't even tell if he's necessarily serious, but he probably is.
I like the fact that MSNBC needs advice from Keith Olbermann.
Meanwhile, the Department of Defense is giving out some money to bioindustrial firms and asking them to see if they can create some kind of fungi-related protein that they can use that's sustainable, that they can use for the military.
Now, I wonder if you can make fungi-related protein that would work in home indoor gardens.
Because, you know, the hard part about indoor gardening is you can't grow, it's harder to grow protein sources.
Usually when they have gardens, it's like, hey, look at the lettuce we can grow.
And you say, really?
Lettuce?
Wow, that's cool.
What else can you grow?
Herbs.
Okay, but I can't just eat herbs and lettuce.
What else can you grow?
Well, not much else sufficiently, but we got lots of lettuce and herbs.
So if we can figure out things that would grow in indoor gardens that would actually have protein and be good for you, that'd be amazing.
So this might actually be useful.
Well, Joe Biden hates Nancy Pelosi, we assume, because he did an interview and he says that Congress should not be allowed to trade stocks because they have insider trading privileges if they're in Congress.
Now, why would Joe Biden suddenly care about that, of all things?
It sounds personal, doesn't it?
It sounds like somebody's trying to get back at some of the members of Congress who are making money.
And Joe's just like, well, if you're going to stop me from making money, maybe I'll stop you from making money.
How about that?
Nancy Pelosi.
We don't know if that's why he said it should be banned.
A lot of people think it should be banned.
But it's fun to talk about the drama.
Meanwhile, there is a One foot tall pile of papers called the omnibus, or maybe it's a continued resolution that looks like an omnibus.
So it's basically a budget for Congress to pass.
And as Thomas Massey warned long ago, that Congress is so worthless that And they can't make decisions on individual spending things, that they would put it all together in one giant bill that nobody would have time to read before Christmas vacation.
So now the pressure will be on to vote for something that they haven't read and don't agree with, or miss Christmas with their families.
That's a real thing.
So our system devolved to the point where our Congress people Will be hectored by their own family.
Daddy, will you be home for Christmas?
Well, I don't know, dear.
I've got important work to do here.
I've got to vote on a bunch of things, and this big continued resolution isn't good, so we're going to have to work that out.
I'll be missing Christmas.
But, Daddy, you'll be here for New Year's, right?
Probably not.
It's going to take a month at least to work through this, maybe two months.
But you go ahead with Christmas without me.
Given that Congress are mostly human beings, if you put Christmas between them and doing a good job, they're going to pick Christmas.
And I'd love to tell you, if I had that job, or if you put me in that job, I would not say yes to Christmas.
I would let my children have Christmas by themselves, because I would stay there and do a good job.
No, I probably wouldn't.
I'd probably vote in the damn thing and go home for Christmas, because Christmas matters.
It's a higher priority to most people.
So, I don't think our Congress could be any more broken than to do this right in front of us when everybody knew they were going to do it, everybody knew they didn't need to do it, everybody knows they're doing it because they can't do their real job, and it's basically a way to say, well, we couldn't really do our job, so I hope you'll be happy with us doing the opposite of what you're paying us for.
Would that be okay?
Hey, I got an idea.
Instead of doing what you elected us for and what you pay us for, just work with me.
Suppose we did the opposite of that.
Suppose we didn't do any work to get a good budget.
We just signed it so we could go home for Christmas.
Why don't we do that instead?
Yes, let's do that instead.
The opposite of what we pay you for.
And they do it right in front of us because there's nothing we can do about it.
Because every single person in Congress seems to be on the same page except Massey and Paul Rand, basically.
Rand Paul, I mean.
And so we just have to put up with this.
Well, somebody ran the gigantic pile of crap through one of the AIs.
I think it was Grok.
And it summarized...
In plain language, what was in there and what the problems were.
But guess what?
The summary is so big that that's useless too.
The summary is too big.
So the original document is way too big, but even the summary is more than you could handle.
I mean, I looked at it and said, I don't have time for that.
You know why I don't have time for that?
Because I want to celebrate Christmas.
No, just kidding.
But yeah, even the summary is too long.
So Apple Lamps, that's the name of the account on X that put it through Grok.
And then there's a section in there, according to John Herold, who found this.
So some people are actually looking through this continued resolution, looking for problems.
So John Herold found this, that the continued resolution has a section in it that you probably wouldn't know unless you really dug into it.
It's hidden in there.
And it's to, quote, quash or modify any legal process if compliance with the legal process would require the disclosure of House data.
Now, house data would be defined as any electronic mail or electronic data communications.
And they're also applying it to pending things, things that are already in process.
So the basic idea here is if somebody was putting pressure on Congress They could quash it, any legal process.
They could quash it if it required them to show any of their communications, which is what pretty much most of your legal processes do in fact require.
So they would make sure that the public couldn't know exactly what they were doing, even in the context of a legal process.
Now, they stuck that into the bill that everybody would have to sign before they go on vacation for Christmas.
Absolute no.
Wow.
Nope.
It also includes, according to Gabe Kaminsky, who writes for the DC Examiner, so this funding bill also includes a short-term funding bill to avert a government shutdown, but it also has an extension on the State Department's Global Engagement Center.
Have you ever heard of the Global Engagement Center?
If you look through a document that was one foot tall printed out, it's a foot tall.
And you found this one thing about funding the State Department's Global Engagement Center.
Would you know what that was or why they want to fund it or what kind of work it does?
How many people would even know what that is?
Well, Matt Taibbi, Reported in the past that it's one of the entities that funds the speech suppression efforts in the United States.
It's a free speech suppression in the United States.
And it's being funded.
And they're asking Congress to vote for free speech suppression tools.
My God.
So here's my take.
The reason that a funding bill like this would be put before Congress, right before Christmas, is to make it impossible for them to say no.
They need to say no.
The only way you can fix this is you have to break the government.
You have to just take it all down.
Just break it.
So although everything will stop working, Presumably there would be gigantic repercussions for voting no.
They should vote no.
And we should experience gigantic repercussions.
Well, I'm ready for gigantic repercussions.
If it means that the country is temporarily defenseless against their enemies, okay, do it anyway.
If it means that the government can't get any of its important work done for months, yes, do it anyway.
Break it.
Break this fucking thing.
You've got to break it.
You have to break it.
You can't say yes to this even one more time.
You have to break this.
Let everything fall apart.
Let the whole fucking thing come down.
Break it.
Vote no.
Don't ever, ever let us be in this situation again.
Break it.
Break it hard.
Break it with no remorse, no apology.
Break it.
Break the whole fucking thing.
Please.
And anybody who votes for this, I would lose all respect for them, honestly.
Anybody who votes for this, no respect.
I have no respect for anybody who will vote for this.
Republican, Democrat, no respect.
All right.
Let's talk about those drones.
Here's some pro tip for you.
If your government says these words, Quote, we have not seen anything to worry about.
Now, I'm paraphrasing.
They didn't use exactly those words, but Kirby was close to that.
If they say we haven't seen anything to worry about, it probably means that the government doesn't know what's going on.
Actually, Kirby didn't say it that way.
He said it the next way.
If they say there's no danger to the public, that means they do know what's going on.
Otherwise, as many people have noted, How do you know there's no danger if you also don't know what they are?
Right?
So obviously, super obviously, the government knows more than we do about what's going on and for whatever reason is not telling you.
So one of the things I learned when I was in hypnosis class Is you can look for the overly specific lie.
Well, it's true because it's overly specific, but it's a way to lie without lying.
In other words, they worded things in a way that you will leap to a conclusion that they're not really saying.
So it's sort of misleading.
So if they say, we have not seen anything to worry about, Then you just know that they haven't seen anything, just like you.
You don't know anything, they don't know anything.
That's probably honest, or it could be honest.
But if they say there is no danger to the public, well, then they're definitely lying about knowing or not knowing what's in there.
Here's my prediction about the drones.
If it hasn't started already, I'm expecting a huge decrease in what were called the drones the size of a car.
Now, I don't think there'll be a decrease in the commercial-sized regular drones, of which there are probably many.
And I don't think there'll be a decrease in commercial flights.
So you're going to see as many stars, helicopters, commercial flights, and your normal commercial drones as you ever did.
But there were some that were not in those category, reportedly.
And, you know, pretty credible people are reporting that.
So, I think that the ones that are the size of a vehicle may have been military, and it may have been training, and they may be getting ready for some kind of operation.
And so, my prediction is that the number of drones that are the size of a car...
If not already, will soon be shipped over to the Middle East for at least making it easier to negotiate.
It doesn't mean that war has been decided, but you can certainly see that a conversation with Iran might go differently if we had lots of military assets in the region.
So, it might be to threaten.
It might be for Ukraine.
Maybe they're testing some new stuff for Ukraine.
Speaking of Ukraine, I wasn't going to talk about this, but I will.
So, somebody very arrogant...
He said something about one of my posts about the drones, suggesting that I don't know anything about drones, or what's happening in Ukraine with drones.
And he went on this extended multi-thread Explanation of all the amazing things that Ukraine is doing with drones.
Said that the United States drones are useless because they're just easy to jam.
But that somehow the Ukrainians have figured out the best drones and all the great drones are being made in Ukraine.
Ukraine is becoming the world headquarters for the best drone making and innovation.
And it just went on and on and on.
And all it looked like to me is You know that drug that makes you go to war, the October 7th people?
What's it called?
Captagon?
I think the drug is called Captagon.
It's basically a speed that makes you invulnerable to things that would normally bother you, like being shot and stuff like that.
So it just looked to me like the person I was talking to was on Captagon because it didn't look like You would write that much if you were just trying to make a point.
Because the point was as easy as what I just said.
Oh, maybe you don't know that Ukraine has done amazing advances in drones and that drone warfare is the primary war now.
That's all I needed to say.
But it makes me wonder that one of the biggest things that the news mentions but doesn't work into every story, and maybe it should, is that the people involved are on Captagon.
And they're on a specific drug that creates a specific change in personality, meaning that you will do horrible things and you do things for longer and things that are harder than you normally would.
So if you've got a bunch of people who are all hopped up on Captagon, it's going to be hard to walk away from that.
And I imagine they get hooked on it.
Anyway, I don't know that he's on Captagon, but he acted like somebody who's got a little extra going on.
So I think there might be something going on with our drones being tested, and maybe there'll be less of it now.
Now, the frustrating thing about the drones, which is just fascinating to me from the perspective of psychology, Is that there are some things in this world that are impossible to communicate.
So you all remember the story of the boy who cried wolf?
You know, he kept saying there was a wolf coming, but because he was lying, when a wolf finally did come, and the little boy said, wolf, wolf, and everybody said, well, that little boy is lying again.
So that's an example of something that can't be communicated.
The little boy saw a wolf, wanted to tell somebody, but it created a situation where you can't communicate it.
There's something similar to that with these drones, because the way that people communicate what they're seeing is by taking a picture and sending it to you.
So far, I haven't seen any picture that looks convincing that there's some dangerous, anomalous drones in the air.
However, the people who are taking the pictures are very credible.
So the human is saying, I'm standing here and I'm seeing something I've never seen before and there's a lot of it.
And I've looked in the sky before.
I've never seen this.
This is new.
And then you see the picture and you go, maybe, but this is a picture of a dot.
But the dot is moving sideways.
It's a drone.
But that's what we're talking about.
Well, but if it's a commercial drone...
See, at this point, I would expect the sky in New Jersey would be full of just people's ordinary commercial or hobby drones because they're looking for the other drones.
So there should be tons of things in the air that are drones that are just drones.
So when the government tells you there's nothing dangerous or anomalous, what they haven't said is We have no idea of anything being tested that's new.
I feel like the press is not asking the right question.
The question they should ask would be something like, can you tell us, yes or no, is the military doing any increased testing and or evaluation or training of drones in New Jersey or other areas around the United States?
Are you doing anything with drones of any way That you're doing more of it in these areas.
Because if you just let them say there's nothing anomalous, that includes their own testing.
There's nothing anomalous about a little extra drone testing if they were doing drone testing, you know, normally and routinely all the time anyway.
So yeah, it gives them a little bit too much of an out.
You gotta nail them down a little bit.
Well, as you know, Trump said that the government definitely knows about what the drones are and what they're up to and where they even go to and come from.
And then he was asked if he had been briefed, a security briefing, and he said he didn't want to talk about it.
Now, is Trump smart enough that he would answer any question about a security briefing by saying, I don't want to talk about it?
Because that might be Like, strategically, that might be what Trump always says.
He just doesn't want to tell you, maybe until he's in office, he doesn't want to tell you what he knows and doesn't know, so he'd rather just not talk about the topic.
But the way it comes off, the way it comes off, because it's like he's the de facto president, the way it comes off is that he knows exactly what they are.
And he doesn't want to tell you because he can't, but he thinks they should.
That's what it comes off as.
Now, that would suggest there's something happening, but maybe anomalous isn't the right word.
Like I said, if it's things we always do, but we're just doing a little extra of it, it's not that anomalous.
It's just a little extra.
And And the Pentagon press secretary doesn't want to explain why the CIA and FBI drone briefing remains classified.
So I guess the CIA and the FBI are giving some kind of briefing to Congress that's classified.
And then the question would be, what exactly are they going to talk about drones over New Jersey that's classified when the public would like to know?
So, I don't know.
Maybe it's just automatic that they classify anything like that.
And then, let's see, Michael McCall, who's the House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman, thinks they might be Chinese drones, spy drones, which they might be.
But even if they're Chinese spy drones, does that mean they're illegal?
Because wouldn't China just buy a commercial drone like everybody else, license it like everybody else, register it like everybody else, and just fly it around and look at things they're not supposed to look at?
So even those drones, if you were somehow to get their electronic signal, figure out what they are, and even figure out who's running it, it might all look like it's legal.
So, is there any conflict between saying they're Chinese spy drones, but also saying they're completely legal?
It might be the same thing.
I don't know.
I mean, not the spying part, but in terms of how the drone was acquired and how it's being run.
Anyway, so, more on that later, I'm sure.
So, as you know, Trump says he's going to sue, I guess, the Iowa newspaper and Ann Seltzer's old polling company because Ann Seltzer did that poll that looked like Harris was going to win, maybe win big.
And people say, that looks like you did that fake poll intentionally.
Now, Ann Seltzer says it was just a mistake.
There was no shenanigans.
But then she immediately retired, which made it look even more suspect.
And so Trump's going to sue.
Did you know that, according to the Harris campaign people, the Harris internal polls never showed her head?
Never.
It never showed her ahead.
Never.
And yet, all the public polls, as Rasmussen's having a good time, you know, dancing on the graves of the other pollsters, although they're not dead, but sometimes you wish they were out of business, because they show Rasmussen's projection that Trump would be up by two.
Followed by this whole bunch of other pollsters saying that Harris was up from two to six points.
Right up to the last minute.
The other polls were all, I think, corrupt.
I mean, I assumed that it wasn't just incompetence because they were all sort of in the same direction and all wrong in the same way.
But from the start, Rasmussen was directionally correct and then had one of the few pollsters that was right from start to finish.
And they're the ones that, if you listen to the mainstream news, If you watch somebody doing some kind of an interview on mainstream news, and let's say a Republican says, well, and according to the Rasmussen poll, watch what the hosts of mainstream news will do when you say Rasmussen.
They always do the same thing.
Oh, Rasmussen.
Yeah.
Rasmussen?
Did you say Rasmussen?
And I'm supposed to take that seriously?
Oh, no, we're only looking at the good polls, the good ones, the reliable ones.
But don't bring up this Rasmussen stuff.
And, of course, Rasmussen was one of the top pollsters for the entire cycle.
Yep, they're all a bunch of liars, except for Rasmussen, apparently.
So Michael Cohen was on CNN, and he says that Trump is right about suing the legacy media.
Michael Cohen, Michael Cohen says Trump is completely right about the treatment from the mainstream media.
Michael Cohen.
Man, when things start going right for Trump, there's a lot of stuff going right for him right now.
So if you didn't know, Michael Cohen did everything he could to stop Trump and thwart him, and he used to be his lawyer, but then turned on him big.
So for Michael Cohen to say anything, anything that's supportive of something Trump is doing, it feels like big news.
And it feels like Zuckerberg going to Mar-a-Lago.
It feels like Jeff Bezos having dinner in Mar-a-Lago.
It feels like the pirate ship of people saying, you know what?
Let's give Trump a chance.
But what he says specifically, Cohen did a good job here.
The Vigilant Fox is reporting this on social media, on X. He says, I think the media has to do their job.
And then Cohen named a A half a dozen of what he called the hundred lies the media spread about him.
So Michael Cohen is having that Gelman effect situation where since the news was about him, he knows when it's fake.
And so he says there were hundreds, hundreds of lies about him.
He's probably right.
There probably were hundreds of lies about him.
He said, look, I was a recipient of more than 100 lies, and I understand what Trump is doing in terms of changing the ways defamation cases are brought in this country.
That's a hell of a thing.
Michael Cohen is in favor of Trump suing the fake news because it might be the only way to fix it.
That's blowing my mind.
It's just blowing my mind.
It feels like common sense is just breaking out all over the place.
Anyway.
So you heard this story before, but I just have to say it again.
The Amuse account on X is reporting this, but I'll just read their words.
So Biden publicly ordered 11 federal agencies to look into Elon Musk.
So you remember when Biden did that Creepy smile when he was asked about Elon Musk.
This was a while ago.
And he said something like that.
Well, we'll be looking into him.
And apparently he ordered 11 agencies to look into him, federal agencies.
All 11 opened investigations, according to the Amuse account.
And all 11 funneled a total of $300 million to Reuters, who then won a Pulitzer Prize for their attack pieces on Trump.
Man, if you don't know the players, you don't understand how deeply corrupt all of this is.
So you had the President of the United States say on camera, in public, we're going to basically lawfare this guy.
Then he ordered the lawfare.
We know the agencies all took it seriously.
They opened investigations.
And then they funded the brainwashing propaganda arm of Reuters, To make sure that everybody had good cover because Reuters would just keep saying bad things about Trump and others would pick it up because it's Reuters.
And wow, the level of badness here is just crazy.
And let's see, according to Reuters, this is a related story.
Charlie Kirk is saying on X today that Reuters has a story out suggesting that Tulsi Gabbard doesn't have enough support from Republicans to get her nomination approved.
And so Reuters is reporting that the Republicans don't have the votes.
So Charlie Kirk, who's well connected, of course, he said he checked with the actual sources inside the Senate, and they tell me the story is garbage and it's all fake.
The news is all fake.
Eleven agencies within the government were corrupt and did these fake investigations.
The president clearly is part of a crime family, clearly did this, which to me looks illegal, right in front of us.
Gee, I wonder if there's anything else that you thought used to be a good organization in the country that's really corrupt.
Oh, look, here's a story about the ACLU. They have a whole, according to the Post Millennial, Libby Evans, that the ACLU has a whole game plan to pressure local officials into blocking Trump's agenda.
So I guess the head of the ACLU was on, I think it was on CNN, and he said they're working on all the executive orders and organizing their folks to put pressure on elected officials so they don't roll over.
Now, what exactly was the mission of the ACLU? Because all I'm hearing is we're Democrats trying to stop Trump.
Is that what people donate money to the ACLU for?
To just be political and be for one party and stop Trump?
So the ACLU looks completely corrupt and just an organ of the Democrats at this point.
So that's terrible.
Meanwhile, the investigation of the investigation.
So Representative Barry Loudermilk was leading an investigation of the January 6th investigation.
So the people who investigated...
Trump, about January 6th, are being investigated themselves.
And many claims are being made about the investigators, the January 6th committee, Liz Janey and the like.
And There are some allegations from Loudermilk's report that there might be at least two crimes that Liz Cheney would be maybe at risk for.
One would be tampering with evidence.
Apparently there's some law about that, and that the tampering would come in the form of secretly communicating with the Hutchinson, Cassidy Hutchinson, who had a lot of negative things to say about Trump, some of which didn't turn out to be true.
So they had secret communications, and I guess that would be like witness tampering.
So if you didn't disclose it and you weren't supposed to do it, you shouldn't be talking to the witness ahead of time.
I guess that's illegal.
Federal law criminalizes it, witness tampering.
There's also procuring another to commit perjury.
So for the same conversation, if there's evidence that Cheney convinced Hutchinson to say something false, that would be against the law.
So I don't know if that actually happened, but let's see.
But there is evidence that Hutchinson committed perjury, according to these guys looking into it.
Then what about the missing data?
The January 6th Select Committee failed to preserve more than one terabyte of data.
Then there's also the now well demonstrated fact that the Department of Defense officials delayed the deployment of the National Guard despite orders from Trump to do everything to protect things.
And some of it was, for the look of it, some of it involved lying.
I guess somebody lied about what they were doing.
They weren't doing anything, but they said they were.
So basically, the January 6th committee is now, I think, I think now completely uncovered as a fraud and just a complete corrupt process.
You and I knew that, but to have it officially investigated and now know for sure it was corrupt and know for sure, in my opinion, we know for sure that it was corrupt and that it was not Trump's fault that the J6ers got out of control.
It was bad security.
Now, what's it called in the law when you have an attractive nuisance?
Is that the right term?
Like if you had something in your backyard that looked like it would be real fun to play on if you were a little kid, but it was also deadly, and a little kid said, oh, that looks fun, and they got killed.
You wouldn't get to say, oh, but they trespassed.
Here, I'm making it up because I'm not a lawyer.
I think you would be in trouble because you created something that was an attractive, dangerous thing.
So the kid says, oh, that's attractive.
I think I'll go play with that big hole in the ground.
So my point is, if you create an attractive nuisance, the people who are attracted to it have some responsibility, yes.
But whoever created the attraction has a bigger responsibility.
So if you run an election that looks very much like it was rigged, I don't know that it was rigged, but I know that the pattern recognition of the public, the Republican public, were quite sure that it looked rigged.
So you create an election that looks rigged, And then you know there's a protest and it's going to be at a certain place and you've got plenty of time to have sufficient security.
But you decide not to, for whatever reason.
Maybe a mistake, maybe intentional.
But if you run an election that looks for all the world like it looks rigged, even if it wasn't, and then you don't have proper security in the one place that people are going to go to that you know and they're going to be really mad about the election...
I would say that the government is responsible for everything that got broken, everything that was defaced, and all the violence.
Now, on top of it, the people who are violent have responsibility.
They definitely have responsibility.
But they've also served some time.
I'm guessing maybe everybody who did something violent has probably served a little time by now, or lost all their money paying for lawyers, one or the other.
So I feel like they all have to be pardoned, no matter what they did, because the process was so corrupt that allowing some people who did some genuine crimes, even including violence, To either get out early or at least get out of the process and not be pursued further.
I think that's the right thing to do.
So...
Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren showing us that Democrats only have one role in life, which is making the country worse off.
And if there's ever a good idea or something that's working, they're going to try really hard to stop it.
So, what's one of the best things happening in the country?
Well, in my opinion...
One of the best things happening in the country is Elon Musk and Doge and his close connection to Trump and the fact that they get along and seem to be on the same page.
So what does Elizabeth Warren want to do?
She wants to make that impossible.
So she wants some kind of stringent conflict of interest agreement that would say that Musk can't be involved in a certain set of things.
But what would really happen if such a conflict of interest document got created?
Well, let me tell you.
Elon Musk has his fingers in every part of America.
So basically, he would either be completely excluded from everything, because there would always be some part of his business or something he's doing that has some conflict of interest, with everything.
With everything.
And so he just wouldn't be able to do it.
Or if he did it, they'd have a reason to jail him or go after him.
So it looks to me...
Like the Democrats have gone from being some kind of a just opposition party to how can we make everything not work?
Oh, let's add some DEI. That will make every company fail and the government fail.
Let's stop the two most effective people in the United States, Musk and Trump, from working effectively together.
Let's get rid of free speech, but we'll do it cleverly with these NGOs.
Let's...
Let's create a committee to investigate and blame somebody for the problems that we created by not having good security and running an election that didn't look proper to the public.
So they found a way to blame the wrong people for January 6th.
The right people to blame is whoever created that election system where we couldn't tell if somebody won or not.
They got a lot of blame.
And the bad security.
All right.
Well, how evil are things?
Mike Cernovich had an idea that I loved.
He said, there's so much evil to uncover from the Biden regime, it should be its own office.
So he recommends the evil czar, evil with a capital E, basically a czar to root out the evil.
And he had even a suggestion for him to be that person.
He said, a special envoy to uncover censorship, bribes, money laundering, and NGO fuckery.
He says, give Mike Benz an office, staff, and subpoena power.
Let him start pulling on threads.
Now, I saw that Mike Benz sort of jokingly referred to it and posted it, which suggests he's not a hard no.
He's not a hard no.
So let me weigh in here.
This will be a good test.
Oh, this will be a really good test.
So you know how I always say that the Trump administration is somewhat genius in how well connected they are to the base and how frequently and how aggressive they are about looking for suggestions about We're just good ideas that bubble up.
And I don't think that happens with the Democrats.
I think the Democrats are a top-down party completely.
But because of Trump being able to read the room and always being connected and always wanting to get the temperature of the base, just always, if you have a better idea, I believe, on the Republican side, the better idea will rise to the top only from being the better idea.
That's it.
It just has to be the better idea.
So in my opinion, this is a better idea.
So Mike has over a million followers.
I've got over a million.
I'm going to boost it.
So I've already boosted it on X. This is a good idea, including the person.
So I don't know if Mike Benz would be interested in the job if such a thing happened, but he'd be exactly the right person.
And I really want this.
I really want this.
And I can't imagine a stronger play.
So this will be a good test.
Can the better idea bubble up from just something that Mike Cernovich was thinking before he typed it?
And then I looked at it and said, yeah, that's actually a good idea.
Now, will there be other prominent pundits who will pick it up?
Will you see other opinion people say, well, here's an idea.
Why don't we have an evil czar?
Maybe call it something different, but why don't we put, you know, Mike Benz in charge of figuring out this stuff and doing something about it?
So let's see if it bubbles up.
Meanwhile, according to the Gateway Pundit and other news, Trump was right again because police had to arrest 14 people in Aurora, Colorado, in an apartment complex because they'd been taken over by that Trend Aragua gang from Venezuela.
Who reportedly tortured residents that were found tied up and stabbed.
Okay.
So, Trump was right about that.
He was right about that.
Okay.
So Vivek actually read the entire 1,500-page bill.
He says it's full of excess of spending, pork, blah, blah.
So he says vote no.
There we go.
So Vivek has a no on the spending bill.
Now, he's not in office, but do we listen to Vivek?
Yes.
Now, you know Marvel's The Avengers?
One of the famous lines from whichever one it was, whichever movie, is they say, we have a Hulk.
And I always laugh at that line, you know, that their secret thing is, well, we have a Hulk.
I think of that every time Vivek does one of these things.
Who else read and understood 1,500 pages of the continuing resolution?
Probably just him.
Right?
So, and then he weighed in, and then we take his word for it because he's highly credible and super smart.
So, Democrats, Republicans, they have a fake.
Do you have one of those?
Is there any Republican who can do that?
What he just did, read all 1,500 pages in one day, and then give you a summary of it that's actually useful and persuasive?
Who can do that?
I mean, seriously.
I just looked at that big pile and said, no, no, no.
No thanks.
Anyway, American Airlines has dropped their DEI policy, according to the post-millennial.
And so they got rid of DEI policies and quarters and recruitment.
And do you know why they did it?
Because it's illegal.
That's right.
So American Airlines said they must return.
This is American Airlines.
This is them.
This is the company saying they must return to using merit, not the desire to check a DEI box to select the most, but rather just select the most skilled and qualified employees.
And the company admitted that the policy is a violation of federal laws.
So American Airlines not only got rid of DEI, certainly because of the Trump effect, but they say out loud, without any qualifications, it was illegal.
So we got rid of it.
Now, let me put the Dilbert filter on this situation.
Do you know how big a deal this is?
Do you have any idea how big that is?
If the only part of this story was, oh, we don't like the bad press, so we got rid of DEI, I'd think, oh, that's cool.
It wouldn't be world-changing, but it'd be cool if some company got rid of DEI. But no, this is bigger.
Because they said in public the DEI stuff was illegal and that's why they're not doing it.
Now, you're the CEO of a competing airline company.
And you saw your competitor say, we have to stop doing that because it's illegal.
And like, seriously illegal.
It's not just technically illegal.
It's racism put into the corporate rules.
You can't get more illegal than that.
So, this is effectively a reframe.
So we're going from, oh, DEI is good for society.
We should all be doing more of it.
And now, American Airlines just reframed it.
It's illegal.
That's it.
It would take maybe one more company to make a statement like this.
Maybe one more.
Because if it's just one-off, maybe you can ignore it.
But by the second or third company that says, yeah, this is just illegal, and the reason we're getting rid of it is, you know, it's nothing to do with the people we're trying to serve, nothing to do with not wanting diversity.
It's just illegal.
And as soon as you get three companies, major ones, that say we're getting rid of it because it's illegal, every other company will have to do it.
Here's why.
I'm a stockholder.
Why is the company stock that I own not avoiding this obvious legal peril and pursuing merit, which obviously would make me more money as a stockholder?
If it's illegal, why am I owning stock in a company that's doing a major illegal thing and maybe we'll get sued by the government or shut down?
So I think the pressure will turn really quickly.
So there's definitely progress in getting rid of DEI. And you see them anecdotally, boop, boop, just a dot, dot, dot.
But this is going to be one of those situations that's slow until it's fast.
There's going to be a collapse, it looks like.
I think it's easy to predict.
So just a few more, just a few more And they just have to say out loud and in writing, we're changing it because it's illegal.
And then the entire industry will, like everybody, is going to have to change at that point.
It won't take much.
Well, here's an update on the Middle East and those...
There's hostages that Hamas has.
You've been hearing happy-sounding noises like, oh, we're getting close to some kind of a hostage deal, or Biden's trying hard to get a hostage deal done before he leaves office.
Apparently nothing like that's even close, according to Axios.
So three Israeli officials are like, no, we don't have anything.
So you should do your own research about who Jeffrey Sachs is.
That's the best way I can tell you to form an opinion.
He has an interesting background and you should know where his loyalties are and who pays them for what before you listen to his opinions.
But he had one statement that, I don't know if it's true, but it raises this question.
He says that Israel, or at least Netanyahu, It is playing for a greater Israel, where there's basically no Palestinian state next to them.
So in other words, it would give Israel some kind of permanent control over their Palestinian neighbors, but the Palestinians would not have their own state now or ever.
Now, first of all, I don't know for sure that that's Netanyahu's plan, but I would ask this question.
What other plan could there be?
In what world is there some plan where the Palestinians, given the history up to this point, are going to be able to get their own state and live next to Israel?
I feel like even talking about that feels dumb.
It doesn't feel like an opinion.
It just feels like, do you have any idea what's going on over there?
I'm no expert, but I know one thing.
Both sides don't really have any room to negotiate a middle ground.
So there's no middle ground.
See, anything that would be Israel living next to an actual country that's its own country called the Palestinian country, there's no way that can work.
Because it wouldn't be safe for Israel, and they have no obligation to do something that's deeply unsafe for them.
So how does anybody really expect that there would ever be a Palestinian state?
Because why would Israel, if they have the power to stop it, and it looks like they do, why would they ever agree to that?
Now, I feel like people are doing recreational opinions about Israel, because it's too hard to have a real one.
A recreational opinion would be, all right, I will fantasize that two countries are formed, they live in peace, because they've done everything right, and the international community has figured out how to make them live in peace forever.
That can't happen.
There are way too many brainwashed Palestinians who just want to kill Israelis that if you put them next to each other, we would just be right back in this situation.
You know, they would end up having to re-attack the Palestinian country every five years and wipe out their government and destroy all their assets.
And then they would be even more mad when they built back.
So I ask you, in all seriousness, what the hell is Israel supposed to do?
If they were to say, all right, we will incorporate all the Palestinians and just say it's all Israel.
It's just one country.
And it's just Israel.
Well, they can't do that, because then their demographic situation would be in jeopardy.
And it would be, you know, if the Palestinians got a vote, they would just outbreed the Israelis until they ran the whole thing.
So there's really nothing that Israel can do to fix this.
They just have a permanently dangerous situation, which they can deal with as things blow up, right?
It's like whack-a-mole.
Here's a terrorist whack.
Here's a terrorist whack.
But they never really can stop playing whack-a-mole.
There's no path to anything like that.
So I think that the Middle East just has to be understood as a power dynamic.
If the Palestinians had all the power...
Things would be really, really bad for Israel.
Right now, Israel has more power, and things are really, really bad in Gaza.
You could argue they brought it on, at least Hamas brought it on themselves, but it's just a power play.
It's nothing but who has the power is in charge, and if America wants to dominate the Middle East so that we can have our way energy-wise, maybe.
By the way, Speaking of Mike Benz, when I tell you that the United States is this big colonizing bastard country, And that we're truly evil.
America is really evil.
The number of countries we've overthrown, isn't it like 60 or 80 countries or something?
You know, Romania just got a taste of it.
Ukraine's falling apart.
I mean, if you look at the totality of everything that America's done in my lifetime, it's fucking evil.
However, I heard Mike Benz explain something that I was explaining to, and it was good to have somebody that smart and well-informed have the same opinion.
It goes like this.
If we were not bastards, somebody would be the bigger bastard.
Because we live in a bastardy, bastard world.
So your only choices are growing or shrinking, living or dying, getting stronger or getting weaker.
Nobody gets to just find their perfect situation and just go with it.
That's not an option.
Everything's either growing or the other thing is growing and it's going to eat you.
So The reason that America has created, at least until recently, a strong middle class and a great lifestyle and we always felt pretty safe is because of the bastard activity.
It's because of just dominating and stealing and controlling and manipulating and brainwashing and all those things that you would call evil.
But if we didn't do those things, I wouldn't have this nice podcast and you wouldn't be listening to it in the comfort of wherever you are.
So you have to be a little cognizant that you can be on your moral high ground and say, oh, we should not do these evil things.
But the alternative is much worse.
And, you know, it's hard to say out loud.
Yeah, we're evil, but it's kind of working for us, and the alternative is the other evil people would eat us.
So what are you going to do?
So that's just the realistic way to look at the world.
And I saw Mike Ben say a version of that that I fully agree with.
Anyway, that, ladies and gentlemen, is what I wanted to talk about today.
I'm going to talk to the local subscribers privately now, because they're awesome.
