Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazonhttps://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals:https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Plastic Straws, Elizabeth Warren, ICE Criminal Arrests, Biden Security Clearance Revoked, Big Balls Reinstated, Kennedy Center Board of Trustees, Anti-Trump CNN, Anti-Elon Joy Reid, Pentagon Removes MSM Propagandists, USAID Media Slush-fund, David Sacks, USAID Censorship Funding, USAID Internews Funding, DOGE Discoveries, NIH Budget Cuts, Drone Warfare Transformation, CA High-Speed Rail Investigation, Democrat Run Entities, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, includingmicro-lessons on lots of useful topicsto build your talent stack, please seescottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
Oh, well, good morning and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a...
Now we're talking.
Well, if you're thinking it's Saturday, so is Owen going to do his spaces?
Not today.
Spaces will be on Sunday after the show.
There are several stories in the news today about trans, and I'm going to ignore all of them, because I feel manipulated.
You know what I mean?
Every time I see a trans story of any kind, I think to myself, You know, it was only a few years ago there were zero, and then suddenly it's like one of the main things in the news.
There's no way that's organic, and it's no way that's national news.
All right, there's somebody who's trans, and somebody called them the wrong pronoun.
I don't care.
No interest whatsoever in individual trans stories.
Well, President Trump, the ultimate crowd pleaser, the man who can read the room better than anybody.
It says, plastic straws are back.
Let me tell you how genius that is.
Plastic straws have to be one of the most popular things in the country, and everybody tried the regular ones and didn't like them.
So the beauty of this is not just that it's popular, but it's visceral.
See, this is what Trump does that you don't notice.
When you think of the plastic straw, You can feel it, right?
It's like a feeling.
You can almost taste it.
You can taste your beverage in your mind.
So when he does this visual imagery that evokes taste and feeling, that's really strong.
You can never forget that kind of stuff.
Now let's compare Trump saying...
Plastic straws are back, and you've got this whole visual image, and you're happy about it, and it's not the biggest thing in the world, but it's absolutely what you wanted.
Now, compare it to Elizabeth Warren, who did a post in which she was talking about Doge, and she's fighting against it.
Now, watch this generic, terrible communication, all right?
This is from a post on X. Elizabeth Warren, Senator Warren.
I often talk about righteous fights.
Some kind of concept?
Make no mistake.
We are in one.
A what?
A righteous fight.
Okay, that's nice and generic.
I can't taste it, feel it, see it.
I won't remember those words tomorrow.
This fight will be long.
Okay, you're telling me I'm going to feel bad.
Trump will continue to distract, divide, and demoralize.
Okay, concepts, concepts, concepts.
But when things get tough, again, you're telling me it's going to be hard.
There is only one option ahead of us.
There's never one option ahead of you.
That's kind of dumb, even as a concept.
Nevertheless, we must persist.
You see what I'm saying, right?
Let me give it to you back to back.
Trump, I'm bringing back plastic straws.
Got it.
Elizabeth Warren, I often talk about righteous fights.
Make no mistake, we are in one.
This fight will be long.
Trump will continue to distract, divide into more or less, but when it gets tough, when it gets tough, there's only one up.
God, learn to communicate, will you?
Learn to communicate.
How in the world is she one of their strongest Democrats when she can't put a sentence together that anybody would want to care about?
Meanwhile, ICE has, I guess, arrested 11,000 illegal migrants, according to the New York Post.
So they're putting them in all kinds of different places.
So that's just in the first 18 days.
They got 11,000 mostly criminals who mostly would have re-offended because criminals re-offend.
Did they basically get rid of, let's say if they re-offended, you know, twice a year, did we get rid of 20,000 crimes?
That feels like a lot.
I mean, I get that it's a big country and we have a lot of crimes, but 20,000 crimes?
How are you not in favor of that?
20,000 criminals, especially the gangs?
You know, there's some people who say that the gangs, the Trendawagwa, whatever it is, Are so, let's say, viral that if they get enough of a foothold in your country, they can start controlling your government.
And we weren't very far away from that.
It would have only taken a little bit, maybe a few more years, and they would have control over local governments through threats and violence.
Anyway, so glad we're getting them now.
One of the stories that people had the most interest in yesterday was that Trump revoked Biden's security clearance.
Now, you might remember that Biden revoked Trump's security clearance, saying, oh, he can't be trusted.
So Trump returned the favor, which I'm totally in favor of.
You know, I'm not in favor of just revenge-y stuff, but this had no real impact on anything except slap in the face to Biden, who just deserved a slap in the face.
Again, not physically.
We're talking mentally, a slap in the face.
But the reason that I think the public was so interested in this story, yesterday when I did my Man Cave program, almost everybody who came in said, hey, have you heard about this one?
Have you heard about this one?
And I think the main thing is we understand it.
The Doge stories are all just a little complicated.
Have you noticed?
You have to sort of know what the entity is, and then there's a whole bunch of different things they're doing badly, and then you confuse that with the other entity, and it's just really complicated stuff.
So when we see a simple one, like Trump's bringing back plastic straws, we're like, okay, I got that one.
Or Trump revokes Biden's security clearance.
Oh, okay, got it.
Let's talk about that one.
Easy.
You know, all crime hides in complexity.
Complexity is usually the way that it's usually intentional to hide crime.
That's why almost every domain has something in it that's way too complicated because there's crime in there and you can't spot it because it's too complicated.
There's a study by DiverseIQ.
It says that DEI didn't work.
So DEI has been around for a while, and it made basically no real difference.
I could give you details, but the details all say it didn't make any difference.
So we had years of severe racism against white men, mostly, because white women were doing fine under DEI. But years of discrimination, just overt discrimination against men, no difference.
The numbers barely moved.
A little bit more in management, which you'd expect.
So, anyway, DEI was a failure.
We can say that for sure.
Much like the Department of Education at the federal level.
Is it the Department of Education?
Yeah.
The Department of Education was formed because the...
The students at the lowest end of accomplishment needed a boost.
So the whole idea was, all right, we'll do this federal thing so the states can't just let people go.
And it made no difference.
So years and years of funding the education department, no difference.
So DEI, no difference.
Department of Education, no difference.
So getting rid of those things that made no difference has got to be a good thing.
All right, let's talk about the story about the young man, I think he was 25, who got canceled but was brought back.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the story about Big Balls is not a story about him saying anything wrong.
He just had a funny name online.
It's someone else.
Slightly older, 25, I think, 24, 25, who was the one who said some things under a, I think under his pseudonym, I don't think it was under his own name, but had said several things that a normal person would say, well, that's pretty racist.
That looks pretty racist.
I would say that.
If you were just looking at what he said, yeah.
Yeah, I'm not going to repeat them because they're ugly thoughts.
But yeah, if you're only looking at the sentences.
Yeah, that would look racist to me.
But here's the thing.
There are real people who say bad things.
I've told you before, I don't put the same standard on somebody young as I put on somebody older, but I also don't put the same standard on people acting anonymously.
If somebody acts anonymously and then somebody outs them, I blame the person who outed them.
That's my standard.
Because if you're saying something anonymously, it means it's something closer to a thought.
It's something that you wouldn't say under your own name.
All of us have terrible thoughts sometimes.
I mean, on different topics.
But we all have terrible thoughts.
If all of us were judged on our thoughts, we would all be cancelled.
Now, some of you might say, oh, not me.
I never had any bad thoughts.
Really?
Really?
I don't believe that.
So I don't have the same standard for...
And I don't know if this is the case, by the way.
I don't know if he posted under his own name.
If he posted that stuff under his own name, then I would be a little more harsh.
But anything that somebody does anonymously, it's because they want you to know how they think.
And I find that valuable.
So even if you hate it, don't you want to know somebody's thinking it?
Isn't that a plus?
Even if you hate that somebody's thinking it, I want to know what they're thinking.
Whether it's an insult to somebody else or an insult to me, I would definitely want to know.
So there's that.
But here's the bigger story.
So the bigger story is that he said things that normally would get anybody canceled.
But J.D. Vance basically said, you know, get over it.
People make mistakes, move on.
And then he got reinstated.
So Elon brought him back.
He also had a little survey on Acts.
78% of the people on Acts notes, of course, not a scientific poll.
But 78% said bring him back.
Now, here's why I'm in favor of bringing him back.
Because I can't live with a standard that you can be canceled for something you said that somebody else thinks is racist.
Now, in this particular case, these were unusually Clear.
So they look pretty bad, but he's also unlikely to, you know, take those kind of views into his adult life.
You know, people change.
So my problem with the whole topic is if you let this guy get canceled, what happens next?
Right?
I don't want to say slippery slope because I hate that term, but what happens if you let him get canceled?
They look for the next one.
Right?
They look for another one to cancel.
But the next one might not be so clear.
Maybe the next one said one thing once.
Canceled.
Maybe they said something that wasn't bad, but if you took it out of context, it is bad.
Canceled.
So as soon as you let the enemy, this would be the Democrats, as soon as you give them a loaded weapon, they're going to start shooting.
So what J.D. Vance was is not save a racist.
If that's what you saw, you missed the whole show.
What he did is save us.
He saved the rest of us.
The story is he saved one guy by having a well-thought-out defense of people making mistakes and maybe we can not throw out the baby with the bathwater kind of thing.
Maybe we should try to reconstitute him because he has value to the country.
It was good.
Good academic, I guess.
Good argument.
People liked it.
But by far, the important thing is what it did for the rest of us.
It made us safer.
Because now I know that even if somebody tried to make something up, that at least the Democrats would say, get the fuck out of here.
Am I right?
This is really, really big.
And to me, it's as big as DEI being cancelled.
If you can take the, you're a racist, oh, and also your brother's a racist, your sister's a racist, and everybody you know is a racist, and everybody's a racist, you're a racist, you're a racist, you have to disarm that.
Because if you let them have that weapon, they'll just use it all day long, like a Gatling gun, and you saw what the last 10 years have been like.
So yes, J.D. Vance may have defended, you know, 50 million people.
So if you think it's a story about that one guy who said some shit that I don't like either, not really.
It's a much bigger point.
Anyway.
According to The Hill, there's a story about saving DEI in the private sector.
So it's an opinion piece about how they have to work hard to save DEI in the private sector.
And he said, The title is, How Can We Defend the Private Sector from Trump's War on DEI? They are literally asking how they can keep racism.
Because DEI is cancelled because it's racist.
That's the reason.
There wasn't any other reason.
So, how can you write an opinion piece on the Hill defending racism?
Which is what he's doing.
Well, would you be surprised to know there's a lawyer who works on these issues and gets paid the more DEI stuff he's doing?
Follow the money.
That's how you find out what's going on.
Well, Trump apparently dismissed multiple members of the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees.
So the Kennedy Center, I guess the Board of Trustees or a bunch of political appointees, And he decided that they were not on board with the Golden Age and that he didn't say so, but I feel like they were too woke and that wasn't compatible with the Golden Age.
So he just got rid of a bunch of trustees.
And one of the trustees is former press secretary Corinne Jean-Pierre.
So Corinne Jean-Pierre gets this appointment that's sort of a nice one.
It's kind of a...
Very respectful appointment.
But as soon as she gets it, she gets fired.
So she's lost two jobs this month.
Good luck, though.
CNN, I don't know.
I think this might be an older one.
This is an older video, but somebody was showing it around.
Because Project Veritas, now this is after O'Keefe left to do his own thing at OMG. But the people who still ran the old organization had some undercover video of CNN. It was basically some technical directors and producer types.
And they actually say out loud, in direct words, that their goal was to get Trump out of office.
Their goal, meaning CNN's corporate goal.
Several people said it.
It wasn't one person.
Several people said, oh yeah, our goal was to get Trump out of office.
Now, how can you watch CNN and think that's news?
Once you've seen them undercover, say, oh yeah, yeah, we were just trying to get Trump out of office.
How many Democrats even know that that video exists?
Another said, quote, our focus was to get Trump out of office, right?
Without saying it, that's what it was, right?
That's somebody who works there at a high enough level that they would know exactly what CNN wants as a corporate entity.
Yes.
So if you thought that CNN was news, you were wrong.
They were propaganda.
Let's talk about MSNBC. Joy Reid's being useless again.
So she's attacking Musk because he's a private citizen.
Oh, we can't have a private citizen.
Even though he's got top security clearance, we can have private citizens looking at our records and trying to be productive and make the country survive when we have no path to survival unless we cut massively.
And it made me think.
I remember when I thought that MSNBC was trying to be a news channel, and I also thought CNN was trying to be a news channel.
But then I would think, ah, darn it, the way you're covering this story seems wrong.
And I would get all mad at them because I thought, don't you know you're a news entity?
You're a news entity.
That's not the news.
It's all biased.
But once you realize that they're primarily and maybe exclusively a propaganda organ, then everything just looks funny.
It just completely changes your perspective.
I get it.
It's a propaganda network.
So what are the propaganda people saying?
That the big problem is that Musk is a private citizen.
Well, Joy Reid, allow me to ask the following question.
If you don't like a private citizen getting in there and auditing and cutting costs, what would be the elected person who did it?
Is there an elected position to do this?
I don't believe there is.
I believe that even if the government did it, it would be somebody who was hired by the president who is not elected.
The Russ vote got in the GAO. I'm not sure that it's a real job.
I don't think it's their job to audit, but I suppose it was.
That would be a private citizen who has a job.
But was not elected.
So the most normal thing that happens in our government is people who are not elected do important things.
USAID? Entirely run by people who are not elected.
Who is the elected person at USAID? None.
None.
So it's beyond stupid to say that Musk as a private citizen is a problem.
It's way beyond stupid.
Now again, If I thought that they were trying to be a news channel, I'd be up in arms.
I'd be like, oh, can't you tell that you're distorting this story?
That really everybody's, most of the government is not elected.
And the people who are elected are not going to be auditors.
They're not going to be going in there.
They're going to be senators or whatever, but they're not going to be doing this.
This is a totally specialized kind of work that very few people on the whole planet could do.
Certainly not any elected people.
That's how I would say before.
Now I just think it's funny.
It's funny that they don't have any argument and watching them flail.
A little baldy Joe Reed.
So apparently Trump's Pentagon, I guess this would be P. Hexeth, probably gave the order.
They've removed...
From the Pentagon, CNN, NBC News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico, The Hill, and NPR. Why did they remove them?
Because they would be considered propaganda, not news.
I love this.
They're not being removed for being biased.
They're being removed for just being propaganda that pretends to be news.
They've replaced it with, and you can make the argument that there's propaganda on both sides.
I won't argue with you.
It's replaced with Newsmax, OAN, New York Post, Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, and Breitbart.
So, certainly all of these new entities that are going in, the right-leaning entities, I would say it's fair to say that they have a right-leaning bias.
But you know what seems different?
And I could be wrong about this.
I could be completely wrong about this because it would be easy to be fooled.
It seems to me that the actual propaganda only comes from one side.
Bias comes from both sides, roughly the same amount.
But propaganda, where you say to yourself, they know that's not true, but they keep saying it anyway.
That's different.
Because you don't see that on the right.
On the right, when somebody says something happened and it's wrong, they believed it was real.
They were just wrong.
And being wrong is not really the biggest crime in the news world when everything's moving so fast and there's a fog of war.
We're all wrong.
Being wrong is pretty ordinary.
But being wrong and in a biased way is not in the same...
Category of waking up and saying, how can I get rid of President Trump?
That's really different.
One is propaganda, because you know you're doing it.
The other is just, it's a messy world.
People make mistakes.
People are biased.
Well, here's what David Sachs said about USAID. You know, I try to get you the best explainers and then just quote them, because it's so hard.
To summarize USAID and what's right and wrong about that place, unless you've got really good communicators.
So here's another really good communicator, David Sachs.
He says, quote, we're in debt.
I think this was on the All In pod.
He said, we're in debt almost $40 trillion, and anytime anyone tries to cut anything in Washington, the whole city screams bloody murder.
The question is, why?
Well, now we know.
The money is all going to them.
New York Times getting paid.
Politico getting paid.
Bill Kristol, perennial warmonger, getting paid.
Ukraine, like 11 out of 12 publications, getting paid.
Viktor Orban, the Prime Minister of Hungary, was saying his political opposition is funded by USAID. And that's an ally.
In Poland, the left-wing political opposition is funded by USAID. BBC in the UK, every left-wing organization in the world, seems to be getting paid by this slush fund at USAID, which distributes $50 billion a year.
That's a billion dollars a week, which Sachs tells us is a lot of money.
That's a lot of money.
Now, I don't think that describes the entire situation, You know, the MSNBCs are just propaganda networks, so they're going to be against whatever Trump's doing.
It doesn't really matter what he's doing.
They're just going to be way against it.
But I do think that this is a huge part of it, that the money is essentially laundered through different NGOs, these entities, until it gets to literally the fake news.
So the fake news is funded as fake news.
By the propaganda-funding people.
They're literally the people whose job is to create propaganda.
USAID. But it's supposed to be aimed at other countries.
Some of it is.
But then we also know, as Mike Benz points out, that there was a huge effort through USAID to create censorship entities in other countries that would have the job of censoring American social networks.
So they couldn't.
The government couldn't directly censor American companies, but we could create foreign entities that look legitimate but are not, that create this need to censor everywhere.
And if the social networks can't operate in Europe, it's some gigantic part of their profitability.
So, yes, every part of USAID seems dirty.
According to Geiger Capital, let's say, account on X, here's a little summary of some other USAID things.
Did you know that USAID took about half a billion dollars in taxes from Americans and sent it to an NGO called Inter News Network?
Have you ever heard of that?
No, you haven't.
Because the way they hide all the bad stuff is in the complexity.
Whenever there's a lot of complexity...
There is major fraud in every domain, every time.
Complexity equals fraud.
So if you say to yourself, Scott, I can't follow all these thousands of NGOs and how they're connected and all the various things they're doing, that's the point.
That's how they hide it.
So if you didn't have massive complications and complexity, you couldn't get away with this stuff.
It would just be so obviously wrong.
Anyway.
Now, what does this internews network do with a half billion dollars of your tax money?
They work with over 4,000 outlets to train journalists.
That's the actual phrase they use, train journalists, and, quote, tackle disinformation.
I think you all know what that means.
What does it mean to train a journalist?
Do you think they're teaching them how to write?
Are they improving their grammar?
No.
No, it's propaganda.
They're bribing them.
Or they're either bribing them or brainwashing them to do what they want.
This is a total brainwashing bribery operation that has corrupted most of the journalism in the world, it looks like.
And the address for this entity that takes half a billion dollars a year is an abandoned building.
Sometimes things are exactly the way they look.
It's an abandoned building.
The level of corruption and just plain fuckery is just through the roof.
I think this is also something Mike Benz tells us, that USAID also rigged the Brazil election.
And of course they called it aid, because that's what USAID does.
Try to control other countries.
And if you question them, they say, well, we're just curing their AIDS. Or, oh, we're just helping them with their free speech.
Or, oh, we're just helping them get rid of disinformation.
I don't know what you're talking about.
So that's how they do it.
That's how they do it.
Exactly the way it was done in Brazil.
So USAID didn't just send aid to Brazil.
It funded censorship, backed left-wing activists.
Maybe helped rig the election.
I don't know what rig means in this case.
So millions of dollars flowed into the other team in Brazil.
So Brazil was corrupted by the United States and the USA. As Fisher King says on the X platform, he observes that the Doge has forced Democrats into the position of defending waste, fraud, and abuse.
Yes.
In much of the way...
Sorry, I saw something about plastic straws.
Less about plastic straws.
Let's do less about that.
Anyway, in the same way that Trump claiming common sense as the Republican, you know...
What would you say?
Organizing principle?
The organizing principle is just common sense.
Once you take the flag of common sense, the people on the other side are going to look a little silly because they're literally arguing against common sense, or at least on the surface it looks like that.
But here too, when Doge is finding all these sketchy expenses that should easily be cut, It forces the Democrats to support fraud, waste, and abuse.
Now, they'll say it differently.
Do you know what they'll say so it doesn't sound like they're in favor of fraud?
They'll say, oh, why is a private citizen?
Why a private citizen?
That's all they got.
Now, of course, you're seeing the most bought-off people in the world, Pretty much get direct funding from USAID or they're part of the intelligence community or they work with them.
So they're screaming that USAID, if you cut it, will kill children.
Don't you know these vital services have saved children all over the world?
Children will die.
Well, that's what fraudsters say.
If you don't give me money, children will die.
Let me tell you my how to...
If you get a chance to have a conversation with somebody who's saying, but they're cutting charity, children will die.
If that's all they know, here's what you say.
They are not a charitable organization.
We only give charity where we're trying to control the country where that charity is.
And they use it as a vehicle to move our CIA into the country under the cover of the charity.
And the charity is selected specifically for Countries that we want to control.
If it were a real charity, if it were a real charity, the giving would look completely different.
Because the giving would be based on where the biggest problem was.
Do you think that's what you're seeing?
No.
You're seeing the giving completely directed where we want to control the country.
It's just a coup.
If you can't tell the difference between charity and a coup attempt...
You shouldn't be in the conversation at all.
Now, if you say to yourself, come on, okay, maybe one or two times that's happened within USAID. No.
Let me say it again.
It's the only thing they do.
They don't do charity, and then also separately they do some coups and things that are good for America.
It's not separate.
It's exactly the same mechanism.
And it's always the same because that's the whole job of the USA. It's not about charity.
It's about using charity to take over countries.
And it works really well because the country is going to have a hard time saying, no, don't help us with our AIDS epidemic or something like that.
So now, just ask how the charity would look different if simply helping people was what you wanted to do.
I talked to my smart Democrat friend that I often talk about, and he was, like most Democrats, completely unaware of what I just said, that USAID is well-documented and known to be really in the coup business and the projecting power business, and that the charity part is just artificial.
Now, here's the thing.
I could be wrong.
I mean, it's happened before.
Suppose that's not what USAID is doing.
But that's not my point right now.
My point is, that's what the most, let's say the Republicans were following things the most.
That's what we think.
Because we've been educated.
I think it's educated.
And the big story here is that his news sources, CNN and New York Times, will never tell him.
What the other side thinks and why they're motivated.
What we think is this is stuff we don't want to be paying for and we're motivated to get rid of it.
What they think is, oh, you're just trying to get rid of our charities and kill children.
So if you watch CNN, you will never hear what I just said, that USAID is basically for protecting power and the charity is a fake thing on top of it.
Now, even if you think that's not true, keep in mind, Remember when Q was a big thing in 2016 or so?
When Q was a big thing, CNN and MSNBC would talk about it because they'd say those crazy Republicans, they believe in this thing called Q, right?
So they will generally show both sides when the Republican side has something embarrassing.
Then you'll hear what the Republicans think.
Oh, they believe in Q. Well, wingnuts.
But as soon as we believe in something that makes complete sense and is well documented, which is that USAID is this giant money laundering, power projecting thing masquerading as a charity, as soon as we have that, they act like it doesn't happen.
Like that's not even the argument.
They simply pretend the argument is a different argument.
And then they argue the argument that's not the argument.
And their readers will never hear what Mike Benz has to say, for example.
They'll never hear it.
All right.
Meanwhile, the other thing I would say for the people who think it's a charity, if we wanted to be a charity, that's all it would be.
That's all it would be.
But it's a lot of other things.
Anyway, the National Institute of Health, is it, the NIH, is going to reduce their overhead from 27% down to 15%.
Now, of course, the scientists are squealing.
We can't possibly do any science with that low an overhead.
But, of course, we don't believe anybody.
Anytime you cut anybody's budget, they will say, You can't cut this budget.
Children will die.
It's the end of the world.
Science will be destroyed.
That's what they all say.
But that's why you don't send an elected person to cut a budget.
If you send an elected person to cut a budget, what's going to happen?
Every budget you cut will be a bunch of voters.
And they'll say, hey, don't cut my budget.
I will vote against you.
Don't cut my budget.
I will vote against you.
And don't cut my budget, because I will vote against you.
You can't send an elected person to cut a budget.
You have to send somebody who doesn't give a fuck what you think about them in the short term, is playing a total long game, and can put up with the shame and embarrassment and all of that.
Now, I'm going to go further and say, while you're watching with Doge, even though it's a very specific...
It tells a bigger story about America.
And I've said this in different ways, but I'm going to try to pull it all together.
Doge is essentially willing to just shake the box like nobody's business, cut things that maybe we'll have to add back if we find it's a problem, and just make a big, dramatic change.
Do you know what other countries are capable of doing that?
The answer is none.
Well, melee maybe, Argentina, but a special case.
The advantage that America has is that we can do stuff like this.
We can destroy everything we have if we've got a good idea how to make it better, and we'll do it.
But more importantly, we'll take the shame and the risk of failure like nobody else can.
So if you were in, say, Europe or Japan or something, you couldn't do this kind of work because the shame that would come on you and the accusations and it would follow you for the rest of your life and everybody would hate you, you couldn't handle it.
You know what we say in America when people are shaming you and it's hard and, you know, you're working really hard?
Oh, you're a bunch of losers.
The smart people are working hard, taking chances, making big changes.
So we think that the people who make the big change are heroes.
I do.
In other countries, they think, what's wrong with you?
You should be ashamed.
You cuss some charity.
In America, we say, fuck you and your stupid charity because it's all fake.
So we're just going to cut it and you can complain all you want.
But one of your people said some racist things.
Yeah, fuck you too.
We're just going to use him because he's good.
We're just going to make it work.
So you can see that the shamers, And the blamers and the cry racist.
All the things that I don't think other countries have the same cultural, let's say, suit of armor.
America is unique in which taking a big swing and missing doesn't feel like a mistake.
It doesn't feel like a mistake.
It feels like, get back in there, take a few more swings.
You'll hit the third one.
By the way, my favorite comment I saw on X today was somebody was complaining about Musk having a 19-year-old doing this important work.
And Michael Dell weighs in.
He says, I started a company when I was 19. It's going pretty well.
He started Dell Computers when he was 19. So, yeah, that was funny.
Here's another funny one.
Apparently, Doge is going to be canceling $168,000 that was going to be for a Fauci museum or a Fauci exhibit in some kind of museum.
A Fauci exhibit, $168,000.
Does that mean that somebody was putting a statue of him?
I think it's going to be a statue.
I wonder if it's already built, because you might be able to get it for cheap.
If there's already built a Fauci statue and now there's nobody to buy it because they canceled the budget, I'd like to maybe look at it to possibly pick it up for cheap.
I wouldn't mind having a Fauci statue in my foyer.
I don't know what I'd use it for, but it'd be hilarious.
Anyway, so that's funny.
So Elon Musk and his doge are going to get into the Pentagon.
They're going to get into Medicare and Medicaid.
And Elon says he thinks there's $100 billion wasted in Medicare and Medicaid, Gateway Pundits reporting.
So that's still not enough.
You know, if we're trying to solve a $2 trillion problem, how much do you think he's going to find in the Pentagon?
Well, let me give you a little hint.
There was a video of Elon at some event that was a few months ago, but it just dropped.
The video did.
And he was talking about the future of war.
And he said it's all going to be drones.
Basically, drones, drones, drones.
And is our military optimized for that?
Or do we have gigantic entities that want to keep their own thing going?
It's like, oh, I'm the tank people, so we need lots of tanks.
And I'm the boat person.
We need lots of boats, ships, I guess.
We probably need ships no matter what, even if they're just going to carry the drones.
But, yeah, so the suggestion is that if we were to build a military that was based on how you would actually fight a war today, that it might be completely different than what we do normally.
So I think we just added drones to the things we have.
If you want to save money, Without losing too much in terms of your national defense, probably there's going to be a lot of other weapon systems that seem redundant if you've got enough drones.
But then if somebody gets really good at blocking drones or jamming them, better than they are now, maybe we need the missiles back.
So it's a pretty complicated situation.
But if you want to get a sense of the future, in Ukraine, Here's the Norse from Ukraine, just to tie it all together.
So in Ukraine at the moment, Russia has a five-to-one soldier advantage on the front line.
There are five times as many Russians as Ukrainians, and the Ukrainians are often, you know, old guys who don't want to be there.
So, you know, they don't have much left.
But what they do have is the ability to make 200,000 drones a month.
So apparently what happens is that the Ukrainians are sending out no soldiers.
They're not doing anything offensive, and the soldiers just man the drones and man the front lines.
But the Russians are still doing some mild offensive maneuvers.
They're not capturing much, you know, a mile here, a mile there.
But as soon as they send out their soldiers, the drones go up and they just wipe them out.
Not enough that it would stop a full-scale march if they really wanted to take the losses.
But at the moment, it's kind of a stalemate where one side is losing people and the other side is losing drones.
Just think about that.
One side is losing people and the other side is only losing drones.
So that's where it's going.
$200,000 a month.
One of them, according to interesting engineering, is a drone that can spread steel ball fragments over 21,000 square feet.
21,000 square feet?
That means basically if the infantry of the Russian army is coming toward you, you can just drop one of these things and the shrapnel will kill everybody within 21,000 square feet.
You don't need a lot of them.
So, yeah, it's going to be drone, drone, drone, warfare, no doubt about it.
So you might see some big recommendations about how to have a military that's different.
That's going to be scary because we don't want to give up anything we have, but we'll have to because we don't have infinite money.
All right.
Trump has launched an investigation into California's high-speed rail debacle.
So $120 billion was sort of set aside for it or budgeted.
They've already spent about $14 billion and haven't built a single mile of track.
I think most of the problem is DEI and environmentalism.
There's just always some problem that nobody can do work.
So Trump's going to look into it.
Now, I don't know how that works.
Can the federal government look into anything they want to in a state?
Do they have that kind of authority?
I don't know.
But here's a question I ask.
It seems to me that every time we see a criminal organization or a criminal project, to me the whole bullet train thing in California looks like there must be just massive fraud and waste and corruption.
I'm sure people got really well paid out of that $14 billion to produce literally nothing.
It seems like every time we see one of these organizations that is almost designed for corruption, like USAID, it's almost always an entirely Democrat situation.
If you look at the most corrupt local mayors, I feel like most of them would be Democrats.
And I'm wondering, are Democrats really only criminals?
Because every time we see one, there's something criminal happening.
Now, Republicans also do crimes.
But can you give me an example of a Republican-dominated organization that has been found to be one of these wasting billions of dollars things?
The only one I know is Bill Kristol is sucking off the USA teat.
But even that's not big scale.
I don't think that's a terribly big scale.
So am I wrong that fraud and Democrats are so overlapped that all you would have to know is, oh, here's a big budget and a big organization, and it's mostly Democrats.
You would know that it's corrupt, wouldn't you?
And is that the same both ways?
If it's a big organization with a big budget and it's run mostly by Republicans, could you also say, hey, people are people?
If you give them a chance to steal, they will.
And if that's true, that it works both ways, kind of equally, and it's not about Democrat or Republican, if that's true, why are all the ones we hear about Democrats?
Am I wrong?
Am I missing some obvious examples where, oh yeah, this Republican-heavy organization was stealing like crazy and laundering funds?
I'm not really aware of any of those stories.
So at what point do we say, this doesn't look like a coincidence?
It looks like Democrats are basically a criminal organization with their fingers on every pie that you could possibly put them in.
Anyway, that's what it looks like.
So we're at the point where our fake domestic news largely opposes Trump and Doge, while every foreign country envies both of them.
What do you think other countries, like let's say Germany, what do you think they think when they're watching the United States close down immigration and rip their budget apart looking for waste and fraud?
Don't you think Germany is saying, oh God, why can't we be like that?
Again, this gets back to what makes America different.
We can just take more risk and we can live through it.
What about France or the UK or any of them?
Don't you think all of our allies are looking at Trump and Doge and saying, all right, well, they're not successful yet, but I sure wish we could do that.
I think that's true.
But in the United States, the fake news, which is most of the news, is treating it like it's the end of the world.
So my summary is big balls.
Big balls.
I also think that we might be 12 months away from lapping the field in economics.
And when I say lapping the field, the U.S. economy is already one of the good ones.
One of the best, right?
But I think we're just going to pull away.
And the drag that we have in the economy is all the excess spending.
If we can get that anchor pulled up, the anchor of the excess spending, We're in really good shape.
And Trump, of course, is pushing the envelope in every way economically.
So specifically, here's another example.
Zelensky over in Ukraine says he's open to Trump's idea that the United States would get some of their rare earth minerals.
So Trump said, if we're going to put all this money in Ukraine and defend it, we should get something in return.
They've got lots of rare earth minerals that we need, so we'll take those.
Now, when you first hear that, you say to yourself, you can't just take the rare earth minerals.
It's like a whole other country.
Aren't they going to have to agree to that?
And then Zelensky says, yeah, we could talk about that.
Let's make a deal.
Because Ukraine can't really exploit those resources on its own.
And if it's making America happy and also getting maybe half of the money or something, it's a good idea for both because they're not going to do it on their own.
They're just too broken down to afford something like that.
So, yeah.
Once again, Trump sees free money and says, I'll take that.
Now, you also saw the story that I don't know if this is true yet.
I haven't seen a good source for this.
Can anybody confirm that Egypt said it would help the Palestinians from Gaza?
Is that real?
Because I don't know if it's real or just something I saw.
But the story is, the way people are treating it is that it's real.
And that, anyway.
So that would be a case of Trump stirring the box and saying, okay, we'll take Gaza.
If nobody wants to help, if nobody's going to help the Gaza residents, we will.
Now, the way we're going to do it is we'll probably have to ship you somewhere else for a long time.
And it might take 10 years to fix up Gaza, but then we'll consider bringing back the people who don't look dangerous.
Now, that was probably never a practical plan, but it certainly made the people in the region sharpen their pencils and say, ah, maybe we could help.
Maybe we could, just to keep that big boot of the United States military out of their region.
It could be that Trump's play was exactly what the Palestinians needed just to incentivize other, you know, other countries in the region to help out.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I had today.
I'll remind you again that Owen's spaces that he usually does on Saturday, he's going to do on Sunday this week.
So, no spaces today, tomorrow.
All right.
Let's see how I did.
Oh, good.
I was trying to keep it to an hour.
I got pretty good.
Getting itchy.
The majority of the rare earth is in the regions that Russia controls?
Well, maybe the majority, but I'll bet there's still plenty.
I'm not sure anybody ever knows where all the rare earth is until you start digging around for it.
Because if you're not looking for it, how are you going to find it?
