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, Super Bowl LIX, President Trump, Panama Canal Claims, Anti-DOGE Treasury Ruling, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, Social Security Fraud, James Carville, Cory Booker, Democrat Playbook, Scott Jennings, 80/20 Topics Popularity, DOE Failures, Trump vs HuffPost, USAID Funding, Anti-Trump Military Resistance, LA Fire Recovery Czar, Scott Soboroff, Hamas Hostages Release, US Gaza Control, Palestinian Mindset, FAA Hiring Process, 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.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better day.
But if you'd like to taste this experience up beyond even Super Bowl levels, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gel, just a canteen, a jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens.
Yeah, that's right.
Right now.
go extraordinary So, so good.
Well, did anybody watch that thing called the Super Bowl?
I did.
I was mostly working at the same time and drawing.
But I was entertained because I didn't care about either team.
I'll tell you one thing.
I had somewhat cheekily Said that the Kansas City Chiefs would win because they had the best story.
Meaning that a three-beat, especially if Trump is there, he predicted they might win, Taylor Swift is there.
It definitely seemed like the best story would be if the Chiefs won.
Now, I made my prediction, having never watched either the Kansas Chiefs or the Eagles play even once.
In the entire season, didn't see either team even once.
However, having watched them play in the Super Bowl, I'm pretty sure if I'd watched either one of them play even once, or if I'd watched the Eagles play, I'm pretty sure I would have picked them as winners.
It looked like a professional team playing a high school team.
It didn't look like the Kansas City Chiefs were physically even big enough to be on the field.
They had all these tiny guys running around being crushed by monsters.
It was like monsters crush tiny guys all day long.
It barely looked like a football game.
Anyway, so yeah, I think it was about two plays into the game.
I said to myself, what am I watching?
This doesn't look like it's going to be close.
They don't look like even the same sport.
All right.
So here are the other things that happened.
Trump got applauded when he showed up on the big screen, the Jumbotron or whatever it's called.
But Taylor Swift, she got mixed reactions.
A little bit of booing.
And do you think that President Trump was above making fun of Taylor Swift for being booed when he was cheered?
No, he's not above that.
That's why we love him.
He's not above that at all.
He comes right down to our level.
He meets us where we're at.
That man could read a room.
Not only could he read a stadium, he could read a room.
Yeah, no, that was entertaining.
Thank you.
Despite rumors to the contrary, as far as I know, there were no Doge ads, right?
I was all excited.
I thought there'd be some Doge ads, but that never made sense.
Here's where your understanding of the real world should have told you there are not going to be any doge ads.
And that is, do you think that they went to the last week before the Super Bowl before they knew who was going to run what commercial?
Do you think they had a slot that was open?
No, they don't have a slot that's open a week before the fucking Super Bowl.
That's not a thing.
But then I said to myself, but wait.
This is no normal situation.
If the richest man in the world, working on the most important project in the world, could find some way to sneak in 15 seconds every now and then, maybe, maybe, if he offered enough money.
But no, that never made sense.
It wouldn't have made sense to put a political thing into the one thing that was trying to be bipartisan.
We'll talk about that.
But it wasn't the right place.
It wasn't the right place at all.
So I hope it was never even entertained because it just wasn't the right place.
So let's see.
As you know, the stadium took down their end racism lettering in the end zone.
And I said to myself, hmm.
Is that because they're reading the room or is it because they know Trump is coming?
I'm not sure when Trump decided he was coming.
By the way, the first president to ever go there.
Even David Axelrod, the high-end, famous Democrat advisor guy, said that...
I'll paraphrase, but he basically said Biden was pathetic for not going to the Super Bowl when he was invited.
And of course Trump went.
Because of course it was the right decision.
Which is not political, by the way.
The president is everybody's president.
So this is the one time a president can go somewhere and you can legitimately say, I mean, yeah, it's good for his reputation and his brand and stuff.
But it's not overly political.
It's just, I like football.
So how about that?
We just like football.
So they took down the end racism thing.
But here's...
Here's something I speculate.
If you watched the pre-show, the lead-up that included Lady Gaga and Tom Brady and I guess Michael Strahan and then there was Brad Pitt who opened it up with this long monologue about coming together as a country.
I said to myself, hmm, at least the Brad Pitt part looks a little tacked on, like tacked on the front.
And I said to myself, Are they trying to flag it up?
Because they had several big images of American flags and Brad Pitt, his only reason, and he had an extended piece to kick things off.
And it was, first of all, a white man, which is interesting, which is relevant to what I'm going to talk about.
And he just kept saying, hey, let's come together.
This is just, you know, bring the country together.
America, America, America.
And I ask myself, would they have done that just the way they did it, with just the messenger they had?
Would they have done that if Trump had not won?
And I think they wouldn't have.
I think they would have left the end racism sign in the end zone.
And I think they would have said, we'll just run the show the way we're going to.
Now, when you get into the...
A little bit of the meat of the show, and I think it was at the halftime.
We had an all-black marching band, who were excellent, by the way, very good.
And I think it was from a historically black college, so it made sense that they were all black.
And I think there was an all-black chorus, and I think there were a set of all-black dancers.
And, of course, the Super Bowl.
It's sort of the one place where you go, and everybody who was there agrees, black people did really well in sports.
It's like the one thing we're all on the same page about.
Nobody's debating this.
Black America, you did really, really well.
You've had a president.
Wasn't it two black quarterbacks?
I mean, you couldn't do a better job of presenting excellence than just what's already there.
It didn't need any extra.
You could just exist.
And it's like excellence, excellence, excellence all over the place.
So it did seem to me that maybe they were trying to soften what they may have recognized as being a little over the top.
And then there was one commercial, I forget who it was, where there's a young black girl who beats up a bunch of white guys who are threatening her.
And it's just...
Like, so stereotypical 2024. 2024 I'm using as an example of the distant past when everything was different.
That's so 2024. How about a commercial where everybody's just getting along?
How about that?
But let me say this.
I don't want to criticize the folks who put on the show or the NFL. Because I think that there was absolutely the signs of intention that they were trying to push a unifying message.
Did all of you feel it?
I feel like there was a little bit of mixed messages there.
But clearly the intention was to try to serve the entire public.
So that's what I felt.
So I think I'm just going to...
I'm going to side with the positive part of it, which was, it was the most American thing I've ever seen in my life.
That was so, so American.
I loved it.
I loved the vibe.
So, but, you know, then let's see.
Then the Black National Anthem was played.
You knew that was going to be controversial.
Again, it's too much.
You know, the Black National Anthem, for what purpose do you need to throw that in there?
Like I said, the entire event is showcasing black excellence.
You just have to just watch the game.
You couldn't see more black excellence in one place, no matter how hard you tried.
I mean, amazing in every level, you know?
So, yeah, maybe that was just more than you needed.
It may actually work against...
Might actually work against the interests.
So then Kendrick Lamar was the halftime.
And I guess he was dissing Drake.
I had to look into it because I don't follow music.
And I guess they've been having this long-term disagreement.
And Kendrick Lamar, I guess he thinks that Drake is...
Too commercial and too synthetic.
Something like that.
That he's not genuine.
And I think he also thinks he's not talented.
So they've had quite a back and forth.
And I guess he even mocked him in the halftime.
Said some things that I won't repeat.
Some allegations.
But I've never been a Kendrick Lamar fan.
But only because I haven't listened to it.
There's only one thing I absolutely hate in music.
Two things.
Two things.
But one of them is Drake.
Drake, to me, never sounded like music.
He sounded like somebody who was just put out by the fact that somebody wanted him to sing.
And now I'm singing.
I guess I have to because I'll make some money.
But I don't have any talent.
And I... I just am talking.
No way.
It's the only thing except Nickelback.
So the two things I wouldn't allow in my car stereo when I had young stepkids, they'd want to crank it up and listen to music, which generally I was fine with, no matter who it was.
But there were only two.
There were only two that I would say, no, I have just this rule.
No Nickelback.
No Drake.
Everything else is okay.
Everything else.
So I like Kendrick Lamar just because he doesn't like Drake.
So we found unity on that.
So Kendrick, good job.
And then I wondered how hard it was if you were the organizers.
Because presumably they have to line up their talent pretty far in advance.
You know, if you're going to be the halftime show, I don't know when they announce it, but it's months in advance, right?
And then I'm looking at the Diddy situation, and you're watching all these famous artists who are one by one, you know, getting the scarlet letter put on them, the scarlet D for Diddy.
And I'm thinking to myself, how hard was it to get the right kind of entertainer who hasn't been to a Diddy party?
That must have been really hard.
And the whole time they had to be worried.
It's like, Kendrick, don't surprise us.
So I guess Kendrick did okay.
Anyway, the best post on X about the Super Bowl is from user Tech Operator who posted this.
The real Super Bowl is happening in Washington, D.C. right now.
It's the Patriots versus the Steelers.
The Patriots versus the Steelers.
In Washington, D.C. right now.
Alright, that's pretty good.
That's pretty good.
I'll give you the A for that.
Alright, here's a message I woke up to and it might change your life.
And then we'll get into all the fun politics.
I saw a post from somebody called On the Lucky on Axe.
And it was sort of speaking to me indirectly.
Yeah.
Here's the other funniest post from Zero Hedge.
I think somebody else said this first.
And the quote is, was USAID funding the Chiefs too?
If you like sports and politics, that's pretty funny.
USAID was funding the Chiefs.
No, it wasn't.
As far as we know.
Anyway, so here's a message from On the Lucky today.
On the Lucky says, over Christmas, I watched your book, Reframe Your Brain.
That's my book, Reframe Your Brain.
My newest one.
And watched my book right before my, watched it work right before my eyes in 27 seconds.
So here's the story.
He says, for decades, When I was idle, my brain would always run negative highlight reels.
Negative highlight reels.
The moment I read The Past is Imaginary, that's one of my reframes in the book, The Past is Imaginary, is sunk into my brain like new firmware.
I stopped creating it after that moment, meaning negative highlight reels.
He stopped them.
I told this story in front of a friend who had depression issues.
I saw your words reprogram her in real time.
She started crying.
She hugged me and then ordered Reframe Your Brain and had it filled everything and still went big, one of my other books.
Her life is permanently changed as is mine.
Thank you.
Now, when I wrote the book, it was for this.
It was exactly, specifically for this.
Now, the book is not about this one reframe.
That the past doesn't exist.
And there's more to it.
But the idea is if you're obsessing about the past, you're obsessing about something that literally doesn't exist.
You can't grab a handful of it.
And in quantum physics, it's not even clear that the past ever existed.
It might all be just imaginary.
Of course, that's more simulation theory.
We won't get into that.
But it's full of...
In case you think you could give some benefit, it might be that reframe or different ones.
But remember, these are written by me, and I'm a trained hypnotist.
So as a hypnotist, I could know in advance for sure that some people who read it, and it won't be everybody, and it won't be every reframe that hits you.
You'll all respond to different things in different ways.
But I could know for sure if it reached enough people.
Some people would just have their brains instantly rewired with one sentence.
That's a real thing.
So maybe two lives that have been permanently changed.
And by the way, I get this kind of message all the time.
This one was especially well-written and had two people involved, so it was worth reading.
But this is a very common experience for people who read the book.
I hope it helps you too.
Meanwhile, Chevron, the big oil company, is going to leave California.
Chevron was the biggest company in my neighborhood.
Right in my neighborhood.
I used to work right across the street from it in the big Pacific Bell headquarters.
And one day I met another Scott Adams who worked at Chevron.
And apparently I was making his life a little difficult because I'd already launched Dilbert and the big companies were looking for...
If they had a Scott Adams in their company.
And sure enough, Chevron had a guy named Scott Adams.
He stopped by one day and showed me his business card.
Now, he's black.
But still, I think he might have been getting a little heat.
Are you the Scott Adams?
But he wasn't.
And the reason is, no surprise, they're going to move to Texas because California is very unfriendly to oil companies.
So my entire county is going to lose maybe the biggest employer, maybe the biggest dollar company.
And why?
Because we're poorly managed.
We're poorly managed.
And Texas is well managed.
So once again, California loses one of its diamond assets.
To poor management.
And it was completely avoidable.
My God.
I'll tell you.
I think Trump should say he's going to make California a state.
Like Canada.
Oh, wait.
California is a state.
That didn't help at all.
Well, the Wall Street Journal is calling BS on some of the Panama Canal claims from the Trump administration.
I think Trump says 35,000 Americans died building it, but it was more like 350. There were tens of thousands of people who died, but most of them either before America got involved and the rest were non-Americans.
Sadly, I mean, it's a tragedy that that many people died, no matter who they are, but they were not Americans.
They were from other countries.
And apparently there...
There's effectively no Chinese people working on the canal.
So I thought China was somehow taking control of the canal.
But according to the Wall Street Journal, no.
There's nobody Chinese working at the canal.
And that the people who do work in the canal are 99% Panamanian.
And that when...
Let's see.
And that when Panama agreed to...
To stop their, what was it, the Belt and Road Initiative with China?
Maybe there was never any Belt and Road Initiative with China.
There might not have been any Belt and Road Initiative at all, or maybe it was just something they talked about in the future, but there wasn't anything really much to drop.
However, the Wall Street Journal acknowledges that Trump may be...
You know, negotiating for better prices or priorities and stuff.
And I think that's true.
I think he's negotiating.
And successfully.
Well, you're all aware of the story about the judge that decided that the Doge project can't have access to the computer systems because they're not civil servants.
Now, do you think that judge is...
Oh, legit?
Well, apparently there was some very clever judge shopping before they got this judge to do this, meaning that the people involved knew, I don't know the whole story, but it's like they knew that on a Friday night who would be working, and they waited for that exact time.
So they had a good chance of getting this judge, or 100% chance, I think.
And it's somebody that you could sort of reliably count on to do the...
Sketchy thing.
That's what they say.
These are the allegations.
I don't know this judge personally.
And I saw Mike Cernovich's opinion on the judge's ruling, and he said it was a bunch of generic boilerplate and didn't have any legal opinion in it, basically.
It was just empty.
Now, I think all it does is delay it for a week.
Do I have that right?
I don't think it's a permanent forever ban or something about a week.
So there's some other details that might matter to this story.
But Elon Musk has suggested that the judge should be impeached.
And maybe that's true.
But that sounds like negotiating, too.
I think it's pretty rare for a judge to be impeached.
And usually there has to be some obvious crime involved, as opposed to a bad ruling.
I think.
And the Congress would have to do it, and of course it'd have to be something like two-thirds, and that's never going to happen.
So it's not really practical.
There won't be any judge impeaching.
But here's what I love about Doge.
Doge is absolutely surfacing all the corruptive people.
Now, I didn't know anything about this judge before this ruling, but I know a lot about the judge now.
Aren't you glad you know more about this judge?
I'm glad I know more about this judge.
And you can see all the complainers, the ones who clearly were getting funding from USAID. It is so useful.
We can map the entire network of crooked people now because of the ones complaining.
Other people don't even know what USAID was or, you know, almost nobody even understands what it is.
All right.
According to Elon Musk and the Gateway pundit, Jim Hoft, is reporting this.
He said that there's $100 billion in annual entitlement payments to people who don't have social security numbers or IDs.
And he was warned by the people who are the actual government employees that they're guessing that maybe half of it could be fraudulent.
$50 billion a year going to people who don't deserve it.
Just fraud.
Unbelievable.
And I just can't get over this.
I already talked about this, but I can't get it out of my head.
That the Social Security system was set up to...
With no mechanism for checking if one person or more than one person had the same social security number, which would be an obvious indication of fraud.
Now, how in the world?
How in the world do you build a social security database and not check for duplicates as the most basic thing it would do?
It completely boggles the mind, unless...
Unless it was designed for cheating.
It wasn't designed to stop it, that's for sure.
And then when you hear that the process is that the Treasury Department will just process anything they're asked to process, they don't check anything.
And again, I say, who would invent that process?
That the people who authorize the money don't check anything?
Anything?
You would only have that system if it was designed.
To cheat.
So, design is destiny.
Anyway, here's another great story today.
James Carville, who's just having a real tough time being a Democrat, who's not an idiot, because he really thinks he's surrounded by idiots at this point, and he's pretty outspoken about it.
But here's the fun part.
According to Fox News, Hannah Penrick.
He was on some show and he wondered aloud if there might be a plant, you know, somebody who's from the other team who's planted in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party to see how many stupid things they can embrace.
Here's his actual quote.
He goes, and it's like, let's see if I can do a James Carville.
Let's see.
I'm trying to find this find the right zone Right in Caden All right, something like that.
And it's like there's a plant somewhere in, quote, progressive, unquote, America.
That just deceives how many jackassery, stupid things that they can embrace.
It's stunningly stupid, both of them.
That's what he said.
Now, what does that remind you of?
That the Democrats are so dumb, according to a Democrat, according to a Democrat, they're so dumb that the only way you could explain it is if there's some kind of a plant, an agent that got in there just to make them say dumb stuff.
Does that sound like something you've heard before?
If you were around during the 2016 election and you heard me often, It was like a running gag for the entire election.
I kept saying, they must have a mole, a plant, a mole.
And we even gave the mole a name.
We called the mole, the mole.
So whenever I'd see something that was just like monumentally stupid coming out of the Democrats, I would tweet, back then when it was Twitter, I would tweet, the mole.
And everybody who followed me instantly knew what I was talking about.
And you didn't need to have any other comment because whatever the Democrats were doing was so stupid.
It usually was a slogan that was terrible or some persuasion trick that was the worst thing you've ever seen.
And the mole has now become the plant.
Now, talk about unity.
James Carville and I, complete agreement.
It does look like there's a mole.
So, finally, unity.
Well, Cory Booker, famous Democrat, he says, according to Daily Color News Foundation, who's reporting on this, he was asked on CNN what he thinks about the Democrats' plans going forward, and he thinks the Democrats have a good plan, and it's going to work.
it is working so is Cory Booker the mole He thinks that what they're doing is working pretty well.
How could that be a real opinion?
In what world could you say that out loud in public today?
Trump just reached his all-time highest popularity.
He's completely dissembled the Democrat Party.
The fake news is in shambles.
And getting worse.
And Cory Booker says, we're killing it.
Just keep doing what we're doing.
Now, come on.
James Carville, are you with me?
Are you with me on this, James?
That doesn't look like a real opinion.
It looks like a practical joke from the bowl.
The mole strikes again.
Anyway, as far as I can tell what the Democrat plan is, is they're going to use corrupt judges and prosecutors and lots of lawfare and crank up the propaganda.
I love that they think generic stuff works.
You know, Trump's over there saying, I'm going to cancel the penny and bring back plastic straws.
And everybody's like, yes.
Yes.
I know what a penny is.
They're dirty.
I don't like to touch them.
Pain in the ass.
Plastic straws?
I'm so happy.
My mouth is having a party just thinking about it.
Yes, plastic straws and pennies.
And then the Democrats are like, well, the democracy is at risk and there's a lot of chaos.
Seems to be some chaos and some lawlessness and maybe some bureaucracy at risk.
And none of it has any connection.
Like, none of it sticks to your brain, except maybe you can memorize the words and regurgitate them to sound smart at your next cocktail party.
Well, I've decided to start a new business.
You know, I always wanted to get deeper into the news business, so I think I could use this podcast and leverage it into maybe my own network.
But I want to...
Take the best practices from some other networks and kind of build something around that.
And I noted that MSNBC in particular, but CNN also, the way they present the news is with disgusted faces.
So it's like regular news, except disgusted, because you can't believe anybody's going to do it.
So I'll give you an example.
Here is the old boring way to read the news.
Well, President Trump signed an executive order to get rid of the penny.
The penny will no longer be used.
It's just annoying, and it gets in people's way.
So that would be normal news.
Nobody cares, right?
Now here's disgusted news.
It's the same story, but you act like you're disgusted by the white men behind it.
Here's another one.
Whoa.
Look at my little eyebrow furls.
Can you see these?
These are furled.
So white man Elon Musk and white man Donald Trump decided to kill the brown penny.
It's hard not to see the pattern, people.
I don't know if they were doing the Nazi Heil Hitler salute when they wrote the executive order, but...
I assume so.
I'm so disgusted with him.
In our next story, they're bringing back the straw, the plastic, because they hate turtles the plastic, because they hate turtles and people of color. - Sure.
I mean, I just assume if you hate turtles, Because the turtles are going to die from the plastic straws.
White men.
White men.
Hetero white men.
So that would be my whole show.
And yes, the penny is going away.
Scott Jennings is killing it on CNN as one of the few voices of wisdom.
But he's got a new attack that is so good.
Let's call this a reframe.
And Scott Jennings' attack is that one of the things that Trump is brilliantly doing is he's taking the side of 80% of the public whenever there's an 80-20 question.
How about those straws?
80-20?
I'm just guessing, but I think people like their plastic straws.
So he just keeps doing all these things, like the trans sports thing.
So he's doing all these things that the public is way in favor of, and it forces, as Scott Jennings says, it forces the Democrats to take the other side, which is why even Carville says it looks like there's something to plant.
Like, why would you take the other side of common sense every time?
It'd be bad enough if you did it even once ever, but apparently Trump can make you do it three times a week.
And you're just looking like this is a practical joke.
You couldn't possibly have these opinions.
So at the moment, the entire Democratic Party is organized to keep fraud and corruption.
I'm not making that up.
The entire motivating drive of the Democratic Party, the most important thing they're concerned with, is maintaining corruption.
Now, James Carville, come on over here.
James, does that sound like something real?
Or does it sound like a practical joke played by the mole?
It sounds like the mole.
It couldn't possibly be real.
But yes, it is.
Not only is it real, but it activated them to get on the streets.
And I don't know if you saw it, but...
Maxine Waters and Charles Schumer, they were just whipping up the crowd into a frenzy.
Fight!
Fight hard!
We'll never rest!
We'll never rest!
Rest!
And then they took a nap.
Anyway.
I guess Trump is going to have a presence on Rumble now, and Rumble is also now operating in Brazil.
And right around the same time as USAID went away, suddenly Brazil is getting a little flexible about Rumble.
Mike Benz made that observation.
And according to Elon Musk, the Department of Education is already gone.
So, I assume that means that Trump has ruled that there's no point in it.
And it will be dismantled.
Now, here's what we know.
The Department of Education has operated for 30 years.
Apparently, it was some kind of payoff that Jimmy Carter did to get the teachers' union or something on his side.
and its goal was to help the people at the lowest end of the education system, the ones who weren't thriving, to try to get them up to a level that they could be more successful in life.
It did none of that.
It succeeded not even a little bit in 30 years.
So, how popular would it be to get rid of a thing that hasn't worked once in 30 years?
I'm just going to guess.
Probably 80% of the public would like getting rid of that.
If I told you something was a...
Big expense, but didn't work?
I think you could get 80% of the people who say, yeah, let's get rid of that.
45 years, somebody says.
45 years.
So, what will Trump do?
Let's see.
80% would want to get rid of a thing that cost a lot of money, but did literally nothing.
I think you'll be in favor of that.
Yes, yes, sure enough.
Trump took the 80% aside.
What will the Democrats do?
Well, they'll probably circle the Department of Education and start singing their song.
You know the song.
Fight, fight, we will never rest.
And that should help.
Meanwhile, Trump is getting ready to put some new tariffs on steel and aluminum.
And China's going to impose a 15% tariff on U.S. energy and vehicles.
And they're going to tariff us and we're going to tariff them back.
And it's going to be terrible tariffs.
And it's going to be tariffing and tariffing.
And then they'll be negotiating.
And then maybe something good will happen?
We shall find out.
But the tariffs, there's not much to talk about until you get a few levels into the conversation and the negotiations.
So just the announcements aren't too interesting yet, but it'll get interesting.
All right, it looked like, I saw a video, I think Trump was probably on Air Force One.
He looked like he was behind that little desk they have on Air Force One.
And he was taking questions from the press that was also on the plane.
And he gets one.
So I'll just read the question and how it went, you know, the exact way.
So one of the reporters...
He says, the vice president suggested that if the Supreme Court rules in a way that you don't like, they could just enforce it by themselves.
Do you agree with that?
And Trump looks at the reporter and says, I don't even know what you're talking about.
He says, neither do you.
Who are you with?
I don't know what you're talking about.
Neither do you.
Who are you with?
And the answer is, HuffPost, sir.
And Trump says, who?
And the answer is again, Huffington Post.
And Trump goes, ah, no wonder.
He goes, I thought they were, I thought they died.
They're still around.
I haven't read them in years.
I thought they died.
And then he goes, next question.
He goes to the next person.
He just goes to the next person.
Remember I've been telling you that what you should do is not answer the question.
You should mock the question.
Right?
Do you want to say the master class?
This is the master class.
So Trump heard a question.
It sounded like I don't even know.
I don't even understand the question totally because it doesn't quite make sense to me.
But it sounds a little bit like You know, do you still beat your spouse?
It was just sort of a question to get a quote that could be used out of context.
That's what it looked like.
I think Trump smelled it from the way the question was formed.
Oh, this is just to get me out of context, to make me sound like a monster in some way.
So he just goes right after the question.
The question doesn't make sense.
I don't think you know what it means either.
Who are you with?
And then he just ignores the reporter.
Now, the funny thing is, do you remember, was it the Pentagon or was it the press briefing room?
I forget which one it was, but when they announced what new media entities would be allowed and which ones would be kind of suppressed, it was things like Breitbart and OAN were going to be getting new life.
And new access relative to Democrat rule.
And the HuffPost was on the list.
And do you remember I called that out and said, wait a minute, I understand why a bunch of, you know, Republican boosting press would be included because they've been excluded in the past.
But why would you specifically allow the Huffington Post it?
And I thought, oh, you know, maybe they're just trying to show that It's more about who's been banned than it is about left or right.
And then I see the way Trump treats it, and I think, maybe they were in there for the joke.
Maybe the Huffington Post was only included because it would be funny.
Now, I'm not saying that's true.
I'm not saying it's true.
But it looks like it could be, which is funny enough.
Anyway, the Wall Street Journal is talking about all the foreign aid, and it showed what the foreign aid is going to, the various good causes.
Now, I was so mad that I couldn't finish the article, but I'm pretty sure it never mentioned the theory that all of the choices for where the aid goes are not based on where it would help the most.
But it was based on where we want to control the country involved.
Now, if you write a story about this whole thing about foreign aid and USAID, and you do not include at least the theory, even if you say it's not true, but if you don't include the theory that is the dominant theory of the leading Republicans that USAID was really a way to...
Control other countries and set up coups and do capacity building.
Even if you say it's not true, it is the dominant opinion of representatives of half the country.
How do you leave that end of the story?
And can you trust them on any other story in the future?
That's why you have to ask yourself.
Because again, if they spend a few minutes saying, Okay, you know, there's this other theory, but we debunk it, or we don't believe it, or, you know, maybe we'll talk about it later or something.
At least acknowledge there's another side to this.
Isn't that a little suspicious?
It's a little suspicious.
All right.
So Representative Anna Polina Luna says she's got a big press conference tomorrow at 3 p.m.
Eastern Time.
And she's not saying what it is, but she says it's big.
It's going to be big.
And she's going to be joined by Chairman James Comer of the GOP Oversight.
Now, Comer is...
That's a pretty good hint to what's to come.
It feels like it has something to do with money going the wrong place.
I don't know about money.
But it probably has something to do with somebody's money going in the wrong place and probably somebody being a corrupt criminal.
So I love the tease on this.
I'm all curious now.
If I had to guess, it won't be nearly as exciting as we think it will be.
But I love the build-up.
It's good theater.
Here's a story that I'm going to tell you only because I'm going to tell you it does not look credible, okay?
So, I wouldn't mention this, except I'm worried that some of you will believe it.
Otherwise, it would be too icky to even mention, and it would be unfair to mention.
But, there's a story on at least the internet that Governor Josh Shapiro, he's a Democrat, Pennsylvania, That he was somehow involved in planning the assassination attempt in Butler.
And there's allegedly some former Pennsylvania state police employee who's a whistleblower who claims can make that case.
Now, what do I always tell you about the one whistleblower stories that are damning to one side or the other side?
You cannot believe a one whistleblower story.
You just have to, as much as you want to, or as entertaining as it might be, you just have to have a standard about that.
The one whistleblower is how pretty much all the bullshit starts.
Oh, I heard the president say in front of a general that soldiers are suckers and losers.
Really?
Like anybody would say that in front of a general.
It's so obviously not true.
And yet, you got that one whistleblower.
One person said they saw it.
I got that one anonymous source.
So a whistleblower is a little better than an anonymous source.
But until you've got something else...
Yeah, and at this point, the whistleblower is also anonymous.
I don't believe this.
So I would put this in the...
What are the odds?
The odds of this being true are really, really low.
So just keep that in mind.
All right.
So apparently CNN is reporting that some of the top military leaders are getting together to figure out how to not obey orders from the president or from secretary of defense if they don't agree with the orders.
Now, That's the way the story is being framed.
It's stuff they don't agree with.
But wouldn't it be things they think are illegal?
They do have the right to disobey an illegal order.
Is that right?
I want to make sure that's a real thing and not just something I imagined.
The military is completely within the right, are they not, to disobey an illegal order.
So let's say the order was...
Go murder that village of civilians just to make a point.
They could refuse that order, couldn't they?
So I suppose if you ask them, they would just say, no, no, we're only talking about if there's an illegal order.
We want to know how we'd handle it.
So I don't know how to interpret this yet, but if it's purely political, As in, we just don't want the president to succeed, so we're trying to figure out how to slow him down.
That's not cool.
And if this were shown to be true, I would imagine Trump and Hegseth would just make sure all those generals got different assignments, which might happen anyway.
So we'll see.
But I think I'll give the military the benefit of a doubt.
They earned it, right?
We respect the military.
So I'm going to give them the benefit of a doubt in this story, until something proves otherwise, that they're just making sure they don't do any illegal orders.
Let's give them the benefit of a doubt.
All right, you heard the story about the L.A. fire recoveries are the Steve Soberoff.
So there's a story that he once said some mean things about Trump supporters or said they were too white.
I don't know.
Is that mean?
Depends what the context was, saying they're too white.
And Breitbart's writing about this.
And apparently he was going to get half a million dollars for three months of advising.
But when you hear that, you say, oh, no, it's another scam.
Which is my first thought.
Now, his defense is that when he agreed to take the assignment, he said, okay, I've been helping the city in a bunch of ways.
I've got a long history of advising for free.
But when I was doing it for free, it wasn't going to take my full time.
And I have real work to do.
So apparently he said, this is different.
If I'm going to be full time for three months on this, some compensation would be appropriate.
But I won't do it if that money comes out of the fire relief.
So allegedly, there was some charity that stepped in and said, we'll pay you.
And then when that became problematic, because people complained he was getting paid, then apparently he said, all right, they'll do it for free.
So this is one of those stories where it's hard to parse out exactly what's true, but I think it's worth seeing his side.
I think you should hear his side of it, which is, he said, absolutely not if money is coming from the fire relief.
Some charity said they'd pay him.
He said yes.
When it became a problem, he said, okay, then I'll do it for free.
Again, I think there's some room for some, you know, just give them the benefit of a doubt.
Now, the thing that I worry about in one of these situations, Is that it's a way to funnel the relief money to cronies.
And then maybe there's some way that somebody gets a piece of it later.
So I'm not worried about him getting paid or not getting paid.
To me, that wasn't the biggest problem.
The biggest problem is, did the Mayor Bass pick somebody who would make sure that the right job got done?
And since he hasn't done the job and we haven't seen where the money is allocated yet, let's be open-minded to that.
But man, if we don't have somebody watching where the money is going and if some of it goes to cronies, that would be the most predictable thing that could happen.
So we should be watching for that.
Well, Trump says he's not happy.
He's losing patience with the slow release of the Hamas hostages.
They are being released, but I guess slower than schedule.
And saying that you're losing patience is, again, good negotiating.
He didn't say something he would do.
He just opens up this possibility that as much as they want the hostages to come back, if we're getting played, you know, there's going to be a change in attitude.
And that attitude could be a change in action.
So it's good to set that standard.
Yeah, this isn't working.
You guys need to do yours.
If you don't do your end, you can't guarantee we'll do our end.
I like that.
Net Yahoo is all in on Trump's idea of the U.S., or at least the idea of it, of the U.S. taking some control of the Gaza area, which solves the problem of Israel taking control.
So it doesn't look like Israel gained territory because it would be owned by America under this plan.
And Netanyahu says that, I guess he was on Mark Levin's show, and he said it's the first fresh idea in years, and everything that everybody else has talked about would just recreate the problem.
Oh, destroy Gaza, rebuild it, put the surviving people back in it.
They recreate the problem.
Fast forward 10 years, destroy Gaza.
So nobody had any idea.
But Netanyahu, quite right, I would say, agreeing that Trump shaking the box that hard and coming up with the first fresh idea is at least causing people to think differently.
Maybe Egypt will act differently.
Maybe something will happen.
But here's my take on this.
What kind of strategy could possibly work when the problem is how the people have been programmed?
They've been, I'll say, brainwashed for a deadly philosophy.
Now, I heard somebody say, oh, well, maybe you have to do something with the adult males, but couldn't you rebuild and let the women who have really small children?
You know, they're not bothering anybody, so how about let them at least resettle somewhere?
That would never work.
What do you think those women are going to teach their children?
And aren't they ever going to meet their uncle?
And won't they have access to the internet?
So, in theory, there is no way to deprogram these people, and they're going to have the China problem.
The reason that the China...
What would you call it?
Quarantines the Uyghurs in something that we call a prison camp and they say is re-education, I guess.
But in either event, they keep them separate from the regular public, almost like a virus.
So the way they treated the flu or the COVID was basically the same way they're treating the Uyghurs.
So one is a physical virus and the other is a mental one.
And it could spread.
Because if they...
Teach other people the same philosophy, then China has an Islam problem that they don't want to have.
So I'm not saying what's right or wrong or what's moral or ethical.
I'm just saying what's what.
So China treats Islam like a virus.
And how long will they keep the Uyghur camps?
Probably until there's no Uyghurs.
Because there's nothing to do if you let the virus out.
Now, I hate to call one religion a virus, but it's not religion.
It's not Islam.
It's this very specific brand of it in this one, mostly one region more than any place else.
So you can't say Islam's a problem.
You can say, you know, this brand of it is.
So, what can Israel do to solve the same problem?
That the people carry the...
The mental structure in their heads that is the danger to you in the future.
You can't brainwash them because that would be like a war crime.
I mean, I think it would look like a war crime.
You can't threaten them because, again, you know, it's like women and children.
What are you going to do?
You can't kill them all.
That would be genocide, war crime, worst thing you could do.
And you can't keep them in a prison camp because it would become a permanent scar on Israel.
So all the things that are possible to do won't work.
And even Trump's plan doesn't have any chance of working.
You know that, right?
It might be a better step forward than anything they're doing.
It probably is.
But it's not a plan that could work because you still have all the people.
Where are those people going to go while it's being rebuilt?
And what percentage of them are going to be let back in, even if it's 10 years from now?
If they let the same people back in 10 years from now, it will just recreate the problem.
If you think that they could do vetting and they could find out who's not an extremist, I don't think you could do that in a real world.
How in the world could you stop the bad guys from coming in behind the good guys and then co-opting the good guys just the way the bad guys did every time?
What possible mechanism could stop it?
So, here's what might be the only thing they can do.
To say that they've got a long-term solution and then just keep putting it off.
I don't think there's any other plan.
You pretend you have a solution, and maybe you are in fact cleaning up Gaza, and maybe you are in fact building new structures.
But the part about moving the Gaza residents back in, I feel like that's going to just keep getting put off.
And I think they're going to treat it like a quarantine.
They just won't call it that, and they'll keep saying, yeah, any day now we're going to be moving you back into this other thing.
But...
If you want to go to another country, we'll let you.
But if they go to another country, aren't they just going to reconstitute?
They'll just be in another country.
So, yeah, I don't see any solutions, honestly, except for indefinitely pushing it forward, kicking the can down the road.
Might be the best thing they can do.
There's a Canadian Union of Public Employees, according to True North.
That thinks that Canada should nationalize any important industries that might want to leave Canada for the United States.
So, nationalizing important industries like Venezuela did?
Like the Soviet Union did?
Like North Korea does?
That's coming out of Canada?
I'll tell you.
What the hell happened to Canada?
Anyway, here's another story that I take with a grain of salt.
So the Daily Wire, Ryan Saavedra, is reporting that Iran may have placed some terrorists in place in the U.S. with surfaced air missiles to take down Trump's plane.
Now, this reporting is coming from a book.
So there's a new upcoming book called Revenge, the inside story of Trump's return to power.
And it's written by a Politico reporter.
Ding, ding.
Ding, ding.
Politico.
Huh.
Have they been in the news lately?
Yes.
For their parent company, taking $8 million a year from USAID, which some observers say...
Is to make sure Politico says bad things about Trump.
But a Politico reporter writes a book and he says that he was given extensive access to Trump's inner circle.
And he said law enforcement officials warned Trump last year that Tehran had placed operatives in the U.S. with access to surfaced air missiles and that Trump's team was worried that the Iranians could try to down the Trump jet.
As it was taking off and landing.
Now, apparently, on one situation, Trump took a decoy plane, and the real plane only had some of his aides on it.
That's right.
They thought it was too dangerous for the president to be on the plane, because there were reports that it might get shot down.
But he did allow some of his aides to be on the plane.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to put a few people on the other plane, or put them all on the other plane?
Why did you leave a few on the death plane?
Anyway, so it didn't happen.
So here's what you need to know.
When there's a dirty trick coming from the dirty trick people, let's say USAID, which coincidentally funds Politico, which coincidentally is the employer of this guy who wrote the book.
Do you remember a little thing called Russiagate and the Russia collusion hoax?
Do you remember that it was a twofer?
So the deep state could blame Russia at the same time they could get Trump out of office.
They get two good things.
Put more pressure on Russia so that they could sell more weapons and go harder at Russia and we'd have more reasons.
But also, It would get rid of Trump.
But now, we're hearing a story that Tehran had a secret plan to do something that would be so bad for Iran that only the mole would have suggested that Iran do it.
Because under any scenario, if we found out that Iranian agents took out Trump, there would be a major war with Iran.
Huh.
It sounds exactly like the Russia collusion hoax, except it's the Iranian missile to air hoax.
Huh.
And it comes from a source I would consider non-credible.
Now, do you see the pattern?
How many of you would have seen the pattern?
That if it's the deep state, they like to get a twofer.
Blame a country you want to go to war with, and then also take out...
Trump.
Same play.
Now let me ask you this.
Again, going back to Iran.
Do you think that Iran would want to do an op to take out Trump that would really be obviously aimed at them and we wouldn't know who did it eventually?
Do you think that they would see that as good for their own interests?
It's completely opposite of anything they've ever done.
Because even though they do lots of things we don't like, they all make sense.
Like, they're not irrational.
They're not self-destructive in a national way.
They all make sense in their own little way, you know?
They're trying to become the dominant power in the Middle East.
They did a bunch of things that a rational person would say, pretty good try.
Pretty good try.
You did a good job.
Putting your will on Iraq?
Yeah, you're good at this.
If they had taken out Trump in a way that was obviously connected back to them, how in the world would they have thought that was a good idea for Iran?
How in the world?
They wouldn't.
Yeah, they wouldn't.
So, to me, it looks like it...
Now, the other possibility is that...
It was a setup so that if somebody in the United States wanted to kill Trump, which we do worry about, they would have a Patsy setup.
Kind of convenient, isn't it?
Oh, if somebody's going to get killed, let's blame Cuba.
Yeah, let's blame Cuba or Russia.
Remember when Kennedy was killed?
Who did we blame?
Russia?
And then Cuba?
The two that we wanted to keep a warlike stance to anyway?
Do you see the pattern?
So I don't trust anything about this story.
I can't say with 100% certainty that it's all false.
There might be some true elements to it.
But we don't live in a world where you could trust this sort of thing.
It just falls into such an obvious pattern.
That if the pattern wasn't so obvious, you know, maybe I'd say, well, it might be true.
Anyway, according to Just the News, Natalia Middlestadt, air traffic controllers say the FAA's hiring practices and their immunity program, which just means they're not going to fire people for making mistakes, is what led to the D.C. plane crash.
So the immunity program, like I said, I don't know the details, but it's something along the lines of not holding people accountable for the mistakes.
But apparently at one point, their hiring process changed from a cognitive and skills-based testing, so basically how smart and fast they were, to a biographical survey.
What?
You're going to pick people who are going to keep me alive with their quick thinking and quick skills, and the way you're going to select them is by their biographical information?
You mean biographical as in, are you diverse?
I think that's what it means.
So if you're diverse, you don't have to have the cognitive and skills-based testing?
Are they saying that kind of directly?
Because it sounds like they're saying that directly.
I don't know.
But I remind you that the most reasonable thing to say about DEI and any potential it has to have caused trouble is that it's almost impossible to say that a specific problem was from DEI. That's just almost always going to be going too far.
You can't make that connection.
Usually there's not going to be a direct line.
But you could certainly say that the design of DEI guarantees problems that you wouldn't have had otherwise.
So it guarantees there would be more crashes.
It just doesn't specify which ones and when.
All right.
So according to the Daily Mail, Rob Woe was writing that, let's see, who is it?
Dr. Stephen Greer.
He's one of the UFO driving forces behind the idea that the government has a bunch of UFOs.
They've got a bunch of alien ships and stuff.
And he says that any minute now, Trump's going to open the gates and we're going to find out, oh, the whistleblowers are going to come forward.
There are going to be so many UFOs and ships and finally our full knowledge of all things alien is going to come out and...
Nothing like that's going to happen.
This is the most certain I will ever be about any story.
No, there's not going to be a bunch of revelations about flying saucers.
No.
No.
If anything gets released, it's going to be that we don't know anything about anything.
That might get released.
But no, we're not going to admit we have even one alien ship.
because we don't.
And yeah, so that's not going to happen.
Anyway, that's what I got for you today.
I'm going to...
Yeah, there's something about the helicopter pilot turning off one of their systems that should have been on.
Yeah, I saw that too.
But again, that doesn't mean that it's a specific DEI problem.
People make mistakes, right?
Everybody makes a mistake.
So if there's a presence of a mistake...
And even if there's a person involved, that's not a DEI problem.
There's just not enough dots to connect it to one person.
You can just know that people make mistakes.
All right.
I'm going to say privately a few words to the people on Locals and the rest of you.