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, DeepSeek Ban Bill, Lara Trump, Mitch McConnell Falls, US Gaza Canal, Canal Technology Value, Kamala 60 Minutes Video, DOGE USAID Allegations, Mike Benz, Michael Shellenberger, USAID OCCRP, 2019 Trump Impeachment, USAID Media Payments, Andrew Tate, Anthony Fauci, Jenn Psaki, USAID UNRWA Payments, USAID Politico Payments, Stephen A. Smith, Greenland Acquisition, Hernia Repair Breakthrough, Risk Assessment, 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.
You've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass or a tank or a chalice or a canteen, a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
Happens right now.
Go.
Thank you, Paul.
Everything's working fine today.
All right.
Well, the big news, in case you missed it, is that CNN escapee Jim Acosta has launched his own show.
Oh, okay.
What was I talking about?
Oh, sorry.
I was saying that CNN escapee Jim Acosta has launched...
I'm just going to move to the next story.
I can't make you through that one.
Well, as you know, Trump has signed his executive order banning biological men in women's sports, as he likes to say.
Women seem to like it a lot.
You know, I'll tell you, there's a lot of people doing a victory lapse, and people who worked for years on certain things.
So is this not a big victory for Riley Gaines?
Imagine being Riley Gaines.
She kind of risked everything to just work on this issue, and she was really good at it.
And here we are.
Now, it's not because of any one person, but she certainly...
Was leading the charge.
Also, J.K. Rowling took tremendous heat.
Victory lap.
Time for the victory laps.
And there's a whole bunch of people who have been toiling for years on individual topics, like DEI, and suddenly they're all winners.
You know, Robbie Starbuck and Christopher Ruffo and people like me.
And we get a victory lap, too.
So lots of victory laps lately.
I like that.
Well, Wall Street Journal says the government's trying to ban DeepSeek.
DeepSeek would be the less expensive Chinese AI. And I guess it's an app, and now it's not going to be legal if this passes.
It's just introduced as a bill.
But if this passes, then you can't have that AI on a government computer.
Because they worry it will grab your information and send it back to China, which it might.
Now, my first prediction about DeepSeek is that it wouldn't be as dangerous as you thought to American AI companies because the government would just tie it up in legal problems.
They'll just make it illegal.
And sure enough, it's basically the TikTok model.
They start with banning it in the government because that's...
Maybe easiest.
But yeah, they're going to ban it.
I would be surprised if it's still in the App Store in a year.
As you know, the Army has shattered records for recruitment since the election of Trump.
Do you think that's a coincidence?
What would make people want to join the military just because Trump is president?
Could it be less likely to get into wars that don't matter?
That might be part of it.
Could it be just a rise in man, sort of male energy?
Although obviously a lot of women joined the service as well.
Could it be that joining the service has now transformed from something like a thing for gay people to something like A lethal force protecting the country.
Because I gotta say that my entire impression of the military was it's just a big LGBTQ cheering thing that occasionally gets into wars we wish we didn't have.
Trump fixed all of that just by existing and being Trump.
So, yeah, I don't think it's a coincidence that people are signing up all of a sudden.
Probably not a coincidence.
Well, Laura Trump's going to join Fox News one night a week on Saturdays, Saturday at 9 p.m.
Eastern Time.
Now, remember I always tell you that Fox News is just better produced?
That's one of those things, if you haven't been around the media business a lot, as I have, you're not going to notice the difference in producers.
You're just going to say, oh, I like this show better than that show.
And maybe you'll think it's because of the talent.
But the producers have a lot to do with the success.
And this is exactly perfect.
Yeah, Laura Trump is exactly who they should be giving a Saturday night show to.
If she does well, obviously they'd look at maybe expanding that.
So yeah, it's once again Fox News in their talent and production stuff.
They get a lot right.
Mitch McConnell fell down the stairs again.
He may have been a little bit injured, but nothing life-threatening.
And my question is, how much do McConnell's peers hate him that they would allow him to use stairs?
There's no other way to get from one place to another.
There's no elevators.
They don't have any handicap access to other floors.
I would think there'd be an elevator everywhere that McConnell goes.
So who just stood there and watched him struggle on the stairs and said, oh, that'll be fine?
I mean, it almost feels like they hate him.
Like they're just trying to steer him toward the stairs more.
It's like, well, there's no term limits, but how would you like to go upstairs and meet in the room upstairs?
I'll have to do my McConnell impression.
Can I do a McConnell impression?
I've never tried this before.
Hey, Mitch.
Why don't you come upstairs?
We'll meet in the conference room upstairs.
Third floor.
No, no, not the elevator.
No, no.
The elevator is for idiots.
No.
No, you're fine.
You're fine.
Just take the stairs.
All right.
I think I nailed it.
That probably would be the clip that takes over the internet today.
So yeah, they hate him.
Let's talk about Trump and Gaza some more.
So most of the complaints...
About Trump wanting to own Gaza, or the United States own it, is based on the opposite of what he said.
So, we're not going to spend money in Gaza?
No, he said we're not going to spend any money.
We're not going to put those boots on the ground?
No, we're not going to put any boots on the ground.
Well, well, but we're not going to spend any money.
No, we already covered that.
We're not going to spend any money.
We're just going to help organize the people who do spend the money.
But those boots on the ground, again, no boots on the ground, no money, no spending, no boots on the ground.
I don't know.
My problem is all the spending and the boots on the ground.
Are you even listening to me?
No spending, no boots on the ground.
That was the spokesperson, Caroline Levitt, trying to answer questions.
Yes, there'll be no expense.
But what about all the expense?
I just said no expense.
So, do we think this would work?
Well, let me tell you what I love about today.
I love the fact that when it became clear, let's see, I guess Mike Walsh, National Security Advisor, Mike Walsh said directly, he said that Trump's proposal to take over Gaza...
is meant to pressure neighboring Arab states to come up with their own solution.
Now, most of you knew that, didn't you?
Just think about how far we've come.
I'm going to take a victory lap on this one.
Imagine that Trump says something wildly provocative, like, America should own Gaza, and we'll take care of it.
And then your head explodes, as mine did.
And then after the explosion subsides, I think about it and I go, oh, oh, okay, this is just Trump.
He's just creating some options out of nothing, and he's shaking the box, and he's trying to get the other people to hate him as the common enemy so that they can come up with an idea that does work instead of their dumb ideas that don't work.
Basically, nobody had any other idea.
If you think about it, nobody, nobody.
Not a single person had an actual, real, practical idea of what to do.
So Trump comes up with his, you know, arguably impractical but maybe possible idea, and now they have to fight with the real thing.
Now they've got to say, uh, uh, uh, we hate it.
Yeah, but what's your idea?
Well, my idea is I hate his idea.
No, no.
What's your idea?
We're all ears.
We'll...
We'll abandon Trump's idea in a heartbeat.
Let's hear your good idea.
His plan won't work.
No.
Again, you're only talking about his plan.
Let's hear your idea.
The alternative idea.
What are you going to do?
Trump's a racist.
So that's sort of the way it's been going.
But now they've got something they actually have to wrestle with.
Because, like I always say, He's not bluffing.
It's persuasion, but it's not a bluff.
If nobody comes up with a better idea, he's just going to say, all right, we'll take it, and you have to pay for it.
And if you don't pay for it, we'll just own it, and it'll just sit there.
We don't care.
If it doesn't cost us any money and we don't have any boots on the ground, we'll just let it sit there.
If you want to help us, we'll organize that, make sure it gets cleaned up and ready to go.
I definitely don't want to see any American forces cleaning up unexploded bombs and toxic debris.
I would like to see no Americans do that.
That's the job for Israel.
If there's any unexploded ordnance, that's all Israel.
You've got to take care of that, guys.
That's all on you.
But here's what I like.
I like that as soon as it became clear...
That it was more of a negotiating, you know, just shake the box idea?
Did you see the number of people on social media who said, I knew it?
It's the first thing I thought.
That's completely new.
In 2016, if Trump said something like this, that we're going to own Gaza, people would have said, well, I told you he was crazy.
I told you he was crazy.
He doesn't have a single smart idea.
He has no experience in government.
He doesn't know how anything works.
He's a clown.
He probably just wants to put his friends in charge of it so they can make some money.
It's a grift.
Right?
That's the way you understood anything he said that was provocative.
But today, at least the right-leaning news, the left-leaning news is just propaganda, but the right-leaning news and the right-leaning Social media.
Almost every single person said, I know what that is.
I know what that is.
That's the thing he does.
That's where Trump creates options out of nothing.
He's doing it again.
I feel like, or at least AI says, that I'm the reason that people can see politics as persuasion when, before I got involved, people saw it as policy differences.
And they would have treated this as a policy difference.
Wait a minute.
My policy would be better than that.
But nobody sees this as a policy.
They see it as pure persuasion.
And I'm pretty sure that's me.
I think that's almost entirely me.
And not entirely me alone.
Because if I teach people to recognize it, they teach other people to recognize it.
They write articles and other people recognize it.
So, yeah.
Here are the terms that we heard referred to it.
Now, this is just random people on social media, random people writing articles.
A lot of them used the phrase, shake the box.
Where does that come from?
I mean, I didn't invent the term, shake the box.
But to apply it to Trump's persuasion, that's kind of all me.
What about 4D chess?
That's all me.
2015, I described it as 3D chess, I think, but it turned into 4D, 10D. That was all me.
How about creating new options out of nothing?
Everybody recognized that's what he was doing.
That's all me.
Now, when I say it's all me, I just mean I kind of introduced that way of thinking about it, you know, a persuasion filter versus a policy filter.
And that apparently has been effective enough that people have adopted it as their primary point of view.
And I'm really happy about that.
I don't think Trump could be president the second time, maybe not even the first time, without that understanding.
That's the understanding everybody needed.
And it turns out the whole right-leaning part of the world, guess it.
Like, almost everybody got that.
That was very impressive.
Well, speaking of Gaza, You know that there was, since the 60s, there's been a plan to build a canal that would connect, what, the Red Sea to the Mediterranean, and it would be kind of a competitor to the Suez Canal, because Egypt controls access to the Suez Canal, and there have been times when they've closed access for various geopolitical reasons.
And so it would be a big moneymaker, but also a geopolitical advantage to have a second canal.
And one of the thoughts, going all the way back to Ben Gurion, one of the founders, you might even say the founder of Israel, you wanted to build that canal, and you wanted it to go, sort of go through Gaza.
So some people are saying, wait a minute, the real plan is to build the second canal, and they need Gaza out of the way to make that work.
Well, I don't think that has anything to do with what happened.
And I also don't think that canal is ever going to get built.
If you look at what it takes to build a canal, I don't think the modern world has that anymore.
We used to have it.
But to me, it feels like pyramids.
You imagine that you live in a world where we could build another canal.
I'll bet we couldn't.
If there were no Panama Canal, do you think we could build that today?
Nope.
Too many people died.
It wouldn't get approved.
It's on somebody else's land.
You can't just take their land.
There'd be all kinds of reasons we couldn't do it.
We might actually lose the ability to know how to build a canal.
Just like somehow we don't know how those big rocks moved on the pyramids.
We're getting dumber.
But here's what I'd like to see.
Oh, also there's some news about the Panama Canal.
There's some fake news today.
The fake news was from the Wall Street Journal.
It said that Panama had agreed to not charge American ships going through the canal.
Panama said, that's not true.
We've made no such agreement.
So if you saw the news and you celebrated, yay, Trump won.
Our American ships get to go through for free.
That sounds like just something that's maybe still being talked about.
But it's not an agreement.
Maybe it won't be.
We'll see.
But this brings me to my bigger question.
Do you know how many problems around the world could be solved if we could build canals?
Like, really easily build them.
You know, it's the hardest thing in the world.
But if we could do it easily, it would be worth trillions of dollars.
And I would like to extend the thinking that we've all been using recently.
You know the thinking?
It says if there's something that would be good to happen, but it's also basically impossible, then you ask Elon Musk to do it, and he has it done by lunchtime.
So it's like, ah, too bad there's no way to make an affordable, economically successful electric car.
Well, how about if you do it?
Oh, okay, thank you, Tesla.
There's no way to reuse a rocket and be able to affordably go to Mars.
Oh, okay.
It looks like you can do that, Elon.
Thank you.
So I guess we have a path to Mars now.
If only there was some way to connect remote people to the internet, but even though it's funded, nobody got...
Oh, Starlink.
Thank you.
Thank you for that problem.
Too bad that government debt is going to kill us and there's nothing we can do.
Oh, thank you, Doge.
Apparently, Doge is going to save us from certain doom.
And it was impossible.
All of these things were impossible.
So every time there's something impossible, we've developed a habit of going to the same guy.
So now we find out that the computer systems used by the government are like decades old and falling apart and just a disaster.
So, I mean, it would be impossible to fix all of that at any time.
You know, any kind of quick timeline.
So, apparently, Elon Musk has taken the task, as have Doge, to fix the government computer systems that are falling apart.
So, another impossible job?
He gets another impossible job.
He's like, sure.
Yeah, no problem.
Let me do that impossible thing.
I'll have it done by lunch.
So, I'd like to extend this concept of if it would be valuable.
And also impossible.
We should ask Elon to do it.
So what we need is, you know, he has that boring company where they bore tunnels and they engineered a special machine that makes it really inexpensive to dig a tunnel.
I wonder if you could make a canal building version of that.
Like it would be all different technology.
But what if you built this enormous, maybe it's a swarm.
Maybe it's not one device, but a swarm of also very large devices that just crush through the land.
I don't know what this is.
Hold on.
Audio problem.
Apparently I have to be signed on to turn it off.
I'm getting ready to throw my computer out a window.
Oh no!
Come on, please.
Shut the fuck up.
God.
God.
Oh my God.
If I had to listen to that one more second.
Anyway, so we need a big canal building machine.
That's what we need.
So I listened to the whole Kamala Harris CBS interview with 60 Minutes.
That's the one that Trump is...
Trump is suing 60 Minutes for allegedly improving Kamala Harris' answers.
And in the context of an election, that would look like election interference because instead of looking like just regular editing, it looked like election interference because it was in the context of an election.
But Frog on Mars gave one example.
I don't know how many examples there are.
Like, nobody did a really good job.
I was showing what she did say versus what they edited in.
I saw only one example from Frogs on Mars on X that she gave a 338-word rambling answer that involved school pictures and all kinds of stuff.
And I think the question was about Trump's comments about the Haitian immigrants and eating their pets or something like that.
I think that was the issue.
But her answer was just as long.
Not quite word salad, because it made sense, but all seemed just slightly off-topic and like she was just searching for a smart answer but never found one.
And they replaced 338 words with 29 words that came from a completely different answer.
Now, the completely different answer was not different.
From the 338-word answer, meaning that in both cases, she said, you know, that's unacceptable or, you know, that's wrong.
So she was basically just saying Trump was wrong to say whatever he did or do whatever he did.
Now, here is the context.
Do you think that 60 Minutes changed that answer to help her chances of winning the election?
The answer is no.
They changed her answer because it was unwatchable TV. They changed it for their own benefit to make the show watchable.
It didn't really change what her opinion was.
Her opinion was, Trump said a bad thing.
And that's what they put in there.
Trump said a bad thing.
But they didn't need the 338-word rambling, eat up all the time so they can't ask another question.
They had to get rid of that.
But the question was so important, they needed to keep the question.
So, here's what I know that you don't know.
The way 60 Minutes treated this is normal.
Completely normal.
That is normal.
And you say to yourself, but it's like making up a quote.
That's normal.
If they think they're not changing the basic thrust of what you said, And they can tighten it up so it's good for TV. They will do that for their own purposes.
So here's the problem with the lawsuit.
If CBS says, we do this all the time, it's a common thing, and we don't do it just for the benefit of the person in the chair.
We do it because our viewers would not be able to watch a train wreck.
So we just make sure that they understand what the candidate means.
And that is clear.
And that we move to the next question in a quick enough way.
So I don't think that he can win a case.
It could be that they'll settle because they don't want to take a chance.
They don't want to do the discovery and all that.
So they might settle.
But I don't think he can win.
Because I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if CBS was doing what everybody in that business does, And their reason was for their own benefit, and they benefited the audience, just to make it shorter and quicker.
I don't know.
I think their argument would be, if it helped her, it was only accidental.
It wasn't anything we planned.
So they would have definitely some reasonable doubt there that's a mile wide.
Now, this would be a civil case, so reasonable doubt isn't quite exactly the right standard, but you get the point.
All right, here's a complicated one.
Let's see if I can possibly summarize this.
So Michael Schellenberger has been looking into the whole USAID and Doge's penetration of it and everything we're learning about who's getting the money and how dirty that organization is.
The quick answer, if you're new to this, is that the Doge, Elon Musk's Doge people, have...
Completely opened the kimono on this part of the government that had a very big budget and was doing only creepy things.
Now, creepy meaning overthrowing other countries and maybe overthrowing ours.
Maybe, allegedly.
And so even though on the surface it looked like they were funding AIDS programs in Africa and all kinds of things that you'd say, well, we could...
Discuss whether we should be giving charity to other countries, but you can't argue that this would be a good charity, helping AIDS in another country.
But it turns out that 100% of what it does is essentially front...
Let's say it's a front for some bigger effort that's a CIA effort.
So allegedly, no matter what they're funding, whether it's AIDS or cleaning up the water in some place, Really, that's just a trick to get our assets in place so that we can overthrow the country or control it.
And that's all it is.
Everything else is fake, which doesn't mean that they don't do good things, because in order to stay in the country, they would probably have to show that they helped with some aids and cleaned up some water, did something they said they were going to do.
But really, it's not the purpose of it.
The purpose of it is overthrowing countries.
Now that you have that context.
Now, the other thing that USAID does to disguise what it's doing is there's this unlimited, just it seems like thousands, I think, I think it is thousands, of NGOs, non-government organizations.
So they exist all over the world.
And if USAID gives one of them some money for something that sounds good on paper, oh, if we give you some money, you'll work on some climate stuff.
And then that entity has some money.
And then if it gives it to somebody else, then maybe the only thing you would see is, oh, and then this other company gave it to clean up the water in this place that needs some clean water.
And you go, oh, that sounds good.
But really, the whole thing is a money laundering situation to presumably Democrats are taking some off the top wherever the money moves.
And by the way, it's 98% Democrats.
It's just a Democrat.
It's a money laundering asset that the Democrats use and also the deep state.
So now that you know that, it's this vast network of connected things for the purpose, for the purpose of laundering money, for the purpose of overthrowing other countries.
So you need to know it's 100% fake.
Now this is the Mike Benz.
So I'm borrowing this.
This is not my personal opinion, except that Benz makes such a good argument and has such good receipts that if he says it and he shows you his work, I'm kind of on that page, right?
Because his credibility is through the roof and he shows his work just with public stuff.
So here's what Michael Schellenberger, who writes for Public, it's a subscription news-related site that is amazing.
I'll read some of this.
He goes, now the evidence suggests, talking about USAID, that USAID along with CIA were behind the 2019 impeachment of Trump.
What?
Wait, what?
That USAID and the CIA were behind the 2019 impeachment of Trump?
That's the one where...
They said Trump said some things to Zelensky on the phone and he should be impeached for it.
Now, how could you possibly know that these entities were involved in that?
Well, here's how.
The part you probably already knew is that the whistleblower who came forward and said, oh, Trump said he wanted to send Rudy Giuliani to investigate Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.
That was the CIA analyst.
Who was left over in the White House from the Obama days.
So the whistleblower was CIA. Now, you might say, oh, you mean ex-CIA? No.
I don't think there's any such thing as ex-CIA. I mean, not really.
Is there?
So the first thing we know is that that CIA analyst, that's kind of suspicious, said something happened.
And according to DropSite News last year, they revealed that the CIA analyst relied on, oh, he didn't hear it himself.
Oh, oh, I'm not sure I knew that before.
But he didn't hear it himself.
He relied on reporting.
All right, so the reporting that he relied on, that's the CIA analyst slash whistleblower.
He relied on some organization in the government.
Oh.
Okay, a government organization called the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, or OCCRP. I didn't even know that existed.
Now, who are they?
Ever heard of them?
I've never heard of them before.
Huh.
I wonder what we could learn about that organization.
So it's an American government or NGO or something.
But apparently it's fully controlled by...
USAID. Wait a minute.
So USAID, the entity that is primarily involved in overthrowing other countries, and one of the tools that we know they've used is this very same thing, this Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.
And that when USAID has used them in the past, why'd they use them in the past?
Well, allegedly, It was in the service of overthrowing five or six foreign regimes.
What?
So, in other words, the CIA, USAID, and then this entity, the OCCRP, were all involved in the impeachment of President Trump in ways similar to the regime change operations that all three organizations engage in abroad.
The three of them are supposed to be exterior-facing entities, and their job is to overthrow other countries.
The same entities using the same method, which is somebody reported something, but the report was fake.
And then you use your fake news assets to act like it was true, and it's the most important thing that ever happened.
That's what happened.
Every part of what we do to overthrow other countries successfully was used against Trump, I think, multiple times.
So in this particular case, it was for the impeachment.
You knew that impeachment was complete fake, right?
From the first, I think we all knew, wait a minute, that's just fake.
You're just making stuff up.
There's no way he said that, and whatever he said was certainly legal.
He had every right to ask about it.
And especially now, now that we know the depth of the Biden crime family, Trump asking Zelensky to look into it would never have worked, because Zelensky is fully owned by the CIA. It never would have worked, but it was perfectly appropriate to ask for it.
And he got impeached for that.
As Schellenberger points out, the difference between the CIA, USAID, and OCCRP working together to overthrow a foreign country, it's illegal to do it in the U.S. And it's not just a little bit illegal.
It's the most illegal thing you could possibly do, short of, I don't know, being a serial killer or something.
What would be more illegal than overthrowing your democratically elected president?
Nothing.
Nothing.
This would be like assassinating Kennedy or something.
Allegedly.
All right.
So...
Does that story check with you?
Yeah, I feel like...
The doge penetration of USAID is the Rosetta Stone that allows us to finally see everything we suspected.
So I certainly knew that there was a conspiracy to impeach Trump.
I obviously knew that it was organized.
It was obvious that the media was completely complicit.
It was obvious that the whistleblower had some agenda, but I couldn't quite connect all the dots.
And now we have.
It's all connected.
It was the exact same tools and the exact same technique that they use on other countries.
But what they counted on is that Americans are not aware of these tools, and they're not aware of how they're used.
And Doge just changed that.
Now we're aware of the tools.
Well, and Mike Benz changed it even before Doge.
Now we're aware of the tools.
We can actually watch the flow of money.
And apparently it's just a gigantic money laundering thing for Democrats.
So it seems to be just feeding people money in a variety of illicit ways and trying to overthrow countries, including our own.
So, yeah.
The Democrats who say, we've got to keep that USAID, they either have no idea what it really is, or they don't care, which is worse.
I don't know which is worse, actually.
I think not caring would be worse.
Well, meanwhile, Pam Bondi, who's only one day on the job, Attorney General, she's got some directives already.
She's going to fight the weaponization of justice.
Huh.
How about the weaponization of impeachment?
It's not really the justice system, per se, but it kind of is similar.
Maybe they should look into that.
She wants to eliminate the cartels and lift the death penalty ban for just certain types of things.
So that's good.
And she's going to be looking into Alvin Bragg's hush money case and also Jack Smith, I think.
So, yes, Alvin Bragg, in my opinion, was clearly an op, you know, clearly an illegitimate lawfare situation.
All right, here's my question for lawyers.
Is it not obvious already that there's a RICO problem going on here?
And what would it take to trigger it into a RICO? You know, maybe you don't need to.
Some of the things that people said as well, Scott, everything USAID did was legal.
To which I say, yeah, technically.
Maybe they're allowed to give money to anybody they want and it's not illegal.
But if their intention is to give it to entities that will give it back to somebody, like a kickback, or to subvert an American election, well...
That seems to me kind of coordinated Enrico.
If the only thing you looked at was the 2019 impeachment case, you could see the coordination.
The coordination is all over that.
Obviously, the media was part of it.
And remember, I used to say that I couldn't understand why the media wouldn't debunk all the hoaxes, like the drinking bleach hoax and the finding people hoax.
And I would say, how could you not debunk?
The things that can be debunked just by your own video that you own.
You would just have to look at the whole video instead of the edited one.
You could debunk the whole thing.
It's the biggest story in the country.
Both of them were at one point.
And never, not years later, not at any point, did they debunk those things?
And here's the reason.
They always knew that they weren't true.
They were obviously part of a criminal conspiracy.
Because if you don't have the media on your side, then all of your other weaseling gets uncovered.
So controlling the media is step one.
I mean, you can't do the other weasel stuff unless you control the media.
All right.
So we'll see.
Maybe you need a specific leader to make it at RICO. I don't know.
So now a dozen states, according to Daily Caller News Foundation, a dozen states are looking into whether or not there's some charges they can put on Anthony Fauci, because the federal charges...
Wait, who said that?
Oh, no.
Andrew Tate just weighed in.
The entire case against me was funded via USAID to remove my influence from the Internet.
I have the paperwork.
Oh, man.
I'll bet that's true.
Now, remember, it's Andrew Tate.
So, you know, don't get too enthusiastic about the veracity of it.
Let's just put it that way.
But if he does have the paperwork and he can show that his specific case was funded by the USAD, then that would mean that the reason for it...
Was to remove his influence.
I've always assumed that's what it was.
I didn't know about the USAID, but I always assumed that some deep part of the American government is what closed them down.
Maybe working with, you know, Five Eyes, you know, other countries.
Great Britain would want to close them down as well.
But I don't want to run and embrace that as true, because it's just a thing Andrew Tate is saying on X. But if I had to place a bat, I'll bet he does have the receipts.
We'll see.
It would be a bold thing to say if he couldn't prove it.
Now that's interesting.
So, anyway, so the states are looking to see if there are any charges they can put on Fauci.
I am completely against this.
I'm completely against it.
The way I read the story is the states have ganged up.
They started with the person, and now they're looking for the crime.
They started with the person, and they're checking with all the other states.
Hey, do you see a crime?
Do you see a crime?
Got any crimes we can go after him for?
No.
That's not going to fly.
Don't make me support Anthony Fauci.
Because some NPC is going to say, oh, you defended Anthony Fauci because you like vaccinations that will kill you.
No.
I don't like what Fauci did.
Yes, I believe he probably violated some crimes.
I don't know which ones, but probably.
But he's got a pardon from the federal government.
If these states don't have obvious crimes that are sort of right in front of them, you don't get to go looking for shit.
That's too far.
That's too far.
So, you know, we'll see what they come up with.
But you can't have Pam Bondi trying to stop lawfare while 12 of our states are engaged in it publicly.
That would be lawfare.
That's what it is.
When you start with a person and then look for a crime, oh, we can find some crime here.
No, totally messed up.
I don't want to have my name associated with anybody who would do anything like that.
So you better do better.
This is not up to the standard.
This is not up to the current standard of the United States.
It is up to the standard of what we just got rid of.
We just shit can't this.
The reason we shit-can Biden was this kind of stuff.
Don't shit-can Biden and then start being Biden.
So unless there's something I'm missing about this story, this is a hard no.
Absolutely fucking not.
Don't make me look like some Biden guy just because I'm supporting Trump or supporting the Republicans in this case.
So, checking in with the Democrats and their messaging, they've decided to go with, Joy Reid said, Musk is a private citizen trying to take over the government.
And let's see, what did Jen Psaki said?
She said, it's a hostile takeover of a government.
There's no other way to describe it.
Really?
There's no other way to describe it?
I'm going to use that.
That's the argument for people who don't know how anything works.
You can use it for everything.
You see this in my hand?
It's a porcupine.
Shut up.
There's no other way to describe it.
No, it's not a pen.
There's only one way to describe it.
It's a porcupine.
What the hell?
What kind of dumbasses listen to there's no other way to describe it?
Let me see if I can dig deep into my creative powers to find some other way to describe it.
Oh, how about putting a capable team in charge of auditing our expenses?
How about the legally elected president of the United States gets to pick his staff and tell them what to do?
Oh, amazing!
Jen, did you see that?
Look at that.
You said there was no other way to describe it.
And yet I found a couple.
It turns out there's more than one way to describe it.
But I'm going to start using that excuse that there's only one way to describe it.
It just sounds so fucked up that I kind of like it because it's so absurd.
Anyway, Harry Enten, who is the data guy at CNN, says that only 39% But the public support Musk having a key role in the administration.
Well, this has a lot more to do with how the question is asked.
Yeah, so key role.
If you thought key role means that he gets to make decisions, that's not what's happening.
Both Musk and Trump are very clear.
They both say it publicly and as often as you want to.
That Trump's in charge.
Trump can hire anybody as his chief of staff.
Do you know who else is not elected?
The chief of staff.
So who's bitching about that?
Is anybody bitching about his chief of staff?
Oh, wait.
Susie Wiles.
She's just an unelected person who's got a key role in the administration.
She's got a key role.
Yeah, she does.
Do you know how important the chief of staff is?
The chief of staff is damn near as important as the president.
You just don't realize it because it's behind the scenes.
But the chief of staff even decides who gets to see Trump and how much time they spend with him and what he pays attention to and then solves problems for him.
Susie Wiles is probably...
In the same category of Elon Musk, in the sense that they're very capable, but they're not elected, they just work for Trump.
Now, I act like it's an argument, and that the dumb people have the wrong argument, and if I only present the correct argument, everybody will correct.
No, it's obvious they're just lying and making up stuff, and that they're part of, presumably, Part of the deep state, you know, bad part of the world.
All right, well, what is Doge doing?
Now they're getting into the Medicare and Medicaid systems.
So one of the things that Musk teased on X is that there might be enormous fraud in our Medicare and Medicaid systems.
Now the fraud would be people making claims or fake claims.
I have this hypothesis that the amount of government fraud, not necessarily by the government, but by people stealing from the government with fake claims for everything from the pandemic to you name it, I've got a feeling that the fraud, if you eliminated it, would balance the entire budget.
Like, actually, literally.
Because when we talk about things like, oh, we're never going to cut the military.
Well, what if we only cut the fraud?
Oh, we're never going to cut Medicare.
But what if we only cut the fraud?
Oh, we're never going to cut Social Security.
Well, we could probably fix Social Security.
I don't know that Social Security is a fraud.
It might be, but that would be harder to do, I guess.
No, it probably isn't hard to do.
I'll bet there are a bunch of dead people collecting Social Security.
So I'll bet if you just got rid of the fraud, which would be impossible.
You're not going to get rid of all of it.
I'll bet you can balance the budget.
That's how big it is.
And I never would have said that until I saw just how bad the problem is after Doge got going.
Now I believe that the fraud could be large enough.
That's the entire deficit.
Now we're learning, this is also from the Daily Caller News Foundation, that the Biden administration was giving money to terrorists or people who helped the terrorists.
Now, it's allegedly $1.3 billion that the Biden administration collectively Gave to things that are more like terrorists and enemies than they are like people we should be helping.
But most of that, a billion of it, went to one group, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, which claimed it was helping the poor Palestinians.
But it turns out that 10% of the workers were actually the...
Hamas.
So a thousand of them, a thousand of the employees were just Hamas or Hamas backers or Hamas oriented.
So even Biden shut that down.
But that tells you how bad it is.
All right.
So let me see.
Let's see if I can connect the dots.
Jen Psaki supported Biden.
Biden funded people who support So, No, there is another way to describe it, but if you say there's no other way to describe it, apparently that works on MSNBC.
No other way.
So Elon Musk is posting a few minutes ago that the Treasury officials are breaking the law every day by approving payments that are fraudulent or do not match the funding laws passed by Congress.
I'll bet that's true.
Thank you.
All right, what else?
Did you know that Politico...
So this one's a fake news, real news.
Fake news, real news.
Here's why it never pays to have one person on a podcast.
So if you had one person on a podcast, you'd say, hey, we just found out that USAID gave $8 million to Politico, and Politico often says bad things about Trump.
So really, is that the reason that you're funding Politico?
And then the one guest would say, oh, no, you got that story wrong.
No.
No, you're thinking of Politico, the publication.
This also went to Politico, but Politico has a separate division.
That does some professional thing with data.
And what the people are buying is that professional data service.
It's not about the publication, Politico.
And then you're on a podcast, and there's only one guest, and that one guest calls the news fake news.
And then you're done, right?
And that's the last you'll hear about it.
That's why the worst way to find out what's true...
There's one person on the podcast talking to a host who doesn't know what question to ask.
Here's the next question.
Do those entities report to the same structure?
If they do, this is how you launder money.
If you wanted to give money to influence the publication part of it, you wouldn't give it to them directly because then it would be a paper trail.
Of you bribing a new source.
So instead, you say, huh, you have this other line of business over here.
Very interesting.
Yeah, it's very expensive, but we'd like to buy as much of it as you can give us.
So we'll give you, we'd like to buy $8 million of it.
Now, how much extra do you think Politico had to spend to satisfy this new request for $8 million worth of this service?
Probably nothing, because it sounds like a service that just existed, and they could just say, oh, now you're subscribing.
So probably they just had to enter the government emails or passwords, and then they had access.
So it could be that the government or the USAID really needed that data, but I don't think so.
It seems far more likely that that's just the ordinary way that you bribe somebody.
You don't bribe the person.
You fund the startup for the person's brother-in-law.
You don't fund the person.
You fund the thing that the person was going to spend money on, but now they don't have to.
You don't fund the person.
You hire the relative who couldn't get a job for a no-show job.
So the most typical way that you bribe people is not by giving them money, but giving money to something that will benefit them in a second, you know, indirect way.
All right.
So, and by the way, I don't know that Politico has one entity and they both connect to it, but that's what you should be asking.
So if we don't know that, then we don't know the story.
And so I guess I would say I don't know the story.
Let's see what...
I'm seeing something.
According to the Financial Times, half of Politico's $200 million in revenue comes from its pro-subscription business, which capitalizes on the U.S. lobbying industry.
So it's something lobbyists pay for.
Now, if it's something lobbyists pay for, why would USAID need to pay for it?
It's described as Bloomberg for politics, so it's basically data that lobbyists would like, such as what's the name of the person in charge of this thing who's voting for this thing?
It sells data, directories, and detailed coverage of the legislative and policymaking process for as much as $10,000 a pop.
Now, how many of those subscriptions do you think USAID needed to buy?
And why?
Is the government figuring out ways to lobby the government?
The government is the government.
They have to buy an external source to find out who to talk to in the government?
All right.
Google is allegedly ending their DEI, but I saw a little nuance to that.
So it might be they're ending some kind of affirmative action goals, but maybe not completely getting rid of the letters DEI, but it's moving in the right direction.
And Robbie Starbucks talked about this.
I don't know that he targeted Google yet, but I think you'll see companies not want to get targeted because it's very bad for business.
So you should be seeing companies trying to get ahead of it.
And I think that's maybe what this is.
But the NFL is sticking with DEI and they're sticking with it hard because the NFL wants to end discrimination.
Finally.
I'm glad the NFL wants to end discrimination because this spring I plan to try out for a quarterback position on one of the NFL teams.
I pick quarterback because I think that position pays the most, usually.
So I want the good position.
You know, it wasn't long ago I would have worried about ageism.
Like if I showed up, they would just say, are you serious?
No, you should probably be in your late teens or maybe early 20s.
And I would say, I'm sorry, I thought you were in favor of DEI. Well, yeah, yeah.
But we're thinking more like black people.
And I would say, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm the only white person here.
Oh no, there's one.
There's one.
Oh no, that's a coach.
There's one.
Okay, that seems to be a reporter.
Okay, but I'm sure there's some white people here.
And then I'd say, but you should not be ageist.
I need some DEI, please.
Give me some DEI. And then they'd say, but...
You know, you're also kind of small.
And I would say, oh, I see where you're going, you motherfuckers.
So now it's about how tall I am.
So you don't like the little people.
What do you call me behind my back?
I think I'm going to sue you.
So ageism, sureism, you guys are like a ball of worms.
You're a ball of worms of racism and discrimination and bigotry.
And I'd say, are you discriminating against me because I'm heterosexual?
No!
That's stupid.
Why would we discriminate against you for being heterosexual?
And then I'd say, I'm trans.
And they'd say, what?
Yeah, I'm trans.
Can you prove it?
No, I don't have to.
I mean, how would I prove it?
Take my pants off?
No.
No.
I'm trans.
And then they'd say, all right, you can stay for the workout.
And then I'd be a quarterback because they're not going to judge me on skill.
You know, in the old days, my lack of skill would have really held me back.
But now, now that they're going for the biggest possible net and they want to make sure.
That they've got people from all walks of life represented in the NFL. A good goal, by the way.
I like every bit of that.
Now they probably should just ignore my complete lack of talent.
And it's good that the NFL is holding tight on DEI. Well, Stephen A. Smith is considering running for president as a Democrat because he's sure he could beat all the clowns that are being talked about.
And he's not as serious yet, but his name will probably get thrown in there because Democrats fail to learn.
There's nothing better than watching Democrats not be able to learn because they watch Trump and they can't figure out what he's doing.
Like, why are you making that work?
So they say to themselves stuff like, I got it, I got it.
We need an entertainer.
We'll get a TV guy.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
We'll get a TV guy who talks good on TV because that's what Trump has.
If we can match the TV guy's skills, then we're in good shape.
Wrong.
Wrong.
What Trump has is a skill stack that we've never seen.
Yes, he has a TV experience.
Yes, he can persuade like nobody's business.
Yes, he's been involved in dozens or hundreds of different businesses, so he's seen every business model in the world.
By the way, here's a little side note.
When I visited Trump in the Oval Office in 2018, and I told you before how he was interested in me, like he actually asked penetrating questions about the cartoon business.
So in five minutes, I described to him the nature of the cartoon business and how syndication works and things like that.
And when I was done, in five minutes, he had added to his talent stack just because he asked the right question.
He asked exactly the right questions.
So he understood how that business model of cartooning works.
Boop!
Added to the model.
He adds knowledge to his model.
Like a vacuum cleaner.
I mean, he's just sucking up.
How does this work?
How does this work?
How do you do that?
Why does that work?
Why does this work?
What's the mechanism?
All day long, he's just getting smarter and smarter.
You put him in the room with Stephen A. Smith, they would both talk really well, but one of them wouldn't know a fucking thing.
Stephen A. Smith.
He's probably great at what he does.
He has a real good personality for what he does.
And he might know tons about sports and things, I'm sure.
I mean, obviously.
But he is no Trump.
And if they think they can just get a smooth talker with, bonus, he's black.
If they think that's going to be good enough, they're really not paying attention.
They're not paying attention at all.
It would just look like a DEI hire, even though he's clearly very talented.
So, let me be clear.
Stephen A. Smith would not be a DEI hire.
Like, he would be based on his skill if they picked him.
But his skill is just very good for a normal person.
It's not in Trump's level.
You know, it's a different zip code.
He's miles away from that.
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister of Denmark...
It says that Denmark is open to the idea of increasing U.S. military presence in Greenland.
This is according to an article in Human Events.
And do you remember what I predicted?
My prediction was that by starting out saying we want to take Greenland and we want to own it for security reasons, that Denmark would eventually say, well...
We can't say that.
We can't just give away the biggest part of our real estate.
But maybe, you know, maybe we can let you bring your military in.
So now they're saying directly, yes, the U.S. could increase its military presence.
Now, what would Stephen A. Smith say to that if you were president?
I think he would say, excellent.
That's what we wanted.
We wanted to get our military presence there.
We don't really need to make a country out of it.
That'd be a lot of work.
So, yeah.
Thank you.
We'll take that offer and we'll increase our military.
Everything's good.
What would Trump say to the offer of increasing our military in Greenland?
Well, I'll tell you what he'd say.
Yeah.
You know, I think we're going to increase our military in Greenland under every scenario.
So that's not an offer.
Because I told you we're going to increase our military in Greenland.
So you telling me that we're going to increase our military in Greenland is just you telling me what I told you.
What else have you got?
Are you going to pay for it?
If we're going to guard your country, now obviously it's good for everybody in the region, but if we're going to guard your country, we're not doing that shit for free.
So we're either going to own it, or you're going to pay for it.
You're going to pay for the defense.
Because if you can't do it yourself, and you've already admitted it's necessary, see this is the key?
Denmark is not arguing, they're not arguing the strategic necessity of increasing the military in Greenland.
They're not arguing it.
So once they've agreed on that, the question is how?
And the only two ways to do it are, You pay for our military, or we own your island.
Which one do you want?
See?
Do you see the difference?
An ordinary person, even a very high-quality, functioning, smart person, and Stephen A. Smith is all of that.
He's high-quality, high-functioning, very capable.
Not even close to Trump's level.
Not even close.
There's no way that he would have known that's the beginning of the negotiations.
Because it looks like it's the end.
It's like, oh, that's what we wanted.
So now I can't read minds.
So it's always unfair to say what somebody would or would not do if it's not you.
So I'm a little unfair there, but I'm doing it to make the larger point.
So it might not actually apply to the specific situation.
But the larger point is that Trump just operates at a different level.
And that's the part we want.
The part we want is this X factor.
The thing nobody else can do.
You know, like shaking the box on Gaza.
Do you think that a Stephen A. Smith would have come up with the idea of, well, maybe America should just own it, but not spend any money and not put any boots on the ground?
Nobody would have done that.
There's nobody.
You have to not only have the mind to come up with it, but you've got to have the balls to take the heat when everybody flips out.
That's not normal.
That's the X factor.
That's what Trump has.
I see that it looks like Elon Musk has just agreed with me on X two minutes ago.
Somebody just sent it to me.
So my post was, I said, Democrats are terrified of Doge and Musk because they have never witnessed this degree of competence.
It looks alien to them.
I mean that literally.
People with experience see in Doge a process that is necessarily messy, but 100% on target in terms of speed, talent, and energy.
And Musk just said exactly.
Yeah.
So once you see that frame, you can't unsee it.
Here's what we don't see.
Democrats with extensive business experience, which do exist, let's say Jamie Dimon.
Jamie Dimon.
I trust him.
Don't you?
I think Jamie Dimon is a nice centrist.
I think he's a Democrat.
Do you think that Jamie Dimon is going to say, oh, everything Doge is doing is a big chaotic mistake?
No.
No, if you asked him or any other Democrat with extensive business experience, they would say, this is what competence looks like.
Hiring the best people at any age.
That's what Musk did.
Best people at any age.
Didn't care about their skin color.
Didn't care about their gender.
Just best people, any age, any color.
Puts them on this incredible march toward this bigger goal, which is saving the whole country.
Literally.
I mean, they are saving the country if they do this right.
And it's got to be fast.
It's got to be dizzying fast.
It's got to break a lot of dishes.
And then later, you can clean up the dishes.
But if you're bitching about some dishes getting broken, you're not experienced.
This is a dish-breaking process.
And if you don't see dishes just breaking like crazy, it means nothing's happening.
It means the process is stalled somehow.
Every time a dish breaks, you should say to yourself, an angel got its wings.
Okay, I wasn't going to go there, but it was just sort of right there.
No.
The more bitching you hear, the more they say, it's chaos.
The more they say, he's an unelected dictator trying to take over the world.
The more that happens, the more on target it is.
He's got the energy, the talent, the targeting.
He's going exactly in the right places.
And he's just...
He's just effing things up in a good way, the way you should.
So yeah, that's purely an experience issue.
Well, here's some good news that you've heard before.
Scientists in South Korea found a way to reverse cancer with a molecular switch.
Hmm.
Let's see.
Have we ever heard that South Korea has found a way to cure cancer?
Checking notes, checking notes.
Once a day.
Once a day.
I think I was maybe in my early 20s, and I was a big news reader back then, too.
And I would say to myself, my God, here's a story about somebody who found a cure for cancer.
And I'm like, finally, the long wait is over.
And then you'd never hear about that story again.
But the next day...
There'd be another story about other researchers who found a cure for cancer.
And I'd say, well, now we've got two cures for cancer.
And then the next day, the next day, and it never stopped.
So for 40 fucking years, I've been reading stories about cures for cancer.
None of them are real.
I think the ones I don't hear about, maybe those are the ones that, you know, end up curing a specific cancer or maybe...
You know, they can help in a little bit in a real way.
But I'm so tired of cancers cured.
Oh, but wait, there's more.
There's, let's see, I think there's another cure for cancer.
Oh, no, here's some other stuff.
There is, now this is cool.
Did you know that 50% of men, by the time they reach 75, have a hernia?
So it's basically just a little bulge and part of your body just below your belt line.
And so I have one of those.
I have an untreated hernia.
If you're wondering why it's untreated, allow me to explain a conversation with my surgeon.
Who would have been the surgeon to do the surgery if I had chosen surgery.
So I could have.
It's one of the choices.
But the surgery doesn't work every time.
And sometimes it gives you permanent pain for the rest of your life.
And then it can never be fixed after that.
So a 10% chance of permanent pain.
So the surgeon is explaining my risks.
And you know me well enough to know that.
I was barely letting him complete a sentence.
And he started talking and I'd say, okay, but what's the risk of this?
Okay, I need to answer that.
And he started talking and I'd say, all right, but if I do this, this would be the outcome, the likely outcome.
You know, these are the odds.
And about halfway through, he stops me and he goes, what do you do for a living?
And the reason he asked is apparently he has a tough time explaining the odds to normies.
But the fact that I was ahead of him in knowing what the risk-reward is, he wanted to stop because it's like, are you a doctor or something?
He was trying to figure out why I was understanding the field as quickly as I was.
And all I was doing was asking him the risks.
So, you know, what's the risk if you get the thing?
Well, 10% chance you'd be unhappy.
What's the risk if you don't get it?
Well...
There's some chance you'll be rushed to the hospital in the future because it worsens, but probably won't die, right?
No, but you might be rushed to the hospital and might be painful, and then they would operate.
So waiting until it hurts all the time or it's too painful to keep going, that would be the time you get the surgery.
Because if you're 100% unhappy because it just hurts all the time, well then...
A 90% chance of fixing it's a good deal.
But if it doesn't hurt all the time, you've got a 10% chance of entering a world in which it will hurt all the time.
So you put it off.
So I put it off.
And my surgeon was completely happy that I understood the odds enough to make that choice.
Now, it does hurt.
It hurts every day, but not all the time.
Usually if I've just exercised or something.
So I have to be careful with it.
Here's the news.
And the reason I'm talking about this really specific thing is that it's 50% of all men.
This is a gigantic thing for men.
How many of you have one?
Specifically, it's an inguinal hernia.
In the comments, tell me how many of you have an inguinal hernia.
It's going to be about half of you.
Anyway.
So there's a new technique for getting rid of it without surgery.
Now, this one's a stretch.
But apparently, according to Science Mag, there's now some research that if they block the estrogen receptor alpha ESR1 in the connective tissues around that hernia, it can heal.
So what happens is there's a weakness in the muscle wall.
That's basically holding everything together, and so the weakness causes the little bulge.
So apparently, they can just turn off this receptor, and the tissue around it will heal, and it will build back the strong wall, and you don't have to have any surgery, and probably wouldn't even hurt.
Now, they've already made it work on a mouse, which isn't good enough, of course, but then they've also done it on human tissue.
Now, not in a human.
But they've done it on human tissue, and it worked.
Apparently it works really well, like surprisingly well.
So, you know, they'd have to do a lot of testing before it's real, but we might be a few years away from going in for a simple procedure where they stick some needles into you and just inject this stuff, and two weeks later your thing is gone.
Maybe.
There's a new breakthrough in...
Lithium-ion batteries in South Korea.
I tell you this every day.
Yep, every day I tell you South Korea has a new breakthrough in batteries.
So you don't need to know the details.
But here's a cool one.
According to the debrief, there's a clean energy breakthrough where they create these tiny copper nanoflowers.
That can convert CO2 in the air into valuable hydrocarbons with no pollution.
Think about that.
They figured out how to take the CO2 out of the air without using a lot of energy.
I think it might even be passive.
It might be just the CO2 that hits the flower.
Yeah, I think it is.
So they're not even sucking the CO2 out.
They're just putting this flower there.
Now, they're calling it a flower, but it's, you know, copper wires and stuff.
But it's mimicking nature, and it mimics the photosynthesis.
So it turns carbon dioxide into a fuel source, specifically...
What kind of fuel?
Into complex molecules such as ethane and ethylene, which are key components in fuels and plastic production.
Now, the question I ask, if this is real, and University of California, Berkeley, and University of Cambridge say it is, they say it's real, it's not a theory, they built it.
So they don't have to wonder if it works.
They built it.
It works.
So, what if we all got one?
What if they just turned it into a desktop?
It could be the end of any problems about CO2. Now, may I jump in and say, don't take my plant food.
Stop taking all my CO2. My plants are going to die.
Well, before that happens...
At least we can get rid of the climate hysteria.
So when I talk about removing CO2 from the air, I'm usually talking about removing the climate hysteria from the air.
I'm not really talking about CO2. But if we had a way to get rid of it as scale, we would know pretty quickly if it made any difference.
And I think we'd be smart enough to stop before all our plants died from not having enough CO2. I like to think we would.
But it would be dangerous if you could take the CO2 out of the air and turn it into commercial products because then people are going to keep sucking on it until it's all gone.
All right.
That's all I got for today.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to say a few words privately to the local subscribers, these special and sexy local subscribers.
And the rest of you, thanks for joining on X and Rumble and YouTube.
