God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Somali Migrant COVID Fraud, NPR Katherine Maher, Rep. Brandon Gill, Suzanne Humphries, Polio Vaccine Kash Patel, Russian Collusion RICO Lawsuit, Thomas Massie, Dual Citizenship Congress Members, Signalgate, John Ratcliffe, Jeffrey Goldberg, Pete Hegseth, Houthi Attack Planning, American Oversight Lawsuit, CREW Anti-Trump, David Brock, Norm Eisen, Alex Wong, Judge Boasberg, Dept. of Imaginary Concerns, Dramacrats Concern Voice, Rep. Goldman, Jonathan Turley, Anti-Tesla Terrorism, Domestic Terrorism Democrat Support, Ezra Klein, Gavin Newsom, Laura Loomer's Bill Maher Lawsuit, Big Pharma TV Ads Ban, Jeffrey Sachs, Permanent Wars, France Power Grid, Energy Costs, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
But if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice, a stein, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day.
The thing makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
happens now.
*pain*
Sip-tastic.
Better than normal.
Well, let's check the science news to see if there's anything I can doge.
And by that I mean save them some money.
Oh, yes.
Let's see.
The University of South Australia has determined that exercise of any kind can boost the brainpower of people at any age.
Huh. How could they have come up with that data without spending all the money?
Is there anything they could have done that would save them all that time and effort?
Yes. You could just ask Scott next time.
Scott, is exercise good for your brain?
Well, according to every single study that's ever been done on the topic, yes.
Hmm, we were thinking of doing a study on the topic.
You don't have to.
You don't have to.
It's been studied and studied, and it's also really obvious.
You can tell by observing people and also in yourself.
I don't know.
We kind of want to do a study on this.
Do you have grant money?
Yes. Well, maybe Doge should cut that grant money, even though you're in Australia.
That's how good Doge is.
It's going to cut things in Australia.
Well, speaking of things related to Elon Musk, according to fizz.org, the X platform sales or the advertising revenue is growing.
I'm not sure if they really know that.
But they say it's growing.
And the reason behind the growth in advertising on X, according to this publication, is being driven by fear.
Do you think they would cover anybody else's business this way?
As if they know why people are doing it.
So, why are you advertising on X?
Is it because it's a really good value for the dollar?
Or is it because we imagine that you're afraid?
Oh, now that Musk is friends with Trump.
Oh, we'd better advertise so we can bribe him with money.
Because that works, right?
Yeah, bribing him with money.
No, it doesn't work.
But anyway, good to see that the ad sales are up.
Now, I promised you, if you're on X, I made the promise that I would do some remote viewing today.
And it's because there's a document that's been found.
It's an older document.
But back in 1988, the CIA claimed to have confirmed the existence of the Ark of the Covenant.
And the way they did that was they used a remote viewer.
Now, that would be a person who has psychic powers, where if they close their eyes, they can view things across the world or even across the galaxy, because time and space don't matter.
And so apparently some remote viewer did identify the Ark of the Covenant over in the Middle East and said it was in a coffin-shaped, ornate box.
Couldn't be more specific than that, somewhere in the Middle East.
And it was being guarded by entities.
But I feel like that's the sort of thing you shouldn't just trust, right?
You know, one remote viewer.
Is one remote viewer a good source?
No. You need two.
You need a second source.
So I thought I'd do a little remote viewing for you, if you don't mind preparing.
Hold on.
Be silent for a moment.
I'm getting something.
It's ornate.
It's the size of a coffin.
It's in a hole.
I'm sorry.
That was...
No, that wasn't it.
That was just somebody's casket.
Hold on.
Let me go.
Ark of the Covenant.
Where are you?
Got it.
Got it.
There it is.
It's in an ornate box.
It's buried somewhere in the Middle East.
I can't be more specific.
I believe there's sand around.
And it's being guarded by four entities.
Four entities are guarding it.
I think one of them, his name is Bob.
There's Carl, the entity.
And somebody whose nickname is Bip-Bop.
That's weird.
And Alex, Alex, so the four entities guarding the Ark of the Covenant, confirmed, confirmed.
Now, that probably will be national news by the end of the day, because, you know, if you only have one remote viewer seeing the Ark of the Covenant, that means nothing.
But if you have two, that's confirmation.
Yeah, that's confirmation.
So, we got that going for us.
Meanwhile, according to Reuters, the Supreme Court said it will not hear a youth-led climate change case.
So the Supreme Court said, get out of here.
We don't want to hear your 21 young people's case that the government and their energy policies have violated your right to be protected from climate change.
You know, your right to be protected from climate change.
Have you even read the Constitution?
People, it's right there.
I believe it's an article of the Constitution.
It's one of those amendments or something.
I'm pretty sure it's in there, right?
No? Okay, maybe it's not in there.
Meanwhile, there's a private Texas school.
That claims that by using an AI program, an AI tutor, that its students have recruited to the top 2% in the country.
Fox News is reporting on this.
And the co-founder of the school, called Alpha School, says the students are learning better and faster, and they only spend a few hours a day talking to the AI, and then they're done with all their work, and they don't even need to do homework because they're learning so fast.
And then they spend the rest of the day doing passion projects.
Yeah, passion projects.
Now, I don't know exactly what that means, but it sounds pretty good.
So you do way less work, and you get way more fun, and you get way better grades.
Now, the Alpha School is looking to expand.
So it's got a few hundred students now, but it's going to expand across the United States.
So, that would sort of suggest it's a for-profit school, right?
I mean, I don't see anything that says it's government-funded or anything.
So, it's a for-profit entity that's telling us that their product works better than other people's product.
Well, if you can't trust that, what can you trust?
Now, as others have pointed out, if it's a private school and it's a for-profit, there's probably a little healthy tuition going on there, and I would expect that it would only attract the best students.
Now, let me ask you this.
If you put a top student in front of an AI that's really good at quizzing them, Could they get done with all their necessary work in a few hours?
I'd say yes, probably yes.
If you take an average student or a not-so-good student and say, sit here alone with this AI until your homework's done in three hours, how's that going to go?
I don't think that's going to work at all.
So once again, I think we're going to learn.
That the people who have all the advantages, in this case it would be the rich and smart people, probably can get like a huge advantage from using AI as part of their process.
But I'm not so sure that AI is going to work for every kind of student.
It might only work for the top students and then everybody else has to figure it out.
We'll see.
But I have some questions about that.
Well, Tom Homan gets another win.
I guess they captured one of the top three MS-13 leaders in the United States.
And this was a 24-year-old.
So he was one of the top three MS-13 leaders in the country.
He was running the entire East Coast operations.
Now, the first thing that jumped out at me about this story is, wow, good work, Tom Homan.
Capturing a top leader of MS-13.
The second thing that jumped out was he's only 24. Wow.
You know, the one thing about MS-13 they don't tell you is what a great economic opportunity it is.
Because there are not many, there are just not that many jobs where you could be leading a major organization at the age of 24. So good for you, MS-13.
They are not discriminating against young people.
Plenty of opportunity, so I'd recommend it as a good career path for all of you.
No, I'm just kidding.
It's a terrible career path.
Don't join MS-13.
Meanwhile, Zero Hedge is reporting that there was this gigantic $250 million fraud involving a child nutrition program, federal child nutrition program, and a whole bunch of Somali immigrants.
Stole $250 million in Minnesota.
Now, that was between March 2020 and January 2022.
Now, how many times have we heard a story about gigantic amounts of money being stolen?
I'm starting to lose sort of the distinction between all the stories, but it does feel to me...
Like quite a few billions of dollars are being stolen from taxpayers and it's like the government never heard of anything like auditing or accounting or tracking your progress.
How in the world did they get away with 250 million dollars of essentially faking that there were children that didn't exist?
How in the world?
Two years?
$250 million?
What if there are just like dozens or hundreds of these happening all over the country?
You know, in different ways, different people and stuff.
I feel like that might be the case.
Well, let's see, what else is going on?
According to Liberty Nation News, The Associated Press, as a reporter who got caught doing some fake news, and they had to retract it, and the fake news was that a claim that Tulsi Gabbard had said that Trump and Putin were good friends.
But it turns out she was talking about Prime Minister Modi and Trump, who are actually good friends.
And so the Associated Press had to correct their story because it was wrong.
But the fun part of the story is that the reporter who wrote it, one of his prior jobs was he was part of the AP's first misinformation beat team, focusing on explaining falsehoods, propaganda, and conspiracy theories.
Well, exposing the creators of this material and their techniques for dissemination.
How many times have the fake news people got onto the, hey, we'll check the fake news of the other people?
Sometimes it's exactly what you'd expect.
You know, I have this theory that shoe salesmen...
If it's men who are selling shoes to women, that eventually it will be only men who have foot fetishes because they would be most drawn to the field and they would work longer hours cheaper because they were getting an extra benefit from it.
And it just seems to me that the organizations that are trying to fact-check other organizations, probably they're filled with fake news people.
Because it just feels like that's what would be drawn to those jobs.
Oh, so I can just call other people fake news?
Yeah, that would be your job.
All right, I'm in.
Well, Trump is saying on True Social that it's time to defund NPR and PBS immediately.
He says that they're both horrible and they're completely biased platforms.
They should be defunded by Congress immediately.
He says, Republicans, don't miss this opportunity to rid our country of this giant scam, both being arms of the radical left Democrat Party.
Just say no and make America great again.
Well, related to this story, the NPR CEO, her name is Marr, last name is Marr, And she was being grilled by this guy, Brandon Gill.
So Gill was doing some grilling.
He's grilling Gill.
And if you haven't seen the videos of it, it's highly recommended because of the attitude that he brought to it.
So he'd ask a question like, do you recall saying this or that?
And it'd be some terrible woke thing that...
It would sound so bad in 2025, but maybe at some point it didn't sound so bad.
And then Mara would say, I never said that.
And then Representative Gill would say, yes, you did.
Here's a tweet of yours from 2020.
And then he would read the tweet where she said exactly that.
And then she'd say, well, I don't remember that.
Or I've completely evolved in my thinking, so I definitely don't think that now.
Now, if you only saw it happen once with, let's say, one claim or one tweet, it wouldn't be much.
You know, because people say crazy stuff, I say crazy things.
You could almost certainly find something in my tweeting history that if you read it to me in a congressional setting and said, do you really believe this?
I might say, you know, maybe I thought it at the time, but, you know, not really, not now.
But if you have a lot of them, it becomes quite a show.
And apparently she had quite a few things to say.
Almost every one of them would have been disqualifying for any kind of leadership job.
And she had to respond to every one that she had completely changed her views from crazy woke.
To something more like, you know, a leader perspective.
Oh my God, did she get destroyed.
Brandon Gill.
Good job there, Brandon.
All right.
Some of you have already seen this story, but I just had to weigh in.
I guess on Joe Rogan's show, he had a doctor, Dr. Suzanne Humphreys, and they were talking about the real story of polio.
Now, before I tell you what...
You know, what the claim is.
Let me say that I don't know how to judge this.
There was a time when, if I had heard this, somebody saying that the polio vaccine actually doesn't do anything, and the polio...
Well, let me tell you the claim.
The claim is that the polio vaccine didn't stop any polio at all.
What did stop polio is nothing.
Nothing stopped it at all.
And that all they did was redefine certain conditions as no longer being polio.
So they came up with new names for stuff.
So then when somebody had something that used to be called polio, but they had been vaccinated, the doctor would say, well, it can't be polio because you've been vaccinated.
So it looks like you got this Gillian-Barr thing or you've got this Coxsackie.
Coxsackivirus or an echovirus?
I don't know what a Coxsackivirus is, but that sounds like a bad one.
What kind of virus did you get?
I got that Coxsackivirus.
It's spelled C-O-X-S-A-C-K-I-E virus, all one word.
It just sounds like a Coxsackivirus.
Which is absolutely the worst kind you can get.
Or the doctors would chalk it up to...
Now, this is a claim of Dr. Suzanne Humphreys.
These are not my claims.
Lead poisoning or mercury poisoning.
So they'd always have some answer to it.
And then the doctor says the rise of polio...
Or what seemed to be the rise of polio, was directly mirror the use of toxic pesticides like DDT, she says.
And she says the countries that still make DDT today is where we're still seeing the polio happen.
So let me say what I think a number of others of you have said or are thinking right now.
Let me see if I can read your mind.
I'm going to read your mind.
I've already done remote viewing.
Reading your mind, and you're saying, got it, got it.
What you're saying is, there was a time you would not have believed this story, right?
This is not that time.
This is a time where I look at this.
I mean, this is a really fantastical claim that the entire medical community Didn't know that polio either was just not what they thought it was and the vaccine didn't make any difference at all.
That's quite a claim.
Quite a claim.
But in 2025, to steal a joke from Joe Rogan, I'm not so sure the moon landing was real.
And by the way, I'm not so sure the moon landing was real.
I've actually been flipped.
Even maybe a month ago, I was holding tough.
It's like, come on.
Of course the moon landing's real.
I mean, you can see the assets up there.
People can still see that some of the assets are down there on the moon's surface.
How could it not be real?
And then I thought, well, maybe the pictures aren't real.
I mean, maybe they landed something on the moon, but...
Are the pictures real?
Maybe they couldn't get good film on the moon or get it quickly, so maybe they filmed it separately, even if they did land on the moon, either with a person or without people.
So, at the moment, I'm completely open to 100% of everything I've learned in history being fake.
That doesn't mean it is.
But I'm completely open to it now.
There's nothing I'm unwilling to believe, no matter how crazy.
And I'm going to put this on that list.
I'm not going to say this is true, because how would I know?
But is it possible, within the realm of possibility, that polio could have been completely a fake hysteria?
And the answer is, I hate to say it.
But it's a little bit possible.
It's just a little bit possible.
I don't think it's the most likely explanation.
To be honest, if I had to place a bet, I would bet that the vaccinations work and polio is real.
But, man, it's not 100%, is it?
I'd love to tell you I'm super confident about that, but nope.
Nope. It's a little bit closer to a coin flip.
A little bit closer to a coin flip.
I see your comments and I'm just chuckling to myself.
One of you is trying to get me kicked off of all social media platforms forever.
I'm not going to take the bait.
Well, according to Kash Patel, Trump has this brilliant plan where he either has or is going to file a Lawsuit against all the people involved in the Russia collusion hoax.
Now, it would be a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal action.
And he would be suing for financial compensation.
Now, the financial part probably doesn't matter to him that much.
But it's a RICO lawsuit.
I didn't know you could RICO in a lawsuit.
Maybe it's the essence of RICO as opposed to RICO.
And what Cash Patel is pointing out is that it could lead to the possibility of criminal charges.
So in other words, if the lawsuit had some discovery involved or some, let's say it tied together a bunch of things that nobody tied together before, it could.
Create the basis for a criminal prosecution on the same grounds.
That it was organized, funded, and it was an operation that involved a vast number of people, from lawyers in a certain firm, to Hillary Clinton's campaign, to the FBI, to the Department of Justice, I don't know who else, the media, maybe the media.
And then as Kash Patel points out, I guess he was talking to Charlie Kirk on the podcast, that the RICO part of it, the part where everything's connected and it's not one person who just did a thing, it's a whole bunch of people who apparently knew what the other people were doing and seemed to be coordinated.
He says that the Durham report and other, I guess, legal actions...
Have essentially proven the main points that the lawsuit would try to establish, which is it was fake, we know who the people involved were, and we know pretty much that they communicated.
But maybe that's the extra stuff they have to add to it to, you know, get some testimonies and stuff like that.
So that is really interesting as a legal strategy.
And I'm all in for that.
We should absolutely know if our government was real or we were just run by a bunch of hoaxes and RICO and some deep state stuff.
I don't know.
Well, in other news, Representative Thomas Massey, he's introducing a bill, the Dual Loyalty Disclosure Act.
So if somebody is a candidate for office, For federal offices, they would have to disclose all the countries in which they are citizens.
Now, you're probably saying to yourself, that seems unnecessary because everybody knows who's a dual citizen, right?
I mean, it would be easy to check.
If somebody had dual citizenship and they were in Congress, you'd know about it, right?
Apparently, there's no reporting requirement.
And there's no place you can look it up.
So we could have dozens of people in Congress who are actually citizens of other countries at the same time they're citizens of the United States, and we wouldn't even know it.
Now, I know what you're going to say.
Israel, right?
Say it.
You know that's what you want to say.
You want to say there are members of Congress who are secretly...
Also, dual citizens of Israel.
Well, according to my limited research, there's no known case of that.
So if you have different information than I do, let me know.
But to the best of my very quick analysis, there's no example of that.
There doesn't seem to be, as far as anybody knows, any member of Congress who's a dual citizen.
That actually surprised me.
I thought there'd be one or two.
And I don't think there's anybody else who hasn't, at this point, renounced their dual citizenship.
So there were a few that were not related to Israel, where people were challenged.
I think Ted Cruz was one.
Ted Cruz had Canadian citizenship as well as American.
And I believe he renounced the Canadian part.
As soon as it became an issue.
I think there were a few other candidates or a few other politicians who were in the same situation.
They weren't really, you know, they weren't really wed to the other country, so they just renounced it and fixed it.
But I guess I approve of this.
I don't think it'll make much difference in the real world, but it'd be good to know.
All right, let's talk about SignalGate.
Believe it or not, I think I can add something to the story.
It's a boring story, and that's the biggest part of the story is that it's too boring for the public to get interested in.
Imagine if you didn't follow the news like we do, like obsessively trying to figure stuff out all day long, and you heard about, oh, they use the Signal app.
Like, you wouldn't even know, like, why is that bad or anything like that.
So, here's something that CIA Director Ratcliffe said in a statement, and he was dumping on the reporter who wrote about it, Jeffrey Goldberg.
He's the one who was added to the signal group.
We don't know exactly how he was added yet, but it wasn't by Ratcliffe.
And anyway, so CIA Director Ratcliffe said, yesterday I spent four hours answering questions from senators.
As a result of that article intimating that I transmitted classified information.
Now, I didn't know that.
I didn't know that Goldberg suggested that maybe Ratcliffe had transmitted classified information because we didn't see any example of that.
So I didn't know that was being even suggested.
And then Ratcliffe says those messages were revealed today.
I did not transmit classified information.
I guess we can now just look at the messages and see he's right.
He said the reporter, Goldberg, who I don't know, intentionally intended it to indicate that.
The reporter also indicated I released the name of an undercover CIA operative.
In fact, I released the name of my own chief of staff who is not operating undercover, and that was deliberately false and misleading.
Okay, that's pretty bad.
Imagine being accused, you're the head of the CIA.
Imagine being accused of releasing the name of an undercover CIA agent and then finding out literally nothing like that happened.
It was just made up, apparently.
But I want to read you this last sentence and see if this sounds familiar to you.
So Ratcliffe's summary sentence was, the mission was a remarkable success because that's what did happen, not what could have happened.
Not what could have happened.
Have you noticed the pattern?
The pattern that Democrats have imaginary concerns?
We'll talk about that in a little bit.
But I wrote a post on Axe that I thought captured some of the nuance that nobody had captured yet on this signal thing.
So starting with, if Hegseth, and I believe this is true, Secretary Hegseth, he has the power to declassify content.
So all he has to do is say, declassify this, and it's declassified.
So in my opinion, putting that content on Signal, which is what he did, is a de facto declassification.
Now, it's the same thing I said about Trump and Mar-a-Lago.
If the person who's in charge of saying something is classified or not intentionally puts it in a place that they know is not classified, that's a de facto practical declassification.
Now, it should be with paperwork.
But is that the problem?
Are we mad at Hank Seth because he didn't do paperwork?
That wouldn't make anybody mad, would it?
If he intended it to be...
In a non-classified setting.
And obviously he knew the signal was not their top secret setting.
So he very consciously put it into a less than completely secure setting.
I would call that a de facto declassification.
Now here's the thing that you'll see in the news over and over again, and I think I'm...
About the only person besides Greg Uffelt, whoever calls this out, which is, I call it the half-pinion.
If the only thing you knew about the story is that somebody took some information that you think should be in the most maximized secret setting, and they moved it to a less secret setting, how would you judge that?
And there could be potential military implications to it.
How would you judge that?
Well, I'd say that's a mistake.
That's a pretty big one, right?
If all you're looking at is the cost of it, you know, what's the downside, what's the worst that could happen?
I'd say, that's terrible.
But what are we leaving out?
We're leaving out why he did it.
Why did he put that information in that setting?
Well, it's because he had a mission.
He'd been asked to keep this very group of people informed right up to the last minute.
I mean, the timing of it was important.
And it was very important to keep them informed in case somebody had a last-minute objection.
Because remember, this was big stuff.
He was ready to kill a whole bunch of people, which...
Presumably is what happened when the strike happened.
So before he decided to unleash death, death, like people dying.
He wanted to make sure that the people most involved got their final say.
And I don't think that that was just, you know, check in a box.
To me, that seems important, that if you've been asked to keep this group informed, It's because this group might be the ones who say, you know what?
Hold on, hold on.
You know, I have such an objection or I found out something new or maybe there's something we haven't considered.
Maybe they would have delayed it.
And that could have been really important.
Right? So if you were to judge it as did he take something into a less secure platform?
Yes. By itself, that would look like a mistake.
But if you judge it by what was he trying to accomplish, which was to make sure that the people most important to the decision were still okay with the decision, before he killed people, before he killed people, that seems pretty legitimate to me.
Now, let me tell you something about every big organization I've ever been involved with.
If you followed all of the rules of any big organization, Be it a corporation or anywhere else, you would immediately bring that corporation or organization to its knees.
Because big organizations have enough rules that you wouldn't be able to get anything done.
Let me give you an example.
One of my first jobs out of college, I was a bank teller.
And one day I cashed a bad check.
And it's because I didn't check identification properly.
The people with the check in and stood right there at the window with them was a friend of mine.
So the friend says, well, you know, I can vouch for these two.
They're friends of mine.
And I thought, oh, that's safe enough.
I mean, this is my personal friend.
Turns out they were criminals.
So, I mean, I just got scammed.
So I didn't get fired because it was sort of a first offense and it wasn't that much money.
But I did get a talking to.
I got a stern talking to.
And the stern talking to was, you don't get to decide which of the rules you follow and which ones you don't follow.
You will follow all the rules.
And I looked at my supervisor and I said, you got it.
And within two hours, the line for the tellers was out the door.
And I was serving very few people.
Because... Almost every encounter required me to call my supervisor over because that was the rule.
If there was anything that was above my pay grade to approve, I couldn't do it.
So I brought the entire bank to a standstill.
I crashed the bank.
It couldn't do anything for customers, and they were just lying down at the door.
And what was I doing?
I was just following all the rules.
I was doing it quickly.
I wasn't dragging my feet.
I was just following their own rules.
And one time I called my supervisor over and there's some guy who works for Chevron and he didn't have ID or he didn't have a, I guess he didn't have an account at our branch or something.
And she comes over and she takes one look at him.
She goes, approved.
I go, hold on, hold on.
What did you do that I couldn't do?
Like, you just looked at him.
You literally just looked at him.
Like, why couldn't I do that?
She goes, well, I noticed he was wearing this lapel pin that tells me that he's worked for Chevron for, I don't know, at least 10 years or something.
And she goes, yeah, nobody would know to wear that little pin if they were a crook.
And I thought, well, I'm pretty sure that's not in the rules.
The lapel pin trick.
So this is a pattern that you'll see everywhere.
Now, do you think this is different in the military?
Do you think the military could possibly function if everybody followed all the rules all the time?
I doubt it.
If it's like every other big organization?
No. It's probably a whole bunch of people who are continuously looking for some way to get around the rules and regulation just to get something done.
That's probably the most normal situation in the world.
So now you've got Pete Hegseth who's given this job.
Your job is to keep this group of people informed right up to date.
Like not once a month, but like right up to the operational point.
How is he going to do that?
How? You tell me the other way he was going to do it.
There wasn't another way he was going to do it.
There was no other mechanism.
The government does not have a secure chat group, and if it did, it would require those same people, what, a dozen or 16 or whatever, to all be sitting in an office at the same time.
Do you think that ever happens?
No, it never happens.
So he did not have any tool, any process, any way to do the thing that he had been tasked to do that was important enough.
That it could save the lives of those people who ended up being killed.
It was life and death, and it was his job.
It was life and death, and it was his job to keep them informed.
There was no other way to do it.
So what did he do?
I can't read his mind.
But what it looks like is he said, this is not ideal.
Again, I'm just guessing.
This is not ideal to put this on signal, but it's only two hours between now and the time of the attack, and it's important that we've got everybody on board.
I mean, that's just critically important.
So he took a little bit of a risk, like everybody does in every big organization if they're trying to work within the rules, and he got a little bit of a benefit, which is he did what he was asked to do before he killed people.
Before he killed people.
I mean, I feel like we're forgetting.
We've somehow forgotten the humanity of it.
This was life and death.
And you do want to make sure everybody's on the right page before the missiles fly.
So telling them exactly when the thing was going to happen is very critical, completely appropriate to do have a final objection.
Very important, because if there's two hours, maybe you say no.
If it were a day, maybe you'd say yes.
Now, here's the question you're wondering.
Just what was the risk level of putting something on a signal?
Well, here's your other real-world reveal.
I don't believe the Hooties have a sophisticated hacking operation.
Do you?
Do you think the Houthis had penetrated the phones of the United States government?
Do you think the Houthis had a backdoor to signal?
I'm going to say no.
But, before you say it, I know what you're thinking.
You're thinking, Scott, it doesn't have to be the Houthis.
It could have been the Russians, and then they tipped them off.
It could have been China, and then they tipped off the Houthis.
It could have been Iran.
Iran has sophisticated...
It could have been Iran, and then Iran is on their side, so they tip off the hooties.
But let me give you a little real-world context.
If any of those major powers had access to signal, and they had penetrated it so that they could listen to our government talking about everything, they would have risked losing that access by tipping off the hooties, Because we probably would have noticed if the Rudis, in two hours, kind of quickly adjusted their defensive positions.
Because, you know, we'd be watching them by then, right?
We'd have the satellites on, we'd have the drones flying over.
And if suddenly, two hours before the attack, everything changed, and they started rapidly moving their assets, how long would it take us to figure out it was because of the signal chat?
About five minutes.
And then we would have stopped using signal.
And then the Chinese or the Russians or the Iranians would have lost their access.
I think that if they had access to that tool, and they were listening to our government conversations at the highest level, I'm pretty sure they would have said, well, we're going to let the Houthis take the hit.
It would have been smarter, certainly for China and Russia, no doubt about it, to let the Houthis take the hit.
Even if they thought they'd like to screw the United States, they wouldn't lose their own access to something that important.
Now, what about Iran?
I would go so far as to say that even Iran would let the Hooties take a hit before they would give up a source that important.
Now, who else told you that?
Nobody, right?
So, once you see how weak the analysis was of this whole situation, it's shocking.
The next thing is that Democrats have conflated what could have happened with what did happen.
Now, that's what Ratcliffe said.
He said the exact same thing, right?
So, in my post...
I point out that the Democrats, they love the imaginary stuff.
Well, it could have been bad.
Do you know what else could have been bad?
Everything that those people did that day.
Everything. How many conversations did all the people who were in that chat, how many conversations did they have on other topics with other people that could have been compromised, but weren't?
Probably not.
But could have been.
If you're worrying about things that could go wrong, that's pretty much everything.
And it's pretty much all the time.
That is not a valid concern.
If somebody takes a risk-reward decision, I need to keep people informed.
That's my job.
It's life or death.
It's a little bit less secure, but it's only two hours before the strike.
It's pretty unlikely that any notice is going to get to them in two hours.
So, life is just one decision after another.
But if you were to read the news, it would look like half opinions.
You know, a real opinion is you take the positive and the negative risks of everything you do.
Okay, it could go this way, but it could go that way.
You know, I'll get some benefits, but there might be a cost.
But if the only thing you do is look at there might be a cost, you wouldn't do anything.
Well, there might be a cost.
I'd like you to meet me tomorrow at this building.
We'll have the meeting.
I don't know.
What if I get hit by a car on the way of the meeting?
Well, that's certainly more of a risk if you're traveling than if you're staying home.
So, was that worth the risk?
Everything has a risk to it.
Everything. If you look at the fact...
That everything has a risk, including every single conversation that every one of those people had about every topic that was, you know, classified all day long.
It's just nothing but that risk, just all day long.
Well, somebody might have heard it.
Somebody might be bugging this room.
Somebody might be a mole.
You know, that's universal.
Anyway. So here's the second question.
People have been asking me, hey, was this whole signal thing some kind of an op?
Was it a setup from the start?
My first impression was, well, I don't see how it would be.
My current impression is, yeah, it looks like it.
I'm not at the point where I'm willing to say it was an op, but it looks like it.
So here's what we know.
This is according to an ex-account called The Researcher.
So something called American Oversight.
So this is another one of those, you know how the NGOs all have these generic names?
And when you hear one of these generic names, it's some damn Democrat op.
So American Oversight is suing Hegseth, Gabbard, and Radcliffe, etc.
Saying that their messaging on Signal is a violation of the Federal Records Act.
Huh. Who do you think is on this American oversight group?
Well, apparently it's David Brock and Norm Eisen.
Remember I tell you that if you know what happened, you don't know anything.
You have to know who.
If the only thing you knew was that they were getting sued over a Federal Records Act, you might say to yourself, Well, I guess somebody in the government takes that pretty seriously.
But it's not that.
It's the most devious, weasel-like, despicable, lying pieces of shit that you've ever seen in your life, Norm Eisen and David Brock.
Now, if you don't know about those two guys, do a little research.
They are not associated with good acts.
Whatsoever. They are associated with the darkest, weaselly, just terrible, terrible activities.
And so sure enough, they're behind that, and they seem to be ready to go pretty quickly, surprisingly.
And then they used to have, I guess, a subgroup of this American oversight called CREW, C-R-E-W.
And according to the researcher, that was the lawfare arm or their effort to target Trump originally.
So there was a subset of people, probably lawyer-like people, who would do the lawfare going after Trump.
Now, why is that important?
Well, there was a member of that group named Alex Wong, He is being accused of being the staffer for Ratcliffe who added the journalist, who added Jeffrey Goldberg.
And then, on top of that, the judge who's been selected for this, who was randomly selected, totally randomly, is somebody named Judge Boesberg.
Have you heard of him?
Again, if you knew what was happening, you wouldn't know anything.
If you knew who, you might know everything.
So Boesberg, he's the activist judge who was blocking Trump from deporting violent gang members.
He's the one who intentionally delayed the release of Hillary Clinton's email until after the 2016 election.
He's considered an activist anti-Trump judge.
So, pulling it all together, it does look like an op, because none of us would really believe that Ratcliffe's chief of staff, if that's what he was, Alex Wong.
Now, by the way, this is not confirmed that Alex Wong is the person who did it, that that's just an accusation.
But at the moment, since we know that Ratcliffe...
Did not have any contact with, would not have had Goldberg's number on his own phone, and that a staffer was involved and almost certainly was the reason that Goldberg got added.
And then you add to it, of all the people in the world, adding Goldberg was the most dangerous thing you could do.
So of all the people in the world, just that one guy gets added.
And of all the people in the world, David Brock and Norm Eisen had a lawsuit that seemed like it was practically ready to go.
And of all the people in the world who are randomly selected to be the judge, it's this Boesburg guy.
That is a lot of coincidences, my friend.
Now again, if you didn't know the players, and you didn't know that the Alex Wong was actually part of the organization that is now suing them, It wouldn't look like it was necessarily a plot.
But as soon as you know who the players are, it just screams.
It just screams like it's a, yeah, a Rico plot.
Anyway. So now that we know that the big problem was the imaginary concern of what could have happened but didn't happen, I've suggested that Trump should create a Department of Imaginary Concerns.
And it would be only to handle Democrat complaints.
And the new department could have imaginary policies to combat the imaginary concerns.
So you place things like climate change in there.
Climate change, at least the crisis part of the climate change.
You put the Russia collusion thing in there.
You put the Hooties could have found out by hacking signal in there.
You put Trump might steal your democracy in the imaginary concerns department.
That Musk might steal our social security numbers.
You put that right in the Department of Imaginary Concerns.
And that there might be a constitutional crisis.
Yep, that's the Department of Imaginary Concerns.
Now, I'm not completely serious about this, but just think how funny it would be if every time one of these hoaxes comes up, And Trump has asked about it.
He says, oh, I've delegated that to the Department of Imaginary Concerns.
But are you trying to steal our democracy?
You know, that's a perfectly good question.
So I've delegated that to the Department of Imaginary Concerns.
Did you agree with Putin to have sex with him if he stops the fighting?
Well, you know, no.
But I'm going to...
We're going to assign that to the Department of Imaginary Concerns, and we'll come up with an imaginary policy to make sure it doesn't happen again.
So, Byron York had some funny comments about Politico.
So, Politico had a statement, and it said, there's no administration in the world beyond this one.
We're a blunder of these proportions.
By the way, I've never met any Republican who thinks that this blunder is of great proportion.
It's just the news telling you that you should be concerned about it.
But I'm not.
Where a blunder of these proportions happens and nobody resigns, not in London, not in Moscow, not in Tokyo, not in Pyongyang, nowhere.
And then Byron New York points out on the signal matter that Political playbook makes a statement with great confidence, but maybe not much perspective.
And then he includes a photo of the botched Afghanistan withdrawal, which nobody resigned over.
Nope. One of the most embarrassing, incompetent things that ever happened in our country, a stain on our history.
Nobody resigned.
So Politico, apparently that's something we do in this country.
Anyway. But apparently in this case, the dramacrats, in the case of the signal gate, the dramacrats who are trying to train their audience that they should be very, very concerned.
And they do it by the emotion that they put into ordinary words.
Like, oh my god!
The incompetence.
I am aghast.
I'm simply shocked.
There's no country in the world from Moscow to Pyongyang who would ever make such a mistake.
And people who have lived in the real world say, yeah, well, unless it was impossible to get ordinary work done without bending a rule or two, which is a universal truth.
Jonathan Turley was talking about Daniel Goldman, Representative Goldman, and he says that Goldman claimed that the FBI investigating attacks on Tesla and its facilities is nothing but lawfare and political weaponization.
So Goldman thinks that investigating the people who are the terrorists is the problem.
It's not the terrorists.
It's that if you investigate who the terrorists are, well, that's a case on lawfare and political weaponization right there.
Now, as Turley says, Goldman's latest controversy captures how Democrats have now entirely cut the cord of decency and moderation that once tethered their party to the mainstream of our society.
I love that sentence.
Turley's a great writer.
If you just want to see great writing, in addition to great opinions, he can put a sentence together like nobody's business.
He's just a great writer.
But then he did something that I was wondering about.
Turley was helping us with the definition of what terrorism is, and he points out that he's long criticized the expansion of what terrorism is, and I would agree with that.
I don't think you want to trivialize terrorism and just start calling everything terrorism.
You don't want to do that.
But let's see if this Tesla stuff fits the definition without stretching it.
So Turley points out that the Justice Department defines domestic terrorism as, quote, violent criminal acts committed by individuals and or groups.
to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.
And that perfectly captures what's happening to Tesla.
So yes, you don't have to hurt people to be a terrorist.
If you're destroying economic assets, and you're also doing it in the In the pursuit of political gain, that's also terrorism.
Because money is important to people.
It's not just physical pain and death and injury.
It's destroying economics.
Because that's its own problem.
Anyway, to me it seems like probably the funniest thing that will happen this year is the Trump administration...
Without even trying, getting prominent Democrats to support domestic terrorism.
How would you like to be running for president in the next election?
Can you imagine J.D. Vance running against one of these clowns who is not disowning the terrorism?
Imagine if he ran against Goldman.
It seems to me that you've been supporting domestic terrorism in this country, and I think the voters should know that if they vote for you, they're voting for a domestic terrorist, according to the definition of those terms.
It feels like it would be the easiest thing in the world to be almost any prominent Democrat at this point.
They've literally supported terrorism.
I think Ro Khanna and maybe one other person...
I've said, you know, right up front and write it loudly, and I respect it.
Yeah, the violence, that's just got to end.
You know, the Tesla stuff, nope, don't do that.
That's bad.
But only a few.
Like, is it even more than two at this point?
In the entire Democrat Party, was it just two people who were willing to say that domestic terrorism is a bad idea?
And the problem is that The Democrats have unleashed domestic terrorism a number of times.
You know, if you count Antifa and Black Lives Matter and now this, it's definitely a pattern.
Anyway, if you haven't seen Ezra Klein on Gavin Newsom's podcast, I highly recommend it because Ezra's book, Abundance, with Derek Thompson, I guess, It was getting a lot of attention.
And my first take on it, when I just had AI summarize it for me, was, wait a minute.
All they're doing is promoting Republican policy, such as don't waste the money, build things, build things in this country, be practical, get some actual wins, ordinary stuff.
And so I wasn't that impressed with it because it just seemed to be...
Telling Democrats to be Republicans, which was funny in its own way.
But the more I hear him, because he's very interesting, so the more I've listened to him on various podcasts, he's going hard at the Democrats.
He's not taking prisoners.
And it's exactly what they needed.
So if you're asking yourself, what's the solution?
I don't know if it's this, but it's something like this.
And so he sat with Gavin Newsom, and I'll just give you the top-level summary.
It's just worth watching.
And he starts describing how Democrats operate, which is getting large funding for things and then building nothing.
And he's just making Newsom squirm.
And then Newsom has to talk.
But one of the things that Newsom does, because he's clever but weasley at the same time, Newsom will agree with whatever your criticism is, but then he's got lots of reasons why it's not as bad as you think or everything will be fine.
So he's got this pattern where he first agrees, but then he talks for a while and then he makes his own point, which is disagreeing, basically.
You have to watch Newsom being triggered into full word salad that didn't look like it had an end.
He was full Kamala Harris.
Yo, well, big word, big word, jargon.
Big word, big word, big word, big word.
And it just went on and on.
And he was just dying in front of the camera.
And I'm not even sure he knew it.
So he had to throw in some weird hand motions like this.
I don't know.
We don't know why he does that.
Destroyed right on camera.
And, you know, we've seen some, we've seen, you know, Bannon, we've seen Charlie Kirk and stuff talking to Gavin, and they would have their own criticisms.
And so you've seen Gavin handle criticisms.
And, you know, I'll give him credit.
He does interact with people who are willing to criticize, so I'll give him credit for that.
But I've never seen anybody destroy him.
Ezra just destroyed it.
It's really fun to watch.
You're going to have to watch it.
Anyway, Laura Loomer apparently has a lawsuit against Bill Maher because Bill Maher on his show inferred that she was having an affair with Trump because, I don't know, she traveled on the jet or something.
And so Laura Loomer is suing him.
And apparently a judge refused to throw it out, so it's going forward.
And now Bill Maher will have to sit and answer questions about why he did that.
I don't know if she can win this.
You know, I'll defer to the lawyers.
Implied, not inferred?
Okay, I'll take that.
He implied it, not inferred it.
Because you would have to prove that he knew he was lying.
So wouldn't a perfect defense be, it sure looked like it to me?
Wouldn't that be the entire defense?
Or would he go with, it's a humor show, nobody should take it too seriously, you know, it's meant for comedic value, so it's not serious?
I don't know.
I remember seeing it live and saying to myself, Whoa, that's too far.
Did anybody see it live when Mara made that accusation or implied it?
To me, it looked too far.
Because that was definitely not in evidence.
And Trump has traveled with, what, thousands and thousands of people on his plane?
Some male, some female?
Yeah. I mean, to me, it looked too far.
We'll see.
We'll see what happens.
I don't think she can win because I think he just has to say his state of mind was that he believed it was true.
I think that's all it takes, but I don't know.
Meanwhile, Rasmussen said Democratic approval of the party is 26%.
That would be a new low.
I think it might drop into the teens, actually, by the end of the year.
It's possible that...
Democrat approval or popularity will be in the high teens.
Now, I think Congress's approval, generally speaking, has been in the high teens before, so it's not impossible.
And I don't think anybody would have seen it go to 26%.
But if it's going to 26%, it's in free fall.
Now, I know that last 20% are going to hold tight, but...
I think it's just going to get worse, right?
You know, one more day of Jasmine Crockett should make pretty much all the Democrats change sides at that point.
Meanwhile, RFK Jr. is trying to ban Big Pharma ads on TV.
And I think most of you know that the reason that Big Pharma advertises is not so that they can get the patients to ask their doctor for the drug.
But rather it's so that the, allegedly, it's so that the news entity will not say bad things about big pharma.
So it's essentially a way to bribe the news industry to stay away from their stories.
That's the claim.
But the other thing that the big pharma ads do, and this is my hypnotist take on it, so you haven't heard this one.
If I watch a...
Big pharma commercial on a news program.
It'll start with, oh, you got this problem, here's this drug that helps it.
But eventually, I guess for legal reasons, they have to tell you all the side effects.
And man, when they start with the side effects, it just kills me.
If I can't find the remote to turn off the TV, I'll have to put a boot through it because the damage that it's doing to my brain, it starts out with, And be careful.
Your penis will fall off.
Your hair will catch on fire.
Your throat will close, and you'll be bleeding blood from your ass for the rest of your life.
You will probably get amnesia, rheumatoid arthritis.
Your heart will turn into a lump of coal.
Your blood will coagulate into kind of a mayonnaise.
You will be begging for life.
And probably rolling around on the floor in pain for the rest of your existence, which might not last very long.
And I'm like, where's the remote?
Oh, God.
Oh, God.
Where's the remote?
And I'm running around.
I'm moving pillows like, ah!
Ah! Ah!
Because you can't have that much negativity just drilled into your head, even casually.
And by the way, I'm only barely exaggerating how much impact it has on me.
I can feel it.
I mean, I just feel it.
And I'm convinced that Big Pharma is destroying the business model of the news.
Now, because they're the biggest advertiser, of course the news will say yes.
But if you run this biggest advertiser over and over again, And the old people just keep hearing all these horrible things that are going to happen to them if they take this drug.
Eventually, and this is the hypnotist's filter, eventually it should be like Pavlov's dog, except instead of giving you a treat that will make you salivate the next time the scientist comes in the room, it should make you, if you turn on the TV and you see news, it should make you think, oh shit, even before the commercial.
Like if you're just flipping through the channels and Jake Tapper comes on, the first thing you might think is, my penis will fall off, I'm going to bleed through my ass.
No, no, no!
And just flip to anything else.
So I think, over time, big pharma destroys the business model of the news.
It should.
Oh, Canada.
So there's a story, post-millennial has a story.
About their conservative, I guess, conservative leader.
What's his name?
Mark Carney.
Is he prime minister now?
Or is he just...
I'm so confused about the Canadian system.
Anyway, so Mark Carney apparently used to be Justin Trudeau's economic advisor.
While he was the economic advisor to Justin Trudeau, he went to China.
And he negotiated to get a $276 million loan for his own business.
So it wasn't even for the government.
It was for his own business.
Now, it's not illegal to, you know, have your own business and be an economic advisor, I guess.
But wouldn't you like to know if any strings were attached to that loan?
Do you think China was trying to influence Canada?
I don't know.
That's a tough one to explain.
So he's got some explaining to do in that.
But, wow.
Meanwhile, Vladimir Zelensky says that Putin is going to die soon because he's got all kinds of medical problems and that should change everything.
He literally says he'll die soon.
I believe we've been hearing that for five years.
How long have we been hearing Putin's going to die any minute?
I don't know.
Maybe Zelensky knows something we don't.
But I wouldn't count on that.
I don't think I'd make any policy on it.
Now, let me tell you the least surprising news of the day.
People, you're never going to believe this.
I say, jokingly, this is the most predictable news that you've ever heard.
Russia and Ukraine have accused each other of breaking the terms of a ceasefire on their energy infrastructure.
All right.
I told you that's exactly what's going to happen, right?
I told you, how could you have a ceasefire on your energy infrastructure when both sides are going to say the other one violated it and then they're just going to keep shooting?
And that's exactly what happened apparently.
Now, I don't know if...
Both sides did violate it.
The prediction is not that they would violate it, but they would definitely claim the other side violated it, and then they would act accordingly, which is what's happening.
How in the world do you ever reach a peace deal with the two most lyingest countries in the world?
I mean, Ukraine is the least reliable, honest country that isn't Russia.
So it doesn't feel like you can even make a deal.
Because you need both sides to be at least honorable.
You know?
Like, I feel like we can make a deal with a lot of countries.
And they'd say, ah, we don't want to be that country that doesn't keep a deal.
And the United States has broken some deals, too.
So we're not clean on this.
But who's going to trust either Russia or Ukraine?
For anything.
So I don't know how they get a deal there.
And I was listening in other news.
I was listening to Jeffrey Sachs talk about the Middle East.
And he's sort of a, you know, stay out of the Middle East.
It's none of our business.
We're just making, you know, making permanent war.
But he says there will never be peace in the Middle East until the Palestinians have their own country, basically.
But that's not possible because Israel has so many settlements now, there's no place that country could even be.
And if you said, okay, you can take the entire West Bank and Gaza too, do you think that would stop the extremists from trying to take Israel proper?
Why would it?
I don't see why that would stop them.
So I don't see any possibility that you can make peace.
By giving Palestinians a country, unless that country included Israel and all the Israelis decided to move somewhere else, which is not going to happen.
So there's no actual real-world situation in which you could do peace in the Middle East, which means permanent war.
And then Sachs suggests that Israel essentially controls U.S. policy and military, at least in terms of the Middle East.
And we'll keep us in a permanent state of war because it's good for Israel.
Sachs also says that the Houthis are no big threat to the United States, and if we just ignore them, because there's not much, I guess there's not much U.S. shipping that goes through there anyway, which surprised me.
I think I need a fact check on that.
But how many of you agree with him?
That we're in a permanent war that can never be solved.
Meaning that you can never solve the Palestinian issue.
And if we're being wagged by Israel, then we'll just be in permanent war.
I worry that Trump has gotten himself into at least two permanent wars.
Because one of the main things we liked about Trump is that he wouldn't be in war.
And he would end the ones we have.
But I don't see him getting out of the Middle East, and I don't see Ukraine wanting to end the war.
I think Ukraine wants to continue.
And maybe Russia does a little bit, too.
So Trump's really got his work cut out for him.
Now, my own opinion is, I've told you before, My own opinion is that when countries pursue their own best interest and they have the power to do it, of course they're going to do it.
So if the Palestinians had all the power, it would be really, really bad for Israel.
Right now Israel has most of the power and the Palestinians don't like it at all.
But there's no way that you solve that because they can't both have all the power.
It's going to be somebody has the power.
So it's pretty much a win-lose situation over there.
Unsolvable, in my opinion.
So I saw Zion Lights had a post about how France's power grid last year was 95% fossil-free.
And most of that was thanks to nuclear power, but they had a big surge in solar as well.
So the context was it was sort of France is sort of the winner.
You know, they're the smart ones because they got rid of their fossil fuels and they still powered their nation and they're great on nuclear.
So it looks like they're just the big smart winners and we just look like the dumb ones now, right?
And then I went to Perplexity AI and I said, who pays more for electricity, France or the U.S.?
It turns out France.
So the cost of electricity, if you adjust for different currencies and whatnot, the cost of electricity in France is higher than in the U.S. So who's the winner?
Is France the winner because they got to all this nuclear power before we did?
Because that's impressive.
I do give them a lot of credit for...
Being so successfully nuclear.
But if our energy costs less than in France, and most of the CO2, if that's what you're worried about, if most of the CO2 is still coming in China and India, did it make any difference whatsoever that France had all these green sources of energy?
And the answer is, I don't know.
To me, it looks like they didn't win.
Winning would be they pay less for electricity, and they've done what they can to save the world, but they can't do everything, but at least their own electricity doesn't cost much now.
If they were paying less for electricity than the United States, and by the way, I'll take a fact check on this, because I got it from perplexity AI, and we shouldn't fully trust the AIs to be accurate yet.
I'd say the U.S. is the winner, right?
Because the CO2 in the world in general would be the same no matter what either the U.S. or France did.
Because again, China and India are the big CO2 producers.
All that really matters is what's the cost of power.
And if ours is cheaper, we won.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I have to say today.
Thanks for joining.
It went a little bit long today.
But that's because it was extra awesome.
I'm going to say some words to the locals people privately.
The rest of you, thanks for joining.
And I'll see you on Rumble and X and YouTube tomorrow, same time, same place.
