God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Biden's Autopen Pardons, Conservative Swatting, DataRepublican Swatting Analysis, Ukraine Deal Progress, NATO Bargaining, Democrat Leadership, Governor Shapiro, Hakeem Jeffries, Alien Enemies Act, Judge Boasberg, Jasmine Crockett, Gang Member Deportations, Fentanyl Border Seizures, Egg Smuggling, Laura Loomer, Hunter Biden Finances, Land Buying Foreigners, Massive Deregulation, University Research Grants, WEF Homegrown Food Ban, AHA, Human Intelligence Decline, Cyborg Humanity, AI Roadblocks, Figure Robot Factory, Houthi Shipping Impact, Houthi Threat Nullification, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better day.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny brains, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or chelsea, a canteen, a jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine dinner of the day.
Shut up.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go. Go.
All right, I have to come clean.
My local subscribers already know this, but my coffee maker is broken.
And my other coffee maker is broken.
So my main coffee maker and my backup coffee maker, neither of them are working.
So this was not actual coffee.
And it just ruins the whole experience, let me tell you.
Anyway.
But enough about that.
Happy St. Patrick's Day.
I'm a little bit Irish.
A little bit.
I'm more Irish today because it's St. Patrick's Day, but a little bit Irish.
Speaking of other countries, there's a French lawmaker who is calling for the return of the Statue of Liberty because I guess he doesn't like Trump.
So that's normal.
And I don't think we should return the Statue of Liberty.
What do you think?
I don't think we should.
But I've got an idea of just...
Rotating it 180 degrees and removing the torch and replacing it with the finger so that the statue is just giving the finger to France.
Okay, that would be funny.
But I do think that Democrats probably would agree with getting rid of the Statue of Liberty because have you noticed that the Statue of Liberty has been giving a...
A Nazi salute?
Yeah.
They sort of trick you by putting the torch in the hand, but that just makes it worse.
It's like it's a Nazi salute and you want to burn everything down with your torch?
I think that should be deeply condemned and we should remove the Statue of Liberty and give it back to France, you know, after we change the torch to a finger.
Well, believe it or not, according to Psy Post, there's a study about twins that suggests that it turns out, you won't believe this, this will be hard to believe, but rational thinking is genetically linked to intelligence,
and it challenges the idea that decision-making is a separate skill.
So in other words, they found out that you can't teach stupid people how to be smart.
By teaching them how to think.
Now, I could have saved them a little bit of time because I once tried to teach my dog to read and she just refused.
She never learned to read.
But no, it is not true that you can teach.
You cannot teach dumb people to be smart by teaching them how to think better.
You know, Bob.
I've been noticing that you're a freaking moron, but I think I can fix that with a few tweaks.
Did you know that if you were to look at, let's say, the information pro and con, you would get a better result?
Really?
I could?
I should look at the information on both sides of an issue?
Yes, you should, Bob.
Why don't you try that next time?
All right, I will.
And then what does Bob do?
Does Bob look at the information on both sides of the issue next time because you taught Bob how to be a better decision maker?
Nope.
Bob will forget that advice before you turn around and walk out the door because Bob is not smart.
It's been my observation that all smart people tend to think alike rationally.
It's definitely genetic.
Now, I will say, though, I will say that if you're starting with a smart person, you can definitely teach them some extra tools, such as how to spot fake news.
That's useful.
I've been teaching most of you how to do that, and most of you do now.
So you'll often say to me, oh, that one's too on the nose.
That's one of the things I teach you.
Oh, there's just one source and it's anonymous.
That's one of the things I teach you, etc.
So you can teach smart people how to be even smarter.
But if you're trying to teach a dumb person how to think like a smart person, good luck with that.
Could have just asked me.
Save a little time.
Here's a story that makes my heart sing.
The Trump administration is targeting 45 universities over their anti-white discrimination.
Hannah Nightingale of the Post Millennial is writing about this.
So instead of making decisions Or having any kind of policies that are race-related.
They're being challenged to get rid of that stuff.
And the universities are going to be in a little trouble because one of the things that the Trump administration seems to be willing to use as a tool is removing federal funding for research and grants.
Which apparently, I didn't know this until recently, is Such a major funding for a lot of the big schools that if they lost the federal research and grant money, they'd be in real financial trouble.
I mean, it's a major source, I guess.
Anyway, so this is especially satisfying to me that essentially the DEI stuff has become illegal.
And when I say become illegal, it was always illegal.
Trump.
So you might remember that this is about, right now, it's about two years since I got canceled.
Does anybody remember me getting canceled?
Of course you do.
Now, the interesting thing about my cancellation is I realized the other day that my lasting legacy, the way I'll be remembered by search engines and AI, Will be two things that didn't happen.
So my primary legacy will be based on things that didn't happen, that aren't true.
Number one, that I gave a racist rant, and that's why I got cancelled.
That didn't happen.
I was ranting against racism.
Very specifically, I was against people who were racist.
And I said, wow, why would I want to live with a bunch of racists?
I would want to live where they're not.
Which is literally what every single person in the world would agree with.
Why would you want to live where you know there's a bunch of racists?
Now, of course, I've never been in favor of racism against an individual.
You know, not in hiring, not in dating, not in friendship, not in picking teams, nothing.
So, of course, I've always been, you know, against racism.
So I've been against racism against individuals.
But also, if there's a group that seems to be extra racist, according to data, and there was data, then I said, maybe you should not spend time with people who are a little more racist against you than you're comfortable with.
Every single person in the world agrees with that.
But I got canceled.
So how much pleasure do you think I get?
Watching the thing I got canceled for become illegal.
A lot.
It's satisfying on a level that you can barely understand.
But I'll always be remembered as the guy who made the racist rant, because the news is fake, history is fake, the history books are fake, and mostly what the AI will tell you in the future will be fake, unfortunately.
The other thing I'll be remembered for is a thing that definitely didn't happen, which is all of my opinions about the pandemic being reversed.
So one of the things I'm most proud of is that I had the best opinions in the pandemic of any public figure.
By far, it wasn't even close.
Most people believe that my opinions were the opposite of what they were.
So people believe I was promoting vaccines.
No, that never happened.
Not once.
And so I'll be remembered for two things that definitely didn't happen in any real world.
But that's the fate of public figures.
You get remembered for the opposite of whatever you were doing.
Anyway, the big story of the day is that Trump is trying to cancel the pardons that...
That Biden made, they were made with the auto pen.
Now, the auto pen is what presidents use to sign things when they're not physically available.
But, you know, things that they've agreed to, so there's nothing sketchy about it the way it's been used in the past.
However, given what we know about Biden's administration, and given what we know about his mental acuity at the time, And given that there were some last-minute pardons, it's not clear that Biden even knew they happened.
So, does Trump have a good case?
Well, the smart thing that Trump is doing, and has consistently done, is he says, well, if the courts disagree, then we'll follow the court.
And that's very disarming, and it's very non-dictator, and that's what he's doing here.
So he's taking a run at it.
That doesn't mean he'll succeed.
So the Supreme Court could say, no, autopen counts.
You know, there's nothing you can do about it.
Otherwise, blah, blah, blah.
So I've got a feeling he has no better than, I don't know, since I don't know much about the court or how it would rule, I'm going to say 50% chance that it will stick.
But boy, has this got to be scary to the...
What he calls the unselected group, the people who ran what I would consider the fake impeachment things, or the fake January 6th stuff.
And they do have some explaining to do, and there's a good reason that they wanted their pardons.
So this one's getting really dicey.
Getting really dicey.
Because if Trump...
Succeeds in undoing the pardons because of the auto pen.
Adam Schiff's probably going to jail.
Liz Cheney?
Probably going to jail.
Because I do believe that the legal system would find that they did some pretty illegal things.
So, at the very least, they would be destroyed by the legal process, which would be, you know, gigantically burdensome.
And my feeling about a lot of this stuff is that, and Lindsey Graham did the best explanation on a news show, that once you look at the context of what these same people did to Trump, they tried to destroy him politically,
they tried to destroy his entire business, They tried to destroy his family, and they tried to put him in jail for the rest of his life.
They did much the same to people who supported him.
They went after the lawyers who supported him.
They went after his supporters in every way that they could.
And in normal times, I would say, you know, maybe let the past go.
You know, yeah, there were some dirty tricks there, You know, let's not dwell on that.
Let's move forward.
Let's look forward.
But if you look at the totality of the pure evil that was aimed at him, I'm 100% in favor of his revenge because it feels personal.
You know, I feel like I got dragged down by the same bad guys.
You know, lesser.
But do you think I ever would have been cancelled if it hadn't been for the Trump connection?
Nope.
Nope.
I don't think I would have been.
And so, these are all of my enemies too.
And I wouldn't mind seeing them taken down completely.
Just destroyed.
Because I do think they earned it.
And I do think it would look like justice to me.
Like real justice.
Not the revenge-y, you know, I'm happy my team won kind of justice.
I don't want that kind.
I'm not looking for the my team won, your team lost kind of justice.
Nope.
I want the actual real kind.
Where if you're a motherfucker for years and years and years, and you're the most evil, lying piece of shits in the world, it's time for you to get flushed.
And I'm here for it.
So if Trump can get away with this, that would be very good.
I would love it.
I don't think he will.
I've got a feeling the Supreme Court is going to say, we don't need this.
It's a little too much trouble.
So maybe regardless of the legality of it, I still think the Supreme Court might say, You know, we're going to find a reason not to do this because it would just be too destructive to the Republic, and they might be right,
but I'm still for it.
As you know, lots of conservatives have been swatted lately, conservative pundits.
So Data Republican, you all know who she is, right?
Data Republican is a great data analyst, which feels like too little.
Because she's so good that it feels like she needs her own label.
But anyway, she did an analysis of, I think there are now 13 or 14 people who have been swatted recently.
But she had a list of 10 or so intended analysis using AI to try to find out what they had in common, which would maybe help you figure out who was after them, but also to maybe predict who would be next.
Here are some of the things that she found in common.
So a lot of the people who got swatted engaged with Elon Musk on X. Their real-life identities were known, so they weren't pseudonyms or anything.
They used their real names.
Or at least their real names were easy to find, like Cat Turd.
They had a good number of followers, usually over 50,000, but actually most of the time over 150,000.
They were often guests or employees for Infowars, War Room, or similar alt-media kind of shows on the right.
Then there's this one.
Expressed pro-Israel, or at least anti-Hamas sentiments.
Okay.
Frequently amplified other swatting victims in the past.
So it seems like a network of people who boosted each other.
And many of them were amplified by based Mike Lee.
And the targets were all male.
The targets were all male.
That's interesting.
So Data Republican said that her current leading theory is that it's a terrorist campaign targeting X and influencers connected to Elon Musk.
Hmm.
So, and then somebody said, but what about the fact that they might be anti-Ukraine?
And Dana Republican, this is why she's so good, she says that the anti-Ukraine doesn't add much signal, meaning that since most of the conservative world is anti-Ukraine at the moment, you can't really say these ones got swatted because they're anti-Ukraine,
because sort of everybody was.
So I don't know.
So I guess the theory that it's anti-Elon Musk, I would say that's a possibility.
Could be just anti-Trump.
I don't know.
But it could be stochastic terrorism, which is just making it easier to attack a certain group of people who speak out.
But we'll see.
We'll see.
That's a good analysis.
I don't think it gives us an answer.
But maybe it defines things a little bit better so we know what to look for.
And maybe it will have an effect.
If the analysis got anywhere near the truth, it might slow it down.
Because now we would be looking for these signals.
We'd say, okay, did you say anything about, did you interact with Elon Musk, etc.?
Now, even the interacting with Elon Musk thing, to me that's not much of a signal, because Musk does interact with a whole bunch of people, and multiple times sometimes.
So he's interacted with me a number of times.
So, I don't know.
He's interacted with so many people.
I'm not sure that that's the signal it looks like.
Anyway, President Trump says he's going to talk to Putin tomorrow.
And doesn't it seem to you like that's way too long to wait?
I mean, just think about the fact that there are people in ditches shooting at each other and dying around Kursk and all around the front lines.
Because I assume the fighting...
It's just going crazy even though they're talking peace.
So it's just so weird that you'd say, hey, can I call you tomorrow?
Is there really no reason they can talk today?
Are they not prepared?
Do they have something more important?
There are people literally just getting torn to pieces on the front lines for no reason.
Because it looks like things are going to wind up.
So anybody who gets killed or wounded today, that's a complete waste of humanity.
So I just don't know how you say, hey, you're available tomorrow?
Is tomorrow good?
Today is good.
Like right now is good.
That's how I feel.
Now, if we got something done tomorrow that was important, I'd be pretty happy about it.
But this whole thing about...
You know, if you're serious about ending the killing, tomorrow is really too long.
But on the other hand, you don't want to act too eager because that might hurt your negotiating position.
But really?
How about today?
That's my take.
Anyway, according to the New York Post, Trump said, we want to see if we can bring that war to an end.
He says, maybe we can, maybe we can't.
I think we have a very good chance.
Now, I think he's talking about his conversation tomorrow, that maybe they're far enough along that he might be able to close a deal.
That seems like a stretch.
And he said, a lot of work's been done over the weekend.
Now, a lot of work's been done means that they're close to a deal.
And I don't think he'd make the call, even though...
You know, there's urgency.
I don't think he'd make the call tomorrow unless he felt like there was some chance that whatever remaining issues there are, he could close on.
Now, remember how I always tell you that you should expect at least one walk away in a big negotiation?
There's usually this point where one side says, all right, nope, nope, we're done, and they walk away, and they pretend, or sometimes it's real.
That, nope, I'm done dealing with you.
I cannot make a deal.
Now, what that can do is cause the one who got walked away on to say, all right, all right, I'll offer you a little bit more.
But I'm not sure there'll be a walk away on this one.
And the reason is they're both too smart.
If Trump did a walk away, Putin would say, that's not real.
He'll come back.
If Putin did a walkaway, Trump would say, that's not real.
He'll come back.
So I think they both know each other well enough that a walkaway would just look sort of stupid.
Because you're dealing with two people who are way above the line.
They both understand how everything works.
There's no dumb one and no smart one.
They're just two brilliant people who know how to do this.
Exactly.
If you know how to do this, Which is negotiate the hard stuff, and they do, then the walk away is a little bit unnecessary.
The walk away is sort of what you do if you're dealing with somebody who is just not good at it.
Or somebody who is at least not world class at it.
So I'm going to predict this would be one of those rare negotiations with no walk away.
Which is a bold, that's a pretty big prediction, because you just normally see a walkway.
I just don't think there will be in this case, because the equality of the two people negotiating.
Well, Putin said he wants an ironclad guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO.
Now, do you remember when the head of NATO said, nope, there's no chance that Ukraine is going to be part of NATO?
And then you realized, okay, that was after talking to Trump.
So probably Trump is the one who told NATO to say there's no way Ukraine's going to be part of it.
And then you said to yourself, but wait, Trump's giving away something for nothing.
Like, we don't have a deal yet.
Like, why would he give that away?
Wouldn't that be the thing that you would keep as your negotiating card?
And then you say to yourself, Is that really giving anything away?
How could you ever give an ironclad guarantee that nobody will ever change their mind about Ukraine joining NATO?
You can't.
All it would take is somebody to say, oh, I changed my mind.
That's it.
So, if Trump and NATO say, yep, we guarantee it, there's no way Ukraine will ever be part of NATO, what exactly are they giving up?
Nothing.
That's literally nothing.
Because Putin knows they can just change their mind.
And they know they can just change their mind.
Now, they wouldn't do it probably unless the situation changed.
But if the situation changed, you don't think they could NATO up in about five minutes?
Yeah, if they wanted to, and they had some strategic reason to do it, yes.
Now, I don't think they want to.
And I don't think they'll have that strategic reason.
But it's a weird one, because the thing that Putin wants the most is the cheapest to give to him.
It literally doesn't cost anything.
And it doesn't even bind us.
Because if it became an important security consideration, yeah, Ukraine would get NATO'd up in five minutes.
How in the world could you guarantee such a thing?
Now, on the other side, Putin has the same situation.
We'd like him to guarantee that if we make a deal, he won't make a move on the rest of Ukraine at some later date.
How in the world could that ever be guaranteed?
It can't.
So the two things that the sides want, the most important two things, You know, one wants NATO and the other wants a guarantee that there will be no future attacks.
That's something that both sides can say, okay, because it's not giving away anything.
There's no asset there.
It's nothing.
You're not giving away anything because both sides could just change their mind tomorrow.
And it's not like we can ask for collateral, right?
We can't say, I'll tell you what.
We'll hold Moscow as collateral, and in case you attack, we get to keep Moscow.
No.
There's no way you can put collateral on it.
What kind of guarantee could you ever come up with?
Now, I'd love to be wrong.
I'd love to find out that there's some clever way you could guarantee this sort of thing, but I don't think so.
Yeah.
So that'll be the hard part.
How in the world do you do something that would guarantee anything when both of them absolutely need guarantees?
I don't know.
It's going to be really interesting.
I do think they can get it done, but only because they're both incentivized to do it.
They both want it done.
And they might trust each other, at least in the short run.
But in the long run, I don't know.
Nothing can be guaranteed in the long run.
Well, let's talk about the leaders of the Democrats.
Josh Shapiro, governor of Pennsylvania, was on Bill Maher's show.
And Bill Maher was talking about him as a potential future leader of the Democrats.
And he said that the people said that you, Josh Shapiro, couldn't become the VP choice.
Do Kamala Harris because you're Jewish and that wouldn't be successful the way our country is.
And Josh Shapiro had just the best answer to that.
Now, it's not a complete answer because he was talking about being governor, but he said when he ran for governor, his first ad featured his Friday night Shabbat, where because of his Jewish faith,
every Friday he'd be gathering with friends and family and having a celebratory, you know, very much in the Jewish tradition kind of a dinner.
So instead of hiding from it or, well, hiding is the wrong word, instead of downplaying his religion and just saying stuff like, oh, it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter, he just opened the door and said, here it is.
Here's what we do.
You know, I like my religion.
You like your religion.
Let's talk.
Now, to me, that was one of the most brilliant things he could have ever done.
Because here's what I know about people.
People will distrust anything they're unfamiliar with.
It's just sort of a reflex.
So it's not like that people would be necessarily, you know, anti-Semitic.
It would just be something different.
And they'd say, I'm not sure I understand that, or I know it, or I don't know anybody who is Jewish, they might say.
So I'm not sure I trust it.
But if he leads with it and says, I have no secrets.
Here's my deal.
Here's how I worship.
I love how I worship.
I love how you worship.
Let's all be worshipers.
That is so disarming.
It's just so disarming.
So to me, that's brilliant.
Just to lead with it and say, you know, I'm a good person.
You're a good person.
We don't even need to talk about this.
But if you have questions, glad to answer them.
Trouble is, I don't think that would work for national office.
It's a brilliant thing for a local or governor.
But as soon as you're talking about the federal government, then it instantly turns into, so...
How much do you like Israel?
Are you going to support Israel over the United States?
Would you treat it as an equal?
So you get all those questions.
And those don't have to do with whether we like anybody's choice of religion.
It's more about, hmm, can we be sure?
People would have their doubts basically about whether America first really meant America first.
And they wouldn't know.
Now, I have no reason to think he's anything but America first.
So let me be clear about that.
But the public would probably have their questions.
So yeah, that might be a problem running for national office.
I think we need to get there.
You know, the same reason I thought that electing Obama was a good step for America, regardless of how you think he governed.
That's a separate question.
But I felt it was healthy for us to just get over it.
I think it was healthy to get over Kennedy being Catholic.
You know, it's better to just go right at it.
I think it was healthy that Hillary Clinton was the nominee and Kamala Harris was the nominee, and they got close.
You know, even not winning, it felt like, hey, that's the America I want to live in, where everybody gets a shot.
So yeah, I think it'd be good for the country just to have somebody getting close to office, even if they didn't win.
All right.
Here's some other people that the Democrats have.
According to CNN, AOC is seen as a leader of the Democratic Party, with Kamala Harris as a close second.
And of course, there's Jasmine Crockett, who's making a lot of noise on TV, and Bernie Sanders.
Reince Priebus was talking about how lame the Democrat leadership is.
He says that only AOC and Bernie Sanders can get a crowd of 20 people to show up.
Now, that's an exaggeration, but not a big one.
Not a big one.
It's an excellent point.
But just think about...
Just think about the people who are the leaders, from Chuck Schumer to AOC, Kamala Harris, Tim Walsh, Jasmine Crockett, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi.
Why can I never remember the minority leader?
What's his name?
What's the minority leader's name?
Why can't I remember him?
Anyway, so, yeah, they have a real problem.
But it seems to me that they've also painted themselves in a corner.
Hakeem.
Hakeem Jeffries, thank you.
And Hakeem Jeffries has an unfortunate vibe problem.
I'm sure he's very smart, or he wouldn't be in his position.
But there's just something about his persona.
That just reeks of, I don't trust you.
It's the darndest thing.
You'd have to try pretty hard to look untrustworthy every single time you talk.
Yeah.
He's got that movie character look that says, okay, you could play a bad guy in this movie.
And I don't know how to fix that.
That doesn't seem fixable by just smiling more.
So they don't really have much going on.
I think they're going to have to pick, again, I think they'll have to pick a woman because the Democrats are very woman-focused.
And I think the woman will have to be a woman of color.
So that says AOC, Kamala Harris, Jasmine Crockett.
And I don't think any of them can win against any solid Republican candidate.
So how in the world?
How in the world will they ever?
Go back in power.
Anyway, speaking of Jasmine Crockett, she was talking about Trump using that, what I like to call the Adams era law.
Now this is referring to President John Adams.
And you know the story that Trump used the Alien Enemies Act from 1798, which would allow the president to detain or deport non-citizens from an enemy country during war.
And I think he set the stage for that by declaring that these Trenda or Wagwa gang members were terrorists.
So suddenly, if they're terrorists and they're coming from another country, you're pretty close to saying that you're at war with them and that the president can kick them out.
Well, as the airplanes were in the air...
To deport these very people.
There was a judge, of course, it's going to be an Obama appointee, lefty judge that they found, questioned the use of the law in this particular context and said that those planes need to turn around even if they're already in the air.
But, apparently, and it's being credited to Stephen Miller, they had rushed the flights.
So that by the time the judge ruled, the flights were already in international waters.
And the counterargument is going to be, hey, that ruling doesn't apply because these people are not even in the United States anymore.
They're in international waters.
And then they landed.
And sure enough, El Salvador processed them and put them in the El Salvador prisons.
So we'll see if that gets reversed.
If it does get reversed, then people like Jasmine Crockett, who are arguing against it, once again are going to be on the ridiculous side.
Now, I realize that Jasmine's argument has some nuance to it.
She's not saying, I like evil gang members.
She's saying, if the president is allowed to use this rule in that way, You know, it will be expanded and he'll do bad things in the future.
But you notice that a lot of the complaints about Trump are things that they imagined he would do in the future, which is the weirdest kind of complaint, because you can say that about everybody all the time.
It's like, well, you know, I like this candidate, but I worry that they'll round everybody up and murder them in the future.
Is there any evidence that they want to do that?
No.
No.
But based on the fake news I've been reading, it sounds like exactly the sort of thing they do in the future.
Anyway, so Trump wants to deport gang members any way he can, and the Democrat argument about it is, according to Jasmine Crockett, The argument against getting rid of these dangerous gang members any way we can is blah,
blah, should use a scalpel, blah, blah, concept, blah, blah, vague fear of the future.
They really have nothing.
And I love the thing that Trump does so, so well is communicating in a relatable way.
These are terrible people.
We're going to do whatever we can to get them out of our country.
Got it.
Got it.
Counter-argument?
Well, this is a law that might be used outside of its context.
And, you know, I worry that he's using a hatchet instead of a scalpel.
And what if he did bad things in the future?
And then you hear that and you go, none of that stuck to my brain.
Could you say it again?
Oh, well, the law, 1798, out of context, and, you know, the legal processes and the scalpel.
What?
And then Trump says, these are terrible, murderous people.
We're going to get rid of them any way we can.
Got it.
Got it.
Well, libs of TikTok and others were showing that, according to the Border Patrol, The amount of fentanyl seized at the U.S.-Mexico border is down 40% since January.
It's lowest level since 2021.
Now, that would suggest that closing the border also has already greatly reduced the flow of fentanyl, right?
Well, probably not.
It might be that the fentanyl is reduced, but not because the border got...
Better controlled.
Because if you didn't know this, the fentanyl is not coming across in the pockets of the individuals who are walking across the border in places we didn't want them to walk across the border.
That's not how it gets in.
That would be the worst way to do it.
It turns out that almost all of it goes in automobiles that are legally entering the country.
So it's not like there's a lot of illegal entries that also had fentanyl that almost doesn't exist.
What it is is that we can only check maybe 20% of the traffic, and because it's so cheap to make fentanyl, you wouldn't really care if 20% of it got caught, as long as 80% didn't.
So since I don't think there's been any real change in how the traffic, the legal traffic back and forth, That goes through legal checkpoints.
I don't think there's been a change there.
So one of the changes there could be is a lot of expense to bring in some kind of scanning devices that they can use on automobiles.
But even then, it would slow down traffic to the point where I'm not sure you can really do it because it would just stop all border traffic.
So here's what I think.
I don't think that the decrease in illegal entries is really correlated with the decrease in fentanyl.
But if fentanyl is actually way down, and it might be, you know, they only report what they caught, not what got through.
So we don't know that it's down.
We just know that what we caught is way down.
It could be that there's some other pressure on the fentanyl dealers.
I assume there is.
So it could be that the labs are being disrupted and they have to relocate because they're worried about our Reaper drones getting ready to set them on fire.
So it could be just the operation is completely skedaddling to try to hide their labs and it's going to take a couple months before they can crank up.
And maybe just that.
Could be that there's enough pressure on China, finally.
That the fewer precursors are making it to Mexico to be turned into fentanyl?
Maybe.
I think that's the least likely.
But if I had to guess, probably there's enough credible military threat that the labs are just shutting down and relocating so temporarily they can't make much product.
Just a guess.
But I don't think it's because the...
There are fewer illegal crossings.
I just don't think they're correlated.
According to the Telegraph, more eggs than fentanyl are being seized in the border.
More eggs than fentanyl.
It turns out that eggs are really cheap south of the border.
So a whole bunch of people thought, huh, why don't I just buy eggs in Mexico, get a bunch of extra, and then go north and sell them for You know, twice as much as I bought them.
And so a lot of people are doing that.
So there's some possibility that the cartels are getting out of the fentanyl business and moving into eggs.
No, just kidding.
They wouldn't do that.
But the egg smuggling business has taken over from fentanyl.
Laura Loomer has another scoop.
This time she found that Hunter Biden apparently has been living in South Africa in a hotel.
She calls it a five-star Oceanside Villa.
And I guess he's got full Secret Service protection, which seems very expensive.
Seems very expensive to have Secret Service in another country, sort of permanently, semi-permanently, especially at a seaside resort kind of place.
So that's weird.
But as Laura Lumer points out, he has claimed that he has no money.
So he did a signed declaration in court that he's poor, but yet he's living like a person who does have money.
So the question would be, where is the money coming from?
Or did you lie when he said he didn't have any?
Maybe he just sells one painting a week, and that's all he needs to support his lifestyle.
Don't know.
But yeah, hunters in South Africa.
When was the last time you heard a story about South Africa that wasn't about something bad?
Because there's another South Africa story about apparently South Africa has some kind of a research facility in Antarctica.
And let's see.
Let me skip ahead to that.
Well, I'll do that in order.
We'll get to that.
There's a story about a research facility.
Anyway, according to Breitbart News, there's a representative, Brandon Ongill, and he wants to see if he can get the Congress to prohibit foreign countries from buying real estate in America.
If that country doesn't allow Americans to buy real estate in their country.
Now China would be obviously the main target of this.
Because China buys a lot of property in the U.S. And farmland especially.
So what do you think about that?
To me that seems like an easy one.
If we can't buy land in China, why do we let China buy land in the United States?
That just seems basic.
You know, it has to be at least reciprocal.
So, yeah, I'd be in favor of that.
It would be expensive.
It would probably lower our property costs, which would be good for people buying stuff.
Meanwhile, the EPA chief, Lee Zeldin, he's saying that Trump's deregulation push, and he's a big part of it, he said on Fox News, That's the most amount of deregulation ever.
And he said the Biden and Obama administration treated regulations like commandments, targeting energy supply and raising costs.
And then Trump wants the U.S. to be energy dominant.
So a whole bunch of regulations are going.
But they're still focused on making sure there's clean air and land.
Basically, clean air, land, and water while growing the economy.
Now, assuming this is all true, and assuming that the regulations they got rid of were things that really were slowing down our energy business, I'd expect it would take at least three years for the reduction in all these regulations to really show up in the economy.
So I feel like Trump's third year is going to be insane.
Because a whole bunch of things he's doing, from tariffs to deregulation, those things don't make an immediate positive impact and might be negative in the short run.
But by the third year, you should start seeing it in prices.
And then it's going to be crazy.
I don't think I've ever been more bullish on the United States.
Now, the big thing is still Doge.
If Doge can't bring down the expenses and make that work, then all bets are off.
But it does look like it's going to make a good run at it, at the very least.
So I don't think the United States has been a better investment.
Maybe at any time since the, toward the end of the Great Depression.
You know, if at the end of the Depression you had any money at all and you bought a few stocks, you got really rich.
Because that was the worst looking period in American economic history.
But it was also the bottom.
So if you bought a stock then, you were pretty happy.
I feel like we're in a similar situation.
Now, obviously, everything could go to hell, because, you know, any surprise could happen.
We get hit by a meteor, a war happens that we didn't expect.
You know, anything could happen.
But the promise of what the third year of Trump's administration looks like, I don't think I've ever seen a more optimistic set of variables coming together.
I mean, this looks really strong at this point.
Well, Trump is using the government's control over federal funding for college research to put pressure on colleges.
So Colombia already lost $400 million in grants because the government says they're too anti-Semitic or they're allowing too much anti-Semitism.
And there are apparently hundreds of schools that make these federal grants for every kind of research.
Educational, medical, agriculture, all kinds of research.
And apparently in 2021, the last time we have numbers for it, the federal government gave $49 billion for federal research and development funding.
$49 billion to colleges, which, again, was a big part of their entire funding.
Now, what do you think we got for those $49 billion?
Are you aware of anything that's coming out of college research that's changing anything?
Because you know what I worry?
What I worry about is that we got nothing for it.
And that it's just a bunch of people who are rushing to publish any kind of science they can.
Because I don't think we say, okay, we'll only give you this money if your research is really good for the economy and good for America.
I doubt it.
I'll bet it's a whole bunch of, we're going to prove that DEI is the best thing in the world.
We're going to prove that there are more than two genders.
We're going to prove...
I feel like it's going to be a whole bunch of...
Just backward science and random correlations and slapped-together research with students collecting data that nobody trusts.
We already know that the peer-review articles or the peer-review process doesn't work at all.
So even being peer-reviewed doesn't really make it true, more than half the time anyway.
Wouldn't you love to see some kind of a top 10, here's what we got for $49 billion?
I feel like most of that was wasted.
But I wonder if it's 100% it was wasted.
And I also think to myself, if they were doing research that could be sort of immediately turned into product, let's say they were doing research on...
I don't know, a new cancer cure or a new way to make batteries last longer.
That is the sort of thing that they might be doing.
How much of that wouldn't have been funded by industry?
I feel like industry would have funded that, right?
Because it can't be super expensive to do a study like that.
So, you know, you don't think Tesla would say, okay, if you're working on a way to make our batteries last twice as long, yeah, well, We'll shoot you half a million dollars for that.
So I'm not sure any of this makes sense, that the federal government should be even in the business of funding research when private industry presumably would want to fund it too.
There might be some exceptions, but I'd like to see the argument for why we do this.
According to Slay News, Frank Bergman's writing, that the World Economic Forum is Is asking for a global ban on homegrown food.
Homegrown food.
Now, they're talking mostly about urban gardens, where people put a little garden in the middle of a city.
And the argument is that these little gardens are so inefficient that they contribute more badness to the environment than they produce in food.
And it would be better if everybody just got their food from the big farms instead of trying to grow it at home.
To which I say, does anybody listen to the World Economic Forum in 2025?
I feel like, didn't Klaus Schwab already retire?
I feel like the World Economic Forum isn't really even a thing that anybody pays attention to.
And here would be a very good reason why nobody pays attention.
It doesn't feel like a 2025 problem, does it?
It feels like a 2020 problem.
Oh, that World Economic Forum, they have too much power.
Now it just seems like a club for rich people.
And they put out some weird proclamations that nobody cares about.
I mean, none of it's binding.
So, anyway.
I guess they did a study of 73 urban agriculture sites around the world.
We don't care.
Grace Price, who you know because she talks about nutrition and food problems in the United States.
She points out that the American Heart Association has on their forum General Mills and PepsiCo.
So when you think of things that are good for your heart, do you think of General Mills and PepsiCo?
So they're major members of the American Heart Association.
Now, does that matter?
Do you think you'll see any impact because those entities are on the American Heart Association?
Well, maybe, because there was this bill, SB 379, That would have removed from the SNAP program, which is a program for people without money to buy food.
So right now, those people could use the government money to buy candy, soda, cookies, and chips.
And so there was an effort to say, well, you can buy food, but we don't think you should be using the government money for candy, soda, Now, who do you think makes at least these soda, cookies,
and chips?
Two members of the board or the forum.
And so the American Heart Association came out against banning candy, soda, cookies, and chips from government-funded food buying.
They came out against it.
The American Heart Association.
Now, let me ask this question again.
Are there any large organizations that are not corrupt?
I wonder if there are.
It just seems to me that everything that matters has been penetrated by somebody who had the ability to penetrate them.
So it feels like There just aren't any large organizations that you can trust at all.
Like, they all get corrupted one way or another, either through money or membership or something.
So there you go.
According to Neoscoop, Neoscoop, Neural Sabaya is writing, that apparently human intelligence seems to be dropping sharply.
So people are getting dumber, but really quickly.
Like, more so than other times in history.
So, apparently it's not just your imagination.
People are losing the ability to critically think and to concentrate and to do reasoning.
They're bad at problem solving.
They're information processing skills.
Basically, all aspects of intelligence are dropping like a rock.
Sort of everywhere in the modern world.
And the thinking is that it might be some combination of things in the environment.
It might be the food.
It might be the pollution.
It might be the lead.
It might be the phones.
It might be the screens.
So I think mostly the phones.
If you had to pick one thing, it would be the technology.
Mostly the phones.
But I'm going to offer a counterpoint.
Ready for this?
Yes, it's true that a human is getting dumber.
Humans.
So we're all getting dumber.
However, we're not human anymore.
We are cyborg.
If I have a phone in my hand, I'm smarter than anybody in history has ever been.
Right?
As long as I know how to talk to AI and ask questions and search for stuff.
Or even just text somebody who knows the answer that I want to know the answer to.
So if you say that people are getting dumber, that's true.
But I wonder if it's relevant.
Because cyborgs, which is what we are, we've evolved into a cyborg state.
A cyborg is way smarter than anybody in history.
Do you have a question?
If I've got my phone in my hand, I can get an answer.
So, does it make sense to compare cyborgs to humans without factoring in the fact that the cyborg part, the technical part, gives them a superpower?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I think that even people who are bad at critical thinking are going to just start asking their phone.
Yesterday I wanted to heat up some water for tea.
And I'd never done that in the microwave.
All of my other ways to make hot water were broken.
That's another story.
So I have at least several ways to make hot water.
They're all broken.
I've got a hot water spout that's full of pollution.
It's bad news.
So I thought, how long do I microwave this?
So I took out ChatGPT and put it in video mode.
And I just made it look at my cup of water.
And I said, how long should I microwave this?
It's like, well, one to two minutes.
Perfect.
So there's nothing I can't figure out in like a moment.
It was kind of fun.
Anyway, according to PC Magazine, Will McCurdy's writing about this, OpenAI says that China could compel the deep-seek AI that comes from China to cause harm, and so OpenAI says that the Chinese AI should be banned.
Now, who's surprised about that?
Not me.
One of the things I've been telling you about AI is that no matter how good it is, the problem is going to be that humans are going to try to ban it for a number of reasons.
So this is ChatGBT trying to ban Chinese AI, but it seems to me that there is pressure against open AI.
They've got legal pressure.
There's going to be the copyright things.
It's lawyers.
Lawyers and laws and humans are just going to be such an impediment to AI.
Makes you wonder if AI can ever get to the next level, or else we'd stop it.
We'd find some reason.
It's like, oh, it's too dangerous.
You have to stop.
Oh, it comes from another country.
You better stop.
Now, I do agree with banning the Chinese AI.
It is too dangerous.
But there's going to be an argument against every AI.
You know, pretty soon people are going to say, oh, this AI is biased.
It's misinformation.
So you've got to shut it down.
The pressure against AI is going to be just through the roof.
Anyway, we'll see if OpenAI wins that.
There's a robot factory being built.
Interesting engineers reporting that.
So there's a U.S. firm called Figure that's a robot company.
And they're going to build their factory to make 12,000 humanoid robots per year.
And that's a California-based company.
But they're not putting the...
Are they putting the...
I didn't see that, but...
They couldn't possibly be putting the manufacturing in California, right?
It doesn't say where the manufacturing would be, but I'd be amazed if somebody built manufacturing in California.
That feels like an unnecessary risk.
So it's a California-based company, but I don't see here where they would put the factory.
Anyway, I wouldn't put it in California.
Anyway, I told you the story about the South African scientists.
They're trapped in a tiny base in Antarctica.
And apparently, because of the extreme weather, there could be months, you know, up to 10 months before the weather would be good enough for anybody to leave or arrive.
And they're complaining because there's one researcher in that group, according to the Daily Mail.
Who has been threatening to kill them and sexually abuse somebody.
So they've got basically some kind of a sexual criminal who is threatening to kill people, and they're trapped in this little building for at least 10 more months, and they're sort of begging for relief.
Now, I know what you're thinking.
I know what you're thinking.
You're thinking...
Can Elon Musk rescue them, right?
Well, he can't do everything.
I don't think he could land a starship there, but it wouldn't surprise me if the boring company is already drilling a hole from America to Antarctica to get him out.
It wouldn't surprise me.
I just don't think it's happening.
So, no, Elon Musk can't rescue everybody.
Sometimes they're going to have to rescue themselves.
Let's talk about the Hooties.
As you know, the Houthis were threatening and have for a long time been threatening shipping in the Red Sea.
Apparently, I didn't realize this, but nearly all the shipping, at least our shipping, and other countries too, nearly all of it has been avoiding the Red Sea because it's too dangerous because of the Houthis.
And they've been going the long way, which is making everything cost a lot more and take a lot longer.
So Trump has decided that this Iran-backed Houthis that keep shooting at the shipping in the Red Sea, their time has come.
And National Security Advisor Mike Waltz confirmed that the U.S. is making big airstrikes and took out multiple Houthi leaders.
Now, taking out their leaders, I don't think it's going to work because they just get new leaders.
And nearly three-quarters of shipping is now diverted.
To get out of that area.
Three quarters.
And it's way more expensive if they have to go around the hard way.
And then Mike Hegseth, he said that there's a large-scale strike campaign going on against the Houthis, and that it will continue and be, quote, unrelenting until they pledge to back off.
Pledge to back off attacking U.S. assets.
Now, here again, you have that problem of, what if they do promise it?
Would the shipping return just because the hoodies said, oh yeah, we'll totally leave your shipping alone?
Because the real problem is the insurance.
You would have to get the risk down to zero.
How could you ever get the risk down to zero?
Because even if, like, one in 20 ships get attacked, how are any of them going to get insurance?
And they need insurance.
So you can't half-ass this thing.
You have to completely destroy the Houthi's ability to do it or completely destroy whoever is funding them, Iran in this case.
You have to get them to change their mind.
But even if they change their mind, they could change it back.
You know, it's the same problem.
If they promised, oh, we promise, yeah, we won't attack your ships.
And then a few ships come back, they only have to attack one.
And then the whole thing falls apart.
So how much do you have to kill?
Before you can guarantee that it will be economical for ships to use that place again.
You either have to wipe out everything in that area, man, woman, and child.
I'm not recommending that.
I'm just saying, if you wanted to fix it, you would have to actually just depopulate the place.
Because they don't seem to be afraid of anything.
And there always seems to be a replacement willing to take over.
And there's always going to be a new leader, and Iran will still be funding them.
So anything short of a kind of brutality that we've never seen before couldn't possibly make a difference.
So we'll see if this gets us anything.
I'm highly skeptical that it can be solved without doing something that would be so unconscionable to American minds.
That doing it would be going too far.
I don't know.
If the real lever is Iran, then maybe there's something to work with.
But I don't know.
You have to get the risk down to zero or it just doesn't even matter.
If the risk is 5%, down from 100% getting attacked down to 5%, I don't think that changes the insurance situation at all.
Because 5% is way too much of a risk.
Way too much.
It's not even close.
So we'll see.
Anyway, that's what I got for you today.
I'm going to say a few words privately to the local subscribers.
But for the rest of you, thanks for joining.
Happy St. Patrick's Day.
So I'll say goodbye to YouTube and Rumble and X and Locals.
