Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Fully Propagandized Democrats, Micro-Drone Technology, Robby Starbuck, SNAP Program Soda, Biden DOJ Attorneys, President Trump's Negotiating Skill, Negotiation Process, Biden 20B Climate Change Funding, Border Cartels Laser Pointers, DOGE Social Security, DataRepublican Analysis, Elon Musk, Low Fidelity Simulations, DOGE $5K Taxpayer Refunds, Mexico Meth Seizure, Trump's Weight Loss, In-Vitro Fertilization, Delaware Incorporations, General Milley J6, Color Revolution Protest Funding, Certain Doom Government Spending, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topicsto build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a canteen jug or a glass or a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go. Exceptional.
Excelsior.
You know who says that?
Excelsior.
Stanley used to say that.
You know, I don't know about you, This is kind of weird.
Just start off with something weird.
Ever since Trump stole my democracy, everything seems exactly the same.
I'm trying to figure out what's going on.
Because I know my democracy is gone, but I wake up and everything looks a lot like it used to look.
What am I supposed to be experiencing?
Should I be losing my right to vote?
Could it be some bodily autonomy I lost?
I don't remember losing any.
Well, it's quite the tragedy, having no democracy, but so far, I'm struggling through.
I hope the rest of you are making it.
Are you all surviving your complete lack of democracy?
Oh, man.
Let's talk about some news.
Let's call this Backwards Science.
Backwards Science.
According to Medical Express News, in a study at the University of Sheffield, Sean Barden is writing, there's this video game called Counter-Strike.
I've never heard of it, but apparently it's a very popular video game.
It's a first-person shooter kind of a game.
And what they found was, the scientists found, At the University School of Psychology, that the experienced and highly skilled players of that game are faster at decision-making and executing a response.
So they speculate that maybe if you got people to play more video games, they would also become faster decision-makers and faster at executing a response.
Does that sound right?
Not to me.
To me, that sounds like backwards science.
Backwards science.
Well, let me put it this way.
When I was 12 years old, I tried playing football, you know, because everybody plays every sport when you're a boy.
And I very quickly realized that football would not be my strength.
That no matter how much I practiced, the football...
I was never really going to be a great football player.
I didn't really have the body or the brain for it, luckily, so I didn't get any brain damage.
But at also about 12 years old, I played tennis for the first time with, I think, with my mother, with a couple of rackets that we bought at Sears that were already strung.
Back before I knew that stringing the racket right made a difference.
And the moment I started hitting a tennis ball, I said to myself, Huh.
I don't know.
Might be in my imagination.
But it seems like I could be kind of good at this.
Because my hand-eye coordination was good.
And so, for the rest of my entire life, until recently, I was a tennis player.
And sure enough, for somebody who just plays on weekends and is a casual player, I got to a pretty high level for a casual player.
And so here's what I discovered.
People do more of what they like and what they're good at.
And the thing that makes you like something is being extra good at it.
Nobody likes to lose.
If you sat me down in front of this shooter game and I knew in five minutes that I would never really be good at it because I didn't have fast reactions, I wouldn't play again.
It would bore me.
I'd be like, oh, well, lost again.
Oh, lost again.
But if I sat down and right away I said, oh, I feel like I can be good at this, then I would play it a lot until I found out I wasn't good at it, perhaps.
So I think the science is backwards here.
I think the people who just naturally have fast decision-making and execution are drawn to video games.
What do you think?
Which way do you think it works?
I will use my telepathy to hear your response.
Yeah, you're right.
Well, yesterday I did a little post.
It was based on an encounter I had with an individual who saw me walking by and flagged me down and wanted to talk about politics.
I may have mentioned this to some of you.
And here's the post I wrote after that encounter.
Now, the reason I'm reading it to you is that in one day it has garnered 24 million views.
It's going up something like a million views an hour.
Now, for reference, a typical post of mine might get 70,000 views.
24 million doesn't happen unless Elon Musk reposts it, which he didn't.
So I couldn't find any big accounts to repost it.
It looks like this just has some kind of a nerve with people that they all understood it.
And that's the point I'm going to go for.
So here's what I posted yesterday.
They got 24 million views so far.
I said, I just met someone.
I said, today I learned that being a Democrat requires talking over anyone who knows what is real.
I just met someone who is sure Hunter's laptop is fake, Trump was never shot in the ear, and there is no evidence Hunter was running a criminal operation.
I didn't make a dent.
Now, Why would 24 million people agree with that?
Because you think, well, that's just that one person, right?
It's just one person who talked over me.
No, it's because every one of you had the same experience, multiple times.
As soon as you start a conversation about Trump, you get really angry, loud, yelling over whatever you're saying.
So here's an example.
There's no way he got a shot in the air.
And I'd say, well, Actually, I know somebody personally who saw him soon after the event, and he actually took the bandage off and showed the hole in his ear.
And he said, no, it didn't happen.
I go, no, what I'm saying is somebody I know very well, personally, personally told me that Trump showed him his ear and that there was a hole in it.
Ah, but where'd all the bullets go?
If there were really bullets, Where'd all the other bullets go?
And I said, well, one of them went into the body of a guy who died.
Ah, rah, rah, rah, and then changed the topic.
But not once did he think, oh, maybe I got that wrong.
So yeah, he thought the Hunter laptop was definitely fake.
Oh my God, of course that was fake.
And he thought that there was no evidence Hunter was running a criminal operation.
And I said, You know, there's no other reason to have 20 shell companies that don't have any physical location and no form of business.
And yet, he's like, yeah, but there's no evidence, no evidence.
I said, but you know that they've tracked the actual payments through bank accounts all the way into Joe Biden's pocket, right?
Bah, bah, bah, bah, talk over, talk over.
So it was just impossible.
It was literally impossible to get through.
Now, my main point is not that there's one person who had this point of view or this approach.
My point is, have you ever noticed, if you've been around addicts or especially alcoholics, that there's something they have in common?
Have you ever noticed that?
And people who are on certain kinds of medications, have you noticed that they can form a common kind of personality?
The commonality of this, the fact that so many people are having a very specific, weird character situation.
I wouldn't call it character.
It's more like behavioral.
So that people are having this very specific behavioral change that they can't listen and they have to talk over you really loudly.
That is an indication of brainwashing.
The way you know that there's an external force that's operating on a bunch of people in the same way is that they have this very specific kind of reaction to it.
That's a real big tell.
So in the same way that you've probably heard it said that all addicts lie.
Have you ever heard that?
If you haven't heard it, you can be really happy I told you.
Because sooner or later you're going to run into an addict who lies.
And even the addicts will tell you.
Even the addicts will tell you, yeah, you know, if we have to, we're going to lie.
So that's a very specific behavioral thing, right?
And it's because there's this very specific force that is affecting the same people in the same way.
So yes, it is brainwashing.
There's absolutely no doubt about it, in my opinion.
There's no doubt about it.
It's a brainwashing effect.
Meanwhile, Eric Nolan, writing for SIPOS, says there's a new study on despair.
And how it affects voter turnout.
You'll be very surprised to hear that people who are suicidal and in despair are less likely to vote.
Well, surprising.
You know what they could have done to save some time and money?
They could have just asked me, Scott, do people who are experiencing despair, are they motivated to do really anything?
And I would say, no.
Despair really does not motivate you.
Doesn't motivate you to vote.
Doesn't motivate you to get a promotion.
Doesn't motivate you to work harder.
Doesn't motivate you to get married.
Despair doesn't motivate you to do anything.
Just ask me next time.
I can do this.
Save you a lot of time and money.
Well, there's a breakthrough battery circuit design for tiny little drones.
According to interesting engineering.
Now, the reason I like to mention all the battery stuff for drones is because it lets you predict the future.
If you know what's happening with batteries in all kinds of ways, that will tell you absolutely what the next 20 or 30 years look like.
And if you wondered, will there ever be tiny little drones that are the size of a fingernail?
And the answer is, now there will.
This specific breakthrough is for tiny drones, micro drones.
And researchers at University of California, San Diego, and CEA, LETI, whatever that is, they've got a novel circuit design that makes the power last a lot longer for a micro drone.
A lot longer.
So it's a big deal.
One of the examples they gave is if a building crumbles and they want to find survivors, There might not be enough room for a regular drone to be flying through.
But the micro drones could just sort of fill all the spaces and look for survivors and sense things.
Now, that's the good news.
The bad news is somebody can send a micro drone right into your house.
That thing could be flying around in your house for an hour, and you wouldn't even probably hear it because it's a micro drone.
So the privacy implications are pretty extreme.
Pretty extreme.
Robbie Starbuck is writing that...
So there's a program in the United States called the SNAP program.
It's for providing money for food, groceries, for people who need a little extra help.
And Robbie Starbuck is pointing out that the SNAP program spends $115 billion a year.
But about 10% of it goes to soda.
So people can buy what they want, I guess, within limits.
It's got to be food or drink.
But a lot of people are buying Coca-Cola and Pepsi.
So Big Soda is getting nearly $11.5 billion a year just from the government's program on what to, you know, helping people buy food and beverages.
Now, so I think they're looking to, you know, I think there might be some effort to scale that back so you can't buy food that's bad for you.
But here's the problem.
On paper, this was always going to go that way because soda is addictive.
So if you add the addictive nature of soda, and I know this because I was very addicted to Diet Coke for decades.
It took me a long time to get off it.
If you have an addictive substance in a grocery store and you give people free money, That they can use in the way they want in the grocery store.
They're going to buy the addictive substance.
There's no way around that.
So if you didn't prevent that from the start, who couldn't see that coming?
Like, who in the world couldn't?
Now, on the other hand, you don't want to be the nanny state and tell people what they can and cannot have.
But I would think that the exception would be what they can have with my money.
If they're spending their own money, do whatever you want.
Get the soda.
But if you're spending my money, well, maybe I don't want you to have the soda.
Maybe I think you should get a potato.
Anyway.
You probably heard that Trump's going to order all the Biden-era attorneys, U.S. attorneys, to be fired.
He says, we must clean house immediately, Fox News is reporting.
And he says the Justice Department has been weaponized and politicized against him.
You know, Given the degree of obvious lawfare that we saw, I'm 100% in favor of this.
In a more functional world, where you could depend on attorneys to just do the job of attorneys and not be political, I would be totally against it.
But the attorneys, not all of them, of course, but enough of the attorneys have shown that they're not really playing for anything but a team.
They have to go.
And if the best you can do is replace them with your own cronies who will then, of course, be fired in three and a half years, four years, it's the best you can do.
So yeah, I'm in favor of that.
Well, meanwhile, let's talk about Trump's negotiating skills.
This is my favorite topic.
The reason I like it is that it reminds me how many people don't know how to negotiate.
I did negotiating for a job.
Back in my corporate days, it was my job to negotiate contracts.
And, of course, I studied hypnosis and persuasion and stuff, so I have a unique insight into it.
So it's fun to watch Trump work.
So right now, there's a team of, I guess, Americans talking to a team of Russians about what to do about Ukraine.
Now, what do you think is going to come out of that?
Let me tell you what's going to come out of it.
Absolutely nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
So is that bad news?
Is it bad news that this team of people are probably going to work for who knows how long?
Yeah, they're in Saudi Arabia now.
And nothing will get done.
So that's all bad, right?
Nope.
Nope.
If you understand negotiating, there's a thing that's happening.
I call it softening up the room.
Once you get Russia and most of the United States and Europe and everybody else to think that there's no way to get a deal, when it's absolutely impossible, that's when Trump comes in.
Because Trump's the only one who can get both sides to give something up.
Nobody else can do that.
The people who are the underlings have orders from whoever sent them.
Don't give up anything.
Of course.
You think Putin told his team?
All right, if you have to, give this up.
No, he didn't.
He said, don't give anything up.
And what did Trump tell his team?
Okay, if you have to, you know, you can back off on this.
No, he didn't say that.
He said, you can't give him anything.
You tell him what you want, and that's it.
And then you see if he can get it.
Now, how in the world is that going to work?
Underlings cannot negotiate, because the underlings can't make the tough decisions.
That's why they're the underlings.
What you're trying to do is exhaust each other.
You want to reach the point of, uh-oh, this is actually impossible.
It looks like it's forever war.
Oh, God, we really, really wanted this to end, but it doesn't look like there's any path.
There's just no way we can get there.
And then Trump calls Putin.
And Trump and Putin say, all right, here's the deal.
We're not going to get anywhere unless we both give up a little something.
Here's what I need you to give up.
Maybe he says what he needs you to give up.
And then they make a deal.
But you have to exhaust everybody and make it look impossible before the real people come in and make a deal.
Now, what the negotiators could do, and maybe this is useful, they could find out maybe what's completely off the table.
And maybe they can't even find that out.
But they might at least...
Raise some new ideas, maybe.
Maybe something will come up that nobody said before.
So Trump and Putin will both be a little bit better informed about what looks practical and possible by the time they talk.
But nothing's going to happen.
Nothing's going to happen until the two of them talk.
That's the only negotiating.
Everything else is theater and exhaustion and what I call softening the room.
So softening the room.
Here's a negotiating tactic.
I used to write about this when I was in the corporate world, going to a meeting and everybody's got an idea about what it is we should do, and the ideas are not that good, and they argue and they argue and they argue.
If I had a better idea, in my own opinion, I'd wait until the last 10 minutes that we have the room scheduled for, and then after everybody's so frustrated that they can't get anything done, that's when I drop my idea.
I go, you know.
You could do this.
And everybody's so exhausted and they don't want to talk about it anymore.
They just want to be done in 10 minutes.
They've got some other meeting to go to and everybody will look at me and say, well, that might work.
The number of times I did that, the last 10 minute strategy, it's called softening the room.
I just wait till the room is softened up and then I give them the solution.
Trump's going to do that.
So the top D.C. prosecutor, this is reported in The Hill, the top D.C. prosecutor is resigning at the EPA. Oh, because the EPA, not at the EPA, because the EPA is seeking a criminal probe of Biden's climate funding.
So what this is about, $20 billion went out the door to several climate-related entities, just as the Biden administration was ending.
The accusation is that they were really just trying to park it with maybe their cronies or they were just trying to make sure that Trump didn't have it available to him or they just really liked climate change and wanted to make sure it was fully funded and it was hard to get back that money.
I guess Lee Zeldin is trying to get it back anyway.
So the top D.C. prosecutor resigned rather than opening some kind of a criminal...
Investigation of how that $20 billion got transferred in what looks like a hasty and maybe sketchy way.
But I've got this question.
What is the crime?
I get that it's sketchy, and I get that it's suboptimal, and I get that it's sort of a political weasel thing to do, but was there a crime?
And if I were a top prosecutor, And somebody said, go investigate this crime.
And I said, what crime?
And they said, well, there's no crime, but I think if you look around, you might find one.
I don't know.
I might resign.
I might resign.
So, I assume that most of these things are purely political and has nothing to do with principle.
I mean, it's kind of hard to imagine anybody's operating a principle at this point.
But I would like to see a little more indication of a crime before I see The investigation.
Now, I assume in the real world, sometimes there are investigations under the assumption that there's probably a crime.
But I don't know where that standard starts and ends.
But I'm a little worried.
I don't want the team that I'm backing to be doing unrestricted lawfare.
Now, even if it's getting revenge, nope, not good enough.
So this might be totally appropriate, and I'm definitely concerned about this $20 billion.
I would definitely like it to be clawed back.
I definitely think it looks sketchy.
But is there a crime?
I'm going to need to hear there was a crime for me to be in favor of this.
Department of Homeland Security helicopters have been getting struck by lasers near the Mexican border, so presumably that's the cartel.
Fox News, Michael Lee is reporting on this.
And I guess they've been targeted by lasers about six times.
Now, lasers meaning not a laser weapon, but like a laser pointer.
Apparently, if you point that at a pilot, it can blind them.
So even though it might not do it, if you were closer to it, there's something about the distance, I guess, that could make it blind the pilot.
So it's very, very dangerous.
And it's an attack.
So even though it's not the kind of laser that slices the plane in half, or the helicopter in this case, it's deadly.
It's potentially deadly.
And the question I wonder is, I wonder if it would be legal to respond with deadly force.
Now, I think this helicopter probably wasn't armed, but if it were a military helicopter, and it's near the border, but it's on our side, and somebody lasers it, Could you not treat that as a military attack and just light them up and just take out?
Because they know where it comes from.
I mean, they can literally see the laser origin part.
I'd be in favor of military action.
So to me, that would seem entirely justified.
I mean, I don't care if it's a teenager who thinks it's funny.
If you're trying to take down an aircraft and it's our aircraft and it's armed, yes, it can kill you.
That seems entirely fair to me.
So we'll see where that goes.
So I was asking the other day about the discrepancies in the Social Security database that Doge found.
And I think a lot of people were interpreting it as that they found corruption because there was indication that there were a lot of death fields that were...
Set to false or something, as if they never died.
And it would give you the indication that there were Social Security numbers that can be used for illegal, devious, corrupt purposes of people who were actually dead for a long time.
Now, when I asked for a clarification on that, I got a good clarification from Data Republican on X. Now, that's an account you should follow.
I always tell you, you should follow the explainers.
They're the valuable ones.
You know, the Mike Benz, the Glenn Greenwald, and I'm going to add Data Republican.
It's one word, Data Republican, if you're on X. She's just a great analyst.
So she does with data just a tremendous job.
And so she gave this answer, which Elon said exactly.
So we know that Musk agrees with this exact interpretation.
Now, how valuable is that?
That's really valuable that I've got this question.
Data Republican gives me this good answer that I'm going to read to you.
And then Elon says, yes, that's exactly right.
Like, how in the world?
And then the rest of you get to read it, so you get the benefit from that interaction.
The fact that Musk personally can tell you that something is on point or not, that's just, it's mind-blowing.
It's just absolutely mind-blowing that this is even possible.
Anyway, Data Republican answered my question about the Social Security database and said, I believe the most accurate interpretation is that the Social Security Administration lacks a reliable and consistent source of truth, making its records inherently flawed.
Without an authoritative and accurate data set, internal audits and reported figures on benefit recipients cannot be fully trusted.
So the problem is...
Not that they found a specific dollar amount of crime.
The problem is you wouldn't know if there was crime there or not.
That's a really big problem.
So yeah, it needs to be solved, but you can't put a dollar amount on it.
So that's what I wondered.
I wondered how you could put a dollar amount on it.
Meanwhile, Meta created, as you know, the Metaverse, and we saw the first ad for it.
That showed what the metaverse, it's a virtual reality kind of world, that Zuckerberg is trying to make big.
So he's been working on this for a number of years.
He's got $60 billion into it so far.
And they showed, and they've been working since 2020. So $60 billion.
I think it might be the major, possibly the major thing that Meta is working on.
And they released their first advertisement.
And it was so pathetic that they had to pull the advertisement.
It was just on Instagram, and it showed the little virtual reality world, as if you were looking at it, if you were in the virtual reality.
And the characters looked like cartoons with movements that looked like it had not been well planned.
So it was people sitting in a chair who just literally looked like cartoons.
And their arms would be floating like this.
Why?
Now, here's the problem.
That might be, it might be an example of the very height of what virtual reality can do.
Because, you know, there are limits on hardware, there's limits on processors, there's limits on memory.
If you take into consideration all the physical computing limits, trying to create a full It's really hard to do.
So it might have been just the best that can be done with current technology.
However, it has the very bad luck of coming at the same time that AI can produce photorealistic images on demand.
So my brain, just like almost every one of you, says, Wait a minute.
There's a virtual reality product that they plunked $60 billion into it, one of the top technology companies in the entire world, and it doesn't look like it's photorealistic?
Your brain just can't accept that.
So even if it might be the very best you could do within that domain, and it's not equivalent to AI giving you a three-second clip of something photorealistic, those are entirely different levels of complexity.
But my brain can't accept a cartoony, weird floating person once I've seen what AI can do.
Now, I don't know if AI can ever fix what's happening with virtual reality.
I think the challenges are completely different there.
But that is really bad luck.
But here's the fun part.
So, looking at these characters from the outside, I can tell that they just look like cartoons.
But what do the characters, if the characters were, let's say, autonomous, what would they think of each other?
Would they think, oh, there's a low-resolution character that must be created by a computer?
Or would it say, there's a high-resolution character that looks normal just like I am?
Well, the answer is it depends how you code it.
So it might be one line of code to say each character imagines that everything they see is high fidelity.
That's it.
The character just has to think it's seeing high fidelity.
You just program it so it does.
It doesn't have to see high fidelity.
It only has to think it does.
And then it will argue to its death that it can see detail.
And it would never know the difference.
So, if we were a simulation, and we were also low fidelity, is it possible that we wouldn't know it?
Because we're programmed to think it's high fidelity.
Well, let me take it to the next level.
Everything in my room right now is high fidelity as far as I know.
But I can't see it.
The only thing I know is high fidelity is...
Maybe a few words that I'm looking at in the comments as they go by.
Everything else is sort of imagined high fidelity.
See what I mean?
I imagine it's high fidelity, but I'm not even looking at it.
It's not registering in any way in my brain, but my brain is programmed to think that I sort of do see it.
It's so easy to program a character to think it's high fidelity, but the only high fidelity is what they're really, really focusing on in this narrow little cone.
Because that's the only part your brain is dealing with.
So it could be, if we were a simulation, the only high fidelity is this narrow cone of whatever we're really focusing on at the moment, and everything else is low fidelity.
We wouldn't know the difference.
I know you love that simulation talk.
Well, Elon Musk said he's going to talk to Trump about the idea of refunding at the rate of $5,000 apiece to taxpayers.
Some of the Doge savings.
So they saved $55 billion so far.
And if they only gave a portion of that back to taxpayers, somebody says $5,000 a piece.
I'm looking at an article in Tech Times by Isaiah Richard.
But here's the obvious question that people in the comments were saying, and I said immediately.
I thought the point of Doge was to reduce our deficit.
I didn't think it was creating a piggy bank that could be doled down.
Now, I like the fact that people could get $5,000.
I mean, that would make a really big difference to a lot of people.
It's a big deal.
But I feel like it might create a precedent where everybody thinks that the Doge savings are a new piggy bank.
I'm already worried.
That Congress looks at the Doge savings as, ooh, that's money we didn't have to spend before, but he's reduced our expenses by $100 billion, so I guess I have another $100 billion to spend.
That's not how it's supposed to work.
So here's the argument for it, though.
The argument in favor of it is that voters are not really following the politics very carefully.
They know there's a Doge.
And they may have heard some good things about it and some bad things about it.
If you wanted them to be on board with Doge before it does the hard stuff, like the Pentagon budget, the Social Security, the healthcare budgets, you might want to bribe them.
I can say bribe, but it wouldn't be illegal.
It would be all transparent.
You might want to say, hey, Doge is so cool, here's $5,000.
And then suddenly, Your Doge approval would go from, I think it's over 50%, but it would hit 60-plus percent almost immediately because people would say, I don't know much about this, but I just got a check for $5,000.
So keep going, Elon.
Maybe I'll get another check.
So if you're looking at it from a persuasion perspective to make it easier for Doge to get the final work done, the big savings, to sort of soften the room, as it were, This would be a way to do it.
Now, if Elon is thinking of it that way, as a way just to make Doge more successful in the long run, get people on board, that makes sense.
That makes sense.
But I definitely wouldn't want this to be the beginning of, hey, we created some free money that can be used in this way or that way.
Meanwhile, the Mexican government says that it's seized.
$40 million worth of meth before it crossed the border.
And the Daily Caller News Foundation is reporting this.
Jason Hopkins.
And there's a photo of some Mexican authority over six big blue barrels of something that presumably are some kind of drug.
And the question I ask is this.
How do we know what's in those barrels?
Is it possible that the Mexican government, working with the cartels, just says every month or so, all right, do you have those blue barrels?
Yeah, we got the six blue barrels.
Can you put them in a different building and we'll photograph our guys with heavy weaponry standing by them and we'll say we captured, what's a good number?
I don't know, 20, 30 million worth?
Let's go 40. Let's go 40 million worth.
All right, everybody, stand by these barrels.
Click, click, click, click.
There we go.
Doing a great job.
Just stopped $40 million worth of meth from coming into the United States.
How would we know that they stopped anything?
That would be the easiest thing in the world to fake, right?
You wouldn't expect anybody to be...
I mean, it would take the smallest number of people to be involved in the fraud, and they probably wouldn't talk.
Now, I'm not saying it is fraud.
I'm just saying...
If it's indistinguishable from something that can easily be faked, why would you believe it?
So I'm going to put it in the category of things I just don't believe.
It could be true.
It absolutely could be true.
Not buying it.
Not buying it at all.
It's a little too on the nose.
Hey, Mexico, we're going to give you big tariffs if you don't stop a lot of drugs.
Look at these six barrels we just stopped.
And a few weeks from now, oh, look, it's another six barrels.
Well, those look like the same barrels.
Yeah, they often use the same kind of barrel material.
They like to use the blue barrels.
Oh, but we found another one.
But is that the same six barrels?
No, it's not the same six barrels.
It's five barrels.
How easy would that be?
Come on.
Meanwhile, some good news.
PJ Media is reporting, Victoria Taft, that Trump's losing some serious weight.
He was asked how much he lost, and I think he said he was guessing 15 to 20 pounds.
He does look lighter.
Now, he attributed it to being busy and having no time to eat, but I don't think that's exactly the whole story.
There's some kind of source that Victoria Taft had, I guess.
That says that Melania is sort of behind it and that she's been pushing him to eat more healthy food.
But here's the part I just love.
Allegedly, now this is from a source, anonymous source, so put it in context, that Melania has on occasion, I don't know what on occasion means, but on occasion, been cooking family dinners at Trump Tower for the president and their son Barron.
I love that.
I love that.
Do you ever put yourself in Trump's position and just try to imagine what it's like?
He can have any luxury.
He spends his time around luxury and everything, basically.
He just has access to everything.
But the one thing that somebody in his position would have trouble getting is a home-cooked meal with his son and his wife.
To me, that's worth more than all the other stuff.
So to me, that just makes me happy, if it's true.
I mean, I assume it's true.
I would love to know that Melania enjoys cooking, that she's good at it, and that sometimes she just cooks for the two of them.
That would be amazing.
That would be amazing.
Yeah, but there's more to it.
It's much bigger.
Imagine, if you will, that Trump loses.
I don't know if he has more to lose, but let's say he becomes svelte.
Like he just looks really good on the golf course.
Imagine seeing him on the golf course completely trimmed down.
Now put that in the context of Maha, Make America Healthy Again, and RFK Jr., and Nicole Shanahan, and all the push toward staying away from the bad foods and toward the good ones and how good that will be for us.
Imagine if Trump...
Made the move away from processed foods.
And then you could just watch.
Here's why this is a big deal.
During the Kennedy administration, JFK, he was, I guess he was one of the first politicians to not wear a hat.
And it killed the entire hat industry.
Because when JFK didn't wear a hat, people thought, I don't have to wear a hat?
This hat's kind of a pain in the neck, so I won't wear a hat.
It killed the entire industry.
So it's hard to appreciate the degree to which the role models make a difference.
And if Trump found a way to just sort of gently relax his weight down without using the weight loss drugs, and by the way, we wouldn't know if he used one or not.
But if he managed to do it through just eating right, that would be amazing for the country.
Just the benefit of the country would be amazing, but it would also be good for him.
So this is one of the things that makes me happiest today.
And then Trump does this.
This is reported by Jim Hoft and the Gateway Pundit.
So he signed an executive order to expand and reduce the cost of in vitro fertilization.
So he wants to make fertility treatments more accessible for American families.
Now, the executive order just says that he's putting together a group to study it and find a way to make it less expensive.
It's super expensive.
So if you want to have a baby and you're going to need in vitro fertilization, it could cost you up to $25,000 per cycle, and it might not work.
So you might have to do more than one cycle, $25,000 a shot.
And health insurance covers some of it, but it's limited.
And only a quarter of employers offer it.
And apparently 85,000 infants were born as a result of IVF in 2021. Now, this is in the context of the natural birth population of the United States dropping.
So it's important.
It's important that we have ways to make as many babies as possible in ways that are healthy and family supports them and stuff like that.
But what I wondered was, wasn't this one of the biggest things that the Democrats were worried about?
They used to lie and say that he doesn't like IVF or I think they said J.D. Vance doesn't like it or something.
It was all fake because he's always been in favor of it.
But I tried to think, okay, I'll put myself...
In the shoes of a Democrat.
How do they explain that one of the biggest things that they were complaining about Trump is he would take your bodily autonomy, which would include IVF, that you take it away.
And not only is he not taking it away, he is doing serious things to make it more available and cheaper.
And then I realized, oh shit, here's the natural attack line.
Do you see it yet?
Let's see if you have it in the comments.
Do you see the natural attack line where they're going to get him?
It jumps out.
As soon as I tell you, you're going to say, oh, how did I not see that?
Here it is.
Trump's trying to make more white babies.
Boom.
Because I don't know this.
I don't have any statistics.
But I'll bet you, given that it costs $25,000 per cycle, I'll bet you.
The high-income people are the people with good jobs and good insurance and a little extra cash, a lot of extra cash, are probably the only ones that have used it so far, which would suggest probably it's concentrated in maybe white and Asian-American families because they're high-income.
And how easy would it be for Joy Reid to say, well, it looks like white supremacist Trump has figured out a way to make more white babies.
Oh, that is so coming.
When it should be, oh, I guess we lied about everything when we said he was going to get rid of IVF. That should be the story, that MSNBC and its critics lied about everything.
It was never true, and this is proof that it was never true.
They're still going to say, you racist.
In other news, a law firm that...
Apparently handles Elon Musk's stuff, is putting together a draft for a legislative change in Delaware.
Now, of course, it's just a law firm, so they don't get to vote on it, but they're proposing it through probably some, I assume some politicians are on board.
CNBC is reporting this, Laura Kolodny.
And so the law firm is trying to get a change in Delaware.
That would possibly open the door for Elon Musk to get that big, was it a $56 billion pay package or whatever it was, that he was denied because a Delaware judge said that that pay package agreement is invalid because Elon Musk had too much control over the company that gave it to him.
And since it was basically a conflict of interest, the judge said we're throwing it out.
Now, I don't believe the company had any complaint about it.
I think there was one stockholder who bought a few shares and did it just to take down Elon.
But his law firm is making a very creative attack.
And the attack is that Delaware has become sort of poison for corporations because of exactly this sort of thing.
You saw Bill Ackman move to his company out of Delaware.
They just register in Delaware.
They're not based in Delaware.
But they're saying that they can make Delaware what it used to be, a place you could trust to register your corporation, because now people don't trust it.
So he said, we can get back to Delaware having the advantage of being this great place to register your corporation with just a few changes.
One of the changes would be that if you owned Less than one-third of the stock of the company, you would be presumed not to control it.
One-third.
Now, that's pretty reasonable.
If you owned 51%, obviously you do control it.
If you own 40%, you kind of almost control it, but 30% seems fair.
That seems quite reasonable that if you're below 30%, you...
You're not, by definition, you're not controlling the company.
Now, you could argue whether some personalities could still control the company with 30%.
But if that got adopted, it would make other corporations feel a little more comfortable having their corporation registered there.
But here's the best part of the story.
The name of the law firm is Richards, Leighton, and Finger.
Richards, Leighton, and Finger.
Now, when I see Richard, In this case, it's a last name, not a first name.
It always makes me think of Dick.
Because, you know, Dick is the nickname for Richard.
So even though it's Richards, with an S, I just see a Dick.
And then there's Leighton.
First three letters are Leigh.
Leigh a ton, I guess.
And that makes me think of Sax.
Because Leigh, you know.
And then the last name is Finger.
So it's really Dick Leigh Finger.
Like when I read it.
And I'm thinking, come on.
Of all the law firms in the world, Elon Musk picked the one that makes me think of Dick, Lay, and Finger.
Perfect.
It's just perfect.
Anyway, we'll keep an eye on that.
Judicial Watch is asking for a probe of the ex-General Milley.
For what he did in planning January 6th.
This is being reported by Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner.
So let's call Judicial Watch a legal watchdog.
That would be a good description.
And they're trying to figure out if they can get records about what the exact conversations were between Mark Milley and his top Pentagon and other officials, Homeland Security, etc.
Now, the thinking is that you've probably heard people who know more than I know say, General Milley is probably behind the whole January 6th operation.
Maybe he intentionally made security light so they could turn into what looked more like an insurrection, or they could at least frame it that way.
Now, I don't know if any of those accusations are true.
I'll just say that he's long been accused by members of the right as being the obvious culprit, if in fact there's a culprit.
But here's my larger comment.
I want you to just think about this for a moment.
Have you ever noticed how rarely the United States has a large-scale protest, unless it's funded and organized by shadowy forces?
Has it ever happened in my lifetime?
In my whole life, have citizens of the United States ever self-organized because they really cared about a thing, no matter what that thing was?
Black Lives Matter, that was not organic.
We know that now.
That was just funded and organized.
Antifa went away as soon as Biden became president, which is a little sketchy.
Right?
We've seen all the color revolutions in other countries where all the protests are literally organized by shadowy external forces.
And so, but let me ask this question.
To the best of your knowledge, has there ever been a self-organized, large-scale protest about anything in the United States during your lifetime?
Vietnam War, maybe?
Maybe not.
Probably organized by shadowy forces, but I don't know.
But let's just say in the last 20 years.
In the last 20 years, do you think there's ever been a large-scale organic protest?
Do you think that, what was the name of the Wall Street one that kind of went away?
Then there was the Tea Party, and then that kind of went away?
I've got a feeling that Americans just can't organize spontaneously.
If it's not funded by people who know how to make things happen, I don't think it happens.
Take, for example, the government spending us into certain doom with our deficit.
And then every year they'll just sign some continuing resolution which says, well, we'll just add to the deficit because we don't want to make decisions.
Don't you think that watching your elected representatives send you into certain doom?
Not maybe.
Certain doom.
You don't think that that would be enough to organize a million people on the street?
Of course it would.
If we cared about topics.
If people were simply outraged by...
Bad performance of people or policies they don't like.
You would see gigantic protests every week or two.
Because there's plenty of stuff to protest.
All kinds of stuff.
What about Doge?
What about all the people who think Doge is a bad idea?
Where's the protest?
Nobody's paid for one yet.
There might be one.
But it will be funded and organized by shadowy people.
So I'm going to just put down this marker.
Don't know if it's completely true, but I don't believe there's any evidence that Americans ever organize in large scale, like January 6, unless there's somebody shadowy behind it.
I just don't think it ever happens.
I'd love to be proven wrong.
Well, I wouldn't love it, but it'd be interesting.
I try to think, I've told you this before, but when I built my house, I built a home theater.
It's very small, but it's like 10 seats.
10 seats and a little home theater.
And I thought, oh, how great this will be to invite friends over to watch a movie.
I could never get two people who wanted to watch the same movie at the same time.
And then I'm watching Black Lives Matter and Antifa get thousands and thousands of people in the street.
And I'm saying to myself, In what country can you do that?
Where can you get all those people to do that thing if I can't get two people to even watch a movie at the same time?
So, no, I don't think that Americans organize.
Not without shadowy forces behind them.
I don't think the Tea Party was organic.
Do you?
I don't believe it at all.
Again, I don't have evidence that it wasn't organic, but I doubt it.
Seems very unlikely.
All right.
That's all I got for now.
I'm going to say hi to the locals' people privately.
For the rest of you, thanks for joining.
The truckers is the only one in Canada.
Well, the truckers were also non-American.
Yeah.
Yeah, that's a good one.
The truckers, as far as I know, did not have any shadowy influence, as far as I know.
All right.
But they also didn't...
They were in their trucks.
So it makes me wonder how many there were.
But there's a difference between driving your truck somewhere and being on the street.
It just seems different.
All right.
Continue challenging me on that no organic protest in the United States.
