God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Michelle Obama Podcast, Fentanyl Deaths Decline, DOGE VA Spending Waste, Kamala Harris, X Platform DDOS, Anti-Tesla Color Revolution, Elon Musk, Reid Hoffman, NGO Donation Laundering, Democrat Theatre Kids, Cartel Tunnels, Rashida Tlaib, Jamie White Murder, Fort Knox Presidential Access Delay, ActBlue Investigation, Tom Cotton JFK Files, J6 Pipe Bomber, Ukraine Drones Moscow, Robot AI, CR Budget Support, DOGE CR Impact, Thomas Massie, Perplexity AI Search Quality, US Drone Air Force, US Drone Navy, 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.
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 of tank or chalice, a stein, a canteen jug or flask or vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens right now.
Go.
Oh...
Oh, I love to see all those green everything's working messages.
That's what I like.
Well, if you are subscribing to the Dilbert comic, which you can only see if you subscribe on X, just look at my profile for the button, or if you're on the locals community, you'd see that plus a lot more, you know that Dilbert's executive team They lost a lot of money this year.
The company did.
And they didn't have any good ideas about how to fix it.
So instead, they're going to make TikTok videos.
Does that sound familiar?
It might.
So yes, Dilbert's executive team is making cringeworthy TikTok videos.
Well, let's see if there are any scientific studies that didn't need to be done.
Let's see.
According to John Hopkins Medicine, they did a worldwide study and they found that if you have chronic pain, you're far more likely to have depression and anxiety.
I'm pretty sure 100% of the world knew that before this study.
But if you wanted to save time, you could have asked me.
Scott, do you think that people who are in continuous pain...
Are as happy as people who are not in continuous pain.
And I would have said, hmm, let me dig deep into the inner realm of my mind.
Yeah, yeah, those people would be less happy.
And I got it.
Nailed it.
Let's see.
Let's do another one.
According to the Spectator Index, there's a new science.
It's published in the BMJ. It says that exercise, whether it's walking, jogging, or strength training, is an effective treatment for depression.
Hmm.
Hmm.
How could they have gotten that answer without doing all that work and spending that money and all that time?
They could have asked me, Scott, does exercising make people feel good?
Yes.
But what about if you were depressed?
Yes.
It's yes every time.
You didn't need to do that study.
All right, let's do one more.
According to study finds, a happy husband or wife could be the key to a stress-free life.
So it says your partner's happiness can lower your stress levels.
Oh, let's see.
Would I have come up with the same answer?
If your spouse is really happy, does that make you less happy or more happy?
I'm going to say more happy.
Checking the science?
Yes.
Nailed it.
Nailed it again.
But then it goes on, and I can't even believe this.
It says that the negative emotions don't have any impact.
So if your spouse is happy, it makes you happy.
But if your spouse is unhappy, it doesn't affect you in any way.
No.
Let me override the science on this.
If your spouse is unhappy, will that have no effect on you?
Or could it make you unhappy too?
It makes you unhappy.
I'm sorry.
I'm going to have to override the science on this one.
Science is wrong.
Scott is right again.
So you can pretty much ignore most of science.
And just ask me.
Really.
I'm available.
Just ask.
Well, in other news, One American News is reporting that Michelle Obama, here's the least surprising thing you'll ever hear, is going to do a podcast.
She's going to start her own podcast.
And it's with her brother, Craig Robinson, which answers a lot of questions.
Number one, apparently...
Michelle Obama and her brother are different people.
So all of those who said, I don't know, I think she is her brother.
No, they're different people.
And you'll see in the podcast.
But if you were looking at speculation, and it's only speculation, people, that the Obama's marriage was not doing well, what would you look for?
Well, If the marriage was doing well, I would look for the Obamas to be doing some joint projects.
Maybe some Netflix stuff, some other stuff.
But if their marriage was not doing well, I would look for Michelle Obama to do a podcast with her brother.
That just screams marital problems.
So, I don't know.
Maybe it's just pattern recognition or something.
If you start a podcast with your brother, probably your marriage isn't going as well as it could have been.
Well, here's the most surprising and good news I was not expecting whatsoever.
According to NPR, Brian Mann is writing about this, the fentanyl and other drug deaths are way down.
Now, who saw that coming?
It doesn't have anything to do with Trump or anything that Trump has done.
But apparently there's a big difference, and it's happened, I won't say suddenly, but just in the last year or so, and I was not aware of this at all.
But apparently the fentanyl deaths are down over 30% relative to the prior years.
Over 30% down.
In fentanyl deaths.
Now, you might ask why.
Now, the speculation from the actual addicts, who I would consider the experts in this domain, if you're not talking to the actual people who are doing the fentanyl, you probably don't know what's going on.
You know, the experts are just observing.
But here's what the addicts say.
Part of it is Narcan.
So that's the drug you administer if somebody's having an overdose, and it can just bring them back to life.
One of the addicts, I shouldn't laugh, but it is kind of funny, said, oh yeah, I've been Narcan back to life several times.
It doesn't stop him from doing it, but the Narcan has saved his life at least twice, I think.
But the other thing, and I'd heard this before through just my own contacts, that the addicts...
We're simply learning how to do fentanyl more safely.
So in other words, it used to be that they thought, well, if I injected this into my arm, if it were heroin, I'd do this much.
And then they would do the same amount with fentanyl and they'd be dead.
So it seems like the addicts have just gotten smarter, or the ones that survived so far are smarter, meaning that they smoke it instead of inject it.
And pill form is probably just as dangerous as injecting it.
But if they smoke it, and I'm not recommending it, by the way, it's a little bit more of a controlled dose.
And they've also just learned to do less of it.
And then there's some indication that it's weaker, that there are weaker forms of fentanyl out there.
So it might be some combination of all those things.
But 30%?
Not bad.
Now, it does complicate things for Trump with his tariffs, because he's putting tariffs on Canada and tariffs on Mexico and China, trying to reduce the deaths.
But what if they're going down by themselves for completely unrelated reasons?
Is Trump going to be able to sort that out, or will he just take credit and say, well...
Thanks to my tariffs, overdoses are down 30%.
It could go either way.
It could go either way.
But I have a comment about, you've probably heard people say, you know, why are you putting a tariff on Canada?
Because Canada only found, you know, like a handful of fentanyl at the border in the last year, whereas Mexico's been caught with a lot of it.
Well, do you know how that trick is done?
So here's how the trick is done.
If they only report what got caught, you don't know anything.
Because do you know what percentage of automobiles get checked and scanned with the high-tech scanners to look for fentanyl?
Of the normal, just regular cars, it's about 5%.
Both on the Canadian border and on the Mexican border, about 5%.
In commercial trucks, I think it's around 20%.
But you can ship a lot of fentanyl in the smallest car in a glove compartment, so you don't need a truck.
So that means that 5% of the potential vehicles that might have fentanyl in them are ever checked.
Does that mean that we just do a more serious job on the Mexican border of checking, so you discover more?
And on the Canadian border, maybe there's less rigor in the checking?
It still might be 5%, but maybe they're not profiling the same or something like that.
So I would not assume...
That just because the amount of fentanyl caught on the Canadian border is very, very low, it's indeed very low, that doesn't mean that it's not getting through in larger amounts.
I do assume that a lot more is coming through Mexico, but just never by that there's not much coming because we didn't catch much of it.
That's not a thing.
The amount you caught is just not really directly related.
You could argue, well, statistically, if both of them are checking 5%, it should be representative.
I don't think it works that way, because you don't know if the checking at the Mexican border, where everybody assumes there's more of it, is more rigorous than at any other place.
But it could be.
I do assume that Canada has far lower than that.
But it might not be as low as people are saying.
Here's some other good news.
Now, I guess I'll wait for a fact check on this.
But Libs of TikTok had a source that says that egg prices dropped by 11% recently and that they're now lower than when Trump took office.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think eggs are actually lower now than when Trump took office?
Because I don't think he's necessarily done anything that would lower the price of eggs.
Probably just normal market situation.
But then we've got Easter coming, where people buy lots of eggs just to color them.
So there should be some gigantic surge in demand that's going to happen any minute now, which presumably would push prices up again, I guess.
But it's good news that it didn't go up a lot.
So we'll see if this is a trend or just a little blip.
Or maybe not even, maybe it's just bad data.
We don't know.
According to Fox News, Andrew Mark Miller is writing, there's a new study that found that the Biden administration spent $1.1 trillion on promoting DEI. $1.1 trillion of your tax money went to DEI. Now, I think that number might be, you know, not just the DEI portion of things, but maybe things that also had DEI in them.
So it might be a little overstated, but it's a big number.
And do you know what would happen if you spent over a trillion dollars on DEI? It would make the price of eggs go up.
Literally.
The price of eggs probably is higher because of DEI. Because if the government spends more, inflation is higher.
If inflation is higher, your eggs cost more.
So a trillion dollars is enough that it would make a dent in pretty much every price.
So yeah, it's possible that DEI made your eggs cost more.
Very possible.
Anyway.
According to Doug Collins, who I guess is the Secretary of Veterans something-something, he just made a major announcement.
He said that they found they only checked 2% of the contracts.
And after checking only 2% of the contracts that are relative to Veterans Affairs, They found $900 billion in wasteful spending.
So nearly a billion dollars, and all they checked were 2% of the contracts.
Now, it could be that they knew which ones to look at.
Maybe it just jumped down at you.
Yeah, these are the problem ones.
Or it could be that if they keep checking, they're going to find more billions.
I don't know.
But what I like about it is, I think...
I think Trump has created an environment where his secretaries and the heads of everything, look at that troll, is back.
If you have a way to kill that troll on Rumble, the fart troll, I don't know if it's just somebody retarded or what, but it's the same one.
We see them all the time.
So if you can figure out how to kill that troll, that'd be great.
So anyway, the point is that...
Yeah, I'm just going to have to turn off these comments.
There we go.
So I can only see the comments from locals now.
So locals, I can see you, but Rumble, I have to turn you off.
So I like the fact that if you're a Republican and you're running some big department, if you don't come up with an idea about how you're going to save a ton of money, it's not going to look like you're doing your job.
You know, there was that big, well, I don't know if it's big, but there was at least some friction between Elon Musk and Doge and the cabinet heads.
And the cabinet heads wanted to say, we're the ones who cut expenses with a scalpel.
So we've got to approve all the cuts.
Now, I think that makes sense because it's easier to sell it to the public if you say, well, you know, nothing got cut unless the head of the department who knows what's going on said it's okay to cut it.
But I like the fact that if they're not all doing big cuts, they're going to stand out as maybe not doing their job in a Republican world.
So, that's good.
Good job, Doug Collins.
I'd like to see all of your peers say, hey, I can do that too.
According to the Federalist, Beth Barelji is writing that, this is her headline, after a four-year nap, New York Times is going to start fact-checking the White House again.
And part of the article is about how That Biden was treated as an old man who told stories, but the stories didn't necessarily fact check.
And then you think, oh, that's okay.
He's just an old man telling stories.
You don't expect all the stories to fact check.
But when Trump's in there, they're like, oh, we better fact check like crazy.
But even the Times is saying, we're not going to treat everything he says like it's news.
So you don't have to fact check.
Every single thing that Trump does all the time.
But one of the things that the New York Times did was they were still calling the 2020 election deniers participating in, quote, the big lie.
Now, if he ever wanted to know what would it be like to live in a communist dictatorship, it would look like this, where questioning the legitimacy of an election is called The big lie.
That only happens from illegitimate leadership.
There's no way that you could consider the New York Times a legitimate news source if they repeat the big lie.
It's the big lie.
As if anybody could know whether an American election was rigged or not.
You wouldn't know.
It would just be completely unknowable.
Because the accusation is...
That it was done without getting caught.
So if it was done without getting caught, that's either true or it's not true.
But it's definitely not something that somebody else knows the real answer to.
If somebody thinks it was rigged, maybe they don't have evidence.
But you also don't have evidence that it wasn't rigged because the accusation is that you could get away with it.
Yeah.
Anyway, there's a brand new drunken Kamala Harris video.
She's appearing on stage at some event, and she's just plastered.
Now, the other big lie, if I can borrow that term, was that Joe Biden's brain was fine for four years.
And then as soon as he's out of office, suddenly all the insiders are like, oh, yeah, he was so degraded we couldn't even have him talk to people.
Oh, yeah.
We had to give him little note cards or he wouldn't even know what to say.
But we knew that, right?
Everybody who is not in the bag for the Democrats, we knew it.
We could see it.
In 2019, people like me and a lot of other people were saying, you don't see that?
Because it's really obvious that he's not all there.
And if you just multiply that by four more years...
We're just, you know, you just projected four more years.
There's no way that at the end of Biden's term, he's going to be even barely functioning at all.
It was even worse than we thought.
It wasn't even as good as I thought it was.
But we're doing the exact same thing with Kamala Harris.
There's not any question whether she's inebriated at these various events.
It's so, so obvious.
And still, The media is completely silent about it.
Just completely silent.
The only place you'll even see it mentioned is on social media.
I don't think even the major right-leaning networks cover it.
But am I wrong that it's super obvious?
I mean, how can you miss it?
If you look at my X feed, if you want to see it, there's no real doubt that she's plastered.
Now, I don't know if it's alcohol or something else, but she's plastered, and there's no doubt about it.
CNN's Harry Enten, he's the guy who talks about the data and the polls.
He was talking about a CBS YouGov survey that said 54% of Americans think that Elon's Doge Project should influence government spending.
So 54% of people are in favor of Doge doing what Doge is doing.
Now, that's slightly different from the specific way they do it, I suppose.
But in general, that's a pretty good majority, 54%.
In America...
It's hard to get 54% to be on the same page of anything.
And then 51% approve of Trump trying to cut staff at government agencies.
I'm surprised that's as low as it is, but there it is.
And Harry Enten said of the results, quote, I was truly surprised.
Really?
How could you be truly surprised that cost-cutting in the government Am I right?
How in the world could that be surprising?
And he looked like he was genuinely surprised.
So his own network apparently has skewed the news to such an extent that even somebody who works for the network was surprised about the most obvious The poll result you could ever have, which is, yeah, cutting waste and abuse.
Generally, we kind of like that.
Surprise!
Surprise.
Anyway, as you know, you probably know, the X platform was attacked by hackers, some kind of a denial of service thing where they just massively attack.
Elon Musk said the IP addresses were originating in Ukraine.
But as you know, that doesn't mean Ukraine was or anybody involved with Ukraine was guilty It just means that that's where the hackers ran their traffic through.
And you know the reader comments that correct any posts on X? Well, even Elon Musk got corrected.
They said that the attack was claimed by pro-Palestinian cyber hacking group called Dark Storm Team with ties to Russia.
And then they explained that this kind of attack is launched from compromised groups of computers known as botnets, the location of which has no relevance to the attacker's location.
In other words, they're saying that even if the IP addresses look like Ukraine, that's probably just a...
Had fake by whoever was really behind it.
Now, here's my comment.
Why would a pro-Palestinian cyber hacking group with ties to Russia be attacking Elon Musk?
They would do that.
Why?
Because Trump's not helping the Palestinians enough?
So they're going after X? Does that seem like a real thing?
Or what about the ties with Russia?
Because that phrase, ties with Russia, that's doing a lot of work.
Ties with Russia.
Do you think that Putin would think it would be a good idea to launch an attack on Elon Musk exactly the same time that they're trying to negotiate some kind of deal for a piece?
This doesn't make sense.
So I'm going to call bullshit on this.
I don't know who did the attack, but the whole ties to Russia?
No.
I'm sorry.
You know, I'm not the one who thinks that Russia is good, or that they don't do bad things, or that they don't do hacking, or they don't do cyber crimes, or that Putin is a great guy.
I'm not saying any of that.
I'm just saying, why would they operate against their own interests?
Their own interest would be to just stand down.
And see if you can get a peace deal and maybe get your economy back on point.
So now, this is not ringing true whatsoever.
Well, I think it's fair to say that the color revolution is on.
How many of you know what I'm talking about when I say a color revolution?
Most of you probably know what that means, but for those of you who don't, I'll give you just the quickest little explanation.
When the United States has used its CIA and its USAID funding to try to destabilize or overthrow a foreign government, it's often called a color revolution.
Now, that's because some of the revolutions, but not all of them, were associated with the color.
You know, like rose or orange or something like that.
So the color revolutions have certain characteristics.
The first one is that the USAID-type funding and the NGOs are behind the street violence.
So if you can get, say, a big union in some other country to protest and fill the streets, or some other pro-democracy group, They're artificial, the same way that Black Lives Matter and Antifa were artificial, because that was a color revolution as well, in my opinion.
So right now you're seeing the massive protests against Tesla.
That's a color revolution, in my opinion, just based on what I know about it.
Because it's not grassroots.
It's supported by obvious propaganda in the media, which is also...
You know, a characteristic of the color revolutions.
So we always try to, if we're doing another country and trying to destabilize them, you always have the media do this messaging that's always repeated.
And you've seen that almost all of the anti-Trump media has said, oh, Doge is using a, should use a scalpel.
And not a chainsaw, and they all just repeat the same thing.
If you were to go to any Democrat who's watched the news, they would just repeat what the news said.
What do you think of Doge?
Well, I think that he's using a chainsaw instead of a scalpel, and that doesn't make any sense.
So that's not a real opinion.
That is an assigned opinion, which is how the color revolution works.
So first you assign the opinion.
And then you create a fake number of protesters who are literally paid, and you have them create all this noise.
So it looks like the public is really on the side of change, even though it's completely artificial.
And so that's what we're seeing.
We're seeing it just looks like exactly that.
And then, you know, the old...
Elon Musk is the co-president and trying to create some wedge between Musk and Trump.
It's all just color revolution stuff.
It's not news.
It's not fake news, although it could be fake.
It's organized.
It's the same stuff that we do to overthrow other countries.
It's just being used internally against Trump.
And once you understand that, everything looks different.
I believe Elon Musk blamed Reid Hoffman for funding some of the bad people who were doing the protests against Tesla dealerships, etc.
And then Reid Hoffman denied it on X. And then the independent researchers on X said, well, not so fast, Reid Hoffman.
So let's see.
So he denied it.
Let's see.
Kanakoa the Great said that Reid Hoffman is a major funder of Indivisible, a group actively funding and organizing the anti-demonstrations.
Okay.
So Kanakoa the Great, one of the more productive and successful, say, independent researchers, independent news people, says, yeah, here's the group, you funded it, and then they're funding that thing.
Then there's Laura Loomer.
She did her own research, and she found that Reid Hoffman was funding something called the Hopewell Fund, which is associated with something called the 1630 Fund, which is associated with the Sunrise Pack, which is associated with the Sunrise Movement, which is funding some of the protests.
Now, that's the way we hide the funding in general, all these NGOs.
Money goes to one.
And then they give money with no auditing and no trail to another, and that goes to another, and then it might go to a fourth, and then the bad thing happens.
And then others have pointed out that ActBlue, which is the group that collects small donations for Democrats, but it looks like more of a money laundering operation, say many, that there are five groups that were funded by ActBlue.
That are also responsible for the Tesla protests.
So I don't know which, if any, of these are the correct take, but there are at least three different versions of how money is coming from the top Democrats, you know, the Soros, the Reid Hoffmans, etc., and going directly, not directly, but through these indirect connections, going into these, what you would think would be real protests, but are completely fake.
President Trump said that he's planning to buy a Tesla tomorrow just to support Elon because the Tesla stock dropped quite a bit based on that.
And so Trump says he's going to buy a Tesla.
I might do the same.
The only thing stopping me is it's a lot of work to figure out which one I want.
But short of that, I might buy one as well.
I was going to anyway, but it'd be a good time to do it.
So, there's that.
You know, I was reminded of the assassination of Lincoln, and he was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth.
Do you know what John Wilkes Booth's job was before he became a presidential assassin?
He worked in the theater.
He was an actor.
He was literally an actor.
So nothing's changed.
The Democrats are actors.
They're basically theater kids pretending to care about stuff.
The anti-Tesla stuff is clearly just actors.
Paid actors.
And if you don't understand that, then everything's confusing.
Likewise, the leadership in the Democrat world They seem to me just like actors.
When you watch the fact that they talk about how the messaging is the only thing they got wrong, not the policies, when clearly the policies were unpopular.
I mean, just clearly.
Every poll showed that their policies were unpopular.
Trump's policies were popular.
And still, they maintain, because they're actors, they're theater kids, they still maintain it's just the way they did it.
So the response was to create cringe videos, acting, to do a bunch of similar-looking little douchebag videos where they hold tiny microphones for no reason, acting.
It's all acting.
And I really don't think this is happening on the other side.
I do not believe that the Republicans are mostly acting.
I think the Republicans have real opinions.
They're consistent with what their opinions have been forever.
Whereas the Democrats are saying stuff like, oh, maybe we should just change all of our opinions so we can get back in power.
What?
What?
If all of that stuff you were talking about a year ago was ever important, wouldn't it still be important, at least to you?
Nope.
Nope.
We'll drop it like a hot rock and we'll just pretend something else is important.
Oh, Elon Musk is a danger to the world.
That's what we'll pretend today.
But it's all pretend.
In other news, Representative Eli Crane, and this was a little bit bipartisan, passed a bill, at least in the House, Senate still has to pass it, that's aimed at cracking down on Mexican cartel tunnels.
What is not mentioned in the reporting is, what are they going to do about the tunnels?
Weren't we already anti-tunnel?
If we discovered a tunnel, didn't we close it up?
So, I don't know if this means they're getting some kind of new technology, maybe, to monitor tunnels.
I always wondered if you could put listening devices in the ground, you know, every half mile or so.
And that you would just identify somebody digging a tunnel.
Because it'd have to be kind of loud down there.
So maybe it's some kind of high-tech thing for identifying tunnels.
I don't know.
But that got passed.
The one person who voted against it, the vote was 402 to 1 in the House.
And the one person against it was Representative Rashida Tlaib.
Democrat.
Why in the world would she be against the effort to stop tunnels under the border?
What is even behind that?
At least her other Democrat theater kids knew enough to stay away from that one.
Anyway, what's this story?
So apparently there's some Ukrainian disinformation organization that's, according to Mike Benz, that's doxing U.S. journalists and calling for firings.
And calling for sanctions and criminal prosecutions against people in the Trump-related world.
But that's not too surprising.
What's surprising is that they're funded, 42% of the funding of that.
Ukrainian disinformation group that's attacking the United States.
It comes from the United States.
42% of the funding comes from the National Endowment for Democracy.
So we're actually funding attacks on ourselves.
It just gets worse.
Now, you might say, well, it's actually pro-Ukrainian and Democrats funding attacks on Republicans.
It's kind of the United States collecting taxes to attack itself.
Because Trump's the president.
He's actually the leader of the country.
And he won convincingly.
So if we're funding something that's attacking that, we're paying to attack ourselves.
It just sounds like siblings.
I'm not touching you.
I'm not touching you.
Meanwhile, and this is just so horrible, it's hard to even mention, but an Infowars reporter, Jamie White, was brutally murdered on Sunday night outside his home in Austin, and no suspects have been identified.
Now, I suppose there could be a variety of reasons why something like that would happen, but in the context of a color revolution, which we're in, Seeing a brutal murder of somebody who is clearly on the other side of the color revolution.
Yeah, we're not going to talk about murder made.
He was pretty thoroughly debunked.
This is scary.
It makes you wonder if there'll be any other violence against Republican-leaning reporters.
I hope Alex Jones and the rest of them have some good security, or at least they're armed to the teeth and they're watching their backs, because that's some scary stuff.
Well, let's talk about Fort Knox.
So according to the post-millennial, Trump and Elon Musk have been trying to get access to see if the gold is still there in Fort Knox.
To me, that's the whole story.
Why would the President of the United States have to vie to get access to Four Knox?
Do you know what the correct response should be?
You'd like to see the golden Four Knox?
Why, yes, Mr. President.
What day would you like to come down?
You'd like to bring Mr. Musk?
Of course.
What day would you like to come down?
We'll make sure that you get a good tour.
But that's not happening.
Is anybody a little suspicious about the fact that there's apparently some kind of pushback?
That the President of the United States can't look at the gold just to make sure it's there?
This can't possibly be just some kind of bureaucratic problem, right?
Is this exactly what it looks like?
Like nothing is real?
The whole world is just fake.
And maybe there's some lead that's spray-painted gold in there.
I don't know.
But apparently nobody's gotten a good look at it in a long time.
And even if you did get a good look at it, could you estimate its value by looking at it?
If they told you, oh yeah, we've got $186 billion in gold, and then they show you a room with a big pile of gold, would you know?
If the ones on the inside of the pile are exactly the same as the ones on the outside of the pile, would you know what $186 billion worth of gold even looks like?
Is that a pile that's 10 feet tall and 20 feet wide?
20 feet square?
20 by 20?
I mean, how big would that be?
Even if you had access, I don't know if you could tell whether it's all there.
And it's not like you're going to take a picture of it.
It seems like that wouldn't be allowed.
Well, that's suspicious that there's any pushback whatsoever.
But here's another one.
So John Solomon of Just the News is reporting that Congress had, not too long ago, demanded that the Treasury Department Provide access to what's called the suspicious activity reports for ActBlue.
Now, again, ActBlue is the Democrat organization that allegedly collects small donations for Democrats, but it's being accused of far more nefarious use of their money and also sources of their money.
But here's the weird part.
Apparently, the Biden administration didn't fully comply.
So the first request came from Republicans, but Biden gave them some stuff, but not all of it, and they knew they didn't get all of it.
Now, they're trying again, and I think there might be some question whether even under Trump, the Treasury will give them this information.
Now, is that a little suspicious?
That the Treasury might be resistant to giving people who have every right to it, people like Comer and Jordan, if they've asked for it and they've gone through the proper process and they have all the security clearances and everything else, is that really going to be denied to them?
I think it will be.
Because everything seems to be corrupt.
Just everything.
But what about those JFK files?
Well, Tucker Carlson was talking to Andrew Cuomo.
Andrew?
No, Chris Cuomo.
Talking to Chris Cuomo on his podcast.
And he said this.
Tucker said, someone was being discussed for a job in the intel world, and a member of the Senate Intel Committee said...
You cannot hire this person because this person will push for the release of the JFK files.
And Chris Cuomo said, so why don't you...
What?
Why would Tom Cotton care so much about not releasing the JFK files that he would try to get somebody who might want to release them not considered for the job?
That's a little sus.
Isn't it?
So do you believe you're ever going to see the JFK files if Tom Cotton doesn't want you to?
Because he wouldn't be alone.
So whatever it is that Tom Cotton knows, who would be on the Senate Intel Committee, meaning that they know more than you and I know, what does he know?
And as Tucker was speculating, there's probably not a single person involved with, let's say, the CIA. It would still be alive.
So what possible reason would an American senator have for not wanting that to be released?
And apparently Mike Pompeo was pretty dead set on not releasing it too.
What could be in those files that are that dangerous?
Now I know what you're going to say.
You're going to say it's something about Israel, but there's no indication of that.
Yeah, as soon as I said that, I saw it in the comments.
So the speculation is that it's hard to imagine anything that's American that we couldn't show you.
Because suppose we found out the CIA did it, or the mafia did it, or the mafia with the CIA, or the Democrats under Johnson.
Apparently there are a lot of suspects.
Don't you think we could survive that pretty easily?
Right?
I mean, we know that there's been terrible, terrible behavior in our own government in the past.
But as long as it's in the past and all those people are dead, we can usually handle that.
We can handle a pretty big dose of honesty about how bad America was at one point.
But I'll tell you one thing we couldn't handle if we found out it was Israel.
That would be a whole different game.
So I can see why people are speculating about it, but as far as I know, there's no evidence for that particular theory.
Do you think we're ever going to see it?
I don't.
I don't think we're ever going to see the JFK files.
At least if we see something, it won't be complete or tell us anything we didn't know.
But what about those Epstein files?
What do you think would prevent the Epstein files from being released?
Well...
Hold on.
I've got to turn something off here.
There we go.
Again, people are saying, you know, if it's just something about our government, don't you think we can handle it?
But there's been much speculation that Epstein worked for Israel.
Now, again, I don't have any specific information to prove that or not prove it.
My theory is that if he was a blackmail operation, which it looks like, that he may have had more than one, let's say, interested country.
I mean, he might have been freelancing for, you know, more than one country.
That's possible.
So I'm not going to say it's, you know, just some kind of Israel operation.
I don't have any evidence of that.
But it would explain why we're not seeing it.
So I'm going to say, and then Kash Patel said, he just said this, I think, yesterday.
Our team has been working day and night to produce documents for Chairman Grassley and Chairman Jordan.
And this is only the beginning.
To rebuild trust, your FBI will be opening the books at levels never done before.
I say no.
I think it's bullshit.
I don't think Kash Patel has the ability or the stomach to produce the documents that would tell us anything new.
I think we might see some unimportant documents.
But no.
I don't believe whatever this force is that's...
That's keeping it hidden so far.
It's not changing.
However strong that is, whatever outside or inside internal force it is, I don't think it got weaker.
So, no, I don't think there's any chance for you to see anything that makes a difference.
What about that January 6th pipe bomb documents?
Well, according to Fox News, Now, you know the story that there was a suspicious pipe bomb that looked like it was part of an op to make the protesters look like they were more dangerous than they were.
But it looks like the pipe bomb was planted by a member of law enforcement, if you look at the videos and you look at the context.
So we'd like to know more about who put that fake pipe bomb there.
And Fox News Digital has learned that the records shared by the FBI on that topic It included more than 400 pages on it.
Oh, okay.
Well, that's good.
But I think that we don't yet know what's up with the pipe bomb.
Do you think you're going to find out the real story of the pipe bomb?
I'm going to say no.
No, there's no evidence that the public will ever see the real story about the pipe bomb.
I don't think we'll see the real story about Fort Knox.
I don't think we'll see the real story about ActBlue and the Treasury.
I don't think we'll see the real story about JFK. I don't think we'll see the real story about Epstein.
And I don't think we'll see the real story about January 6th, the pipe bomb, or anything else.
I just don't think we live in that world where it's even possible that we would learn those things.
We might learn some bullshit, but I don't think we'll learn the real story.
Anyway, over in Saudi Arabia, there's some allegedly peace talks about Ukraine.
Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz are over there.
And at the same time, you know that Russia launched a major attack on Ukraine the other day.
And now Ukraine has launched its biggest drone attack on Moscow.
And it was a lot.
There were 337 Ukrainian drones overnight.
Went toward Moscow and another city nearby, I guess.
A lot of them got shot down, but a lot of them got through.
Three people dead.
And does that sound like Ukraine wants to make some peace?
Now, you could argue that both Russia and Ukraine are just sort of preparing for peace talks by making sure that the alternative looks worse.
Oh, look at this escalation.
You better get some peace because it's just going to get worse.
So maybe.
Maybe they're trying to be productive in the sense of making sure it's not a one-sided conversation.
Oh yeah, if you try to kill us, we'll try to kill you.
So it might be that.
Or it might be Ukraine just trying to tank the peace talks.
Either one of those is possible.
Then here's some robot news.
I'll just throw this in here for a palate cleanser before we get back to some other stuff.
Every time I go to social media and there's news about robots, a robot can do a new thing like do a flip.
So now there's a robot that can do a forward flip.
I don't care what company it was.
And then there's a robot that can walk smoother instead of walking like...
A robot.
And I don't care what company that was.
Then there's another company that makes really good robot hands.
They're really sensitive and have all kinds of dexterity.
I don't care what company that is.
And then there's lots of robot demos where we see a robot do one thing.
Look, it could fold a shirt.
And then that's sort of all you see it do.
Look, it can take trays of parts.
And move them onto shelves.
And that's sort of all it does.
I'm going to go out on a limb and double down on my opinion that our current version of AI isn't capable of driving a robot.
And that no matter how good the robot bodies get, and they're pretty impressive, and the batteries and everything else.
So I think the robot bodies are going to be amazing.
I don't think they're going to be able to do generally whatever you want them to do.
Now, when I say whatever, I mean within the realm of even a domestic robot, I don't think you're going to get a robot where you can say, hey, just go empty the dishwasher or walk the dog or feed the dog.
Even if the robot could know generally where the dog food is and what it means to feed the dog.
I just don't think our current AI, even with normal assumptions about rapid improvement, I don't think it'll be able to do it.
So I think what we're waiting for with robots is a version of AI that can drive a robot.
And it might end up more like the Elon Musk version, where instead of a large language model, The Tesla self-driving cars that have AI for the self-driving, they were trained on infinite video.
So I think the robots are going to have to be trained on infinite video of just showing everything a person can do and a robot can do and building it up.
So that would be a completely different form of AI, but there's some precedence because the Tesla cars are trained on video.
So that could work.
But I've got a feeling that it's going to take massive amounts of training and resources to get to that first robot.
Now, I think Tesla's going to do it, but I don't know if they're going to do it in a year.
So we'll see.
Now let's talk about the budget.
As you know, our...
Congress is weak and pathetic, so instead of solving a budget and reducing costs and all the things that we think we're paying them to do, they have been for years just doing these continuing resolutions.
Now, the continuing resolution is just, well, we'll keep the budget the way it was, and we'll just kick that can down the road, and we'll try to do something permanent later.
And then I think they just kick it down the road a little bit more next time.
But Thomas Massey, of course, being the lone hawk on debt, at least the one that takes it seriously.
Rand Paul does as well.
But Thomas Massey says he's not going to support the continuing resolution.
But there are people like Chip Roy and, was it Burchette, who said the continuing resolution isn't as bad as it looks.
Because what's different this time...
Is that there's actually a reduction in the budget.
And the argument goes like this.
Because inflation is high, if you don't increase the budget, it's a budget cut.
Now, I get that.
I get that.
If you don't increase the budget by the amount of inflation, it is.
I mean, that's just a fair statement.
It's a budget cut.
But it's not a big one.
And then secondly, My understanding of how the continuing resolution, which would be the same budget we always have, is related to Doge, is that you can pass the budget to be the same as it was, but then you can still claw back the money a bit at a time based on Doge.
And also, there are some entire projects and groups that are completely cancelled.
So when Rubio says, I cut 5200 USAID projects.
That probably means that even if there were funding, they wouldn't be able to spend it because there's nobody left to spend it.
There's just nobody to write the check.
So it could be that this isn't as bad as it looks, meaning that if Doge is doing what it's supposed to do and we're not raising the budget.
Because each of the budget groups, of course, they always want a little bit more.
It might be that it's just giving time for Doge to do its thing.
But I'm kind of with Massey in that I don't trust it.
I feel like, and Massey pointed out that the Supreme Court seems to have ruled against the ability to cut as much in the way that Doge wants to cut it.
So what we might see, And I hate to think this, is that some of those things you thought were cut sort of magically reconstitute, based on lawfare, well, just the law, and based on the fact that there's money that just would be allocated.
Not real money, it would be based on debt, but you know what I mean.
Now, Trump...
Not being happy that Thomas Massey would vote against the continuing resolution, which Trump is in favor of, says he wants to primary Thomas Massey.
Boy, you should see the comments on social media to that.
Thomas Massey has a pretty good following of people who understand that even though he's the lone voice, usually, that you need it.
Yeah, you just need it.
People like him because he's not controlled by AIPAC. He seems to be the only one.
People like it because he is unflinching about debt and insists that he was hired to do a job, and his job is not to run up the budget unnecessarily.
And if he's the only one willing to do the job that he was hired for, well, he's just going to stick to his guns, no matter what the consequences are.
Now, there was a time when I hated that.
My first exposure to Thomas Massey, I think, was this very thing during the first Trump administration, where I heard there was this one jerk who was keeping Trump from getting what he needed.
And I thought, man, why can't that one guy, what's wrong with him?
But then I got to understand that he's just operating on principle.
But it's more than principle.
It's existential risk.
If we keep spending like we're spending.
He's the only one who's identified, if you do this, you're dead.
I'm not going to be part of that.
I'm not going to be part of killing you.
I will do whatever I can do to make sure I'm not part of killing you, even if it means doing something unpopular.
So Trump says he wants to try to primary him.
I think he's in such a safe area that he couldn't be primaried effectively.
But I think Trump got this wrong.
So even if you agree that the continuing resolution should be approved and you think that Doge would be enough to claw back from the continuing resolution level so it looks like there's progress, even if you think that, which would be a reasonable thing to think.
I don't know if it's guaranteed, but it would be reasonable to think you could get away with it.
I just don't think picking a fight with the most principled person in the Congress It's just a good play.
So I think this is just Trump not reading the room right.
Now, I could be wrong.
Maybe Trump is so influential that he'll turn the whole world against Thomas Massey.
But I'll tell you the initial reactions were, whoa, whoa, whoa.
No.
Hard no.
You don't go after Massey.
Because he's the only one saying what we want people to say in Congress.
He's the only one.
Well, Rand Paul, too.
I'll give Rand Paul some credit there.
So, yeah.
So mark me down as saying this is a Trump mistake.
That's my take.
And I feel like you can't really be credible doing what I'm doing, talking about politics, unless you're willing to say, okay, I like this part, but I don't love this part.
If you're not willing to do that, you're kind of worthless.
So, I don't like this part.
To me, this looks like a Trump mistake.
According to Just the News, there are a whole bunch of attorney generals, 38 attorney generals in 38 states, want to end Google's search monopoly.
And they've got some kind of plan to do that that involves divesting Chrome from the rest of Google.
I don't exactly know how that solves the monopoly on search.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but any browser you use has the same access to Google, doesn't it?
Is there something built into Chrome that I've never used that sort of forces me to use Google?
I'm not even aware of it.
But I think this was a good idea before Perplexity was launched.
Perplexity is an app.
They have to pay for it, so it's a monthly cost.
But the perplexity app is so much better than a Google search that if you use it once, you'll never use Google again.
And you could just ask anybody who's used it.
Now, here's why.
If you do a Google search, you get all these sponsored results, and you have to wade through them, and you get biased results, and you basically have to do a lot of work.
If you're doing a Google search, unless it's the simplest question in the world.
But perplexity, you can just push one button, you can talk to it, and it gives you great results.
And it's not like other AI. It's somehow unlike the other AI that hallucinates.
It doesn't hallucinate.
Or did it once.
I think there might have been one time I saw a hallucination.
But generally speaking, it's very, very good.
And it's so much better as an interface to search that, honestly, you just use it once, you'll never use Google again.
So I think the free market sort of was solving the problem on its own.
So I just don't think it's the biggest thing in the world to divest Google at this point.
I understand the impulse, but...
The free market did a pretty good job here.
There's a new book out, and it mentions Gavin Newsom, that he, quote, bailed out the biggest utility in the state.
I think they're talking about PG&E, the electric utility.
And it says that he bailed out the utility responsible for California wildfires, because the utility lines, if they spark and fall down, it causes fires.
And apparently it's caused some of our biggest ones.
And he bailed them out, meaning not holding them responsible, after collecting six figures in donations for his political campaigns, I guess.
And instead of blaming the utility who directly, and we all understand, were directly involved in causing it with their...
With their lines going down.
He went after the oil and gas companies over climate change, claiming that climate change was, you know, a big driver of the fires.
Oh, my God.
Anyway, so the book is called, let's see, it's called Fool's Gold, The Radicals, Con Artists, and Traitors Who Killed the California Dream and Now Threaten Us All.
Okay, that's not the best title for a book.
But it's by Susan Crabtree and Jed McFatter.
McFatter?
That's an unfortunate last name.
I hope he goes to the gym because it's spelled M-C-F-A-T-T-E-R. Man, if you gained 10 pounds and your last name was McFatter, I wouldn't go anywhere in public.
Like, hey.
Looks like he got a little McFadder there.
That'd be terrible.
Anyway, so it doesn't seem to me like Gavin Newsom could ever win the presidency.
Because this is a pretty big charge.
I can't judge how much of this is true.
It's just something that these authors have.
Then another news that I think is fake, according to some publication called WFDD, Hamas is offering a truce with Israel for five to ten years.
And this is apparently according to the U.S. hostage negotiator.
He's the hostage affairs envoy, Adam Bowler.
So allegedly, he told the Israeli public that Hamas was willing to lay down their arms for five to 10 years and not be involved in governing Gaza, while the U.S. would take part in ensuring that no Hamas tunnels or militant activities would crop up again. while the U.S. would take part in ensuring that no My take on this?
I don't believe any of that.
I don't believe there's any agreement.
I don't believe Hamas would do it.
I don't even know if Bowler even said it.
Nothing about that looks true to me.
In other news, the U.S. Air Force has accepted its first official combat drone, according to David Zandi writing in New Atlas.
Now, it's not fully operational, as in integrated into their warfighting machine yet.
So it's still sort of prototype, and they're still testing it out.
But apparently there are two essentially drone jets, so they would be unpiloted, that could do the same work as, and maybe even more, because they don't have to worry about protecting the human.
So it looks like our Air Force will be a drone Air Force.
And that's a real thing.
So by this time next year, it might be more likely that if we were to do an attack somewhere, it would be drones.
But they're big ones.
You know, not the little guys.
But the big drones would be the size of a jet.
Just wouldn't have a human in it.
At the same time...
According to Interesting Engineering, Kapil Kajal, the U.S. is launching its first naval ship, a 240-ton unmanned ship that's also a drone.
So we're going to have a drone navy and a drone air force really soon.
I guess that's no surprise to anybody who's been paying attention.
But, yeah, it's going to be full drone warfare.
Now, if you...
Predict ahead.
What would happen if our main risk were machines rather than people?
Would that make us more likely to launch an attack?
Because we would be all like, well, we're not going to lose any people.
We can just send a bunch of drones over there and see what happens.
It might.
It might make us more likely to wage war.
On the other hand, And it also might make it more likely that if we attack somebody with our robots, and there were no humans involved, although they would be operating them from a distance, that the bad guys, whoever we attacked, would have to respond by a terrorist attack on civilians in the United States.
Because if they're only attacking robots, we'll just keep making more robots.
It could be more dangerous to humans, but it would be civilians, not military people.
So there's that.
And I guess the country of Turkey is testing some kind of a laser thing to shoot down drones.
So the whole drone warfare and the laser defense, man, that stuff's happening fast.
It's going to be a whole new world just one year from now.
All right.
Well, that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I had to talk about today.
Thanks for joining.
I'm going to talk to the people on Locals privately after I say goodbye to YouTube and Rumble and X. Thanks for joining, everybody.
