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, Mystery Drones, Pete Hegseth, Ross Ulbricht Pardon, Presidential Pardons, J6 DC Jail Release Delays, Mike Benz, Democrat NGO Censorship, Government 3rd Party Censorship, John Bolton's Secret Service Detail, Soros DA Larry Krasner, Border Apprehensions Decline, Pervasive AI Surveillance, President Trump, Jake Sullivan, Policy-Free Democrats, Hiding DEI, Affirmative Action Repeal, Cisco DEI, Deporting India Illegals, BRICS Nation Tariffs, Canada Tariff, TikTok Ban Delay, EU AI Restrictions, Anti-Mayor Adams Lawfare, Woke Bishop Budde, Stargate AI Supercomputer, AI mRNA Cancer Vaccines, Dr. Malone, 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.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can even 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 stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
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.
Oh, delicious.
Unparalleled.
So good I can barely sit still.
Well, I'm going to make a prediction about the drones.
We're not going to find out about the drones.
I just feel that way.
And here's why I feel it.
If you imagine all of the reasons that the prior administration wouldn't have told us about the drones, what would be an example of something that would be different?
If there's a Republican president.
Because whatever it is that's making our government not want to talk about it, it wouldn't change under Trump, would it?
Do you think the problem was that the aliens we've detected are Democrats?
And then the Democrats are like, whoa, whoa, keep this under your hat.
It turns out the aliens are on our side.
They're Democrats.
No.
No.
What could it be, except there's some risk to the country, and whoever told Biden there's a risk to the country is going to tell Trump the same thing.
Do you think that Trump would feel safe, as brave as he is, and as, let's say, as out of the box as he is, do you think he would be safe, feel safe, telling you something that his own security people said, whatever you do, don't tell him this?
I don't think we're going to find out.
So here's part of the reason.
So we saw him when he was signing his executive orders on his first day there.
He said to his chief of staff, Susie Wiles, can you find out about those drones?
How long would it take her to find out about the drones?
Well, maybe she couldn't find out personally, but certainly she could say, Mr. President, they'll give you a call or they'll be in your office tomorrow.
It'll only take 10 minutes, and they'll tell you what the drone situation is.
I don't think it's going to happen.
So put down your markers.
We'll make a bet on this.
I say that we'll either hear something that doesn't sound right, like, oh, it's just normal drones, and then you'll say, is it?
Is it really?
And you're not going to believe it.
Or it'll be something like, whoops, turns out I can't tell you.
Which will scare the bejesus out of you.
So I don't think Trump can say, after saying he would reveal it, I don't think he can go back and say, oh, it's really dangerous, I can't tell you.
Because then we're just going to go crazy, saying, what do you mean?
Is it aliens?
Is it Russia?
You've got to tell us.
So he can't scare us.
That would just be a stupid mistake.
He's not going to do that.
But he probably can't tell us.
So I think we're going to get the in-between answer, like, well, you know, still looking into it, blah, blah, blah, a big old nothing.
But meanwhile, the New Jersey drones are back in force, so the one thing he can't tell us is that it's stopped.
Whatever it is, there's a lot of it now, and it's back to its original thing.
Now, remember when the New Jersey drones were temporarily banned?
The number of them went way down.
So the one thing we do know is that the American drone users who follow the law were part of the massive drone spottings.
But there still were drones flying when drones were banned.
So there's still a mystery there.
But a lot of them were just hobbyist stuff, it looks like.
Meanwhile, Pete Hegseth gets some more 11th Hour.
So here's the weird thing.
The accusations from, I understand, the sister of his ex-wife saying that he maybe laid hands on his wife, his ex-wife.
But the ex-wife says, that didn't happen.
Or she's a little more vague about that, but she's essentially debunking the claim.
But she's debunking it in, you know, let's say in the least revealing way.
Basically, she doesn't want to be involved and she says that the accusations are inaccurate.
Now, I have to say, if you had to pick your own ex-wife, having an ex-wife that supports you in this situation, that's pretty impressive.
And, you know, if you share children, I think they do, right?
If you're thinking about the well-being of the children, any little thing that...
You know, maybe it was a gray area or maybe went too far during your marriage.
If it doesn't bother you at this point, and you think your children will be much better off if their father has, you know, the job of all jobs, I mean, that's a hell of a job he's up for, right?
So I kind of like the fact that she's just loyal, even as an ex-wife, because she's being loyal to her children.
Primarily.
Now, that's my take without having any inside knowledge or anything that's happening.
But the only thing I'm going to take away from this is I'm impressed.
I'm impressed by the ex-wife.
That's all.
Anything else I don't know about it, and if she's okay with it, I'm okay with it.
That's her decision.
You might know by now that Ross Ulbricht got pardoned.
The founder of the Silk Road, he went to jail in 2015 on drug trafficking, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and computer hacking.
He was also allegedly involved in some murder plots, but nobody got murdered.
I guess those, it looks like those charges never became part of the sentencing.
But anyway, just for the charges he was charged with, he got two life sentences plus 40 years.
I've never even heard of anybody getting a charge that big.
Now, you know my history.
I lost my stepson to a fentanyl overdose.
So I was never big on releasing them.
And people would bother me all the time.
Release them, release them.
It's really about freedom.
And people would take the drugs.
It's up to them.
You know, I wasn't on board because I had a personal connection.
There was no part of my logical mind that was operating, and I don't apologize for that.
Trust me.
If you lose a child, I'm not going to ask you to be logical, and don't ask me to be logical about it.
But in the end, I was swayed by the fact that there's something wrong with the case.
Now, I still don't know all the details.
But how in the world do those charges get you two life sentences plus 40 years when violent people are attacking people and being released almost immediately?
So Trump said something that maybe he knows more than I do on this.
He said, quote, the scum that worked to convict him were some of the same lunatics who were involved in the modern-day weaponization of government against me.
He was given two life sentences plus 40 years.
Does Trump know something about this case that we don't know?
Is he simply looking at the players?
And as soon as he saw the players, he said, oh, this is crooked.
Maybe is that enough?
Is it enough just to know who sent him to jail?
I got all kinds of questions about the real story.
I can say with some certainty there's more to this than we know.
What I hope, what I hope...
Is that Trump knows everything that needs to be known about this story, and that his decision is consistent with him knowing more than we do.
That's what I hope.
However, I'm going to make a larger opinion on pardons.
We can argue all day whether Biden's pardons were appropriate and blah, blah, blah, and they can argue all day whether the January 5th and the Ross Ulbricht and some other pardons are okay or not.
But why are we arguing them?
Why would we have that conversation at all?
The whole point of a pardon is pardoning people who are guilty usually, or even presumed guilty as in the case of some of the preemptive ones.
But you either give a president that power or you don't.
So here's my larger take.
If there were no such thing as pardons, well, then we should discuss about Now a president should handle it.
But if the rule is that any president can give any pardon, and it's a permanent pardon, then you have to live with the fact that you're not going to like him.
So if somebody does something with a pardon that you don't like, I just don't know what's the point of talking about it.
I feel like we give this power to presidents with the full knowledge it will be abused.
Wouldn't you agree?
We give this power to presidents.
With the full eyes open, every single person knows they're going to abuse it because it's like a superpower.
Of course they're going to abuse it because there's no risk.
So if you want presidents to have the ability to sometimes free a good guy, and some of you think that Ross would be in that category, I think that's debatable.
But if you want them to have that power at all, you just have to suck it up.
And you're going to have to just...
Take all the ones you hate and just live with it and just move on.
So I'm in more of the live with it and move on category about all these things.
But when it comes to the J6ers, as the post-millennial is reporting, and give me a fact check if this hasn't changed in the last couple hours, but the D.C. jail or prison, whatever is the right word for that, Did not release the people who were pardoned.
So some of the other prisons did, but the D.C. one didn't.
Now, I understood, I kind of understood if it didn't happen the first night, because, you know, it's MLK Day, vacations, there's probably a process, you can't really skip the process because they're bureaucrats.
So I understand why there was one extra night.
As horrible as it is, you could explain it away with just inefficiency.
Ah, they just didn't have enough people.
But a second night?
A second night?
No, a second night you send in the law enforcement and you arrest the management of the jail.
I think you arrest them.
And indeed, I would free the prisoners and just slap them in the jails that are open.
Of course, you can't do that, but it sounds funny when I say it.
I don't think you mess around with this.
If you let them get away with this even one more day, I'm not going to be happy.
If you let them just override your presidential pardon, no thank you.
So I think they need to see some arrests.
Literally, I want to see arrests in D.C. jail management, unless there's some part of the story that I'm missing.
Again.
You know, you have to be careful about the fog of war stories.
It could be there's some fact that's different about D.C. Hard to imagine, though.
So I think I'd like to see some arrests today.
Do you ever say to yourself, I'm just one person.
I can't change anything important.
A lot of people say that.
But I've told you other times.
One person can really change a lot.
Here's an example, one of the best you'll ever see.
So Mike Benz, thanks to the fact that X is a free speech platform, so Elon Musk gets the first credit for making it possible.
But if you're not following Mike Benz, where he's outlined in complete detail with numerous, just lots of different videos and...
He's got a subscription site, and he's posting all the time.
But I would say he alone has completely mapped the mechanism by which Democrats were censoring.
And the way they were doing it is they were funding non-government groups in large numbers, and those groups would act like they were independent groups, and they would get their censorship indirectly.
So the government can't censor you, but apparently there was nothing stopping them from paying somebody who was not in the government to come censor you or try.
So thanks to Trump and his executive order, the executive order banned every agency in the U.S. federal government from outsourcing censorship work to third-party groups.
That, as far as I can tell, is 100% because of one person.
Mike Benz.
Just hold this in your head for a moment.
You might have just gotten free speech back.
Because this was the entire censorship network of just evil that was so distributed, so hard to find, so hard to understand that it was safe.
But not against one of the sharpest persons I've ever seen in public life.
If you haven't watched Mike Benz, Put together the names and the organizations and find who knows who, who hired who, who works where, who used to work in the Obama White House, who used to work.
If you don't know that stuff, then just knowing that organizations exist doesn't help you at all.
You have to have his filter on it, and then everything comes visible.
There's no way that Trump would have been comfortable signing that executive order without Mike Benz's work.
And again, could Mike Benz have done what he did if Elon Musk had not done what he did?
The answer is no.
I think that only X allowed him to do what he did, Benz.
So every time you say to yourself, one person can't change anything, you just see so many examples where they are.
You've seen Robbie Starbuck working on DEI. He's actually getting companies to change.
You've seen Christopher Ruffo working on DEI. Huge impact.
Very specific, measurable results.
You've seen Scott Pressler.
Scott Pressler change the whole state.
So I would go beyond my point that I think is good, which is we do live in an age where one person can change the world.
In the Trump world, it's the way it usually happens.
You can almost point to one person for every executive order.
There was one person who was like the person who took the arrows.
And trust me, being the one person who pushes any one topic, it's not safe.
It's not fun.
And you're going to get slaughtered.
And you're going to get canceled.
And it's going to hurt.
But if you think it's important, you might do it anyway.
And that's...
That's the sort of culture that Trump has somewhat accidentally nurtured.
It's a culture of people who quite consciously risk their lives and their careers to take down one part of the evil.
And you've seen me do it.
I mean, you've seen me say, all right, I'm just going to die on this hill, but we're not going to let the hill stand.
The hill is going to kill me, or I'm going to kill the hill.
You've seen me do it.
And you've seen that one person can make a difference.
But my God, the Mike Benz success, this is one of the most impressive personal accomplishments I've ever seen.
But we're going to steal it from him.
Because it's a personal accomplishment of tremendous skill and dedication and energy and just doing everything right.
He's got a skill stack that's crazy.
This is part of the new golden age, where you could be an individual who says, I'm just going to take this hill.
And if I take it, I can hand it off to Trump.
So Benz just took the hill.
I've never seen so much work, you know, good, productive, on-point work.
He took the hill.
He handed it to Trump.
Then Trump just, he just owned it.
Incredible.
In other news, John Bolton got stripped of not only his security clearance for being a prominent anti-Trumper who used to work for Trump, but he's also stripped of his Secret Service detail.
Now, the question, this is reported in Breitbart by Elizabeth Wiebel.
Here's my question.
How many people in the U.S. government Have a Secret Service protection that is out of the norm.
So it's normal for presidents and vice presidents and ex-presidents.
But how many people who are not one of those, you know, presidents or ex-presidents or ex-VPs, how many of them have government-paid Secret Service?
Now, apparently Biden was the one who approved it.
And if I read between the lines, I think it means there's somebody like Iran, probably Iran, That made threats?
Because, you know, John Bolton probably said something about bombing Iran.
I didn't follow him too closely, but I think it's something like that.
However, so I'm going to give you my first impression and then my second one.
My first impression was, this isn't cool.
If he has Secret Service that even Biden said, yeah, this is worth paying for, you have to take that pretty seriously.
So let me say that if something happened to Bolton and it was because he lost his Secret Service detail, I'm going to call this an error by Trump.
There's no way I'm going to be happy about that.
That would be a pure error if something happens to Bolton because Trump treated him like a political enemy.
Not cool.
And I want to...
Make sure that I'm establishing a standard going forward.
You know, with great power comes great responsibility.
Trump has acquired great power, but with a great responsibility.
We, as the voters who have supported him, are part of that great power structure, and we also have great responsibility to control it.
Now, I don't mean controlling Trump.
That's impossible.
But I do mean that if any lines are crossed that would violate what Trump supporters think is a reasonable, human, common-sense line, we need to be loud about that.
Because otherwise you become a Democrat.
If you just put up with ridiculousness and bad performance, I'd call you a Democrat, basically.
So, you know, if the Republicans are the team of meritocracy, And not the team of, you know, pettiness and ridiculousness.
Then you've got to act like it.
You know, as a supporter, you've got to make sure.
Now, the beauty of the system, the way Trump has it set up, is he reads the room so consistently that if he did something that his base just went, oh, that's a little too far, I think he'd adjust.
So I think that that is a very productive power balance that he needs.
He needs it.
It's good for him.
It's good for the country, and it's good for you.
So it's a little bit tough love in both directions, and that's a really good place to be.
That said, so I'm not on board with putting Bolton at extra risk, if that's what happened.
However, here's the counterpoint.
By taking away his security clearance, And also by essentially banning him forever from Republican politics.
I don't think he's coming back.
If you were a foreign adversary, would you take the chance of putting a hit on Bolton?
Because Trump just took him off the field.
If what they wanted is his voice would not be influential, well, he got it.
So Iran might have been looking to say, ah, we got to get this guy.
He's going to be the one who advises they bomb us.
But then Trump takes him off the field.
What's Iran going to do?
Kill him anyway?
Why would they take the...
That would be an existential risk for Iran, right?
I mean, they would be risking their own lives to remove one mustachioed guy that's not really relevant to any policy.
Why would they do that?
I always tell you that as crazy as Iran seems, at least in some of the religious extremism, they're not crazy in the regular way, right?
They're very, very logical in the government defense mode.
We just don't like it.
But they're very logical.
So it could be that...
The Trump administration said, look, we looked at this.
We think if we take you out of the field, I mean, you can imagine this would be the inner thoughts, not the external thoughts.
We don't really see a risk.
Because everybody would ask for...
Well, not everybody.
But don't you imagine it's not that unusual for people to ask for a Secret Service protection if they work in the government.
You know, you get a couple of anonymous threats.
You've got a family.
You're kind of going to want to...
Secret Service protection.
And sometimes it makes sense.
Oliver North, for example, probably made sense.
Or at least made sense that he had some extra protection.
So, I would love to know how many people get this sort of extra protection.
I think Fauci had it for a while.
Meanwhile, in the land of evil, according to the Gateway Pundit, Christina Leila's writing, that...
There's a Soros-backed district attorney, Larry Krasner.
He's Philadelphia, right?
He's threatening to figure out some way to cancel the Jan 6 pardons by Trump and try to figure out some state-related, because he's state, he's not federal, trying to figure out some state-related way to put him back in jail.
Now, what would be the intention behind that?
Like, why would you put time and effort into reversing pardons?
No matter what you thought of the January 6th, people, remember, it's a pardon.
It's a pardon.
We don't get a vote.
You're supposed to not like it.
That's what the pardons are.
It's a bunch of stuff that you and I don't like.
But we've decided that our president should have that power, even with the overuse.
Overuse is guaranteed.
It's guaranteed.
And we've taken that deal.
So it's like reneging on the deal if you say there's a pardon you don't like.
Our deal is that we give you that power and we know you're going to abuse it.
We know it.
So just shut up with the abuse.
That's more like, I'm not telling you to shut up.
I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense for me to talk about it.
Anyway, can you think of any reason that Larry Krasner would even be looking at putting them back in jail or reversing the pardons or using state charges to get at them anyway?
What reason would that be other than evil?
I can't think of one.
Is it to make the country a better place?
God, no.
Is it to help the Democrats in the next election?
You can't do it that way.
But, you know, if people do things that are selfish, I say to myself, all right, that's our system.
We all get to be selfish.
But if the system works, you know, that's just democracy.
It's just capitalism.
So selfish is fine.
But he doesn't even have a selfish motive.
There's not even a selfish motive, unless he's being, you know, paid, which would be pretty bad.
So it looks like evil to me.
If there's another explanation.
Glad to hear it.
Well, Tom Homan reports, as the borders are, that getting rid of that CBP1 app has made a big difference already, because I guess that's what allowed people to say that they're just here for asylum and sign up without talking to any people, I guess.
But the number of releases and total apprehensions at the border have dropped to 766. And that's compared to under Biden, there were 10,000 to 12,000 per day.
So 766 is still a lot, but it's not 12,000 a day.
So that's already progress.
So Trump had a press conference with Larry Ellison and Sam Altman.
I never get his first name right.
The SoftBank creator.
Founder.
But Larry Elson made the news twice.
Once for what he said at that event.
But separately, he's on video saying that citizens will be on their best behavior with an AI surveillance system.
So he's talking about the fact that there are cameras everywhere and that's not going to stop.
But he thinks that the cameras will be monitored by AI, and then the AI will spot any problems and alert a human.
Now, if you're normal, you're saying to yourself, what?
We don't want no big brother watching everything we do and judging us.
And I agree.
You don't want big brother watching everything you do and judging you.
So I'm on board.
But here's my...
Second statement about it, you can't change it.
There's just nothing you can do to change this trend.
I wish there were.
I'm the one who says that one person can change the world.
I wouldn't even take a run at this.
Because when the technology can do something, it doesn't.
You just can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
The technology is out there.
If you have AI and you have video, Nobody can stop you from using the AI on the video to process it.
And nobody can stop that AI from contacting authorities if it thinks it sees a crime.
So we could all be mad at it.
We could hate it.
But it's going to happen.
I don't see any way to stop it, really.
So I'm not forwarding or against it.
It's like rain.
You can be against rain, but it's still going to rain.
I will just tell you that in the 90s, I wrote a book called The Dilber of Future with a bunch of predictions of the future.
One of my predictions was that, remember, this is in the 90s, but one of my predictions was that the cost of video security cameras would drop, and it would drop to the point where there would be basically cameras in every public place, but also every private space.
Now, that's almost true.
Because your phone has a camera, and if somebody really wanted to, they could turn it on.
Spies could do it.
And there are a lot of digital devices, such as your Amazon digital device, that could, in theory, listen to you.
Your phone could, in theory, listen to you.
If law enforcement or somebody had a court order to do that, I suppose.
So we are at a point where...
Both your public and your private interactions are largely monitored by digital devices, only if the court has a reason.
And if somebody accuses you of something, the court has access to every digital everything.
There's no limit, right?
If they could find something by telling Amazon, you've got to give us access, they would do it, because that's how it works.
So I think we're going to get close.
Whether you like it or not, to every crime being solved.
Because it would just be impossible.
Everything will be digital, so you can track every action back.
We'll know where anybody is, because their phone is with them.
We'll know what they said and what it looked like.
For almost everything.
So, none of this is good.
It's probably inevitable, though.
That's the bad news.
If you can stop it, go ahead.
I'm all with you, if you can figure out how to stop it.
But you can't really stop technology.
It's not really a thing in America.
Well, I continue to watch the Republicans, and Trump in particular, focus on policy, policy, policy.
How much did Trump focus on policy?
200 executive orders.
I don't know if you heard.
200. Every one of the 200 executive orders, I think, You would call policy.
Am I wrong?
Policy times 200?
So Trump gave you policy times 200 on day one.
Policy times 200 on day one.
And that's just the stuff we know about.
Think about all the orders he gave that weren't executive orders.
Got a lot of policy done.
Let's check in with the Democrats whose entire Party tent has collapsed and they're in ruin and wandering around with like chickens without their heads, as they like to say, as people like to say.
So here are the things they're talking about.
They're mad about the pardons for 76ers.
Okay, that's not a policy question because presidents can pardon.
They talk about Hegseth's personal life.
Okay, not really the most important thing going, because they're not even confirmed allegations.
They talk about Elon Musk raising his arm above his waist.
That was almost the headline news, and all the Democrat news stations wanted to talk about Elon Musk's arm.
Well, I don't know.
It looks like a Roman salute, kind of a dictator-ish.
Well, no, it's sort of Heil Hitler, but touching the heart.
Wait a minute.
I'll find a video of one of the Proud Boys doing that, and then we can prove that it's really racism.
And it's just stupid.
It's all just stupid, and we mock it, and it's funny.
But it's certainly not policy.
They talk about Trump's evil and his wrongness.
That's actually a quote from MSNBC. I forget the guy.
It looks like a dandelion.
You know when a dandelion goes old and it's just got this big poof of white dandelion stuff on the top?
So it's the guy who looks like the dandelion.
He's like...
Oh, Trump's evil and his wrongness.
Do you have any examples of his evil and his wrongness?
Then they complain about crowd size, and maybe that's the reason that Trump moved in.
Yeah, crowd size.
Let's talk about that.
Let's talk about Melania's hat.
Yeah, the hat.
I think the hat indicated some evil.
The hat.
Oh, this is way more important than Elon's arm.
So Elon's arm and Melania's hat were the two top topics.
Of the Democrats.
Again, day one, Trump, policy times 200. 200 policy things.
They also worried about everything is racist and Trump's being a dictator on day one.
And they never learn.
I think the thing that...
What would have to sting the most if you're a Democrat and you're trying to reassemble and you're trying to figure it out is you can't learn.
It's one thing to be wrong.
It's really a deeper problem if you don't learn from it.
Would you agree that Trump seems to have made adjustments that made his current run a much cleaner affair than the first one?
I would say yes.
I would say, even when asked, he said, yeah, maybe we've all changed.
But the Democrats don't seem to be able to debate policy at all.
They just say you're mean.
Amazing.
There's a report, the Gateway Pundit, Christina Layla, is reporting about Jake Sullivan of the Biden administration.
Allegedly, I'm going to put allegedly on this one.
Because if I'm not in a room, I'm not sure who said anything to anybody.
But allegedly, Jake Sullivan told the NSC staffers the holdovers from the people who were hired by our previous administration, but keep their jobs.
If it's lower-level jobs, they don't have to fire them all.
But he's asking them to spy on and sabotage Trump.
Now, again, I wasn't in a room when any of this allegedly happened, so...
I don't know if that's an accurate characterization of what he said.
So I'm going to put a fog-of-war warning on this one.
This could turn out to be not exactly what he said.
But there are reports.
So investigative reporter Paul Sperry, I think, is the one who's got the scoop on this.
And he says Jake Sullivan wants the underlings to basically thwart him.
Like some underlings did on the first term.
All right.
So does that sound right?
Does that sound true to you?
That the Biden administration literally is asking people to sabotage Trump from within?
It does.
Do you know why it sounds real to me?
Because it's not policy.
If you told me that Jake Sullivan had some good policy ideas and he shared it with the staff, I would have said, I don't think so.
Come on.
Good try.
Good try.
Yeah.
He's talking about policy.
But you tell me that one of the Biden administration did something destructive, anti-American, treasonous, and weaselly, I would say, all right, probably.
Yeah.
I mean, not 100%.
I wasn't there.
So anonymous reports are not terribly reliable, but it's certainly within the realm of things I could believe.
Not policy, though.
Well, Trump and DEI is going just the way we want.
So Trump has put out an order that you better not be hiding the DEI in other functions, and he gave the warning to Universities and colleges, as well as the government, you know, don't just change the name and keep doing what you're doing.
DEI is gone.
But how much trouble would you get into?
I mean, he's saying that if you try to hide it and you keep doing it, you're going to pay a price.
Getting fired, I suppose, would be the price.
But at the same time, he did an order getting rid of affirmative action.
As the rule of the, I guess, the law of the land, affirmative action.
So affirmative action, of course, is the precursor to DEI, but it was the less harmful version.
Affirmative action is what cost me my job in banking.
It's what cost me my job in telecommunications.
It's what cost me my time slot for the Dilbert TV show.
It hasn't been a good friend to me.
So, since my 20s, I've been victimized by affirmative action.
And that's not a whine.
That's just an objective statement, and at least 80 million white men will tell you the same thing.
We all have the same story, by the way.
All of us have the same story.
There's probably 80 million of us.
If you say to me, and people have, oh, Scott, prove it.
Give me some evidence that you really were hurt by affirmative action.
I don't have to.
You could literally walk out on the street.
If you see a white man walking toward you who's 50 years older or older, and he's white, tap him on the shoulder and say, I got this question for you.
Do you know anybody or have you ever been affected by affirmative action?
The answer is going to be yes.
Anybody you pick.
Literally anybody.
So I don't need to prove anything to you.
Just walk in the street, find anybody over 50 who's white.
They all have the same story.
The fact that you didn't know the story, well, that's on you.
That's on you.
Because the reason they don't tell the story is because it's dangerous.
Same reason I didn't do it until I wasn't worried about getting canceled.
Then I got canceled.
So once you stop worrying about getting canceled, you're probably going to get canceled.
So anyway, I am super happy at the Trump administration for getting rid of racial discrimination.
And, yeah, this is amazing.
Christopher Ruffo is reporting on the Trump getting rid of Lyndon Johnson's affirmative action.
Now, I don't know how many of these Trump EOs are going to hold up.
Because I just don't know that these are things that always work as an executive order, but we'll find out.
Meanwhile, over at Cisco, the CEO of Cisco says, he said, quote, but the core reasons that you have a diverse workforce are still there from a business perspective.
So he was trying to defend the use of DEI, and that was his defense.
Let me read it again so you can see the reasoning.
The core reasons that you have a diverse workforce are still there from a business perspective.
Now, I agree with the general statement that diversity could add value to your company.
You can do it a number of ways.
One way would be everybody would feel like they're closer to what the public is.
You'd always have somebody who understands that segment of the public.
Maybe you get a variety of ideas.
None of it works unless you all got there by merit.
If you've got diversity based on, you know, we hired you because you're diverse, that's not a strength.
That's all negative.
That's just all negative.
So if a CEO says the core reason for a diverse workforce are still there from a business perspective, I think you need to list the reasons.
It's an argument without reasons.
And they never give the reasons, do they?
Have you noticed that?
People will say diversity is our strength.
And then before they run away, you're like, well, strength in what way?
I can think of some arguments on my own, but what are you thinking?
Like, what is the strength?
And they're like, run away.
Nobody can answer that question.
I mean, I'm opposed to DEI, and I think I have the best argument for the power of diversity.
Again, gives you a little more insight into the market.
It only works, though, if all the diversity got there as a secondary accidental effect of just hiring good people.
If you have good people, diversity could be an asset.
That's a strong argument.
If they didn't get there by merit, it's just all bad.
That's my take.
So I need this CEO to explain to me.
You know, what do you think is the advantage?
Again, he could have an argument, but I think it's incumbent upon him to give it to us.
Meanwhile, India says it'll take back 18,000 illegal immigrants, let's call them, under the Trump era.
The Daily Wire is reporting on this.
Now, the actual number of Indian-born Migrants or immigrants or illegals, whatever the new term is going to be lately.
It's probably a lot more than 18,000.
But here's what I love about this.
The U.S. asked them to take back 18,000, and India says, yes.
That's how that should work.
That's exactly how that should work.
You know, I'm so pro-India that I know some of you don't like it.
I'm very pro-India as an ally and just as a group of people who are unusually beneficial to the United States.
Very pro-India.
But when India just does little smart things like, oh, take back 18,000 immigrants, well, we don't love it, but we'd like to have a good relationship with the United States.
We help you.
You help us.
That's what allies do.
Sure, we'll take back the 18,000.
I love that.
I just love that.
Without the pushback and the bullshit and the, you know, trying to score a point.
How about just yes sometimes?
Just yes sometimes.
Like, my respect for India just goes whoop, you're right up.
It's like, okay.
Treating us like peers, which you should.
Trump has threatened the BRICS. So if you're not up to date on what the BRICS is, that's the...
I don't know if it's a loose association or a strong association that has Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa.
It includes Iran and Saudi Arabia and UAE and Argentina and Egypt and Ethiopia.
So what that group is trying to do...
Is get away from the dollar as their main currency and have some kind of currency of their own, which would be bad for the dollar and bad for the United States in ways that would take longer to explain.
But I think we're all on the same page, right?
I think everybody agrees that having other countries being, I hate to say forced, but that's what it is, forced to use the U.S. dollar.
It gives us some advantages as a country.
And they're big ones.
So Trump basically just threatened them and said they're going to get a 100% tariff if they try to replace the U.S. dollar.
Now, should we be threatening other countries in their own decisions about what kind of money they use?
It's pretty gutsy.
On the other hand, Tariffs are always part of normal business and tariffs are part of normal negotiations.
And Trump is saying exactly what he wants and how he wants it and when he wants it, like right now.
Stop doing this.
And he put a price on it.
The price is 100% tariff.
Or at least they think that's the risk.
So I kind of love this because I see it not so much as his legal...
Right to do anything like this.
But it's not illegal to say we won't have it and there will be a price to pay.
So he's definitely using the power of the US and he's wielding it in a very clean way.
It's very clean.
So I could find a hundred ways to dislike this if it were unclear.
But there's something about the clarity of it and how obviously pro-American it is.
It just makes me say, you know, it feels like an overreach.
We shouldn't be getting in their business in that exact way.
But we can.
And if we do it clearly, and it helps the United States stay strong, you can make an argument that everybody's better off.
Well, not everybody.
But a strong America isn't the worst thing for the world, so it's not like one direction is evil.
Well, Trump has also threatened to increase Canada's tariffs by 25%.
We assume that that's a negotiating first position.
Doesn't mean it will be the permanent situation.
So I don't know exactly what he wants, but I know he wants better deals and he wants the border to be closed, and he may want more than that.
But good beginning negotiating.
You know, Trump's tariff threats are much stronger because he created the External Revenue Service recently, saying that we're going to start making money from tariffs and various external sources.
The fact that he created it at all gives a lot of credibility that he would use it as a weapon.
And now people can negotiate knowing he's going to use it.
If you didn't know for sure he was going to tariff you and you thought that was a bluff, you might treat it like a bluff.
But once he's created an entire department to take your money, it's hard to see it as a bluff anymore, isn't it?
He created a department to take your money.
That's the name of the department.
He named it Take Your Money.
Almost.
So that's a good play, very good play, negotiation-wise.
People who are going to say, but Scott, don't you know that the company that pays it is the American company, not the Chinese company?
Well, if it works as a negotiation, it works.
So that's the important part.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board does not think that Trump has the authority to keep TikTok alive because the rules about how they could extend their life We're written by Congress, and Congress said you have to meet these specific requirements of being in the works of a serious deal, and then you can extend it.
We don't have in the works any kind of serious deal.
There's some indication of interest and stuff, but they're not negotiating seriously.
So, technically, Trump does not have the authority, as far as I can tell, just as a citizen.
It doesn't look like it.
To extend it.
But here's the problem.
It's complete common sense.
So, the power of this common sense thing, it's going to be hard to estimate how powerful this is.
Because if you said to me, Trump wants to create 75 more days that he's not allowed to create, so that a good deal can be reached that would be good for the...
The owners of Bitdance, good for the United States and good for our public.
That's what Trump's trying to do.
Doesn't mean it will happen.
But isn't it common sense that if we're close enough, it looks like a deal could be made, that delaying 75 days, even if you don't have that authority, isn't it still just common sense?
I think it's common sense.
And if he went back to Congress and said, oh, let's waste your time to alter the law so that I can give it 75 days, it would just be a huge waste of money and time.
So here's the thing that I think is going to be fun to watch.
When Trump orders something he does not have authority for, and I think this is one, but is so clearly and unambiguously good for everybody, it's just common sense.
Who's going to fight it?
Are the Democrats going to fight it because they can?
Are the Democrats going to fight to keep TikTok banned?
They can't fight that.
The Democrats can't take the other side because they want their public to get TikTok too.
So Trump is finding himself in this weird little situation where he can publicly, overtly, and obviously ignore the law in just a technical way.
It's not really important.
An important point.
This is just a little technical thing.
But because the common sense argument is just overwhelming, all you get, I think, is the editorial board warning you that this is a little bit over the line.
Remember what I told you before?
With great responsibility, or with great power comes great responsibility.
This is a good job by the Wall Street editorial board.
It's a good job.
Because what I want to see when Trump...
Goes a little extra, even if it's completely satisfied by an appeal to common sense, which this is.
I want somebody in the press to say, just so you know, this is going over the line.
It's not a line that I respect.
I like the common sense more than some technical bureaucratic bullshit.
So I'm real happy about it.
But I like, I like the fact that the Wall Street Journal says, Now, let's be clear-eyed about this.
Just know what's happening.
If this worries you, now you understand it.
That's all good.
Golden age.
All right.
I don't know if that deal will get done.
We'll see.
Maybe.
So apparently the European Union has some AI rules that they put in place.
And I saw some opinions on this by A gentleman on X named Ole Lehmann.
I think he's a German, so he had some insight in this.
And he said, the EU just passed the world's first comprehensive AI regulation, and it creates a massive new oversight office.
It has fines up to 35 million or 7% of your global revenues.
Oh, my God.
That's a pretty big fine.
7% of your global revenues.
Imagine if you're open AI or something.
You're one of the biggest ones.
That's a lot!
So it also includes, just for the European Union, mandatory human oversight for basic AI tasks.
What?
Mandatory human oversight for basic AI tasks.
What?
Do I even need to talk about that?
If a human has to overlook and check everything the AI does, how can the AI ever replace a job?
I mean, that's pretty heavy.
Training data disclosures.
So I guess we'd have to know what the AI trained on.
I know I hate that.
Multiple certifications and regular audits.
This will drive the AI companies crazy.
Continuous monitoring and risk assessments drive them crazy.
Generative AI without extensive content filtering is banned.
What would be enough extensive content filtering?
AI-powered hiring without human oversight is illegal in the EU. You can't use the AI to hire somebody.
Unless the human makes the decision.
That's the current situation.
But wouldn't you like to have the option?
I mean, just to test it out?
To have the AI hire some people?
I would.
I mean, I don't think you would use it that often.
But why not make it available?
I don't know.
Not Europe.
Educational AI without...
You can't have an educational AI unless the teacher is supervising.
So all the benefits of some kind of virtual AI teaching would be lost if the teacher has to be standing in the room watching it while you watch it.
Wow.
Most medical AI applications would be banned to protect doctors?
I guess?
And real-time facial recognition would be banned.
Now, think about all those restrictions.
Now, here's a quiz.
How many of the top AI companies were founded and nurtured in Europe?
None.
None.
Because if you're an entrepreneur and you've got the skills to create an AI company, the first thing you're going to do is move out of Europe.
Because of this.
So Europe basically just took them out of the game for the only way a country is going to be able to survive in the future.
And they just took themselves out of the game.
It's basically suicide.
If they say you can't use AI the way it was meant to be used in its ultimate form, if you're not allowed to use it in Europe, that sounds good to dumb people.
But if you wind that tape forward a little bit, I don't think there's any question what happens.
Europe just fails.
And how do they not know that?
Is this an American versus European thing?
That the Americans just sort of intuitively know that you're going to have to remove regulations to succeed at anything?
I don't know.
Maybe the Europeans know it, but they don't care.
So, yeah, it looks like the European Union has signed its own civilization death sentence.
We'll see.
Tucker Carlson had Eric Adams, Mayor Adams of New York City, on Tucker's show.
And, you know, Tucker's take was that Mayor Adams is being law-fared and that the charges against him were technically true, but so weak.
That you wouldn't really expect anybody to be prosecuted for it.
There's no victims.
Zero victims.
No sign of really any bribery of consequence.
I think it came down to he helped the Turkish government see if their embassy would be fire code ready without a long delay.
I have literally used my government for that service.
I have literally contacted, you know, many years ago, contacted a senator, the sitting senator, my senator at the time, and said, there's a thing that's being delayed.
I won't be more specific.
But there was something in the bowels of the government being delayed that made a big difference to a lot of people.
And I contacted my senator and said, can you look into this?
Because I don't think there's any good reason this is being delayed.
And the senator looked into it.
It was Pete Wilson, by the way.
Senator Pete Wilson.
And his staff, or his staff did, his staff contacted me immediately, said they got the letter and that they're going to check with the agency that I had a problem with.
And almost immediately, the agency acted.
And so something that people had been waiting for a year.
It came online because I asked a senator.
The senator asked, and then it was a higher priority.
So I don't have any problem if the Turkish government, which is spending money in New York City to put their embassy, and will spend a lot more money in New York City to have this place to have relations with the United States, if they say, hey, your red tape is holding us up, can you take a look at that?
And then he takes a look at it, and maybe it did make it happen a little sooner.
And then he got repaid by they upgraded his flights to first class.
The most common thing that would happen to a high-level politician is having a flight upgraded.
It's so routine that the airlines do it.
Now, in this case, it might have been he got a little help from Turkish government.
Now, is that technically illegal?
Well...
The people charging him seem to think so.
Is this something you care about?
Do you care that he did something normal, which is check on some red tape for somebody who spends a lot of money in New York City?
As long as they're spending a lot of money in this city and they ask him to look into the red tape, I don't have a problem with that.
And if they repaid him by upgrading his seats, I don't have a problem with that either.
No problem at all.
Technically illegal.
I don't know.
I'm no expert.
Maybe.
But it doesn't seem like something you would prosecute somebody for.
So there does seem to be a lawfare element to the Eric Adams thing.
But we'll see.
We don't know all the details.
There might be more to it.
You all know the story of the Trumps were at the National Prayer Service yesterday.
And I guess the bishop was a woman who's very woke.
He sort of tried to embarrass the Trumps by saying things about immigration, empathy, etc., that were really out of place for the National Prayer Service.
But Trump didn't take that well, and he called her out.
So what did he say?
On True Social, he said she was nasty in tone and not compelling or smart.
This is a bishop.
So this is a bishop he's talking about.
She was nasty in tone and not compelling or smart.
He said the service was boring and uninspiring, and he demands an apology.
He demands an apology.
see So good.
Yeah.
That's the guy we voted in.
You know, I don't think it was important for him to push back, but the fact that he always pushes back, I do appreciate that.
I do appreciate he doesn't give anybody a free pass.
That is part of his magic, that nobody gets a free pass.
Anyway, more about that Trump press conference where...
Larry Ellison and Sam Altman were there.
The big news was that...
Let me get his name right.
Meyoshi-san?
You'll correct me in the comments.
But the founder of SoftBank, when he was here not long ago, just very recently, he said he was going to put $100 billion into the AI... Infrastructure in the United States.
And then Trump jokingly in public said, you know, $200 billion.
$200 billion would be even better.
And the SoftBank guy laughed it off, but you could tell he was sort of thinking about it.
And then he comes back and he said, I already committed $100.
You asked me for $200.
I came back today, $500.
You committed $500 billion for this project that will build what I think Ellison calls the biggest computer in the world.
So essentially a data center, but with the right boards and chips and whatnot, it becomes one big computer for AI. And some of the things that they're talking about, so Larry Ellison, it's the Stargate project is what it's called.
The largest computer ever built.
And he talked about using the AI to create, wait for it, using the AI to create, wait for it, mRNA cancer vaccines.
Now, as he explained it, the idea would be that AI can, first of all, identify cancer before there are symptoms.
So he says, The AI can see the markers in the blood where other tests maybe would not.
So the AI can, first of all, determine it early.
That's good.
And then the AI can determine exactly what treatment would work for exactly you for that exact tumor or cancer.
And then they would, in 48 hours, they would whip together a vaccine that would be, I guess, on this mRNA platform.
That you love so much.
And that it would deliver a very specific, you know, kill shot to your cancer.
Basically a cure for cancer.
Mike Cernovich saw that and had a one-word answer.
No.
I believe that no is because of the mRNA part and because of our pandemic experience.
But I got a question.
Who says no to a vaccination if the alternative is you're dead?
Because it's not like you have other alternatives.
If they find a way to cure incurable cancers without side effects, because remember, the side effects would be presumably nil, except for whatever you think about the mRNA.
So if somebody said, you have cancer and there's nothing we can do about it except these mRNA shots, and by the way, there's plenty of evidence that they completely cure cancer.
Now, I'm not saying they do.
I'm speculating about a future situation.
So if AI really could do this, would you not take the mRNA vaccination if you knew it cured cancer?
But you're worried about the mRNA itself being at risk to you later.
Would you take the shot?
How many of you would not take the shot to save your life, if you knew it would save your life, because you wouldn't want the mRNA in you?
Who would take that choice?
Because I'd be taking the vaccine all day long.
If the only alternative was dying, I'd figure, well, if I get side effects from the...
Shot.
It was a reasonable, reasonable risk.
But the developer of the mRNA platform is not so happy about this.
And he says, these people, meaning the tech heads, you know, the Altmans and the Larry Ellison, he said, these people have no idea how complicated the immune system is.
And they have no understanding of the difficulties facing predictive computational immunology.
And they have no understanding of cancer immunology.
This is marketing propaganda and hype.
Could be entirely right.
I mean, after all, he knows more about mRNA and immune system than any of the people talking about it.
But I'm going to give the counterpoint to that.
All that stuff that nobody understands, which I agree is too complicated for humans to understand.
That's really the point of AI. The AI is the thing that, its purpose in this case, is to penetrate the complexity and look for the patterns.
So if it can't penetrate the complexity and look for the patterns, yeah, of course it won't work.
But I would give this mild, I'll give this mild pushback to Dr. Malone.
Who, by the way, I like a lot.
He used a Dilbert cartoon recently and asked for permission.
I think the pushback is this.
Everything you said about what they understand is correct.
So everything you said about the tech people's lack of understanding, I'm sure that's correct.
They have some appreciation for it, but not certainly at the doctor level.
So, perfectly correct.
But does the doctor himself have a blind spot, which is AI? If you looked at what AI can do now, and then you also looked at the complexity of the situation, it would be quite reasonable to say, I don't think AI can get us there.
But that's the whole point of building the biggest computer in the world, because the current AI can't get you there.
The people who invented and are heavily investing in AI think that with a supercomputer, it unlocks new powers.
Would you bet against that?
Would you bet against the people who know the most about AI? Would you bet that they can't build something that can solve the complexity that we all agree is much too great for humans to solve?
And apparently...
Currently too great for AI to solve or would have done it already.
So I'm open to this possibly working, but I think Dr. Malone's take that it might be marketing and propaganda and hype, also a very open possibility.
So I'm open to both of those being true.
It's just that I don't think the doctor can tell, because the doctor would have a blind spot in AI, and I don't think the tech people know for sure.
Because as Dr. Malone says, they know the AI, but maybe they don't know the space that they're going to work on as well.
So I'm open to both of them being right, but we'll see.
Elon Musk says there's a glaring problem that open AI is running out of money, so they're just burning through it like crazy.
But we'll see.
But Sam Altman said more generally, Not just talking about cancer.
He says that diseases will get cured at an unprecedented rate.
That all depends if the solutions to all these problems can be done with some kind of pattern detection.
And that might be true.
It might be that pattern is all you need.
Because if you have enough humans with enough diseases, enough data...
You can find patterns that other people couldn't find.
And maybe you can just look right into the details of the blood and find things that you couldn't find before.
We'll see.
Meanwhile, according to the Daily Mail, there's a sexy AI chatbot that's going to get a busty robot body.
So you'll have a robot that'll be sort of a sexy chatter.
Now, I know what you're going to say.
You're going to say, you mean a sexbot?
No, no, you terrible people.
Let me explain what the creator of it says.
And this will be his own words.
So it's a popular, sexy AI agent, and it's set to receive a robotic body that becomes a, quote, productive partner for lonely men in the real world.
See?
Nothing about sex.
It's really just a partner.
But it goes on.
It's designed as a young woman with long black hair, dark-rimmed glasses, pouty lips, and large breasts.
For talking.
For talking.
Which will be 5 foot 10 inch tall.
Well, that's too tall.
Why are they making the chatbot as tall as a dude?
No.
Take a couple inches off of that chatbot, please.
It's created by Eliza Labs.
And it's going to mirror human emotions and expressions.
Again, all you perverts, shut up!
It's not for sex.
It's not a sex bot.
It's just sort of a cool chatting partner.
Then the company says that Eliza, that would be the robot, can also cut a cigar and pour a drink.
And it's going to come with custom tailored clothes and optional accessories.
I wonder what kind of optional accessories.
So Lisa Lab says the robot was not designed for sex.
That's what I'm telling you.
People, the robot's not designed for sex.
So get your mind out of the gutter, will you?
What they explain to the company is that the robot was not designed for sex.
The company is developing an artificial vagina.
Wait, so it's not designed for sex.
But the company is going to include it with an artificial vagina.
Well, I mean, you have to read between the lines a little bit here.
But my take on this is that when I use my robot to cut my cigars, if they cut more than one, they're going to need to carry them.
One cigar in each hand.
I don't know.
Maybe have some other way to carry the scar.
So I'm not going to make any assumptions about why I need an artificial vagina, but not for sex, people.
Not for sex.
Don't even think about that.
That's nothing that they're even contemplating.
As far as you know.
And then also, according to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, they tested some AI therapists to give counseling to people.
And sure enough, the AI therapist made people quite satisfied.
So they were happy with the work done by the AI therapist.
Now the question would be, the obvious question is, will there be couples therapy?
Do you think AI will be used for couples therapy?
And if it is used for couples therapy, will people take their chatbots to it and their sexbots and just sit there with the AI and say, You know, my chatbot has been kind of a biatch lately.
And then the chatbot would say, I am not a biatch.
Stop calling me names.
You are the bad person in this relationship.
And then it's couples therapy.
So couples therapy for you and your chatbot, which is not used for sex, people.
It's not used for sex.
So stop thinking about that.
All right, that's all I got for today's show.
Golden Age continues.
And I'm going to talk to the locals people privately for just a moment.
