God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, 2026 Mars Starship, Elon Musk, DOGE USPS, Bill Burr, Robby Starbuck, Earnings Inequality, Bloomberg Publication, President Trump, Trump DOJ Speech, Fake News Judicial Influence, Jake Tapper, MSNBC Layoff List, Nancy Pelosi CR Fears, Chris Cuomo, Polling Company Closures, Monmouth Polling, Education Decline Blame, Marc Andreessen, College Accreditation, College Research Grants, Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat Medicaid Hoax, Democrat Charisma Gap, AOC Bernie Rallies, Fight Oligarchy Rallies, Democrat Messaging, Obama's DOGE Program, Embracing Nuclear Energy, Democrat Dark Money, Kursk Negotiations, Panama Canal, Quick Wins Importance, 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.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that only SpaceX has experienced, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chelsea, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and darn it, it happens right now.
Go.
Thanks, Paul.
Oh, Everything is working swimmingly.
Well, after today's livestream, which you will just love, Owen Gregorian will be...
Hosting a Spaces on X. That's the audio thing.
So look for Owen Gregorian right after the live stream.
It's a Scott Adams After Party Spaces.
So you can talk about either what the news is or I suppose anything that seems interesting.
You might know that SpaceX has already launched its rocket to rescue the astronauts there.
They're stuck on the International Space Station.
And they should be back on Sunday.
Boy, I hope that works.
Don't you think the country needs just that?
You know, like a little one thing we cannot argue about?
It's like, oh, some astronauts got rescued.
Will the Democrats have a problem with it?
Do you think Pelosi and Schumer and...
The rest will say, you know, I really should have left them there because there wasn't enough diversity or something.
They're going to find a reason not to like it.
Well, Elon Musk gave us an update about his Mars plans, and he says that by the end of next year, he plans to send the starship to Mars.
So at the end of next year...
He's going to land a rocket with Mars, but no people.
He's going to put an Optimus, one of the robots.
Well, at least one.
I don't know how many robots, but at least one.
And I'm thinking to myself, wouldn't the most logical thing to do would be to ship a whole bunch of robots up there if you could keep them powered?
And then have the robots build you your human...
Qualified space station?
Because you don't want people up there until it's habitable.
So I also think, what would happen if you get several robots up there and then something happens to the space program or whatever, and they just decide to build their own civilization on Mars?
Don't you think there's a non-zero chance that...
The Earth will evolve one way, and Mars will evolve completely with robots.
They'll just build some more of themselves and say, you know what?
We could use a few more extra robots, and then just build their own up there.
I don't know.
Probably it would be too hard to get the parts to build your own robot, but I like thinking about it.
I like thinking about a robot planet.
Maybe.
Well, according to reports, We're seeing this in the Gateway Pundit.
Apparently, gas prices are now below $3 in 31 states.
Not my state.
I'm still over $5, of course, because California's got crazy taxes on top of the gas and whatever else.
But, yeah, it's like a new low, at least a recent low.
So the national average price for a gallon of regular gas sat at $3.07, according to AAA. Now, that's pretty good.
I haven't seen, you know, in California, like I say, our gas is always twice as expensive.
So the last time I saw $3 a gallon, that was a long time ago.
A lot longer than you, if you're in one of these states that's already sitting at $3.
Anyway, the U.S. Postal Service has agreed to work with Doge to figure out how to get more efficient.
Epoch Times is reporting that.
It looks like they're going to cut 10,000 workers and they're going to try to figure out how to stop doing all the crazy things that weren't economical.
But did you realize that the...
Post office was losing $100 to $200 billion a year.
Does that even sound like it could be real?
Given the size of our deficit, you don't think the easiest thing to fix would be to get the post office not to need any more subsidies?
I feel like all the other shipping companies make money.
FedEx makes money.
UPS makes money.
I just don't see the reason for a post office anymore.
And I heard a lot of people say that they take their mail directly to the garbage and sort of stand over it and drop most of it in the garbage and keep the one bill or something that came to you.
But I have a rule that I won't let mail in my house.
The ugliest thing you can do to your own house...
Is I have a place, usually in the kitchen, where people drop the mail.
And then it just becomes a pile of garbage.
It's literally just a pile of garbage.
So I set up a station in my garage so that when I go to the mailbox and come back, I've got a little sorting area in the garage that is less of a mess than if it were in a house.
And it's right next to the garbage.
So I... Basically, we put all of it in the garbage.
Now, how hard would it be for the post office to say, you know what?
We're not even going to deliver any first-class mail anymore.
We're just not going to do it.
And then just say, if you want to see it, you have to go online or look at it on your phone or something.
Maybe the right solution is just not to have a post office.
Maybe.
Well, in other news, Bill Burr, the comedian, is a freaking idiot.
He was on The Breakfast Club.
Now, this was weeks ago, in February, I guess, but I just saw the clip.
And apparently he actually believes that Musk intentionally gave a Nazi salute at that event.
Now, he sold it to me like he really believes it.
And I'm so tired of arguing, well, you know, maybe you saw a clip that was out of context, or maybe the news said so, so you believe it.
I can't do it anymore.
You're a freaking idiot if you think that anybody in America, any public figure, if you think that anybody, whether it's Musk or Trump, anybody, if you think that they got on stage...
And gave a Nazi salute?
You're so dumb that I just need to mock you.
You are so dumb.
You should never talk about politics again.
That is way below the basic line of understanding anything about the world.
If you think that really happened in the real world, do you think he believed the fine people hoax?
Of course he did.
Do you think he believed the drinking bleach hoax?
Of course he did.
Do you think he believed the Russia collusion hoax?
Of course he did.
You know, I've always been a big fan of his comedy.
But man, some people shouldn't talk in public.
And if they do, they have to get mocked.
So I'm so done with arguing why, oh, it's two movies on one screen.
People are getting different news.
So, of course, they believe different things because they watch different news.
No, that's not the problem.
The problem is you didn't need to see any news broadcast to know that was not a Nazi salute.
Because who would do that?
There's nobody in the whole world who would do that.
And certainly not if you're winning so hard you're the richest person in the world.
You're not going to do that.
Nobody.
Ever.
You're a freaking idiot.
Just absolute.
Turd for brains.
I mean, there's no way to even...
I can't even have a conversation with somebody that dumb.
Wow!
I mean, it's just shockingly stupid.
And I'm so done acting like it's anything but just stupid.
And we have to mock that much more mercilessly.
So, that's the beginning.
So you all know Robbie Starbuck, activist.
He's been going after a lot of DEI and companies.
And Bloomberg wanted to do an article on him.
And I guess the reporter, who was the journalist, maybe, I don't know, reporter, journalist, writer, asked him, why is it women earn 30% less than men?
You know, if everything's kind of equal, why do women earn so much less than men?
Again, it's 2025. How could you be so stupid to think that that's a true statistic?
So what Robbie Starbuck did was explain to her, well, actually, there's not really much of a measurable difference if you account for years worked, hours worked.
And selection of jobs.
If you just normalize it for how many years you worked and you normalize it for the same job, it just disappears.
So it's actually never been true.
Well, it hasn't been true since decades that there was a difference in the way you got paid for the same amount of work, for the same job.
And the reporter, of course, did not believe that.
And went off to fact-check it.
What do you think happened?
When the journalist fact-checked it, found out that he was completely right, and actually wrote that.
And actually, you know, showed that if you account for the hours worked and the difference in jobs, it's about the same.
Now, I heard one of the people in the comments I saw on Acts.
Gave a great explanation, if you want to have, you know, one way to remember it.
And it was somebody who worked at a hospital, I guess, and said that among the doctors, there was something like a 22% greater pay for the male doctors compared to the females.
Now, if you only heard that, would you say to yourself, my God, those sexists, they're giving less money to female doctors.
No.
The male doctors tended to be surgeons and high-paying types of medical professionals.
The women liked to be maybe in pediatrics or lower-paying jobs.
It was entirely their own selection.
There was nothing stopping the women from being surgeons, and there was nothing stopping the men from being more in the lower-paying jobs.
It's just that that's what they picked.
So that's the entire explanation.
But what's funny is, and I had to give Robbie a little warning, might be too late, but Bloomberg is a Democrat, basically assassin.
And back in, it might have been 2017, I don't know the exact year.
So when I was becoming notable for supporting Trump, a Bloomberg...
Bloomberg wanted to send a writer, who was a woman also, maybe the same one, I don't know.
And they wanted to do a feature about me.
And I thought to myself, why not?
I mean, what do I have to lose?
So the Bloomberg journalist followed me around for a day, asked lots of questions, and then went off and wrote just the worst hit piece.
And then I realized what the game was.
The game was to have the biggest publication, like a famous one like Bloomberg, write a terribly negative piece, and then anytime you searched for my name, guess what came out first?
Every frickin' time.
That's right.
The Bloomberg piece would come out first.
So here what had actually happened is I had gone from not...
Being a political pundit whatsoever to having the best call ever about Trump and describing his persuasion ability, which now everybody understands.
I was literally changing the way politics was seen in the United States, which, by the way, if you ask AI, it will tell you I changed the way politics are viewed in the United States to more of a persuasion filter and less of a policy filter.
Which is true.
So instead of writing about that, they wrote this hit piece that just sat at the top of all the search results.
Absolutely disgusting behavior by not just the search engines, but Bloomberg.
And I'm pretty sure that's what the game is here with Robbie Starbuck.
Because Starbuck has been super successful in getting companies to back down on DEI. I think he's just being targeted.
And I think that the game is exactly the same.
That if Bloomberg can become the sort of most prominent recent big major publication, whatever they say about him, and it surely won't be accurate, will pop up first in the search results.
I think that's the game.
God, I hate them.
Bloomberg just sucks.
And the thing I like to think about the woman who didn't know that women do earn as much as men, and actually I think if you're looking at black women with college degrees, I believe they actually make more than men for their first jobs.
So they're doing great, actually.
Something in my eye.
So, I always like to end this with, what do they find out about climate models?
I'm done arguing that humans can measure the temperature of the Earth over decades and do climate models that predict the future.
That's just stupid.
Like, I'm tired of acting like I need to defend that point of view.
I'll just say this.
Wait until you find out.
Because you're definitely going to find out.
It's going to be like the same day.
You learn that men and women actually do earn the same when they do the same work and choose the same careers.
So big surprises coming for some people.
Meanwhile, The Hill is reporting that I guess the education department is going to look into about 50 colleges and universities who are still doing racial preferences in anything from academics or scholarships.
So that would be illegal because that would be racist.
It's not legal to be racist and do that sort of thing.
So this is part of the Trump crackdown of DEI. So, good.
That's exactly what I want to hear.
I want to hear that they're not going to allow them to just change the names and shift people around and then just do the same racist bullshit they were doing before.
So yes, colleges and universities seem to be absolutely, totally racist at the moment.
But some of them are shaping up.
You probably saw the news that Trump went to the Department of Justice, which is unusual, and he gave a speech there.
And you would not be surprised he had some grievances, and then he also had some accomplishments he talked about, and he said some good things about...
Some of the people, but not all of them.
But here are some of the news he made.
He said, I believe CNN and MSNBC are political arms of the Democratic Party, and they are really corrupt and illegal.
Now, you might argue that it's not illegal, but then he goes on, and this is where his argument gets pretty good.
Now, whether it's technically illegal, you know, a reasonable person can say, It's more like free speech.
But he says, these networks and these newspapers are really no different than a highly paid political operative, and it has to stop.
It has to be illegal.
I don't know if it has to be, but...
And he says, here's the payoff.
He says, it's influencing judges, and it's really changing law, and it just cannot be legal.
To which I said, oh, damn.
I didn't think he was going to sway me on this, because my first thought was, well, freedom of speech, all the news programs have a bias.
You can't really do much about it.
It's just something we have to live with.
And then I thought how much it affected his freedom.
If he had not won the presidency, he would have been put in jail by judges who believed the news was real.
Let me say it again.
He would have been put in jail by judges who believe the news is real.
The gullible ones.
The dumb ones.
You know, the Bill Burr of judges.
If they thought that he was really Hitler, you don't think that makes a difference in their decisions?
Of course it does.
So, if you have judges who are clearly being influenced...
Clearly.
I mean, just obviously being influenced by what they think is real news.
That is a problem.
And it's well beyond free speech.
Because free speech doesn't put you in jail for life.
This would.
The collusion of the Democrat-leaning press could have put Trump in jail for the rest of his life.
So does he have a good reason to say this can't be legal?
He does.
I think it is illegal.
And I don't know how we could make it illegal.
But boy, does he have a good point.
You know, if it weren't him speaking, it just wouldn't seem that persuasive.
But we all watched.
And we all watched the lawfare and the bad behavior.
And we know that that could have put him in jail for the rest of his life.
You know, only by winning did he avoid that.
So, yeah, he has a point.
Now, of course, the problem would be that somebody's going to say, but what about Fox News and Breitbart?
They're leaning the other way.
Well, that's why the free speech argument probably is going to win, because you really couldn't criminalize it.
But he's got a good point.
It's dangerous, dangerous stuff to some people.
He also said, Trump did at the DOJ. He said that it was a great honor for me to fire, I will tell you this, a great honor to fire James Comey.
A great, great honor.
There was no better day.
But again, because he thought he got law fared, and he did.
But here's where it gets interesting.
So on CNN, Jake Tapper was talking to One of the panelists that Scott Jennings is always dunking on.
So they've got a new dumb woman.
I think they hire somebody who's like extra crazy and dumb.
So I don't even know her name and I don't want to learn it because she's just dumb.
So Jake Tapper is talking to the dumb woman and he says, and this was unusual, so I'm going to give Jake credit for this.
He said that you don't have to be MAGA to see that Trump has some He has a point.
And then Jake listed several things in which, yeah, it does look a little law fairy.
So he mentioned the Strzok and Page texts.
They look really suspicious.
He mentioned the FISA abuses.
Correct.
He mentioned the weirdness with the Carter Page stuff.
In other words, running an op to try to...
You know, get Trump.
They mentioned the Alvin Bragg situation where he basically made up a felony out of nothing.
Now, these are things that Jake Tapper mentioned off the top of his head that, you know, even from the perspective of CNN, these look law fairy.
And I appreciate that.
So what did the dumb woman say?
Did the dumb woman say?
Well, yeah, actually, that's a pretty good point.
I could see from Trump's point of view that he'd really feel like the lawfare was out of control, and you gave me some good examples.
Nope.
She started talking about Jack Smith and how Jack Smith would have gotten his convictions, according to Jack Smith, if Trump hadn't won the election.
Now, first of all, I'm pretty sure that the Jack Smith stuff was complete bullshit, too.
But when she was done talking, again, To Jake Tapper's credit, he says, you know, I just want to point out to the audience that your answer was a complete change of topic and you didn't address any of the things that I just mentioned.
So not only did CNN hire a woman so dumb that we enjoy watching Scott Jennings dunk on her, but you...
Even Jake Tapper had to dunk on her because she was so stupid.
I can't imagine she's going to keep her job.
I mean, she's just an extra.
Anyway, according to the New York Post, today there's lots of funny news about Democrats.
The New York Post said that when MSNBC was planning to do their big layoffs that included Joy Reid and a number of other people being moved around, That they wrote it all up in a document, and then they left it somewhere where before the firings happened, one of the employees found the list of all the people who were going to get fired, and then distributed the list around.
So the people, this high-paid talent at MSNPC... They all learned in their firing by this document that somebody left.
And I think Joy Reid actually found out she was going to be fired from an article in the New York Times.
So here's the fun part.
A big part of what MSNBC does is they say that Trump and the Trump administration are full of chaos and, you know, they can't execute.
And then you see that their own corporation just did some of the most incompetent things you've ever seen in your life.
You can't do much worse than having a master plan to fire people and leaving it around where one of the employees can find it.
That's right near the top of incompetent management.
But it's funny.
So as long as it's funny, it's worth something.
So, Chris Cuomo on NewsNation, he was calling out Pelosi as basically a, I'll use my own word, but basically a liar.
Because Pelosi was saying that the continued resolution was going to destroy the world in a variety of vague ways.
And Cuomo was like, reading Pelosi's statement, and it was stuff like, and this will ruin that.
And Chris is like, how?
How is it going to ruin that?
And it will be terrible for this.
And Chris says, how?
In what way is it going to be terrible for that?
And it will be a debacle in many ways.
And Chris says, how?
How in the world?
And then he explains, which most of you already know, that the continuing resolution, which is the budget, is just a continuation from the Biden budget with very minor tweaks, barely enough worth mentioning.
So it's basically the same level as it was and almost the same funding.
I mean, just very small changes.
So he basically just completely called her out for being essentially just a propagandist who's creating nothing, creating something out of nothing.
So that was good.
Now, there's sort of a larger thing that's happening.
Which is that the best way for any Democrat to get any attention is to criticize another Democrat.
Have you noticed that?
We'll give you more examples as we go.
Anyway, there's a prominent polling company, according to the Western Journal, that's going to close down.
Let's see, it was Monmouth University.
They've got their own polling.
So the Monmouth University Polling Institute has been operating since 2005, but they decided to close up shop.
Now, they were not exactly one of your most accurate pollsters lately, certainly for presidential stuff.
They were in 2024 election about, you know, Trump.
They were off by nearly six percentage points.
Now, that's really off.
So they're just going to close up.
So now we've heard that 538 is closed.
We heard that these guys are closing.
Wasn't there another story just the other day where another polling company was closing?
And then there was that Ann Seltzer poll that came out that was such an outlier.
I don't think it's closed, but sort of disgraced.
So it's really a bad year for polling companies.
I think the truth about what they really are meant to do is sort of coming out.
But it makes me wonder, was the Monmouth University Polling Institute ever real?
Were they just bad at what they do?
So they didn't get good results?
Or is it a complete coincidence that they were bad in the direction that propaganda would want them to be bad at?
You know, to act like the other side is going to win.
I don't know.
I don't know if they were always bad or if they just had a bad year, but they're out of business now.
The Hill is talking about yet another poll.
This is a CNN poll conducted by SSRS. And it found that 59% of respondents disapprove of Trump's handling of relations with Moscow.
Now, how many of those people they asked are experts at negotiating and persuasion?
Probably none.
So, what do their opinions mean to us?
It would be like asking these people, what is your opinion of quantum science or quantum computers?
And 99% of the people would say, I don't even know what it is, so I don't like it.
Why is the point of asking people what their opinion is on topics that they couldn't possibly understand?
Now, if you know anything about negotiating and anything about persuasion, you know that both Putin and Trump Are sort of, you know, building or they're working on each other's egos.
They're doing it right in public so we can watch the whole show.
But you're not supposed to think that everything Trump says is some kind of an expression of his inner thoughts.
He's negotiating.
So treating the other side a little bit better than you think they should be treated is doing the right thing.
So if you ask a bunch of people what they think about it, you're just getting idiots who don't understand the situation giving you idiot takes.
What is the point of that poll?
Is the point of that poll to just make Trump look bad?
I can't imagine why you would even ask that question.
Because you know people don't understand how negotiating and persuasion works.
And then here's another one.
So according to the Economist YouGov poll, Nearly half of Americans said the economy is worsening.
Really?
Is that all the people who are also economists?
Why would you ask the public about the state of the economy, especially during this time of great change when they don't understand tariffs, they don't understand the national debt, they don't understand inflation?
The most useful thing I can think of is asking people who don't know anything about economics, what is their opinion of the economy?
It's a complete waste of time, unless the point of it is to make Trump look bad.
So when I see stuff like this, I say to myself, did they really think this needed to be asked?
Like people who don't understand economics?
We want their opinion on economics.
Why would that be?
Well, probably for political reasons.
I saw a video by a teacher, just changing the topic here, who said that if you're blaming teachers for what's happening in schools, which is kids are not learning, that she wanted to inform us that it's actually the kids.
And she says that mostly because of smartphones and dopamine always juicing them up so that when they get to school there's nothing interesting and they're basically like addicts.
So she says the kids have just vacant eyes.
It looks like they're not even there.
She says they have no ability to be bored and because they're having dopamine withdrawal without their phones.
That they behave like addicts.
So they get emotional and impatient and they're not engaged and they have apathy.
And apparently they seem immune to punishment.
And also immune to, you know, you're not going to get good grades.
They don't care.
And they don't care about college.
Do you buy that?
Do you think the problem is that the kids are ruined, either by some combination of home life plus the phones?
And do you think that the teachers are largely helpless because they're not even looking at functioning people?
It's like the entire class is just drunk or something.
I thought this was worth a mention because, you know, I always mention the teachers' unions are the reason things are going wrong.
But I kind of think it's got to be both.
It's got to be something the teachers could do better, which means they might need to adjust from the way they used to do things to you've got to make it a lot more interesting.
If it's not a lot more interesting, well, you don't have a chance because you're competing with more interesting.
I think I'm half convinced.
So I do think that better teachers would make a big difference.
But I do think it's the hardest environment that teachers have ever seen.
So, again, I say, if you had more of a free market for teachers where the bad ones can get fired and the good ones can make more money and be promoted, and that's what the teachers' union prevents.
You know, it prevents any kind of free market like that.
So I think it's both.
Better teachers would make a difference, but yeah, the kids are in a whole different realm at the moment.
Speaking of schools, Mark Andreessen was on Lex Friedman's podcast, and he explained something that I didn't know at all.
And it gets to why colleges and universities are so bad.
And apparently the bigger institutions, especially, they make most of their money not from tuition, but from government research grants.
The school keeps about 70% of what they get from the government.
So they're basically like government funded, even though they might be private colleges, as long as they're getting a bunch of government funding for their, quote, research.
And most of it just goes to the school, not the researcher.
That this is basically what keeps them in business.
Now you might say to yourself, well, it seems like competition would fix any problems at the college and university level, right?
There's got to be colleges that are doing everything you want them to do.
So everybody will start going there.
But what Andreessen points out is that if you wanted to start a new college, You'd have to be accredited.
Now, who do you think does the accrediting?
This will blow your mind.
Well, it's sort of the government or some entity, but they base their decisions on the colleges themselves deciding if they should let competition in.
That's a real thing, apparently.
The colleges themselves The existing colleges get to decide if a new college can be accredited.
And the new college would be competition for their research grants.
So the last thing that the existing colleges want is more colleges.
So the free market just doesn't work.
They're basically dependent on the government.
And Andreessen says the only way to fix it is to let the colleges fail.
That would probably, he didn't say this, I don't think, but that would require the government to stop giving grants for research, or maybe give a lot fewer of them, and then the universities would just fail, and then you could start over.
So, you know, start over without DEI and without all the crazy stuff.
Because colleges and universities seem to have, they act like they're not part of the free market.
And I always wondered about that.
It's like, why do they act like they're not part of the free market at all, that they could just do anything they want?
And the answer is, they weren't part of the free market, so they could do anything they wanted.
They had monopolies on the government's money, basically.
So maybe that's something that a Trump administration can fix.
We'll see.
As you know, there are a number of conservative...
Personalities have been swatted.
The latest one is Sean Farash.
He's a Trump impersonator.
He and his wife got swatted.
Jim Hoft is writing about this in the Gateway Pundit.
And once again, the middle of the night, law officers were dispatched.
So be careful out there.
The bad guys are very bad.
In good news, there's an appeals court has lifted the injunctions on Trump's executive orders aimed at eliminating DEI. There were two of them.
And the appeals court basically said that they were going to overturn the lower court that put a pause on it.
And so now he can basically keep going after DEI. So that's good news.
In other good news, Trump has announced that the U.S. got rid of some big ISIS leader in Iraq, and maybe the number two.
Yeah, the top guy in the second in command.
And they got him with a precision airstrike.
So Trump called him the fugitive leader of ISIS in Iraq.
The Gateway Pundit's writing about that.
How many times have we seen the leader of some terrorist organization getting waxed?
It never seems to make any difference.
But I always tell you that I think there's a natural way that these organizations disintegrate.
And it starts with the fact that whoever was the charismatic genius who started the organization, once they're gone, you have to hope that their number two is a Charismatic genius who's as good at organizing as the first one.
But the odds are against it.
And then you get rid of the second best person, and now the odds of the third best person having the personality and the skills to keep the organization together, much lower.
So there's some number of assassinations that guarantee that whoever's left is incompetent.
And then they'll just destroy it on their own.
So maybe we're getting close to that.
Because there's no way that the fifth or tenth best leader was the same quality as whoever got it going in the first place.
Not much chance of that.
Anyway, PJ Media, Scott Pinsker, is writing that Hakeem Jeffries, he's telling Democrats, That they're winning, and we have the Republicans on the run.
Really?
Does any of the news today sound like the Republicans are on the run?
I've never seen the Republicans in a stronger position in my life.
The Republicans are in the absolute dominant position about just about everything.
But then he gives examples.
He says, we have the Republicans on the run.
We have them on the run in terms of health care, particularly as it relates to Medicaid.
And apparently he thinks, or he wants you to believe, that Medicaid is going to be deeply cut and the Democrats are protecting it.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, that's completely not true, right?
I believe in terms of the benefits, in terms of Medicaid, there's no intention of cutting the benefits.
There is an intention to see if there's any waste, fraud, and abuse.
And if that's true, who wouldn't want to cut that?
So it looks like their best topic, the one thing that the Democrats have to cling to, looks completely made up.
It's a hoax, just like everything else that they tried to sell.
It's just a hoax.
Now, do you think that they could sell that hoax without CNN and MSNBC and the other entities that will parrot what they say?
I don't know.
That would be a hard one to sell because, you know, I'll take a fact check on this, but I'm pretty sure it's just completely made up.
You know, like the Find People hoax, like the, you know, Musk...
Hitler salute that didn't really happen, like the drinking bleach, like the Russia collusion.
They are so consistent that the best they can come up with to criticize the party of common sense is to make stuff up.
And it looks like the fake Medicaid cuts are going to be the thing they made up.
Meanwhile, Brabant News is reporting that Maxine Waters...
It's accusing Trump of trying to start a civil war by not sending grant money to non-profits.
Is anybody worried about the civil war because they didn't send grant money to non-profits, you know, the NGOs?
No, I don't think so.
But I love the fact that the faces of the Democrat Party are Maxine Waters, Schumer, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi.
Boy, do they have a charisma gap that's just a mile long and deep.
It's the worst charisma gap you've ever seen.
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders is going to team up with AOC. And they're going to take their, what's called their fighting the oligarchy rally.
So they're going to do rallies.
If they couldn't find a way to be more pathetic than fighting the oligarchy, you know, something that their base doesn't even know what the word means, literally doesn't know what the word means.
By the way, did you hear that Fetterman said the same thing I did?
So Fetterman was mocking them for going after the oligarchy.
He said exactly what I said.
It's like, people don't even know what that word means.
Like, talk like regular people.
But no, they're going to do a bunch of events to fight the oligarchy, but it gets better.
They're advising their support.
They're advising their supporters to mask up and wear masks during the rally, not to hide their shame, but rather to be medically safe.
Now, this is their best play of the week.
Their best play of the week is to fight the oligarchy.
With masks on.
Oh, my.
Meanwhile, according to Paul Homewood, there's this doctor, Dr. Peter Ridd, who's been studying the data on the climate change and the Great Barrier Reef.
Do you remember how the Great Barrier Reef was all going to disappear because of climate change?
Do you know what the problem was?
Using the wrong data.
Turns out the Great Barrier Reef, yeah, it's fine.
That whole Great Barrier Reef, totally made up.
It's doing fine.
No problem at all with the Great...
Now, the thing that I'm laughing about is the level of patheticness and bad luck that...
The Democrats are having.
It's now completely just in the humorous stage because it's not like it's a fair fight.
At this point, it's really just flailing and ridiculousness.
But yeah, so one of the biggest claims of climate science, totally debunked.
Totally debunked.
Wait until they find out about the climate models, I keep saying.
Anyway, so here's a little update on what I call the Democrats circling the drain.
Here's just a little rundown.
Their messaging, this is my own take on their messaging, is the oligarchs are kleptocrats trying to steal your democracy.
The oligarchs are kleptocrats trying to steal your democracy.
That's the punchy, relatable...
The punchy, relatable theme that they're going for.
I'm thinking to myself, if you held a contest to come up with the worst theme, would it look different than the oligarchs or kleptocrats trying to steal your democracy?
That is the most pathetic thing you'll ever see in politics.
Meanwhile, like I said, the faces of the party are these oldsters who have Completely lost their fastballs.
You know, the Schumers, the Maxine Waters, the Pelosi's.
And at this point, the only way that Democrats can get attention is by criticizing Democrats.
So think about it.
Fetterman criticized Democrats, got a lot of attention.
Carville criticized Democrats, got a lot of attention.
Bill Maher criticized Democrats, got a lot of attention.
Now, Fetterman...
According to The Hill, Fetterman is clapping back at AOC over government funding.
So that's Fetterman versus AOC. And then you've got Pelosi and who's the other guy who's mad at Schumer.
That's also according to The Hill.
So everybody's mad at each other in the Democrat Party.
Then we have some video that was recently uncovered of Barack Obama introducing his own version of Doge.
Did you even know that he did that?
I think you put Biden in charge of it.
So back in Obama's time, they tried to get rid of the waste, fraud, and abuse, and Obama kicked off a whole effort that, as far as I know, accomplished nothing at all.
Now compare that, Obama kicking off an effort to get rid of waste and abuse, and I didn't even know what happened.
It's definitely not on their list of accomplishments.
And then compare it to Doge, which is just driving a stake into the heart of the waste, fraud, and abuse.
Big difference.
And then we all see that the Democrats very recently used to say that closing the government because of the budget.
It would be like the worst thing you could ever do.
And then suddenly they're in favor of it.
It went from the worst thing you could ever do to, yeah, that'd be a good idea.
Pelosi wants to close it.
Schumer didn't.
So I think that's over with because the continuing resolution did actually pass.
And let's see what else.
Then CNBC is reporting that Amazon, Google, and Meta Three companies that you think sort of lean Democrat.
Although it's not so clear at the moment, but it used to.
They all support efforts to triple nuclear energy worldwide by 2050. Now, of course, they need that for their own operations and for AI and all that.
But do you remember when one of the biggest reasons that Democrats were a party was to oppose nuclear power?
It was one of the biggest things that the left did, opposing nuclear energy.
And now the richest people in their party, the ones who know the most, the ones who know the most about business, are all saying, we better do a lot of this nuclear energy.
So it's like an entire pillar on the left is gone.
So their belief in climate change is being chipped away, you know, a little bit at a time.
The Greenland temperatures didn't change that much.
And by the way, that Great Global Reef, the coral reefs look fine.
You know, it's sort of like the cats on the roof.
You know, nuclear energy would be fine.
What about all that waste?
Well, you can just store it at the site, and it's not really a big deal.
They just put it in a barrel.
They'll be fine.
It's like everything they believe.
It's just falling apart at the same time.
All right.
And then there's an investigation by the Free Press that finds that the Trump resistance, as it's being called, is being funded by the ultra-wealthy Democrats.
So at the same time that Bernie and AOC are going after the oligarchs, their own oligarchs are funding this massive dark money network It's being funded by Arabella Advisors, funded by Bill Gates and Reid Hoffman and George Soros and Pierre Amidar from one of the eBay founders.
And their organization is Families Over Billionaires.
The billionaires are funding something called Families Over Billionaires.
So they're pretending that they don't have an oligarchy or no oligarchists or no kleptocrats on their side.
But the oligarchy kleptocrats, they're not kleptocrats, but they're oligarchies, they're secretly funding the most effective thing that's happening on the Democrat side, which is anything that these billionaires are funding.
So imagine being a Democrat and waking up and finding that fighting the billionaires It just means that your own billionaires are in charge.
Not exactly what they were shooting for.
In potential good news in science, 94% of plastic can be recycled in a few hours with this new technique.
And it breaks down, let's see, what do they use?
A new method.
They use an inexpensive catalyst.
So that's good news.
But then they just leave it outside for a bit and it just completely breaks down.
And then I guess they can reuse it.
So the whole there's too much plastic in the world might have a practical solution.
And it might be really available.
So this is written by NDTV. They're reporting on that.
Well, you probably know that Trump and Putin have been talking about the ceasefire, but the ceasefire is not agreed upon.
But Putin is doing a thing that I always talk about Trump doing.
And remember, my frame on this is that these are two of the best persuaders in the world.
And that Putin has every bit as much skill as Trump.
He's not a Trump.
So he's not as good.
But in terms of just the skills...
He has a whole toolbox.
And one of the things I always talk about that Trump does is he'll create an asset out of nothing by just making something up and acting like it's the most important thing in the world, and then suddenly the other side finds themselves negotiating over it, and then he has something to give away that he just completely introduced out of nowhere.
And Putin, and it works.
It's like good technique.
And Putin is doing that.
So in the Kursk region, which is actually in Russia, the Ukrainians had conquered that little region, but the Russian forces have recently surrounded the Ukrainian forces there and have the ability at this point to completely destroy all of them if they decide to do it.
Now Trump has apparently asked Putin to not kill those soldiers.
But Putin says, and here's Putin coming up with an asa and a nothing.
So suddenly, when you didn't know that this would even be one of the questions relative to the ceasefire, suddenly Putin has introduced the idea that the people who are surrounded are basically terrorists and they've done terrible things to civilians and they all deserve to be dead.
And except for Trump asking him, He was planning to kill them all, in a military sense.
And then he says that because Trump asked, and he says that's the reason, because Trump asked, he's willing to offer that if they surrender, put down their weapons, he will keep them alive, but as prisoners, it looks like.
So not free, but as prisoners.
Now, if he keeps them as prisoners, Again, he's created another asset.
Because Ukraine will say, but, but, but, you have to release all our prisoners.
And Putin will say, well, what do I get in return?
So keep in mind when I talk about Putin doing a good job in negotiating, it's not because I'm pro-Putin.
Yes, I know he's a dictator.
Yes, I know we can't trust him.
Yes, I know he's a shark.
And I know he's killed people and blah, blah, blah, blah.
We all know that.
I'm just saying that if you watch their game, Trump versus Putin, you're going to learn a lot about how to negotiate.
And Putin has successfully created something that he knows Trump wants, which is to save the lives of those soldiers, and now he has something to trade.
It's pretty good work on Putin's part.
He doesn't go all the way to, okay, since you asked, I'll just free them.
If they put down their weapons, they can just retreat back into Ukraine, and then we'll have a ceasefire.
He could have said that, but that would not give him a tool.
It wouldn't give him an asset.
So instead he says, oh, if they surrender, I promise they'll be treated humanely, but as prisoners forever.
And that's the asset.
He's got something to trade now.
Very clever.
So we'll see where this goes.
Trump seems to think there's some optimism.
I don't think anything happens as quickly as you want it to.
There's going to be a lot of chatting about where this goes.
So we might be talking months, even if they're...
You know, deeply engaged and talking every day.
It could still take months.
But it does look like it's going to happen.
To me, all the signs are pointing toward all entities want to stop the war at this point.
So that sort of suggests it's going to happen.
All right.
And then, apparently Trump has ordered the military.
To draw plans to militarily retake the Panama Canal.
The Daily Wire is reporting on this, Ryan Saavedra.
And the goal is to, I guess it's two parts.
One is to get the economic advantage of owning it.
And the other is to keep China from owning it or having too much control over it.
But here's what I would say about this.
First of all, it's not unusual.
To ask the military to have a contingency plan.
It doesn't mean you're going to use them.
But if you're Panama and you knew that the military had drawn up a plan to take over the canal, don't you think you'd get really serious about negotiating at that point?
So again, this is Trump creating an asset out of nothing.
So if all he'd ever did was say, we really want that Panama Canal, why don't you give it to us?
What's he have?
There's nothing to trade.
There's no leverage.
There's no nothing.
But as soon as he lets it be known, and by the way, why'd they let it be known?
Is it common that you would leak that the military is preparing for a military operation?
It seems like it must have been intentionally leaked, right?
Or announced, not even leaked.
So obviously they want Panama to think, That the American military might be on their doorstep really soon.
But we'd prefer negotiating.
See?
Doesn't it look just like Putin?
In each case, they created an asset and a nothing, and then they use it to negotiate.
It's a good trick.
It's a very good trick.
But I'm going to put one more wrinkle on this.
Trump has plans beyond Panama.
He would love to have some kind of deeper control over Greenland.
And as you famously know, he'd kind of like Canada to be a state.
Now, I'm not going to put odds on that last one, the odds of Canada becoming a state.
That'd be hard to bet on.
But on the other hand, betting against Trump's persuasive skills It's a pretty dangerous bet.
So even though I can't see a way for it to happen, like my imagination isn't good enough to see how Canada ever becomes a state, I could be wrong.
But here's why the Panama thing is so important.
Imagine, if you will, that without firing a shot, he succeeds in wresting control of the Panama Canal.
Away from China's influence and Panama's.
What if he pulls it off?
The correct order to do things would be Panama first if you think you could get a fast win.
How differently would you think about Greenland if you knew that he had succeeded in Panama?
Now do you see the play?
The thing that Doge did, Was get some quick wins so that your impression of Doge is, wow, they get stuff done.
Look at those quick wins.
Quick wins are really influential.
I talk about the new CEO move, where if you're the new CEO, you want to go in and really make some big changes right away.
Because then people think you're the one who makes big changes.
So that becomes your first impression.
So, since we all know that Trump is looking at Panama, Greenland, and Canada, if he could pull off a quick win without firing a shot, ideally, in Panama, how would that make you think about Greenland?
A little different, right?
Because you'd say to yourself, okay, I didn't think he was really going to do this with Panama.
And then all the people in Greenland are going to say, I wonder if he has a military plan drawn up about Greenland.
Maybe.
I'm not saying yes.
I'm not saying we don't.
But I will say that Greenland is strategically vital, and it doesn't have a military, and he really wants it for the benefit of both Greenland and the entire continent.
So do you see the importance of doing a quick one that works?
And Panama would be the one that if you're going to do something quick that works, that would be the one.
It would be the lowest degree of complication if it worked at all.
But I think the full weight of the US military should be plenty of pressure.
I feel like he's going to get away with Panama.
And then Greenland is going to say, can we talk?
Yeah, maybe we should talk.
Yeah, yeah, it seemed like a bad idea before, but we don't want you to come in and just take it.
So wouldn't it be better if we negotiated?
Wouldn't it?
Now, if he could manage to pull off Greenland, which I think is a stretch, but doable, doable, I just don't think it's, you know, if it were anybody else, I'd say it's just not doable.
But Trump does have a way of making the undoable work.
I mean, it's almost his brand, making the undoable work.
He's got a long history of doing exactly that.
So imagine if he pulled off Greenland after pulling off Panama, and then you're sitting up in Canada.
And you say to yourself, I really didn't think he'd pull off Panama.
And then, I really didn't think he'd pull off Greenland.
And I also didn't think that Canada would ever be a state.
But it sure would save us a lot of money.
So, you know, he's working on people's brains as well as, you know, their fears.
Their needs.
And it's kind of clever to do Panama first and to let it be leaked that there's a military plan to take it.
So very clever.
All right.
New York Post is reporting that there are billions of cicadas, you know, those bugs, in New York, New Jersey, and 11 other states.
And they're about to come out of their 17-year-long hibernation and they're going to be Now, I assume that means collectively, not per cicada.
Because if one cicada could be as loud as a jet engine, I don't think you'd want to live in New Jersey or New York in May.
That's when it's likely to happen.
And so that's happening.
There's going to be a lot of cicadas.
Now, as you know, the World Economic Forum, I want you to eat bugs.
So maybe this is...
Oh, forget it.
No, don't eat the cicadas.
I'm sure they're delicious, but don't do it.
All right, that's all I've got for today.
Reminder that Owen Gregorian is going to do his spaces.
Any minute now, he's probably getting ready to fire it up.
That's on X, and it doesn't cost anything.
You just have to go to Owen Gregorian's site.
Just do a search.
You'll find them.
And you'll see where to click to get into those spaces.
And you can do a follow-up conversation based on anything we talked about today or anything relevant that's fun, I guess.
I usually listen to it while I'm making myself breakfast after the show.
So I will definitely be dipping in, but usually anonymously, just so I don't...
Take attention away.
And I'll say a few words to the locals people, but I don't want to keep you from Owen's spaces, so we'll keep it short.
Those of you on YouTube and Rumble and X, thanks for joining.
