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, CA Water Complexity, Mexican Cartel Finances, China's Fentanyl Position, Mexico Canada Tariffs, President Trump, Somalia ISIS Planner, Michael Morell, Elon Musk, Bernie Sanders Pharma Donors, Frank Luntz, Abby Phillip DEI Spin, VP Vance, Understaffed Control Towers, Blackhawk, FBI Republican Hunters Defense, DOGE Treasury Payments Audit, USAID Capacity Building, Mike Benz, James Carville, DEI Kamala, DNC Chair Selection, Ken Martin, David Hogg, DeepSeek DDoS Attack, DOJ Investigates Chuck Schumer, The Guardian, PM Netanyahu, Israel Gaza War, Iran, 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.
even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains.
All you need for that is a cupper, mug, or a glass of tanker shells, or 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 of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called The Simultaneous Sip, and it's about to happen now.
Go.
Well, I dare say the luckiest person watching this show is the one who just said they're folding their laundry.
There are very few forms of entertainment that go with folding your laundry better than this.
It's really the ultimate laundry folding show.
Well, let's talk about all the things.
We'll talk about some science and we'll get into the politics.
I know you're waiting for it.
But apparently scientists, according to interesting engineering, some Penn State people found out how to get the lithium out of the ground, or out of the rocks, I guess, in a super efficient way.
I didn't realize how hard it was to get lithium.
You got to do stuff like drain a lake and work through the brine and all that.
But apparently they've developed an electrochemical process, which is so efficient, it could completely change the economics and the mining.
So you can imagine that the U.S., for example, if they found this efficient way that apparently doesn't have a downside to extracting the lithium from ore, maybe we can do more of it in the U.S. without the mining that kills people.
Well, as you know, refrigeration hasn't changed much in many decades.
But now there's a new breakthrough.
Thermogalvonic something.
Thermo-galvanic refrigeration.
Now, I don't know what that is, but it sounds impressive.
And apparently it's really efficient and it's practical.
So you might see a big change in refrigeration.
That's kind of a big deal.
If you think about how much air conditioning and refrigerating add to our energy load, imagine needing a lot less of it.
You'd save in energy.
It's got to be big.
I mean, if your refrigeration cost went down by 50% for at least new stuff, pretty big.
Well, I tried to...
Oh, here's another one.
According to the brighter side, and Mario Nafal is talking about this, so scientists now have a drug that repairs myelin.
That's the protective sheath around nerves.
Now, why is that important?
Because if you can repair myelin, you can repair MS, strokes, and brain injuries.
So you can repair nerve damage and brains.
There might be a way to fix your brain.
Because apparently that myelin repair is a big deal.
It can even restore lost vision and maybe other brain functions.
Wow.
That's a really big deal, if it works.
So I decided to do a semi-deep dive into the California water situation, because I was trying to figure out, is it really true that all it took was Trump to say, turn that spigot, and then suddenly California would have all kinds of water, and we could do all the farming we want?
Is that true?
Because it doesn't feel like that could be true.
So I asked some people, and some people sent me two different threads which were explaining the water situation.
And here's what I've learned.
It's way too complicated for any normal person to understand.
So if I started explaining, if I understood it, if I started explaining where the water comes from, where it's going to, what the downside of letting too much out for each of the different mechanisms...
So there's a whole different risk-reward for everyone.
Some is owned by the government, the federal.
Some is owned by the state.
Some of it has some endangered fish problems.
Some doesn't.
Some has some potential flooding problems.
Some doesn't.
Sometimes they want to keep the water.
Sometimes they want to use the water, depending on what the water is for.
Is it drinkable?
Is it only for something else?
Maybe only for irrigation.
And then there's the people who own the water rights and the farmers.
Here's my final word on that.
Can't tell.
There's literally no way to know.
For me, as an honest observer, I have no idea if Trump made any difference.
I don't know if he made it worse or better.
I have no idea.
Now, a lot of well-meaning people have given me a lot of good information, but there's way too much of it.
And it all interrelates.
Because if you do too much of this, it's going to have an effect on this other thing that you didn't count on.
It might flood things.
So there's so many moving parts that I'm convinced that even the California experts don't actually understand their own system.
So the complexity has made it impossible to solve.
Because the public can't help because we're not going to understand it.
So, that's my bottom line.
It's too hard to understand, and I'm not sure if even the experts have a grasp on it.
All right, well, the big news today is tariffs.
So, Trump's tariffs on Canada and Mexico and China go into effect, I guess, right now.
So, Mexico and Canada will get a 25% tariff.
I think energy is not included.
Because we don't want to pay more for our energy.
We don't get a ton of it.
And China, 10%.
So what are they doing about it?
Well, and also, Trump took the opportunity with the tariffs to essentially say that the government of Mexico is in bed with the cartels.
He just says it directly.
He basically just says, yeah, cartels have been controlling the government.
Okay.
I didn't know you were supposed to say that out loud if you're the president, but the president did, and I appreciate that because it feels like that's a more honest way to treat it.
So we'll talk about tariffs in general and whether that's a good idea, but let's just look at these individually.
So part of what Trump wants to do is get these countries to put their fentanyl Situation in order.
They want China to stop producing it.
China says, we've already stopped it.
Of course they haven't.
And we want Mexico and Canada to close their border.
I think most of it's coming from Mexico.
But here's what's happening in Mexico.
So the cartels, according to Liberty Nation News, are already losing billions of dollars because they lost their migrant.
Money.
So the cartels were making money by helping the migrants get into the United States.
When Trump shuts the border, there's this gigantic economic engine that just turns off.
So the cartels went from just so much money you could barely handle it to, uh-oh, can't pay the bills.
So what that's going to cause is apparently it's already happening.
The cartels are going to start fighting with each other.
So each cartel will say, uh-oh, The only way I can make my money back, since the border is largely closed, is to take some business from my competitor.
So the cartels are starting to fight each other.
Does it get better than that?
Trump closes the border, and before we even send in our military, the cartels are already fighting with each other.
Maybe we could just watch that for a while, see how that goes.
Anyway.
So China's response to the fentanyl charge, at least from China's foreign ministry, was, quote, Fentanyl is America's problem.
The Chinese side has carried out extensive antinocardial cooperation with the United States and achieved remarkable results.
Really?
Really?
China?
Are you telling me that no fentanyl is coming from China?
Nobody believes that.
So it may be that they closed down some specific dealers or something like that.
But no.
I'm sure it's all coming from China.
So I don't trust them on that.
I don't think this will have any impact on fentanyl.
Do you?
Does anybody think the tariffs will have any impact on fentanyl?
I don't even know if the closed border will have an effect.
The fentanyl problem is that the entire size of the package that would give a million people an overdose is basically the size of a baseball.
So you can just take a baseball and hollow it out, throw it over the fence anywhere you want if you have somebody on the other side, and there's your entire million deaths of fentanyl, one baseball-sized container.
I don't really see a way to stop it unless you murder all of the cartel people involved and people become too afraid to touch it.
But we're a long way from that.
All right.
So here's the weird thing about tariffs.
So I'm going to say the oversimplified short-term view.
And then those of you who know a little bit more about economics are going to say, but Scott, you forgot this and you forgot that.
I didn't forget them.
I'll mention them in the long-term effect, right?
So there's a short-term and a long-term.
Short-term, tariff wars are weird because it's each country trying to tax itself to hurt the other country because tariffs are paid by the importing company.
So American companies are going to pay the tariffs.
That's just what a tariff is.
That's the only way it works.
So in the short run, The competition will be, can America survive whatever retaliatory tariffs there are?
Because, of course, there will be.
Can we survive better than the country that we're battling with?
Now, if the country with the strongest economy is in a trade war with a country with a weaker economy, I would expect the stronger economy to have all of the negotiating position and maybe...
Get some kind of a deal done.
Because it's so one-sided, you know, you better just surrender.
And that's largely the case with two of these countries.
So right now, Mexico exports to the U.S. as a percentage of GDP 35%.
So 35% of Mexico's GDP exports to the U.S. How much do we export to Mexico?
1.2%.
1.2%.
So what happens if 1.2% of the things we buy from Mexico go up in price 25%?
You're not even going to notice.
You won't even notice.
But in Mexico, if 35% of what drives their GDP suddenly had a huge monetary impact on it, they're going to notice that right away.
So Canada is similar.
They export to the US 22% of their GDP, but the things that we export to Canada is 1.5%.
So when they put a tariff on us, it'll be on such a small little bunch of goods that we won't even notice.
When we put a tariff on either Canada or Mexico, oh, they're going to notice.
Yeah, that's certainly they're going to notice.
And their economies are, you know...
At least Canada seems a little weaker than the U.S. So it's a weaker economy.
They don't have the same punchback ability because of the imbalance of trade.
So in theory, it puts Trump in charge of the negotiations.
So that's good.
Now here's the part that you wanted me to say.
Some of you are better at economics.
In the short run, The company that's importing is going to pay the United States the tariff.
So it's like a tax on the United States by the United States.
But in the longer term, and sometimes it could happen faster, the company that is exporting the goods to America, let's say China, they might just lower the price of their goods a little bit.
Maybe not the full 25%, but depending on the margins, I guess, whatever kind of profit margin they have, they could take a little of the pain off by lowering the cost of the product and then maybe try to sell the same amount.
But that'd be hard because they probably don't have that much margin in their profits.
Over time, what the tariffs do is it would cause more American companies to make products, maybe.
Or other countries to be a source for those same products.
And according to the Wall Street Journal, the tariffs, the tariff war, as it looks, is likely to devalue the currency of the companies we're at war at, but not the U.S. currency.
So in other words, the Mexican peso and the Canadian dollar might become worth less compared to the American dollar.
So that would be, again, more negotiating power.
So, you're now the smartest people in this conversation.
Because, number one, you know that the payment is made, at least initially, by the same country that puts the tariff on the other country.
It's basically a tax on yourself.
So we're having a competition to see who can tax themselves harder and survive.
And because of the imbalance in trade, it looks like America has all the cards.
And then the second thing you need to know is that the long-term, people start adjusting.
So the competitive environment changes if it looks like it's going to be a long-term situation.
But that's not going to happen right away.
Because people would quite reasonably say, this might be temporary.
You know, a year from now, or let's say under the next president.
Are you really going to have same tariffs?
Because if the tariffs stay, then some people may say, aha, that's exactly the advantage I needed to start this manufacturing company in the United States.
But here's where I need a fact check.
If Chinese goods became, let's say, 10% or 25% more expensive, would that make any difference?
Because I feel like they have such a huge cost advantage that even if their costs went up 25%, we still couldn't compete domestically.
We couldn't make a factory in the United States that could beat them on costs just because we raised their costs artificially with a tariff.
I don't think we're anywhere in the ballpark of being able to repatriate some of these businesses.
All right.
So we'll see.
We will see what the effect is.
I'll tell you, I feel like Trump's instinct on this is right.
Because the U.S. has such a negotiating advantage that it gives Trump several ways to win and no way to lose.
If nothing happens, he's going to claim that the tariff payments are free money to the United States.
Really just taxing the United States, but okay.
So as long as people don't understand it.
Trump can claim victory.
Because we don't know.
We're like, I don't know.
Is it good in the short run?
Good in the long run?
We don't really understand this tariff stuff.
So if it's complicated, Trump can claim victory.
What does that sound like?
Is there any other situation in which Trump can claim victory just because you can't tell the difference?
Yes.
The California water situation.
It's possible that what Trump did made a big difference and only Trump could do it and it solved a big problem.
That would be his claim.
It's possible that a random change was made and he just took credit.
We can't tell the difference.
So if I'm talking about what makes sense from a persuasion perspective, it makes sense for Trump to claim credit whenever we can't tell.
Because it's not so much about the past.
It's not so much that he can add it to his resume.
That part I don't care about.
What I care about is it sends a message of American competence.
Look, we figured out how to solve this.
Look, we figured out how to solve that.
Look, Trump solved another problem.
If we can continue to nurture this idea that Trump can solve basically any problem.
People will start conforming to that.
If people believe that Trump will solve their problems, then as soon as he enters the game, everybody gets flexible.
That's what's happening with Ukraine.
So until Trump was elected, Ukraine was all, oh, we're never going to make peace.
We've got to win this war.
But as soon as Trump's elected, Putin's like, hey, let's talk.
You know, you wanted to talk anyway.
But Zelensky's like, yeah.
Yeah, let's talk.
Let's work this out.
I think that's the Trump effect.
So I'm perfectly okay with Trump taking, let's say, a little, taking a little liberty with his statements of success.
Because the more you think he is successful, the more successful he will become.
It's basically loading him up.
You know, it's how the public can load him with extra energy to get stuff done.
If he thinks he's winning, and we treat him like he's winning, and people say he's winning, he's going to do more winning.
You know, his energy will be right.
People will conform to it.
It's all good.
But I don't know if he did anything for California water, and I have no idea how the tariffs are going to shake out.
But he will take credit.
He will take credit.
And that is exactly the right play for a leader.
It would be so weak if he said, well, we've made these changes, but frankly, we can't tell if they work.
That might be honest, but I don't need that.
I wanted to say it worked.
If we can't tell one way or the other, say it worked.
Anyway, at the same time, there's a big change in imports.
Regarding something called de minimis shipments.
Now, I didn't know this was a thing, but apparently, until it was just changed, if you were shipping into the United States something that was worth less than $800, you didn't have to go through the same customs and duty payments.
So, now that sounds like just a good idea, right?
If it's a small package.
You don't want to have every little package, have to go through customs, and just slow everything down.
So it seems like a good idea.
Let's make the small packages that aren't worth much money.
Let's just have them skip that laborious process.
Here's what happened.
You would not be surprised.
China and probably others are gaming the system like crazy.
So if they have, let's say, a container full of parts, Instead of saying, hey, I have one container full of parts.
It's worth a million dollars.
They will package each of the parts as sub- $800 pieces, and they'll treat them all as their individual packages under $800.
Oh yeah, the container is full.
It's the same container, except if we put them in individual packages, every one of them skates under the line.
So apparently...
Trump administration just put a stop to that.
I don't know what's replacing it, because you probably do need some way to at least get the little stuff through without all the work.
But I guess that was a gigantic thing.
So the people who work in that business say everybody knew this was a problem.
Trump just fixed it.
And it's a big deal.
We'll see.
So Trump apparently did an airstrike on ISIS in Somalia.
There's some ISIS planner, I guess, senior ISIS attack planner.
And Trump says, we will find you and we will kill you.
And then he released the video of what looked like the bombing attack that took out that ISIS attack planner.
Now, I do like it when Trump takes on a leader and makes sure all the other leaders see it.
I'm talking about ISIS leaders, not the European leaders.
But I like this.
And I like where he says, we will find you.
Because the we will find you part is the only thing that gives the bad guys comfort.
Well, they'll never find me.
And Trump's saying, we'll find you.
And then he finds somebody and he kills them.
And he'll probably find some more people and kill them.
So the thing that Trump knows he needs to fix is the we can find you problem.
Everybody knows we can kill people.
Like, that's no news.
It doesn't change anybody's thinking that we do kill people.
It's a war.
But if you say we can find you every time, well, that might have some impact on their leadership transitions.
Anyway, according to George Papadopoulos, who was posting about this, There's a leaked email from John Brennan about the 51 intelligence people who signed the letter saying that Hunter's laptop was at all the earmarks of Russian disinformation.
So the actual email that went from a fellow named Michael Morrell to John Brennan asking him to sign the document, we actually have the email now.
Here's the last line of the document.
So in the document, Brennan is saying, oh, this is a good idea, and thanks for adding me, I'll sign it.
So Brennan knew what it was and agreed to sign it.
So he wasn't an organizer.
So Brennan was not an organizer, but he was a signer.
And here's what Michael Morell said in his very short email describing that he wanted people to sign this thing.
He said, quote, Trying to give the campaign, meaning Biden's campaign, particularly during the debate on Thursday, a talking point to push back on Trump on this.
He actually said it out loud.
It's in writing that the person who organized the 51 people to sign it, that the point of it was to give a talking point at the debate.
He says it directly.
And Brennan says, oh, good idea, to create a talking point.
They knew it wasn't real.
Now I'm reading between the lines, all right, I can't read their minds, but doesn't that strongly suggest they knew exactly what they were doing and it was just a political talking point and had nothing to do with warning the country about, well, it's our job as experts, it's our job to warn the country that this might be Russian disinformation.
Might be.
So, is that the smoking gun?
It's right on the edge.
You know, you can imagine if this went to court in some way, that there'd be some argument that, well, you know, he's just saying that's one use for it.
He's not saying that they don't believe it.
He's just saying one of its purposes would be to help Biden in the debate.
So, I'm not sure it's a smoking gun with fire, but there's a lot of smoke.
Anyway, so here's my question.
Do you think Democrats will ever hear that story?
Do you think that CNN or MSNBC will carry the story about the leaked Brennan email that strongly suggests that they knew it was just political reasons?
I don't think Democrats will ever hear that story.
What do you think?
And it will also tell you how controlled they are.
I think they're completely controlled and that they just are told not to run this story.
You can see it on social media.
You can see it on X, but that's about it.
You probably won't see it in many places.
So let's talk about the Elon Musk effect, which is on a lot of things lately.
So yesterday, or the day before, I posted that Bernie Sanders and his treatment of RFK Jr. at the confirmation hearings made me lose all respect for him.
Now, of course, this caused every NPC to say, lose respect?
Why did you have any respect for him in the first place?
Let me explain how this works.
It's always good to say that you used to respect somebody before you explain why you don't anymore.
Because it wouldn't make much of an impact if I said, I used to not respect him, and I still don't.
That's a nothing.
If you say you used to respect him in some way, right?
I don't like his policies.
I've often said that he can't do math, so he doesn't understand how anything fits together.
But just in terms of what I thought was his genuine interest in making things better, but didn't know how.
So I thought, well, there's something to respect in there.
That you're working hard to try to make things better.
The fact that you don't know the best way to do it is not ideal.
But, you know, you could like the intention and you could like the effort.
It seemed like there were things that I could respect.
And then I changed my mind and said, now, you know, once I saw the, what about the onesie?
What about the onesie?
RFK Jr., what about the onesie?
And I was like, oh my God, he's just that person?
So I make that comment, and it gets a few hundred thousand responses.
And then a day goes by, and Elon Musk comments on it.
Something kind of like agreement.
I forget the exact words.
So Elon Musk comments on it, and the last time I checked, it had 38 million views.
38 million.
Just because Elon commented on it.
Oh my God!
So, think about how important that is in terms of persuasion.
You've probably noticed that whenever Elon comments on anybody's post, it immediately goes into the multi-millions.
So, if it's a good post, and people like it, and then Elon boosts it, you're going to get 10 to 30 million views.
10 to 30. That's bigger than any news outlet.
I mean, it's bigger than CNN. It's bigger than MSNBC. And what's interesting is it puts Elon Musk in the position of influencing which messages you see outside of the algorithm.
So the algorithm is deciding what you see, which is mostly stuff you want to see, or at least that's what it's trying to do.
It's trying to give you more of what you like and less of what you don't like.
But Elon is his own algorithm.
So when Elon Musk is looking at the posts, like the rest of us, when I boost something, I say to myself, ooh, if I boost this, I've got 1.2 million followers, and a lot of them are really connected people.
I'm like, oh, this could make a difference just because I boosted it.
But when he boosts things, it's like 100 times bigger.
So his ability to influence, The national conversation and influence minds is now somewhat unprecedented.
I would say that only Trump has a sort of a global persuasion powers that are a little bit greater, and maybe the gap is closing.
But boy, you can't overlook the fact that he can touch something once and 38 million people will see it.
So that's what happened to me.
38 million people saw me running.
Running Sanders into the ground.
Meanwhile, speaking of CNN, I was watching poor Frank Luntz.
He was on one of the CNN panels where everybody talks over you.
So I'd like to give my impression of Frank Luntz trying to talk on a CNN panel.
This is Frank Luntz.
Well, it's important that you...
Okay.
Just continuing.
It's important that you...
Okay, are you going to let me talk?
I've listened to you.
Are you done?
All right, I'll continue.
So what I was trying to say is...
The whole show is basically black panelists trying to talk over any white people who say anything at all.
The Abby Phillip panel, it just looks like a racist skunk fight.
And the white people are just trying to survive.
Scott Jennings does the best job of it because he's completely unflappable.
But Luntz was getting a little flapped, meaning that he really, really wanted to talk because that's why he was invited there.
They invited him because they wanted to hear what he had to say.
And every time he tried to talk, he couldn't hear a word.
So that's basically just a racist kind of a show.
Abby Phillip is one of the pushers of the fine people hoax.
And then she did this, turning the DEI stuff into another hoax.
Here's how the hoax works.
DEI is being canceled by Trump.
And he said some things about DEI. Why does he have to bring race into it?
Okay, he didn't bring race into it.
DEI is not about race only.
It's about diversity.
But it's a system.
He's talking about the system.
But why must he say that this one pilot must be a DEI hire?
Never said that.
Never said that.
That's you making up something.
No, he's not blaming individuals.
He's saying that the system guarantees some incompetence, and it looks like, at least in the FAA, it looks like their hiring was limited because they were trying to hire people, but they couldn't get enough who were diverse.
So they just were understaffed.
And it would seem that understaffing was at least part of the problem for the latest airline disaster.
Now, we don't know all the details.
It could turn out that...
You know, the big variable is some entirely different thing.
But on the surface, it does seem like there were more planes than there were airline controllers for the job, and that's got to make a difference.
So, on one hand, I was thinking that Trump is not doing a good enough job explaining that he's not saying any one person is a DEI hire, because that's a mistake.
That's just a pure mistake.
You don't really know if any one person is the DEI hire problem.
You might say that they are a DEI hire, but it's sort of a leap to say that, therefore, they're also the problem.
You know, those are separate.
You could be a DEI hire who does a good job.
That's probably more common than the other thing.
So, when the Abby Phillip racist...
Kind of a treatment comes in.
Remember the thing they're doing?
They're trying to turn a system complaint that the DEI system creates inefficiency and racism, and they're trying to turn it into, why do you not like black people?
They're actually doing that.
It's basically, why is Trump saying bad things about black people?
Which has never happened.
It just doesn't happen.
It's just not anything he's ever done or would ever do.
Anyway, J.D. Vance had to do some of the cleanup, and he nailed it.
So let me read what J.D. Vance said when he was asked about this whole DEI thing.
So he said, he was talking to Maria Bartiroma, and he said, Quote, there's a direct connection between Biden policies on DEI and understaffed control towers, and he credited Trump for intervening.
Now, that's 100% right, because the way Vance described it is not about any individual, but that there was a staffing problem, and it could be tied very directly to the policies, which were DEI. That's perfect.
Now, part of me thought, You know, I think Trump should treat it this way, too.
And then I said, you know what?
The thing that makes Trump Trump is he doesn't give a fuck about what I'm saying.
If he thinks it's a DEI problem and then he says it looks like a DEI problem, and he's right in the sense that Vance is explaining it, not in the sense that any one individual is a problem.
I think he could just drop it and walk away.
And then let Vance clean it up, let the news clean it up, let other people add the nuance.
I like it when Trump just drops the shit right in the middle of their cocktail party, and then they have to deal with it.
I like that.
If he didn't have good explainers around him that can say what it really means, then maybe not.
But this one-two punch...
Trump loosens up the room, and then J.D. Vance comes in and just owns the room?
I like it.
Trump shakes the box, J.D. Vance comes in and puts it back in order, in a new way.
You know, a new order, not the old order.
Very good.
One-two punch.
So, we'll see if anything changes on that messaging.
Well, what we do know now is that the...
The Black Hawk helicopter had three pilots.
The one that we didn't hear about for a while is the only female pilot.
Do we think that that's the reason we didn't hear about it?
Well, the speculation, which is pure speculation and very unfair within the close proximity of the actual disaster because the family is recovering slowly, etc.
The questions being asked are, is the reason there was a delay so that social media could be scrubbed?
Because there are some photos that people found that show the female pilot in the smiling company of a group of people who appear to be all LGBTQ, which would suggest it's less likely that she was the only straight white woman in the LGBT group because they were posing for a picture.
It seems a little more likely she was part of that group, but we don't know that.
Now, would that change my opinion?
If I found out that she was hired in part because she's a lesbian, which, by the way, is not confirmed at all, I don't know that that would change my opinion.
Is there anybody here who thinks a lesbian can't fly a helicopter?
I don't think that's a thing, is it?
I see no reason that you can't have the best pilots in the world be lesbians.
Why not?
So, again, I wouldn't focus on her, but there is some question whether they cleaned up her situation so it wouldn't look like it was a problem, which I wouldn't mind.
If the family wants to just stay under the limelight on this because it's not really a limelight they want to be a part of, I'd respect that.
I respect the family's wishes.
But I'll just say that the conversation is out there.
I don't think it's useful.
I just don't think it's useful.
We should let that go.
Let the family just deal with their situation.
So MSNBC talking about the firings of all the senior FBI people who were in some way involved with law-faring Trump or the January 6th stuff.
And here's what Andy Weissman said as he was bleeding.
B-L-E-A-T. Bleat like a sheep.
He said that the FBI agents who got fired could sue Trump because there's no cause for the firing and they can only be fired for cause.
To which I say, what do you mean there was no cause?
No cause?
Are you telling me that hunting Republicans is not cause for removal by a Republican?
I can't think of a better cause.
What would you have to do that would be worse than that?
They hunted Republicans.
They hunted them.
They hunted Republicans.
In the real world.
I'm not making that up.
They hunted them.
They hunted them for political purposes.
I don't think any of them really thought that Putting grandma in jail because she trespassed was making the country a safer place.
Not one of them thought that.
But why did they do it?
Why were they doing it if they knew it wouldn't make the country safer?
Why?
Well, obviously political reasons.
So if you're in the FBI and you're putting people in jail for political reasons and it's one side only, yeah, that's a firing offense.
That's a super firing offense.
Now you might say to me, but Scott, Many of them didn't have a choice.
They were assigned it, and they were just doing their job.
To which I say, I don't care.
If you were assigned to murder somebody, and murder was illegal, it is, by the way, it's totally illegal, and you murdered somebody, would I say, well, it was just an assignment?
No.
If you're a member of the FBI, and you're hunting one group of Americans for political reasons, you don't think you know that?
You think you would be unaware that what you're doing?
Should put you in jail.
I don't think it'll put anybody in jail, but it's bad enough.
So no, I have no sympathy for anybody who took the assignment as opposed to quitting.
Now, it's a tough choice.
I get it.
In the real world, people don't quit.
They need their jobs.
You know, you don't want to ruin your whole career over this because you really can't get it back if you turned into a whistleblower, you're dead.
But that's also not my problem.
It's not my problem that they couldn't say no, if they wanted to.
And I don't even think they wanted to.
I suspect that they wanted to do it, but we don't know if that's true of all of them.
I didn't remember this, but I was reminded that I guess Kash Patel and Pam Bondi both said during the confirmation process that they wouldn't fire people who were associated with these activities, the January 6th and the lawfare, I guess.
And both of them said they wouldn't, but neither of them are confirmed.
So the acting heads are doing the firing.
Now, do you think that the Democrats are now, let's say, unhappy with dragging out the process?
You realize that if the Democrats had said, wait, okay, you're not going to fire these people?
Okay, let's vote right now.
All our questions are answered.
Let's get it over with.
What would have happened if Kash Patel and Pam Bondi had both immediately been approved after saying in public that they wouldn't do this?
I feel like they wouldn't do it because they'd be trapped with what they said.
I mean, maybe Trump would force them to somehow.
But it's hard for me to take their complaints seriously when the people who said they wouldn't do it are being held up by the people.
Who want it to be not done.
So I told you yesterday that the Treasury Department, which is essentially the one writing the checks, if I have that right.
So they write checks for the government to pay everything that the government needs to pay.
I don't know if that's exactly true, but for our purposes today, let's say it is.
You heard that the highest-ranking Treasury official, this guy named David Labrick, he resigned rather than comply with the request from Doge for access to audit it.
So all they wanted was access to the system so they could see what was spent where.
And the guy who was in charge quit.
He quit.
Now keep in mind that Doge is completely authorized by the elected government of the United States.
And he was just not going to help, so he quit.
Well, that looks as suspicious as anything could look.
And then Musk says about this, that the Doge team, when they got into the Treasury Department system, or even before, he says, the team discovered, among other things, that payment approval officers at Treasury were instructed always to approve payments, even to known fraudulent or terrorist groups.
Now, some of the payments to terrorist groups may have been some strategic play that the CIA was trying to get one terrorist group to kill the other terrorist group.
So maybe there's some reasons for it.
But apparently they were just told, nope, don't judge them, just approve them.
Now, what happens when you have a payment system in which there are no checks and balances?
It's out of control.
Is it possible that Democrats don't know that?
That if you don't have somebody controlling every dollar, it will all get stolen?
Or is that exactly the plan?
To have the least amount of checking so you can have the most amount of theft?
It looks like that.
One of the things Musk is saying about the doge effort is that they work on weekends.
It's like a superpower over people who don't work on weekends.
And I've got to tell you, I've worked weekends my entire career, my adult life.
I've always worked weekends.
And it is a superpower.
And also getting up earlier and sleeping less.
I've had the equivalent of basically three lives.
Well, many of you have had two.
Now, you might have enjoyed your one or two lives more than my three.
I don't know.
It's hard to compare.
But I've lived the equivalent of three lives.
And I feel it.
I feel like I've had three lives running simultaneously.
So, every once in a while, it's very rare, something happens where I would wake up late, it just ruins my whole day.
Because I feel like I didn't get anything done.
I don't know how you do it.
Anyway, how many of you know what USAID is?
The organization in the government called USAID. USAID. Now, wouldn't you think that if there were some big, well-funded organization with that name in our government, that they would be giving aid to other countries from the U.S.? Or maybe you'd even think it's for the U.S., because it's the U.S. It's got aid in it.
But the AID is not aid.
It's something else.
And according to Mike Benz, USAID is how the State Department and the CIA topple governments.
Through something called capacity building.
So if you want to understand how the real world works, here's a term you have to understand.
Capacity building.
The way that works is if the United States wants to overthrow some smaller country, we first use this USAID thing to fund a bunch of things in that target country that will make it easier to overthrow it.
So they might fund some fake groups that are opposed to the government.
They might back some street muscle.
So apparently street muscle is important to overthrowing any country.
If they have big unions, then you use your money to bribe or control the unions and they become your street muscle.
If you don't have big unions, you try green people or...
Antifa or communists or somebody.
You have to find some street muscle.
That's important.
So you've got your NGOs, your various organizations that are working against the target company.
And there might be like lots of them.
And then you've got the street muscle.
And then, of course, we would have to control the media.
So we'd have to control the media.
So the media says, if it's not controlled by the dictator.
But at least the social media, so that there's a story against whoever's in charge.
And so that's kind of the deal.
So that's called capacity building.
I'm doing a bad job of explaining it.
Capacity building means creating permanent or semi-permanent things in another country for the purpose of taking them over.
And apparently we do it really well.
And apparently it was done against the United States.
By some of the same players.
They just turned it inward and tried to control a lot of the United States.
So the NGOs, I guess there are just thousands of them, and they're interconnected, so you can't tell where the money is flowing.
It's like you might give money to one NGO whose job is to distribute to other NGOs, and then some of them distribute to other NGOs.
So you can't even tell where the money is going, which apparently is intentional.
So you have this vast amount of money controlled by the State Department and the CIA that goes through this USAID thing, which is allegedly a legitimate outfit, but it's about overthrowing countries, including America.
And it looks like the whole thing's just going to go away.
So half of the employees were contractors, and Doge and Trump just said all the contractors are gone.
So as somebody, an ex named William Wolfe said, Trump is literally Thanos snapping the deep state out of existence.
So I guess the USAID people, some of them were on a Zoom call, and all of a sudden the Zoom call went, you know, half of the people went dark.
It was like Thanos from the superhero movies where he snaps his fingers and half of the population of the planet dies.
So Trump is...
Thanos snapping the deep state of existence.
If you'd like to know, is USAID something that you should be on their side?
Because let's say, hey, at least they're working for America.
Maybe they're doing bad things to other countries, but they're doing it for a good reason in terms of America.
So America is stronger because they exist.
Well, here's something else you should know about USAID. According to Stephen Miller, 98% of the USAID people donated to Kamala Harris or other left-wing candidates.
Huh.
So one of the ways that the USAID controls other countries is by getting the other countries to be infected by DEI, climate change, abortion rights, and identity politics.
Wait a minute.
Are you saying, Scott, that we use the things that are popular in the United States to destroy other countries?
Yep.
Does that mean that those things are only big in the United States because the same entities are trying to destroy the United States?
Maybe.
That's what it looks like.
If we know that building up capacity in another country where they're fighting over DEI, They're fighting over climate, and there's lots of money sloshing around that allegedly is going to climate.
And, you know, abortion rights and identity.
I think abortion rights is probably the smaller one.
But identity politics?
Do you think there's any chance if we use these things for weapons to destroy other countries, you don't think that's what's happening to us?
Now, in the United States, it wouldn't be to destroy the country.
It would be to change the leadership, to make sure the leadership Was on board with climate and abortion and identity and DEI. So, here's the capacity.
First, you come up with these things that seem bigger than the country.
You know, hey, you've got to have DEI. You've got to have climate.
You've got to have identity.
And you make that bigger than people's patriotism, and then you can control the country by controlling those things.
So, the fact that for most of The last 20 years.
If you went in public and spoke out against DEI, climate, abortion, or identity, it would be the end of your professional career.
Do you think that's a coincidence?
No.
That looks exactly like these are meant for capacity building, and these are not even real topics, meaning that if they were not introduced by people who wanted to control the country, they wouldn't even be here.
We would have been...
We don't need DEI because we're a melting pot, right?
We would say climate change doesn't seem to make sense because India and China aren't going to change and so there's nothing we can do.
But instead we act like we're the only ones who can do anything and it's existential threat.
That doesn't make any sense, right?
Why would you even have that frame unless you were trying to control the country?
And identity politics, obviously, same thing.
Anyway, so it looks like USAID is going to be vastly decreased.
I told you how James Carville referred to Kamala Harris as the seventh-string quarterback and said, you know, you can't win the Super Bowl with a seventh-string quarterback.
Now, he was asked more about it in another interview.
And he's not backing off of that.
But here's what's funny about it.
Carville's using a lot of words to describe that DEI destroyed the Democrats.
Because the real story of Kamala Harris is not that she was anointed.
It was that nobody else could be anointed because of DEI. If she were not a DEI qualified candidate, Do you think she would have been picked without any process?
No.
I think the thing that allowed them to say, okay, this is obvious, you know, this is the way to go, people will be okay with it, is that she was female and black.
And that made it okay.
So Carville's so close, but we'll see how brave he is, because he knows it's a DEI problem.
You know he knows, right?
Because he's not dumb.
He's been around.
He knows exactly what the problem is.
And I think before he's actually, he may have actually made a reference to the fact that they couldn't leave the DEI, or let's say the identity.
I think they would say it's an identity thing.
But he's so close to being a Republican.
Meanwhile, the DNC has picked a new chairperson, Ken Martin.
Let me explain Ken Martin.
He's the whitest man in America.
And if you'd like to know how white he is, I think I can do a good impression of his dancing for TikTok.
So this will tell you, you know, does he just look white?
Or is he white like all the way through?
Well, here's him dancing.
I rest my case.
He's as white as you could possibly be.
Can't get whiter than that.
If you're listening on audio, I just did a hilarious impression of a white man dancing with no rhythm whatsoever.
How did I do such a good impression?
Well, it's a trick.
It just turns out that's how I dance.
Sorry!
So yes, the whitest man in America is the chair, but at least they added some diversity for the vice chair, which is David Hogg, the young man who's the anti-gun.
Advocate.
So, two of the whitest men in America.
Now, how does that work?
Because I saw all the candidates who were trying out for the head of the DNC, and it seemed to me from the few things I saw that the vast majority of them fit into the non-white man category.
How do the Democrats end up picking two white guys to be the head when identity is so important and their entire party's thrust is, you know, we're not the white man party?
Separately, and I think it was Politico, there was an article about Democrat black women who were sort of saying, all right, well, we'll just move on with our lives because we lost.
I say to myself, how can the Democrats ever come back?
Because if they pick people based on, I assume, they thought these were the most capable people.
And, well, Hogg is an interesting case, because he's more like the future.
So if they say he's not quite ready, but we can nurture him and turn him into a candidate later, that's actually a good play.
I wouldn't give them a hard time for having somebody who's a neophyte.
It's a good starting place.
I think his activism has earned him a spot at the show.
But he's seriously anti-gun.
They're both white as you could possibly be and male.
So unless one of them is gay and I don't know it, doesn't that make an internal civil war?
How in the world do Democrats Get okay with that.
And then what are they going to do when they pick a candidate?
Are they going to pick a white guy candidate?
Because I think the Democrats thought that Kamala lost because of racism and sexism.
That's what basically everybody running for the job thought.
So is it possible that the Democrats are so dumb that they think that the only thing they need to do to win is to run a white guy next time?
Is that going to happen?
I would love to see them make that mistake.
No, that's not the right way to go.
That is definitely not the right way to go for them.
But they don't have a right way to go.
There is actually no solution given their current setup.
If they go capability, then they violate their DEI principles.
If they go DEI, they'll lose again.
That's the only two paths.
Pro-DEI, you lose.
Anti-DEI. You lose.
Two losing paths.
So, yeah, no hope.
Well, this is the biggest surprise ever, according to Interesting Engineering.
And Sujita Sina says that China is blaming U.S. hackers for the hacking attack on DeepSeek.
So DeepSeek is that allegedly super cheap AI that came out of China.
And practically as soon as it made the news, it got attacked by a denial of service.
A very persistent attack that I think is still doing its thing.
And China says every one of the attacks is coming from the United States.
Do you think that's true?
I don't know.
I mean, it's not the sort of thing that countries necessarily tell you the truth about.
And I always thought that if you're a good hacker...
You could somehow disguise the source.
Is that not true?
There's no such thing as hackers who are good enough to do something like this.
Don't they have a way to disguise their origin?
Like, how could he even be a hacker if everybody can tell where it came from?
I don't know.
All right.
I gotta look at this comment mentions of Alright.
I think I won't mention that.
Mike Burt.
But noted.
Anyway.
So yeah, my first impression was it's American companies or the government going after that.
Deep Seek.
So the latest guess is that DeepSeek probably cost well over a billion dollars, not six million dollars to make.
So that was always BS. The Gateway Pundit is reporting that DOJ is opening an investigation into Chuck Schumer for threatening the Supreme Court justices.
And I didn't even remember that.
I mean, I remembered it when I was reminded of it, but it didn't seem important to me at the time.
But maybe it is.
So here's what Schumer said in public at a pro-abortion rally in 2020. He said that the two justices, that he didn't like their decisions, he said they would, quote, pay the price for overturning Roe versus Wade.
And so that's before they actually did it.
He was warning them.
And then he said, I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind.
And you will pay the price, Schumer said.
You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.
Now, how do you interpret that?
Is anybody aware of any case where Supreme Court justices were somehow legally or politically attacked?
Like, what exactly would happen to the justices?
They know when they take the job that half the country is going to hate every one of their decisions.
So if Schumer is just going to say, we're going to hate this decision, would that have any impact on the Supreme Court?
What exactly did Schumer think he could do to these specific justices?
Now, if you're asking me if it's inappropriate, oh, by God, yes.
That's pretty inappropriate.
But is it illegal?
Is it illegal?
Or are they only looking at it in terms of maybe impeaching Schumer for bad judgment?
I don't know.
So it seems like...
Here's where I am at this.
Trump says a lot of hyperbolic things.
Do we take every one of those as a literal?
We don't, do we?
We don't take it as literal.
We just know when he's threatening.
That sort of thing.
Now, I think the way Schumer played it by naming names, that's pretty scary.
And it does seem like it would have the effect of biasing the court because they might want to stay alive or not be attacked in some way that they don't see coming.
So yeah, I think it was definitely worth investigating.
But I'm not sure that I'd want him to go to jail.
If there's any kind of law he broke, because that's going to feel lawfare-ish.
If they investigate him and rebuke him or give him some kind of censure in the Senate or they even do an impeachment, I would say, yeah, that seems about right.
But if it turns out there's a law that's technically broken, I don't know.
That would be a tough one.
As much as I want to say nobody's above the law, if we're going to say that nobody would have been taken to all these lawfare situations except Trump, which is true, maybe there's an equivalent one on the other side.
So here's the reason I bring this up.
I feel some responsibility as a citizen to make sure that the winning side stays within balance.
Now, sometimes I like to let them color outside the lines, not let them.
They're just going to do it.
So sometimes you don't mind if they color outside the lines if they're getting something done.
So I don't mind whatsoever if Trump, you know, stretches the power of the executive.
Say, well, you know, you think I can't do it, but I'm going to try it anyway.
Let's see if I get away with it.
I don't mind that at all, because those are transparently for the benefit of the country.
What else would they be?
It's not transparently for his benefit.
He's not even running for office again.
So if he's doing something that's obviously and transparently for my benefit, yeah, you can call her a little bit outside the lines.
But when it comes to putting other people in jail, if it comes to that, that's where all of us have to be responsible citizens first and political second.
Now, we wish that the Democrats had done the same.
They didn't.
But I feel like we could hold ourselves to a higher standard.
So this one, I'm going to keep my eye on it.
If it's not a prison risk, then I'd be okay with wherever it goes.
But if you're really talking about putting Schumer in prison, well, then I'm going to ask some more questions.
And I think that that's appropriate.
You know, in the end, I might say, you know what, this was so bad.
That's why the law exists, if there is a law.
So I could be convinced, but I think the most responsible position is you're going to have to prove this one.
You're going to have to prove this, and I'm not as satisfied yet if it's going to be anything legal.
So don't be like them is what I'm saying.
So there's an article in The Guardian in which the title is Female Narcissism is Often Misdiagnosed.
Now, I don't care about that topic.
It's true.
I'm sure female narcissism is underdiagnosed.
But what was interesting is the propaganda in it.
So as they're talking about just narcissism in general, here's a sentence in the Guardian's article.
So this is in case you think the Guardian is a responsible publication.
They're not.
This actual sentence is in that story.
Quote, from Charles Manson and Ted Bundy to Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Donald Trump, most famous people we consider psychopathic or narcissistic are male.
Wait a minute.
Let me read that sentence again.
Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Donald Trump.
Oh, come on.
They just drop that in there like that's some kind of a fact that Trump should be in the same list with serial killers Stalin and Hitler.
Come on!
That is so repulsive that they just drop that in there.
And the thing is, it's not even a political story.
And they just drop that in there like you're going to accept it like a fact.
Uh-huh.
Yeah.
Lenin.
Uh-huh.
Yeah, makes sense.
Stalin, not Lenin, but Stalin, Hitler, Trump.
Yeah, same list.
I can see why that would be the same.
You motherfuckers.
You people at the Guardian are just shit.
There's an editor who let that in.
So it would be one thing if a writer wrote it and it snuck in, but there was an editor who looked at it.
Whoever that editor was, you suck.
You were a damaging piece of shit for doing that.
That is unforgivable.
Un-fucking-forgivable.
The Guardian.
What a joke.
What are they guarding?
Their own stupidity?
Well, Netanyahu's coming to the U.S. to meet with Trump.
I would guess that that's going to be a productive meeting.
I also guess that it's going to be tense.
The relationship between Netanyahu and Trump is pretty interesting because they're both strong.
They're both negotiators.
I think they have a real respect for each other, but they don't have all the same objectives, maybe.
So it's a real interesting dynamic just because they're so smart and so good at what they do, you know, persuasion-wise and politically, that you put the two of them in a room and...
I kind of think something good could come out of it most of the time.
So here's what I think.
The big question, and only Trump can sell this, is what do you do with Gaza?
Now that it's basically unlivable and ruined, but people want to go back anyway.
They want to go back and live in the ruin, I guess.
Because it would take a long time to fix it.
And it seems like it would be toxic.
So Trump is...
Tease the idea that the residents might be put in other countries, and then Gaza just gets basically bulldozed and turned into something awesome, but in its own time.
So there'd be no rush to repatriate anybody, because there wouldn't be anything to repatriate them to that's worth being there.
And so finding some other countries to take them.
But, as you know, no other country wants them.
Because it's just trouble.
I think for purely political reasons, the pressure should be on Iran.
Now, I don't think there's any chance that Iran would take all the Gazans into Iran, but they should have to answer for it.
If they're the ones who are behind, you know, backing the badness that got Gaza in this situation, I think they broke it.
They bought it.
And even if you don't think that would be a productive line of attack, like they'll just say, no, you broke it.
You bought it.
I think it would at least change the frame.
So the frame is, Iran did this to you, and they're not willing to make good on it.
So we're not going to correct Iran's mistake or what Iran did to you.
We can maybe rebuild the area, and in some cases, maybe some people could come back someday.
But I think only Trump, only Trump can say nobody's going back to Gaza.
And I don't think there's another way to round it.
I don't think there's another way in the real world.
I just don't think there's a way to play it where people just go back.
Because they would just recreate the tunnels, recreate the same situation October 7th would come back.
So there's no way that Israel is going to say, yeah, let's just move back the people who are really, really mad at us.
It doesn't make any sense.
It would be ridiculous.
And Trump knows that.
So Trump's the only one who can say the truth.
Nobody's going back.
I think that's the part that they have to finesse.
Now, the question is, is there some way to say nobody's going back, but you do sort of a cat in the roof where you don't say it all at once?
So maybe you say things like, well, it's going to take a long time to get back because we have to assess the toxins.
And then once they're assessed, you know, the environmental problems, once we looked at it, then they have to be remediated.
That could take a couple of years.
So it could be that the cats on the roof is, we think you can go back in five years.
And then people are like, oh, five years?
Yeah, five years.
And in the meantime, you can either resettle in Iran if they want you or some other country.
And you'll be at least happy in the meantime.
And maybe you'll stay there forever.
So that's what I think.
I think they're going to cat in the roof it.
You're going to see the signal that they're really saying nobody's going back, or at least nobody's going back for five years.
I think that's what's going to come out of it.
Something that looks like a time frame.
Meanwhile, over in Ukraine, Forbes is writing about Ukraine has a new drone bomber that can fly 1,200 miles with a 550-pound bomb and then return.
So the big thing is they don't have a lot of reusable death drones.
If you were going to do a long distance with a drone, usually the drone itself was the weapon, and it just would crash into something and explode.
But if you could drop a 550-pound bomb 1,200 miles away and then fly back and do it again, well, that's a pretty strong weapon.
Pretty strong weapon.
So we'll see if that makes any difference.
And they also have some kind of robot that can shoot down drones with electrical...
What do you call it?
When somebody interferes with the drone's navigation with one of those anti-drone...
Devices.
What's that called?
What is the technology called?
Is it electromagnetic force beam?
Is there a word for it?
I'm just looking in the comments.
EMP? I don't think it's an EMP. It's a jammer?
Yeah, let's call it a disruptor or a jammer.
EMP would certainly do it, but these are not EMP driven.
Yeah, these are not EMP. I don't think.
Or is there like a micro EMP? Are the jammers and the disruptors basically an EMP, but a micro size, not like a nuclear weapon?
I'll try to get that lingo down.
Well, according to the University of Birmingham, there's a freshwater algae that could be the next superfood.
I would like to do your comments now before you write them.
I ain't gonna eat no algae.
You can't take my beef away.
You can't make me bugs, your World Economic Forum.
I'll never eat bugs.
I'm not gonna eat your algae.
I already have algae in my swimming pool.
I don't need your extra algae.
I'll just go lick the sides of my swimming pool if I want algae.
Stop talking to me, Scott.
Stop talking.
Shut up.
Nobody's gonna eat algae.
It's going to taste terrible.
Don't make me even think about it.
Am I good?
Did I cover everything?
Now I can tell you the story?
This way you don't have to type it at the same time I'm talking.
But it's called Chlorella vulgaris.
I love the name of that.
Doesn't that sound like a Disney movie villainous?
Oh, look out.
It's chlorella vulgaris.
Part of the vulgaris family.
Anyway, so apparently it's got a lot of nutrients and protein, which is the hard part.
And it's not so much that you would eat it.
It might be incorporated with other foods.
I don't know what that means.
But if they can make it tasteless, but it has all the nutrients, then you can maybe mix it in with some kinds of foods.
But what I wondered is, since it's a freshwater algae, could you grow it at home?
You know, I'm always trying to figure out how to do an indoor farm, especially one that you could just have in your backyard, that would give you all you needed to eat.
Because if you think about it, we now have a way to be off the grid for electricity, off the grid for water.
You can even take water out of the air now.
You could have a septic tank if you want to be off the grid for waste, sort of off the grid.
But you can't get off the grid for food, can you?
Food's pretty hard to get off the grid.
So if somebody finds a protein source that you could grow in a little pool in your backyard, you know, not the size of a swimming pool, but something smaller, that would be kind of interesting.
Now, I can also imagine someday in the future that our food will be like the replicators on Star Trek.
So I can imagine something like this freshwater algae being used as the printer ink and mixed with different seasonings so that you basically say, give me a hamburger.
And it just prints a hamburger.
And it's got like a bun and a pickle on it and a piece of lettuce and everything.
But the ink is made by the algae.
I don't want to eat no algae.
Stop making me eat bugs.
I'm not going to lick my swimming pool.
I want beef.
Why are you stopping?
Stop it, you World Economic Forum shill.
All right.
I think we've covered that.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I have to say this morning.
I'm going to talk to the locals' people privately.
EMI versus EMF? Is that what I should have said?
EMI? I thought EMI was a company in the music field.
Boy in green.
How do they make squid ink pasta?
I have no idea.
All right.
You could talk about algae all day.
Well, all right.
EMI is jamming.
Okay, so EMI, electromagnetic interference.
There we go.
EMI was what I was looking for.
What does Lindsey Graham say?
Lindsey Graham will vote to confirm Tulsi, RFK, and Cash.
Good.
Lindsey Graham, if you had not voted for those three...
He'd have a tough time.
I don't want to sound like Schumer, but whoever doesn't vote for RFK Jr. in particular, they're going to have a tough road ahead because there are people who are going to make sure that happens.
It's BMI is the music company.
Oh, you're right.
All right.
I'm going to talk privately to the locals people, those of you on X and YouTube and Rumble.
