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, MIT Robot Bees, Figure Humanoid Robots, Epstein Files Flop, Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, Mike Benz, SDNY, Anti-Trump Honeypot Operation, J6 Pipe Bomber, Thomas Crooks, Biden Senior Aide, Biden's Cognitive Coverup, Balanced Budget Congressional Bonus, College Campus Hate Crimes, Trump's Common Sense Sword, Medicaid Cuts Hoax, Top 3 Democrat Hoaxes, Fair Elections Hoax, J6 Insurrection Hoax, Russia Started Ukraine War Hoax, Huntington Park Corruption Arrests, FAA Verizon Contract Cancellation, FAA Starlink Test, DEI Legal Liability, Hiding DEI Programs, COVID Vaccine Safety Controversy, Trans Olympics Ban, Trans Tesla Bomber, Military Trans Ban, Chief Justice Roberts, Federal Judge Shopping, Presidential Military Policy, Mass Media Trust Decline, Social Media Censorship, Rep. Darrell Issa, Japan Birthrate Collapse, NK Soldiers Propagandized, Anti-Israel Democrats, Bill O'Reilly, Prosperity Terrorism Theory, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
There's never been a better time.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels, then only the International Space Station can even...
Possibly you understand.
All you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or Chelsea, a stein, a canteen 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 end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called, that's right, the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
You say you're here for the coffee and the ambiance?
Well, this is the place to get it.
We got coffee, we got ambiance.
There's a new study, according to the SciPost, the Journal of Psychopharmacology says that coffee affects people differently based on their genes.
That's right.
If you've got the right kind of genes, the coffee is going to affect you just right.
Now, I must have those kind of genes, but...
I like to marinate my genes in coffee.
Yeah, just let them marinate.
And possibly mutate.
If the coffee will make my genes mutate, good for me.
Maybe it turned me into a better person.
In other news, Microsoft is going to permanently shut down Skype.
There will be no more Skyping.
How much did you hate using Skype?
Oh my God, it was a nightmare every time I tried to use it.
But I haven't Skyped anybody in a long time.
I guess there are reasons for that.
So, being shut down.
In other news, MIT, we'll talk about Epstein, of course.
But in other news, MIT has developed robot bees to replace regular bees for farming so they can pollinate stuff.
So they've got this little tiny bee robot drone that's the size of a bee, and it can go pollinate plants.
Why is it that every single robot technology sounds scary?
Okay, they can now build a swarm of robot bees.
I don't see how that could go wrong.
But in robot news, the company Figure, That's one of the leading humanoid robot makers.
Their CEO says they're aiming to start alpha testing in homes this year.
So who wants to be first?
I guess it'll beat Tesla.
So the Tesla robots won't be here as quickly as the figure robots, but maybe.
But the interesting thing was about this, not just that it's coming.
But the company says that they're advancing faster than anybody anticipated.
Now, what do you think caused that?
Why do you think the robot development, which they thought they'd roll out in two years, why do you think it suddenly became faster?
And I wonder if it's anything to do with DeepSeek.
So DeepSeek kind of taught them how to be more efficient.
And I imagine all the AI companies said, oh, let's take their little secrets and build it into our product.
So I wonder if the Chinese AI, I'm just speculating, I wonder if that's what sped things up.
Because you could do more with less.
You could have just a localized AI that wouldn't absolutely depend on being connected to the net.
So maybe that's part of it.
I don't know.
Well, do you remember my prediction about the Epstein files from yesterday?
So there's nothing I enjoy more when it comes to this sort of stuff than making an unusual prediction that just nails it.
So while the entire country and the world and the credible people from the president to Pam Bondi to Kash Patel were all saying, oh, we're going to get you those Epstein files.
And then it turned into, yep, yep, absolutely.
They're going to be handed over to us, and we're going to release them, and it's going to be yesterday.
And then I doubled down on my prediction.
Nope.
The only thing you'll see are things you've seen before, like flight logs.
And what did they release?
They released the only things you've seen before, the flight logs, and they don't have anything else.
Now, part of why I do this show, and one of the big themes, is I make unusual predictions.
And the more unusual they are when they come in, the more it tells you that there's something about the technique that might be valid.
So I always say that the only thing that's real is prediction.
Because you can have all kinds of beliefs about what reality is.
But if your belief in reality doesn't predict, well, I'm not so sure you have the right reality.
But if my understanding of reality consistently predicts some of the most unpredictable things, well, then maybe you should take a look at my frames and how I do it.
So in this frame, I simply started with the fact that If the Epstein files are anything like we suspect they are, there isn't any way they'll be released.
There's no world in which those will ever be released.
I'd love to be wrong, and then I would admit I'm wrong, but I definitely nailed it this time.
I think you're going to have to give it to me this time.
So I did publicly say more than once, yeah, you're not going to get anything but what you've already seen.
The real question is, let me ask this question.
Where is Kash Patel?
Now, allegedly, Pam Bondi is saying that the Southern District of New York FBI office allegedly has all these files and that they're going to...
They're going to release him any second, and then they didn't.
And then some whistleblower says they're destroying the files.
Where's Kash Patel?
Is he still alive?
Isn't the most important person in the country right now, Kash Patel?
Because the president promised us.
Kash Patel promised us.
Pam Bondi promised us, and every one of them are credible.
Like, I don't think any one of them were lying.
I think they actually intended to release it.
But I've seen Pam Bondi.
I've seen the president.
I haven't seen even a photo from Kash Patel.
I'm starting to worry about him a little bit.
Like, actually, I'd want a sign of life.
Let me say it again.
I'm not sure he's alive.
Right?
Under what scenario would we not hear from Kash Patel yesterday?
Can you think of any scenario in which he would be quiet all of yesterday?
He released a statement on X. So we didn't see him.
There was just a statement.
What did the statement say?
I didn't see it.
Did he say we're working on it?
I don't know.
The statement on X isn't good enough.
Do you think he's tied to a chair somewhere?
I think he's tied to a chair.
So he must be alive, but tied to a chair.
So I would say that we don't know anything about this, but here's some context from Mike Benton's.
And this is from way before today.
He showed a video and he's talked about this, Mike Ben says, the FBI hides critical damning evidence about FBI informants.
Would that suggest that Epstein is an FBI informant?
Possibly.
We wouldn't know.
But apparently they create a separate set of FBI books, one to show people who ask if they get audited, I guess, or if the boss asks.
And then there's a real one, for eyes only, and only two people are ever allowed to access them.
So apparently it's standard procedure in the FBI to protect informants.
And they do it even, you know, at the risk of not telling their own bosses.
That's pretty extreme.
It might actually be a good thing.
Because it keeps the informants safer, and then you get better informants.
You've been had.
Okay.
So here's what I think.
Oh, hold on.
Is that Kash Patel's statement?
I think somebody's sending it.
Okay.
All right.
Here it is.
Kash Patel.
The FBI is entering a new era, one that will be defined by integrity, blah, blah, blah.
There will be no cover-ups, blah, blah, blah.
It's just generic.
It's just generic.
It's nothing about the Epstein files.
Okay.
So, is it a case where the FBI is protecting their own informant or the FBI is protecting themselves?
Now, many of you have been telling me for a long time that Epstein was a Mossad agent.
I saw Mike Cernovich pushing back on that as being oversimplified.
I would agree with the oversimplified because just walk through this logically.
Let's say Epstein started as an Israeli spy and it was a blackmail thing so he could give Israel people to blackmail, I guess, in the United States.
Do you think there's any chance that our own government would not have discovered that and known that he was an Israeli spy if he was?
If he was.
And what would have happened if our government discovered that he was doing all this blackmail stuff?
Would they put him in jail?
Maybe.
But you also wouldn't know where he hid all the blackmail stuff, and maybe he had some blackmail on people you don't want to go down.
So if I were the U.S. government, let's say I'm in the FBI, and I found out that there was this foreign spy doing all this blackmail stuff, I would pull him into the office and say, here's the deal.
You're either going to jail, because we caught you, or you're working for us now.
Which one is more likely?
And what are the odds, as somebody who had this superpower of blackmailing people, what are the odds that you'd only have one client?
Meaning that he's only servicing one country or servicing one entity within one country?
I would guess that he probably freelanced a bit.
And that I don't have any doubt that there was blackmail involved in his business model.
It is a little simplistic to say that he had one boss, because he doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would have one boss for long.
So, we'll find out.
In an unrelated story, but maybe related, it's part of a bigger trend.
Insurrection Barbie points out that James Comey's daughter, adult daughter, Maureen Comey.
She's an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.
And she's been in that office, with the office since 2015. And then she worked on the Jeffrey Epstein case.
So Comey's daughter worked on the Epstein case.
That's interesting, but that's just a coincidence.
She also worked on the Ghislaine Maxwell trial.
Oh, okay.
Well, that makes sense.
If she was involved in one, it would make sense to bring that expertise over to the other one.
And she just joined in December 2024. She joined in the Sean Diddy trial stuff.
It hasn't been a trial yet, but she's part of that process.
So the suspicion is, but I don't go that far.
I don't think there's any dots to connect yet.
It's suspicious that she seems to get the most high profile.
Maybe there's something else going on.
Maybe they're an informant kind of case.
But here's the other way to look at it.
There's no specific...
There's no smoking gun or anything that would suggest you anything illegal or inappropriate or anything.
But here's the problem.
These days, whenever you have a high-profile government person, they're often married to another high-profile government person.
And if they have a child, it's going to be a high-profile child who's going to have a big job somewhere.
So there's nothing unusual about high-profile people having good jobs and the children of those people having even better jobs.
That's the most normal thing in the world.
You wouldn't need a conspiracy for that stuff to happen.
It would just be high-profile people doing high-profile stuff.
But it does open up the possibility, and we've seen so many examples, Where one spouse is in exactly the right place to help the other spouse.
You know, the situation like there's a congressperson who's voting for funding for USAID for some NGO and then the spouse is on the NGO, the consultant for the NGO. Yeah.
So there's a million ways to launder money and launder the law just because of family connections.
And there really needs to be some way for us to identify and root that out and get rid of the conflict of interest because it's a massive problem.
But I don't know anything about specifically the Comey situation.
Anyway, speaking of Comey, the Washington Times was reporting that Comey Sr. is being investigated for what they call a honeypot operation.
I think Fox News reported it as the honeypot meant sleeping with members of the Trump team to find any crimes without knowing any specific things that they were looking for.
Now, if it's true, it would suggest that Comey was doing something off-book or out of the normal process to just get Trump.
And that would be very bad.
I don't know if there's a crime involved there exactly.
Or even how unusual that is for the FBI to do something off the books.
Probably not that unusual.
But yeah, that should be investigated.
But I will just quibble with one part of it, which is the honeypot part.
Specifically means, you know, an attractive woman, or if somebody's gay, an attractive guy, or an attractive woman for the lesbian, whatever.
But I think the model is more like the O'Keefe Media Group model.
Where you just get somebody to go on a date and the other person gets liquored up and they think that if they impress their date, they're going to get some action.
But they don't get any action.
So I don't think the honeypot really meant sleep with them.
I don't believe so.
Now, I'm not saying that's never happened anywhere.
I'm not saying the CIA has never done it.
But I would suspect that what they're calling honeypot really means more of a...
Fake date and fake flirting and fake interest.
Just guessing.
But that's my take.
Anyway, we'll see if that goes anywhere.
This is all fog of war.
There's one source, the Washington Times.
I would wait on this one.
I'd wait to see if there really is an investigation.
And then if there is one, was there really a honeypot?
It's a little bit too close to on the nose.
So I'm not going to automatically say this is all true, but it's interesting.
Mike Benz is asking the question, reminding us that the January 6th pipe bomb placer, the person who hasn't been identified, who suspiciously put a pipe bomb in a place that even Kamala Harris walked by and ordinary citizens were walking by, even after it had been pointed out to law enforcement, And so there's something suspicious about the pipe bomber and the pipe bomb.
But as Benz points out, the video shows the pipe bomber talking on the phone right before he planted the bomb.
Now, could it be that it was just something from his spouse?
Could it be it was just an ordinary phone call and that's just when he took it?
Or maybe.
That call was placed to a confederate, somebody he was working with.
And then, likewise, Benz points out that the Thomas Crooks guy who tried to kill the president, the one who shot him in the ear in Butler, that he was also spotted, and he's on video, as making a phone call fairly soon before he shot the president.
Who was he talking to?
Now, how do we not know by now?
Do you think that the government doesn't have a way, given that they know the time, they know the exact time, and you don't think that they can identify who made a phone call?
And we don't know.
So I think the only way to understand this is that...
I think the information about who they were calling, the pipe bomber on January 6th, and also Thomas Crooks, I think it's in the Epstein file.
Because otherwise, how could you possibly explain that we haven't been told yet?
It's all in the Epstein files, people, should they actually exist.
Anyway, a senior aide, according to Puck, and then New York Post is reporting what?
Puck had.
According to Puck, which is a publication, a senior aide for the Joe Biden administration, I guess it was a senior aide for Jill Biden, sort of admitted that they all knew that Biden was a problem, and they were frightened to death when he ever had any opportunity to speak off the cuff in public.
It was exactly what you thought it was.
Everybody was aware from day one that his age was a big problem, and they tried to manage it because it was a big problem.
Now, he also tries to soften it and say, well, you know, it's just routine for people who are a certain age, to which I say, no, it isn't.
Not if you're the president.
That's not routine to cover up your infirmities if they're mental.
Routine to cover up your mental infirmities?
Now, I do suspect that it happened with Reagan.
I think Ronald Reagan was well into his dementia phase while he was still president.
And that was probably covered up a little bit.
I mean, the press did report on it.
It was in the news.
But there probably was also stuff covered up.
So, yeah, it's a little bit common.
But it's not acceptable.
Well, Elon Musk has floated the idea of giving members of Congress a big raise if it could possibly prevent them from using corruption to augment their income.
Now, I get the idea that if you were paid so well, you would just say, hmm, I'll just take the pay.
I don't need to be corrupt as well.
But I think that with so many members of Congress, You're still going to find plenty of people who want to be corrupt because their pay isn't enough, no matter what the pay is.
But what would it take to pay a member of Congress?
They currently get $174,000 per year, which really isn't enough to live on if you have a home and a family back in your home state, and then you also have to spend all your time in Washington.
It's not even close.
To enough.
So if any of them are doing a little extra, you know what I mean?
A little extra.
You can certainly see how the temptation would be through the roof.
But would that work?
I would go this far, but not any further.
I would give them a big raise, but only in the form of a bonus.
It would not be guaranteed.
And the bonus would be zero if they don't balance the budget, and it would be substantial if they do.
What do you think of that?
And I wouldn't look at anything else.
I would say, if you can balance my budget, I'll give you an extra $300,000 per year.
Your current pay is $174,000.
But we'll give you, on top of that, $300,000 per year if you just balance the budget.
And you didn't do any tricks.
It's actually balanced.
Would that be worth it?
Do you know how many trillions of dollars we would have saved if Congress knew that each one of them could get an extra $300,000 for balancing the budget?
We would have a very balanced budget.
So, yes on the concept, but only as a paper for performance.
I'm not going to pay you $500,000 a year or something for showing up.
It's not good enough just to show up.
You're going to have to show me that you did the most important thing, as in balance the budget.
You could also imagine that you might have some other, I don't know who would be the one in charge of giving them goals.
But you can also imagine if they don't secure the border, but I guess you could say that's more the president's job.
Anyway, next story.
So according to the Post Millennial and some other places, the Trump's Department of Justice is going to do hate crime indictments against the campus activists who are supporting Hamas.
So that would make them sort of pro-terrorist.
Anti-Israel, at least.
And here's something I didn't know.
I didn't know Leo Terrell.
Do you all know who Leo Terrell is?
He's often on Fox News.
He's a black lawyer, but weirdly, he's on the Justice Task Force to Combat Antisemitism.
It's kind of weird that a non-Jewish guy would be on the antisemitism thing, but there's no reason he couldn't be.
Right?
I mean, if he has the right skills and he has the right interests and he has the right incentives and he cares about the issue, why not?
So that's a DEI I don't mind, meaning that it's not DEI, meaning that they just thought he was the right person.
That's my take on it.
I think they just think he's the right person.
So he announced that they're doing this federal hate crime indictments and people are going to go to jail.
For supporting Hamas and trying to intimidate Jews.
Now, here's one of those cases where I think the public, again, has to watch carefully.
Because if this moves from obvious criminal behavior all the way to something political, I can't support that.
So if they're just jailing people for political reasons and they haven't done something we can identify as an actual crime on the books, then it's kind of a free speech thing.
Obviously, I'm opposed to the pro-Hamas wing of the public.
But I'm also opposed to going too far into the politicization and lawfare of it.
I don't see it yet.
This is one of the things you want to keep your eyes on.
Let me give you a little background that Victor Davis Hanson gives us.
I like the way he worded this.
He said, at some point, some president was going to have to stop the unsustainable spending and borrowing, to which I said, yeah, at some point.
Somebody had to do it.
When it got bad enough, whoever was president was going to have to do it.
It just happens to be Trump.
And he says, to have any country left, some president would eventually have had to restore the borders and stop the influx of three million illegals.
Yes, that's true.
You couldn't let that just keep running.
So some president had to stop it.
And then some commander-in-chief...
He says, we would finally have to stop the theater wars abroad.
But any president who dared to do any of that would be damned for curving the madness that his predecessors fueled.
And this gets back to that common sense thing.
Trump's approach of common sense is really a big club because he can fight madness in every domain.
Is that common sense?
No, you know it's not.
We're going to do common sense.
Next topic, okay, is what you're doing common sense?
No, you know it's not common sense.
Stop doing it.
So that's a really powerful tool.
You need to be a second-term president with balls of steel and common sense as your sword and a whole bunch of really capable people.
Backing you to get any of those critical things done.
And those are all existential threats.
Those are all end-of-the-republic threats.
And Trump is just a singular, unique character who has the exact right personality, experience, and just the right situation that he could actually do those three things.
It's kind of impressive.
I keep hearing on the news the Democrats claiming that The Republicans are going to gut Medicaid or did gut Medicaid.
The Daily Caller News Foundation, Adam Pack, is talking about that as basically a hoax because they don't present any evidence that anything like that happened.
Now, I kind of backed off of that because I heard the accusations and I knew that a budget had been agreed upon by at least the House.
And I thought, maybe.
Maybe they thought it was that much waste and abuse.
Maybe there's something to it.
But is that true?
Is it true that the mainstream media and the Democrats have been just wildly claiming that there's cuts in something that would be like the last thing that the public would be willing to accept?
Cuts in Medicaid?
And is that just the new hoax?
Is that the brand new hoax?
It might be.
But the fact that the mainstream media can still support a hoax of that magnitude, that's pretty impressive.
In an evil way, it's impressive.
Anyway, so what's weird is that if the mainstream media is the only one you're paying attention to, you wouldn't know that's a hoax.
Because it's not like you dug into the budget yourself.
So, it's pretty effective as a hoax.
But I thought I'd give you a review of the top three, in my opinion, Democrat hoaxes that control their base and keep them in power.
Now, these are what I consider really obviously easily debunkable hoaxes, but as long as the mainstream media has this captive audience of Democrats who only watch some forms of news and not others, They can get away with this.
And here are the three, let's say, the three legs of the stool that are supporting their entire party.
Now listen to this one, in order.
The first hoax is that we as Americans can somehow know whether an election was fair and that we can know it with certainty.
Now that's just a hoax.
We don't have a system that can tell you what you don't know.
If somebody found a way to rig an election and was not discovered, how would we know?
How would we possibly know if an election had been rigged by people who were so good at rigging that they could get away with it?
The fact that the mainstream makes people say it out loud, they'll bring a Republican on and they'll say, say it.
Say you think that 2020 was rigged.
Say it.
Because we know it's a fact that it was not.
That's a hoax.
They don't know that as a fact.
It's a possibility.
It's a possibility that it was fair.
It's a possibility that it wasn't fair.
We don't have any visibility into that.
None.
They don't have any visibility into it.
And they don't even know how many ways something could be cheated.
And neither do you.
Every time something gets hacked, Think about hacking.
A company builds some network and they think they've looked at every possibility to protect it from being hacked.
Then what happens?
It gets hacked.
And we're talking about the best technologists in the world.
They'll release a product and they'll say, we've really plugged every hole.
There's no way anybody's going to find a way to hack this.
And then it gets hacked.
Do you think the elections are the exception?
Where it's the only thing in the world that nobody can figure out how to hack?
Well, it would be the only thing in the world.
That would be a weird and wonderful coincidence.
But no, it's not a fact that anybody knows anything about the outcome of an election.
And then somebody said to me, but Scott, does that mean the 2024 election was rigged?
To which I say, we wouldn't know.
We only know that Trump was named the winner, and my speculation is it was too big to rig even if somebody wanted to.
Sort of like 2016, but 2016 was more a surprise.
I think it snuck up on people because they didn't expect he would win at all.
So I don't think there was necessarily any cheating that was lined up in 2016. But by 2020, that suspicious number of gigantic turnout, For the corpse?
For Joe Biden?
That is really suspicious.
And let's talk about that.
So they also say, this is the next Democrat hoax, that January 6th was definitely an insurrection.
And if you don't believe it was an insurrection and that Trump was behind it, well, you're some kind of a lying traitor to the country.
That's a hoax.
I'm sure that some members of the public, maybe some of them that attended, thought they were doing an insurrection, but not the great majority of them.
There weren't enough of those insurrectionist ones, you know, the crazy ones, who made any difference.
The vast majority of the people arrested thought they were saving the country.
Now, they could be wrong, but they looked at the election and they said, That looks wrong.
You're going to have to take a pause and make sure that's true.
So asking people to take a pause to make sure that the election was counted correctly, because it looked like whatever bad behavior people suspected was so big that you could probably figure it out in 48 hours.
I mean, they weren't asking for a big delay.
Now, we have not seen that.
It has not been determined that there was a specific way of cheating and that the election was rigged.
But that's not relevant to the January 6th narrative.
What's relative is what people believed.
And I'm positive that Trump believed it was a rigged election.
I'm positive that the vast majority...
95%, 98% of the protesters on January 6th believed it was rigged.
So the correct narrative is people believed it was rigged and wanted it to be paused so we could find out if it was.
I don't think you could have found out in a brief pause, but that's what people were asking for.
For the news to report it as definitely an insurrection, Interaction.
There's definitely an insurrection.
It's just a hoax.
That's pure hoax.
And their entire Democrat party depends on you believing that hoax.
Because if you don't believe January 6th, if you don't believe the hoax, then you can't believe that Trump is definitely trying to steal your democracy.
Their entire messaging depends on you believing that hoax.
Because there's not really anything else they can point to that would suggest that Trump wants to be a dictator.
They can just look at that one thing.
And if you believe the one thing, that he tried to overthrow the government on January 6th, if you believe that hoax, then all the rest of the hoaxes afterwards make sense.
Oh, well, he's definitely a dictator insurrectionist, so...
If you had any questions about this new thing he's doing, oh, I think we could wrap it under the umbrella of his dictator insurrectionist impulses.
The whole thing falls apart if you know that January 6th was just a made-up narrative, completely made up.
And then there's the Russia started the war with Ukraine.
And again, it's one of those, who started the war?
Well, if you look back at 24, shut up, shut up.
The only way we count it is who invaded.
That's all.
That's who started it.
So the definition of started it is who crossed the border with weapons.
To which I say, why would you have a stupid definition?
That's a stupid definition.
Who started it is whoever did something so provocative that somebody thought they needed to shoot him.
Did Ukraine do something so provocative that Russia said, okay, I think we now have to just kill you all?
Because this is so bad.
Yes, they did.
They tried to move NATO right up to their front door and fill it with CIA stations.
And it was a red line that Putin had said for a long time.
Now, Putin's not a good guy, so I'm not defending Putin.
I have to say that every time so my clips don't get taken out of context.
But it's a pure hoax.
That the only definition of starting a war is who crossed the border with the military.
That's just a hoax.
The start is whatever started it.
Putin wasn't sitting on the other end of the border saying, you know, I've got an idea.
I'm just noodling, but what about?
What if I just invaded?
It didn't happen that way.
There was a whole bunch of stuff that was just begging for an invasion.
And we all knew it, or at least people in the government knew it.
So those are the three oaks that we can magically know who won any election, that January 6th was an insurrection, even though if you asked 98% of the people there, they would say, what are you talking about?
We're trying to stop an insurrection.
And then who started it?
They just used some weird definitions so they can justify endless war.
All right, so those are the three big hoaxes.
Apparently, California Democrat mayor officials' homes were raided, and there's a $14 million corruption probe, and this is in Huntington Beach?
Yeah, Huntington Park, California.
And you would not be surprised that the corruption involves The building of some facility, city's aquatic center, and you would not be surprised that there was a bunch of money sloshing around to build that aquatic center, and you would not be surprised that the government that was in power is being blamed for stealing some amount of that money that was sloshing around.
Now, I'll say this a million times, but our country is doomed If local mayors and politicians can decide where the money goes, that's it.
We can't survive that.
It will guarantee that over time, every city is run by a criminal organization that's stealing all the money that's going through.
Well, basically, you'll be the Taliban at that point.
So the fact that there's this one investigation of this one thing, I think it's every city.
I think it's every city is just riddled with the same kind of corruption.
Oh, we need a big project to build a bridge or an aquatic center.
And then there's a shit ton of money sloshing around, and then they make sure that it goes to their cronies so that their kid or their spouse gets a taste of it because they're associated in some way with where the money is sloshing around.
It's all corrupt all the time, every city, I'm pretty sure.
I'll bet you there's not one city where the...
Well, I'll give you...
There might be one.
When Bloomberg was mayor of New York City, there's a pretty good chance he wasn't stealing anything.
Pretty good chance.
But I would say those are exceptions.
Now, if the worst allegation against Mayor Adams of New York...
Is that he got some upgrades on his travel, which is the most normal thing in the world.
If that's the worst they could accuse him of, then it makes me think, hmm, maybe him starting in law enforcement may have put him in a position where he just didn't feel like stealing from the city was the right thing to do.
So there could be some exceptions, but it also might explain why they're trying to get rid of him.
Because if he doesn't participate in...
Let's say the larger scale Democrat abuse of all funding.
Maybe people said, yeah, we got to get somebody more corrupt in that job or we're not making money.
So there could be exceptions.
Anyway, the FAA is getting close to canceling Verizon.
That is the backbone, I guess, for their air traffic control systems.
The word is that they might be just months away from the entire FAA air support, what do you call it, the people in the towers, of the whole thing just falling apart, where you just wouldn't be able to fly.
All the airports would have to close because the infrastructure would just crumble, I guess.
And I guess Verizon's been getting $2.4 billion, is it per year?
It might be per year.
And Starlink might take over that business to do what Verizon was doing with probably mostly landlines, but move it up to the satellites.
Now, this, of course, is going to make all the Democrats say, wait a minute.
Wait a minute now.
That looks like a conflict of interest.
Are you telling me that Elon Musk looked into it and his solution was give all the money to my company?
Well, we do need some kind of a process Where we can just shine light on all the situations in which Elon Musk's businesses will have some intersection with things that Doge is doing.
And this is certainly one.
Now, I don't think that he's doing something bad.
I think he's going to save a whole bunch of money and save the air traffic system, and we're all going to be better off for it.
That's what I think will happen.
But it's still perfectly valid to say, Can we make sure we have maximum transparency on that and that the public is completely aware why it's being done, why Skylink is chosen?
It's the only thing they could do, probably.
And, you know, are we going to save money or spend more money?
So, a little more transparency would be great.
Speaking of Verizon, Brendan Carr of the FCC is warning Verizon about their...
DEI stuff because the FCC doesn't want anybody who's regulated by them to be promoting DEI. And Brendan Carr says, I expect all regulated businesses to end in invidious forms of discrimination.
Good.
There's more DEI news.
Goldman Sachs is going to ditch their DEI goals.
Good.
Goldman Sachs.
Welcome to the club.
Now, I've been telling you for a while that if the government says this is discrimination, that the biggest companies are going to say, uh, that just opened up a gigantic legal liability.
Because if the government says it's discrimination, that would mean we're breaking the law right in public.
If you're a big corporation, the thing you least want to do is break the law right in public.
It's a risk no big company wants.
So I did expect that after a few big companies get rid of their DEI just for legal liability reasons, that there'd be more of it.
Now, it could be driven by insurance.
Maybe.
It's possible that there's an insurance angle.
But the big companies often are self-insured, so maybe that's not it.
It could be just they see it's a legal liability in the future.
But keep this in mind, that Goldman Sachs had a four-year-old diversity policy that they're ending, that they were not allowed to advise companies on IPOs unless they had two diverse board members.
So they were not just all in.
They were all in and trying to influence other companies, almost like blackmail, to be all in as well.
And they pulled that back.
Meanwhile, the U.S. government is launching an end DEI portal, according to Newsmax.
It's a portal where the public can complain about diversity in schools.
Not diversity.
They can complain about DEI, which is now banned if you want to get federal funding, which all the schools need.
So there would be a way to drop a dime on any DEI that's trying to hide.
Do you think anybody's trying to hide their DEI programs?
Yes.
They're changing the names of the departments.
They're shifting people around.
And they're trying to keep what they're doing, but hide it from the government.
Now, that's got to be really illegal.
But it turns out that the U.S. Mint...
So the government itself, the U.S. Mint, is scrambling to conceal their DEI personnel, according to the Free Press.
Josh Code is writing about that.
And, you know, the way they hide it is they change the names in the org charts and stuff like that.
But the allegation is that they've hidden five diversity, equity, and inclusion personnel from the acts.
There's going to be more discovery of that stuff.
Meanwhile, in other big news, big pharma company Eli Lilly says they're going to put $27 billion into U.S. manufacturing expansion.
Now, when I see a story like that, I can't escape my history as a person who worked for big corporations.
And my job for most of that time was to gather information.
That would be the information that we would use.
And I learned that corporate information is almost never accurate.
It's just a story you want to tell.
So it's more about the narrative.
So when I say that Eli Lilly wants to invest $27 billion in the U.S., here's where my brain automatically goes.
How much were they going to invest anyway?
Okay, some of the 27, I guarantee they had already planned to do before any homeshoring or anything had been brought up.
But if they wanted to expand it so that the government would like them and the Trump administration would say, yeah, you're a good company.
You're doing what we want.
You're expanding U.S. manufacturing.
Here's what I'd do.
I'd say, yeah, we already told you about the, I'll just make up a number, the 10 billion.
That might have been just ordinary business that was going to happen no matter what.
But we're going to make that $27 billion by counting extra years in the future.
So instead of talking about a five-year plan, maybe we'll talk about a 10-year plan.
And then guess what?
In five years, if you check back, they will have spent the same amount that they said they would have spent, no matter what, $10 billion.
And then you're going to say, hey, What about that extra $17 billion?
And they would say, well, that was five years ago.
Things change.
It's a new administration.
They don't really have to really do it.
They can just make up numbers in the future and say, ah, yeah, yeah, in 10 years, we're totally putting in another $10 billion.
Yeah, no doubt about it.
Nobody can plan 10 years in advance or usually even five.
Then my next question is, if they're designing manufacturing in the United States, and they're doing it in the modern era, as in today, do they design the manufacturing to accommodate human workers or robots?
Or do they cleverly design it so that it's humans now, but it can very easily be robots?
Because I don't think they would depend on American workers to do everything.
So, we'll see.
I have big questions about any of these big company announcements about onshore.
Meanwhile, RFK Jr. has paused a $460 million Biden-era COVID vaccine deal.
I guess they were working on a COVID vaccine pill.
And that was going to cost a lot to test it, etc.
Now, it's not stopped.
It's just paused for a review.
And that's good.
That sounds like exactly the sort of thing that we would want to be carefully reviewed.
So nothing wrong with that.
But here's what I've observed.
And I want you to tell if you observe the same thing.
When it comes to the COVID shots, the ones that already exist, there are two completely different worlds.
In one world...
There are all these experts who say that the COVID shots are definitely, obviously, and massively injuring people.
You know, heart problems and turbo cancers and every other thing in the world.
Now, that's one world.
And in that world, everybody knows it.
It's clean and obvious science.
There's no question about it.
And all the evidence shows it.
And there's no doubt.
That the COVID shot was the biggest scandal slash crime in the last hundred years.
At the same time, in the other world, which has no connection to that world, the government and Big Pharma are still offering the same shots and would claim that they really, really helped and there's no special risk.
And they're going to make more.
And they're going to extend the platform so you can get all kinds of mRNA stuff.
Now, how in the world are both of those worlds operating completely independently at the same time?
So there's one of the trolls saying that I say question everything, but I didn't say question the COVID shot.
Tell that fucking idiot what my opinion was from the start to the moment on the COVID shot.
Please.
Tell the fucking idiot what my opinion was.
Because he's getting his information from 4chan comics, I think.
In the comments, those who have been watching me, tell me, did I have any skepticism about the shot?
From the start.
It was nothing but skepticism.
So fuck off, you idiots.
I'm really so tired of you.
You're living in the wrong movie.
There's no movie in which I did what you think I did.
None of it happened, and I've got a thousand witnesses who are testifying it right now in the comments.
Every one of you who watched me knows that I was skeptical from the start and never stopped.
Right?
So just fuck completely off.
I am so done with you idiots.
So done with you fucking idiots.
Anyway, so the only way we'll know what's true is when we get those Epstein files, because I'm sure that has COVID stuff in there too.
That's where I'd put it.
Trump administration...
According to the Post Millennial, he's going to deny all visas for male trans athletes seeking to compete as women in the 2028 Olympics.
Now, I guess I wasn't aware that the Olympics were even the place that there would be trans athletes.
I guess I wasn't paying attention.
I don't pay too much attention to the Olympics.
But I guess they're just going to not let anybody come into the country.
If they're in that category of born male but competing as female.
What do you think of that?
Well, I would say that I'm surprised that the Olympics themselves allowed it.
But I don't have a problem with it.
It just feels like the adult thing to do.
Common sense.
I'm surprised.
I don't know if there'll be lawsuits that succeed.
You know, you expect there'll be some lawsuits or whatever.
But yeah, common sense.
In related news, I don't know if you saw this, but there's a story in the news.
ABC News said with this headline, quote, a woman in Colorado has been arrested after police caught her with explosives at a Tesla dealership.
A woman in Colorado.
When was the last time you heard about a woman?
Planning a bombing attack.
Woman planning a bombing attack.
Maybe never.
Maybe never in your entire life.
Not even once.
I can't think of one.
But the funny part is they showed a photograph of the woman who didn't have a single female characteristic.
Didn't have long hair like a woman.
Didn't have makeup.
Didn't have jewelry.
Wasn't dressed like a woman.
It was just a dude.
But it must have been a dude who insisted on being called a woman.
So ABC News said, yeah, no problem.
There's a picture of our woman.
Okay.
Speaking of transgender, also CBS News is reporting that transgender service members Could be removed from the military.
Not everyone, because they're going to do a case-by-case look, and if they're contributing to the war-fighting lethality, which is the main goal, there might be some cases where they have some special skills or something, and they would keep them on a case-by-case basis.
But basically, they're going to try to remove all trans from the military.
Here's where I have to remind you of some context.
The military is allowed to discriminate.
It's the most basic fact about the military.
If you're a 400-pound guy, can you join the military and try to be a pilot?
No.
They will discriminate you for your weight.
If you're 3 foot 5 inches tall and you try to join the military, can you do it?
No.
No, they'll say people need to be a certain size to fit in.
If you're a, let's say, you're blind, can you join the military?
No.
Well, I don't think so.
Certainly not for standard military stuff.
And look at me.
Suppose I wanted to become a Marine.
Do you think the Marines would take me at my current age?
No.
No, they would discriminate by age.
And they already discriminate by gender, I think, in some domains, but not all.
The only thing the military has to prove is that when they're discriminating, there's a quite reasonable reason for it, usually backed by data.
So they don't discriminate by race, and I don't think there's data that shows they should, as long as everybody's passing the same standards, etc.
Where they don't discriminate, it's because the data doesn't back it.
Or they can find a way to be selective enough that there's no reason to do it.
So, when you look at the trans thing, just remember, the military has every right to discriminate.
They only have to get the job done.
That's it.
And if they can come up with some data, and maybe they didn't, maybe they haven't.
It says that if you're transgender, you're You know, less ready for combat or something, then they can do it.
It would be good if they had some data.
If it's just purely political, it's not going to fly as well.
All right, there's a story about Chief Justice Roberts, who shut down this Democrat federal judge who was trying to...
It doesn't matter what the judge was doing.
He was trying to do something that was just anti-Trump and trying to...
Force USAID funding in one day.
Basically just something stupid.
So as you know, the current situation is that a federal judge anywhere in the country can stop any national thing.
So that means that the Democrats can judge shop because there's always somebody corrupt enough and Democrat enough and TDS enough.
That no matter what you want to do, as long as it's anti-Trump, they can find a judge who will do it.
Now, that's the worst system in the world because it would mean that the Republicans will just be in endless legal battles and couldn't get anything done because you can always find a judge.
There's always a judge to shut it down.
Well, so this federal judge shut down something that was sort of outside of that judge's normal domain, I guess.
But what happened next, according to Rod Martin, who's writing about this, did a good job on this.
Apparently, Justice Roberts didn't wait for the appeals court that was between that judge and the Supreme Court.
Because the appeals court was non-responsive, I guess, within the timeline.
And so Justice Roberts, without consulting anybody or holding a case, Just put the boot on him and just said, nope, and he just overruled the federal judge.
Now, we think, and I think this is Rod Martin's take, that Justice Roberts just does not abide this judge shopping for the worst judge to get the worst things that affect the whole country.
I think the Supreme Court, at least Roberts, who seems to have the authority to do that, which surprises me, I think he's just going to shut down this judge shopping stuff.
And maybe this was, it was such a stark, kind of surprising, you know, nuclear blast on the court system that it looked like he was sending a message.
As in, if you do this again, I'm going to stomp on you again.
Now, it's a little bit of speculation because we don't know what he's thinking, but it did look like a signal.
It looked like a signal, as in, you can't have a court system where one rogue judge, and you can always find one, can stop anything.
And then it just becomes completely political.
So good for you.
If that's what happened, and there's a little bit of speculation in that, but if that's what Roberts was thinking, and that's why Roberts acted, good for you.
That's terrific.
Nicely done.
Meanwhile, Jerry Dunleavy is reporting that five former defense secretaries got together and wrote a letter.
They're worried about the recent firings in the military, the head of the military especially, and that Trump might be politicizing the military.
And here are the people who are worried about him politicizing the military.
You've got Leon Panetta.
So these are former defense secretaries.
Leon Panetta is one of the signers of the Biden laptop letter, who is now warning about the government politicizing that job.
He signed the laptop letter.
Man, you've got to have serious balls to be a signer of the laptop letter.
And to say, hey, this administration is politicizing this job.
Good Lord.
The other ones were Lloyd Austin, uh-huh, Jim Mattis, William Perry, and Chuck Hagel.
They're all deeply alarmed at Trump's politicizing.
Now, here's my question.
Since when is it not politicized?
I'm pretty sure that when you get a new president, And the new president has a different political opinion about how the world should run.
Should we be supporting Ukraine or trying to end the war, for example?
That's political, right?
And then the new president comes in, who won a mandate for that political outcome, and then tells the military to do the thing that the public asks for, which is definitely political.
It doesn't make it wrong, because sometimes, you know, Politics is either go left or go right, and one of those directions is the correct one.
So being politicized is the only way it can be.
How can it not be politicized?
The whole point of having the civilian leadership of the military is that you've got an elected politician who's calling the shots.
That's politicized by definition.
You can't unpoliticize that.
We designed it so it would be politicized, that a politician would be in charge.
That's politicized.
Anyway, I guess the idea of firing people who were not on the team is too politicized, to which I say, isn't it also common sense that if a president got elected with a certain set of You know, military ambitions, in this case not to be in a war, that if there's any members of the military at the top who don't want to do that, that you would fire them.
Is that politicized?
That's kind of stretching it.
More like normal behavior.
Anyway, according to a poll, a Gallup poll, Breitbart News is reporting on this, Hannah Knudsen.
The American trust in the mass media is at the lowest point in 50 years.
Over 50 years.
Now, are you surprised that the mass media is at the lowest point?
Now, a lot of that is Trump.
And around 2016, the mass media took a big dive.
But here's the problem when you ask that question.
If you ask a Republican, They sometimes will say that Fox News is part of the mass media, that the mass media is everything that disagrees with the right.
And so I'm not sure how people are answering the question.
If they were answering the question that they trusted Fox News, but they didn't trust the other forms of news, they would be maybe mixed in with people who treated them all the same.
So, I don't know.
I don't trust the results.
But it seems to me that the various trust is down to like in the 30s.
So, in the 30-ish percent, about one in three people trust the media.
Do you see the trend?
We're just maybe a few years away from trust in the media reaching 25%.
What do I say about 25%?
25% is the number of people who will be wrong on any question, no matter what the question is.
It's different 25%, but it doesn't matter what the question is.
25% will be completely wrong and clueless every time.
And it looks like trust in the media is going to go down to 25%.
Anyway.
According to Reclaim the Net, D.D. Rankovich, the House of Representatives, they advanced a bill to block foreign officials who censor Americans.
So the idea is if you're a foreign person, politicians specifically, and you've been involved in trying to censor our social media in other countries, which would effectively, you know, It would effectively censor it in our country because the social media operates everywhere.
So if they could only operate by bending to the will of some foreign country, well, they censored Americans.
And so I guess this is something Daryl Issa did last September.
Is it Issa?
Daryl Issa or Issa?
Issa, right?
I think it's Issa.
And it got together with some Republican colleagues.
And basically, if you are involved in this, you can never travel to the United States.
And if you're in the United States, they can deport you.
I like it.
I like it.
Now, it doesn't have a lot of teeth because, you know, people can survive not traveling to the United States.
It's not the end of the world for most people.
But if you were a high-profile politician and you had eyes on some high office, It would be a problem if you had been banned from even visiting America.
If you'd been banned from even visiting one of the biggest what should be your ally, that would be quite a thing to overcome in your next election, wouldn't it?
And my opponent isn't even allowed to travel to the United States.
It'd be hard to win that election.
Anyway, I'm in favor of this, but it hasn't passed yet.
It's just got through the house.
Meanwhile, it looks like Japan's birth rate is hitting another new low, and it's looking like Japan at the current rate will disappear.
Over 30% of Japan is over 65, and marriage is just out of, looks like out of the question for a lot of young people, because the financial burden and So Japan just doesn't really have a solution for replacing the people who are aging out of the productive part of the society.
And they're doing stuff.
They've got dating apps and cash perks and four-day work weeks and relaxed immigration laws.
They're bringing in foreign workers and all that.
But it doesn't look like it's going to make much difference.
So at the same time that robots, are being introduced this year.
The population in other countries is going through the floor.
And I wonder if there's some way to productively take advantage of the fact that 30% of the public is over 65 in Japan and people are not having kids.
Is there any way that the seniors could be involved in child care to take the burden off of?
People want to both work, but they'd have to hire childcare and it'd be too expensive.
So there could be, maybe, some social engineering thing where the oldsters who just want to be useful would just love having some kids around during the day just to keep them company, you know, as long as the old people are still entirely functional.
And maybe they do that already, but probably only for family members.
You know, I doubt.
There are too many strangers watching kids.
But if you had security cameras and you had a number of witnesses there who were also adults, you could probably feel safe enough.
So we'll see.
Did you know, according to the Wall Street Journal, that the American drones that are flying over Mexico have been doing this since the early 2000s?
So apparently for years...
We've been working with the Mexican government, so much so that the drones are generally stationed permanently on Mexican air bases, because they're closer to the action.
So the Mexican government has been allowing these MQ-9 Reaper flights since the early 2000s, and it continues.
And apparently that was allegedly.
A vital part of how they caught El Chapo in 2013 and 2016, because he escaped a few times.
And then in 2023, they helped find El Chapo's son.
So here's my question.
If you added AI to the Reapers, and apparently they can see all the way down to a license plate, which means they could get...
You know, an image of faces.
If they can get images of faces and they can just find, you know, one case of one of the top cartel people, can't the AI build a sort of an automatic network of all the people that they need to round up?
I feel like there's a whole other level of capability that the drones haven't yet reached.
They're right on the edge of reaching.
Because once it can identify people and it knows the entire network of who's doing what, it seems like it would be pretty easy, not easy, but it would be possible to take down the cartels completely.
So that might happen.
You heard a while ago that North Korea was trying to help out Russia with the manpower problem for the military, and that a bunch of North Korean soldiers...
We're fighting on the same team as the Russians in Ukraine.
Now, today we find out, this is in the Wall Street Journal, that some of the captured North Korean soldiers, they didn't know what war they were going to be in and who they were fighting.
They had been told that they were going to go fight South Koreans because the South Korean military...
Had joined with Ukraine.
Nothing like that ever happened.
But that's part of what the North Koreans were basically propagandized into, that they were going to go fight the South Koreans.
Now, I assume that's because the North Koreans are taught from birth that South Korea is the enemy, and if you're in the military, South Korea is who you're going to be fighting.
So they're just going to a different part of the world to fight those South Koreans.
And then they got injured and captured, and somebody said, we don't have any South Koreans.
What the hell are you talking about?
And then the North Koreans are like, I'm starting to think that North Korea is not always honest.
So there's that.
Here's a shocking Gallup poll, according to Carl Campanile in the New York Post.
That 60% of Democrats are now anti-Israel, according to a poll.
60% of Democrats are anti-Israel.
At the same time, I asked ChatGPT this, about 70% of American Jewish voters are Democrat.
So let me say that again.
For the first time ever, a majority of Democrats are anti-Israel.
Now that's about the country.
And the country's policies.
But at the same time, 70% of American Jewish voters are Democrat.
Now, these are not the same thing.
So it's not about if you're Jewish, you're automatically pro-Israel or anti-Israel or anything.
So they're slightly different.
But if you were a Jewish voter, and you know that 60% of the people on your own team were anti-Israel, Even if you didn't have any special feelings about Israel yourself, and you just said, I'm American, you know, I wish them well, but it's not my business, I'm an American, that would still bother you, wouldn't it?
If 60% of the people on your team were suspiciously against this country that's mostly Jewish people?
So I'm going to make a prediction.
You know how you were surprised when Hispanics moved toward Trump?
And you know how you were surprised?
Maybe not.
That male voters moved toward Trump in a big way, especially young ones.
And remember how you were surprised that black voters moved far more toward Trump than you ever expected?
I'm going to predict that Jewish American voters are going to defect the Republican Party.
And it will be because their own party turned out, seems like a cesspool of anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitism is everywhere, so it's not like you're going to go to the Republican Party and not get any.
Oh, you'll get plenty.
But apparently the pro-Israel part of the Republican Party is really high.
So I think it's over 80% of Republicans are pro-Israel.
So I don't see how it can persist.
That 70% of American Jewish voters are Democrat.
At the same time, 60% of Democrats are just overtly anti-Israel, which is not the same as being anti-Semitic.
I'll give you that.
But it's kind of a close cousin.
The Venn diagram is going to overlap a little bit.
So that doesn't seem sustainable.
I think the Republicans are just going to grow.
Speaking of Israel, Bill O'Reilly had a take on the Trump plan to turn Gaza into a Mediterranean hotel and kind of an excellent place on the coast.
And he said that...
His vision of it is economic prosperity, and he says, you're never going to have peace in the Middle East.
Now, this is Bill O'Reilly, in his opinion, what Trump's opinion is, because he just talked to him recently, I guess.
So he thinks that Trump thinks that you have to have prosperity in the Middle East to solve the problems.
I don't think I've ever disagreed with Trump more than that.
If that's actually his opinion.
So I'd have to hear from him before I completely believe that's a full and accurate opinion.
But I feel like that would make sense if crime was the problem.
You know, if you had like just a crime problem, I think prosperity generally does do a good job of reducing crime.
But if you've been training your youth from birth, That they have to go destroy Israel and kill all the Jews or whatever they're learning.
How in the world is making them rich going to make you safer?
All you have is richer terrorists.
All you would have is terrorists who don't have to worry about eating and they can work full-time on their other mission of destroying Israel.
So I would expect that Trump would have a more nuanced feeling than whatever it is that...
You know, it's being relayed to us.
So I need to hear it from him.
I'd like to hear Trump say that prosperity is how you reduce the future of terrorism.
Because it's not obvious to me.
To me, it looks like it would worsen it.
It's like, here's some terrorism.
How about we give you a lot of money?
Every time terrorists get more money, they do more terrorism.
Has there ever been an exception?
So...
Well, the buzz saws and leaf blowers next door are in full swing right now, so I can barely hear myself.
I'm hoping my microphone isn't picking it up, because it'd be very annoying to you.
Yeah, poverty contributes, but it's not the cause.
It's true.
It's the biggest contributor, though.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to say some words privately to the local subscribers.