God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Dysfunctional HHS, RFK Jr., Russian Tariffs, White House Journalists Seating Chart, President Trump, 3rd Term Trump, Wisconsin Supreme Court Election, Susan Crawford, Brad Schimel, Elon Musk, Dept. of Imaginary Concerns, Democrat Moron Protesters, NPR Government Funding, Non-Citizen Social Security Numbers, GOP New Mexico Firebombed, NY Senator Fahy, NY Tesla Permits, Tesla Owners Assaulted, Anti-Tesla NGO Funding, Signalgate, Mike Waltz, Marine Le Pen, Anti-Populist Lawfare, Trump's Iran Nuclear Deal, 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 time.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug, or a glass, a 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 that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go! Do you feel better now?
You should.
Well, ladies and gentlemen.
Let me tell you a little thing about what's going on with me right now.
I'm officially disabled.
I got my wheelchair here and I can barely walk.
So for the last three months, I've had this insane leg related pain.
So I'm in pretty bad shape.
And if I scream during this broadcast, it won't be that unusual because I spend half of the day screaming in pain.
It's been about three months now, and the weirdest thing about it is that I've predicted to my audience on Locals, the subscribers, I told them that as soon as my right leg, which is where all the pain was, that as soon as it got better, the very moment it got better, it would just switch to my other leg.
And it did that this morning.
Yesterday afternoon, All after like a week or 10 days of not being able to walk on my right leg, having to limp or hop or use the wheelchair, I, uh, it just cured itself.
So my right leg is perfectly functional, but the exact problem, exact problem, just exact moved instantly to my left leg.
And this is the fourth or fifth time it's, uh, It's jumped over to the other leg.
So, some say it's sciatica.
I don't know, but I'm in bad shape.
So I thought I would share that with you in case I scream during the broadcast.
Because the odds of me screaming in pain are actually pretty high.
Anyway, let's see.
What's the news?
1,200 scientists say that they're done with Trump's America.
They hate it.
They're going to move to Europe or they're going to move somewhere else.
And they don't like the federal funding cuts and the mass firings.
And now they're going to Europe where, as you know, they have much more freedom.
Could you imagine going from America to Europe because you're seeking freedom?
I don't know.
But I did a little query on Grok to find out, is 1,200 research scientists a lot?
Turns out there's close to 2 million of them in the United States.
2 million research scientists.
So 1,200 would be 0.0006 of the 2 million.
Do you suspect that the finest research scientists are the ones that are going to Europe?
I don't.
Do you suspect that the 1,200 who say they're going to Europe, some say they're going to Canada, are really going to do it?
I doubt it.
Because if the reason they want to go somewhere is that they lost funding, is an American research scientist going to get more funding in Europe?
I mean, maybe.
I don't know about how that works.
But none of that seems like a good idea.
So maybe there's something wrong with US research scientists.
Anyway, the stock market's all crazy and down because questions about tariffs.
The reciprocal tariffs go into effect on April 2nd, so a couple days, and I am deeply curious how that's all going to work out.
On one level, I completely understand that if we don't completely Or fairly substantially rewrite the economic relationships between the United States and the countries we trade with, that we don't have any chance of getting out of our economic hole, meaning the debt, and we need to do it.
On the other hand, it's pretty much guaranteed to cause some issues.
So the question will be, Will there be enough positive news to insulate us from the negative news?
Because really, the way we're going to treat it is going to be almost entirely based on the news coverage.
So if the news coverage says, hey, surprisingly, it's all working out, well, things are going to boom.
And that will be based on anecdotes.
It won't be based on some large comprehensive review, at least not in the early days.
But if in the early days the news says, Oh, your eggs are more expensive or your car parts or something like that.
And you got a bunch of interviews with people saying, I couldn't afford to buy the car that I wanted.
It's going to be bad.
So I think it'll be a mix of those two things, but I'm really curious.
Um, and I also would say that I don't see what else we could have done.
You know, the people who think they're smart, but aren't, like to say stuff like, well, we should have targeted tariffs, perhaps, in specific cases, but what's wrong with just saying that our tariffs will be the same as yours?
How could that be wrong?
So I guess we'll be doing a lot of negotiating with these other countries really fast.
We'll see.
Meanwhile, RFK Jr. was on Chris Cuomo's show on NewsNation, and the stories he tells about the organization he's running now are just so mind-boggling.
Apparently, the entire place was just a rat's nest.
So they had, what, 80,000 employees, and all these different departments, and everything was just sort of Inefficient, but here's the one that just is crazy.
So RFK was talking about it.
So they have this thing called CMS data, which is customer medical data.
And it's important to a lot of the different entities in that health and human services area, because they got lots of sub-entities.
And apparently if you were a sub-entity and you wanted that data, you had to buy it.
within the same organization.
You're not buying it from an outside entity.
You had to buy it from another, from a peer group within the same Health and Human Services.
Have you ever heard of anything so dysfunctional as that?
So when RFK Jr. said, so I tried to get the CMS patient information, Which belongs to the American people and belongs to Health and Human Services.
And the sub-agency said we have to buy it from them.
It doesn't make any sense.
There are sub-agencies that refuse to give us patient data.
It's like you can't even imagine how bad it was.
It's like beyond bad.
So he's going to cut 20,000 employees out of 80,000 or so.
And he's going to consolidate departments.
And so here's my real question.
Who was running this place before who didn't want to bring up the fact that there might be some inefficiencies?
This is really damning to everybody who was ever in charge of that in prior years.
I mean, are you kidding?
It was absolutely broken from top to bottom.
And nobody mentioned it?
It seems like that should have been right at the top of things that the head of the, you know, any new head of the human health and human resources should have mentioned.
But it's got to be RFK Jr.
He's the only one who could mention that it's completely broken.
Anyway, Trump says he's very angry and, quote, pissed off at Putin.
So it's Putin piss off.
I guess he's mad at Putin for not, you know, not agreeing to, you know, the peace deal that he thought he had.
He thought he had a temporary ceasefire thing where, you know, at the very least they would do a ceasefire in the Black Sea.
But apparently Putin sort of backed off that a little bit.
And now Trump's threatening to put a secondary tariffs on him.
Now, the smart people who were dumb, Trump is so dumb.
We don't buy any energy from Putin, so how's a tariff going to work?
No, it's a secondary tariff.
A secondary tariff, which means that if any other country buys energy from Putin, we tariff the second country.
So basically, we would be punishing anybody who bought from Putin.
I don't know if that's a good idea or a bad idea, but it's out there now.
Meanwhile, Trump has confirmed that he's going to do a dinner with Bill Maher, and he says he's going to do it as a favorite kid rock, and he just slams Bill Maher in a statement on Truth Social.
Basically just says what a bad character he is.
Uh, but because Kid Rock thinks it's a good idea, he's going to do it.
So I was waiting for Trump to explain his, his view on that.
And his view is he definitely wouldn't do it except for Kid Rock is a personal friend.
So he's going to do him a favor and then he's going to invite Dana White.
So Dana White will make up the table.
Now, what do you think is going to happen?
I worry that we're not going to really hear what happened, you know, like maybe there'll be three different versions that come out of it.
But do you think anything useful will come out of that?
I don't think so.
Because I think the problem, whatever it is, between Trump and Bill Maher is first of all personal.
And then at least Bill Maher treats it like it's political.
So if the problem is personal, Cause I think they had a gripe long before Trump ran for president.
Uh, if it's personal, this is going to be quite the, it's going to be quite the dinner.
How much would you pay to watch that dinner?
Uh, if it were pay for view, I would pay a hundred dollars because you know, there's nothing on TV and the movies all suck.
So there's almost nothing you can watch on the screen except social media stuff.
So if I could just, you know, have really good microphones and, you know, cameras that showed everybody's faces and that.
Yeah, I would pay more than the average person because I'm more interested.
I think a good market rate for that would be probably $20 to $50 pay-per-view.
I would absolutely watch that conversation.
I think it's going to be fascinating.
So I'm all for it.
I'm not expecting it to change the world, but hey, you never know.
You heard of this before, the Gateway Pundit's writing about it today, that you know how you always watch the White House press briefings and you see all the same left-leaning Journalists seem to be all in the front, and you wonder, why did they always get to be in the front?
Like, who makes the rule?
I always thought it was the White House.
I thought the White House decided who was where, and that they just sort of put the ones who had a lot of tenure in the front.
And so that would be, you know, stuff like, you know, the basic Networks and stuff, but it turns out that the seating was determined by something called the White House Correspondents Association Which as you might imagine is a left-leaning organization, so they put all the left-leaning people in the front Now does that sound like a good idea to you?
That the press itself Decides that the left-leaning people exclusively get the good seats No It's a terrible idea.
So the White House has decided that they are now in charge of the seating chart, which means that some of your favorite podcasts and independent journalists might be up front.
And boy, will that be fun.
Can you imagine Mike Cernovich in the front row?
Or Alex Jones, front row?
I have no idea which individuals are on the list, but Man, that's gonna get good.
That's gonna get good.
So Trump continues to tease about a third term.
So NBC is reporting this, that one of the ways it could happen, allegedly, would be if J.D. Vance and Donald Trump could run as a ticket, where J.D. Vance is the head of the ticket, but Trump is the vice president.
And they run for another, Another term.
And then J.D. Vance steps down and Trump becomes president again.
Now, I saw some experts saying, no, that would be totally illegal.
You know, the Constitution or is it the Constitution, I guess, says, you know, two terms.
And to me, it sounds illegal.
But I think Trump said, you know, maybe it's a possibility.
But he thinks he has other possibilities to run for a third term.
Now, here's what's weird about this.
Why is there not more pushback on the fact that he's literally offering to be essentially some kind of a dictator who doesn't just take two terms and leave?
Shouldn't they be saying, he's a dictator, we knew it.
He's trying to never leave office.
And then just use this as their example of why he never wants to leave office.
Now, of course, he would still have to win an election.
So I don't believe that any of his schemes, and I'm going to call them schemes, I don't believe any of them involve no election.
So the public would have to vote for his third term.
And I think this is a terrible idea.
But it's amazing that the Democrats are all busy with Tesla or whatever they're worried about, or Doge.
And this story doesn't really get much attention.
And Trump is just saying it right out loud.
Yeah, the third term.
A lot of people want it.
Maybe. We'll see about it.
I'm interested.
To me, it's a gigantic mistake.
But if you want to give it the most positive spin, Let me do that.
I'm going to reach deep.
This is the Trump supporter positive spin.
Do you know what is the bad thing about being in your second term?
People think they can wait you out.
So Trump is creating the possibility that you can't wait him out.
That he might still be here after his term.
Now that Is actually a strong play in terms of persuasion and in terms of negotiating.
If you remove the possibility of waiting for him to be out of office, he can negotiate much better while he's in office.
So if that's what he's up to, it's brilliant.
If what he's really up to is he just doesn't want to leave the job because he thinks he'll go to jail, which is a possibility.
By the way, he might go to jail.
Um, he might be forced into trying to stay in office at whatever age, you know, in my opinion, that would be too old, but he might be forced to try it just to stay out of jail.
So it's complicated.
I'm not in favor of him saying it cause I just don't like the look of it, but I can't, I can't deny that it might help his negotiating position and I can't deny that it might keep him out of jail.
So if it weren't me, and I thought that would keep me out of jail, I might be looking at it pretty hard.
Maybe. Anyway, you probably all know that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has a vacancy, and they've got this election on Tuesday.
And if it goes the wrong way, the entire country, if not the world, could be destroyed.
Elon Musk says the Wisconsin Supreme Court race Quote, might decide the future of America and Western civilization.
Now, if you're like me, and you hear that there's an election in Wisconsin, you probably said to yourself, well, that can't affect anything important.
But the argument is that if the left-leaning Supreme Court nominee or a person running for the office, if the left-leaning one gets elected, That person would support reapportionment,
where you decide, you know, how many representatives and what type, based on how you draw the lines, that they can redraw the lines to eliminate several GOP representatives and actually flip the House.
So control of the House might depend on this one tiny election in Wisconsin.
Which is why you saw Elon Musk go to Wisconsin.
He's putting a bunch of money in it to try to get The candidate Schimmel elected instead of the far left-leaning Crawford The polls at the moment are too close to call So we are right on the border of losing almost everything Now were you confident that?
That the Democrats couldn't come up with some scheme to derail the Republicans, even though the Republicans had all the popular support and, you know, the Democrats are in the lowest approval they've ever been.
But boy, they're good at the law fair, aren't they?
They know how to use the legal system and play the system and scheme and, you know, both sides do it.
Democrats are quite effective at it.
So Trump had called Crawford, the left-leaning one, a disaster, a liberal lunatic who will throw the country into chaos.
Chaos. Now, is everybody just calling everybody an agent of chaos?
That is the emptiest word in politics right now.
How do you define chaos?
Everything looks like chaos from the outside.
You know, all war is chaos.
Or, you know, the Congress itself is chaos.
The way we make laws is chaos.
If you could call everything chaos, it doesn't really mean a thing.
So I cringe a little bit when I see Republicans use it because it's the main thing that Democrats say.
Their biggest argument is oligarch and chaos.
Completely meaningless.
Just, those things are not connected to anything in the real world.
And they should be relegated to, that's right, the Department of Imaginary Concerns.
So if you're worried about all the chaos, you should probably look to the Department of Imaginary Concerns, where they handle all that.
They've got policies, imaginary policies, to handle the imaginary chaos.
Anyway, but the Trump experience could come to a crashing halt as soon as this week.
And that sucks more than just about anything I can think about.
Meanwhile, and somehow my head is having trouble accepting these two thoughts, that even the Democrats think the Democrats suck.
Even the Democrats.
Think the Democrats suck.
At the same time, they might be ready to take control of the House.
How could both of those things be true?
It just feels like, you know, pick one.
So here's an example.
The New York Times editorial board is going after Democrats.
And, you know, a little late, but at least they're joining the parade.
And they said the Democrats are, quote, Living in an imaginary world, an imaginary world, where their policies are popular and they just need to message better and get out the vote.
Now that's a pretty strong thing, right?
Democrats' quote, obsession with identity politics and their quote, scolding, censorious posture Have driven voters straight into Republicans' arms.
Yes. And then they say, remember, this is the New York Times.
So you'd expect it to be the friendliest big publication to Democrats.
And they're just, they're just absolutely shitting in their mouths.
I mean, I think it's embarrassing to be the New York Times and be a supporter of Democrats, or at least being seen as supporters of Democrats.
And the Democrats being so pathetic.
So they go on.
This is the editorial board of the New York Times.
In the aftermath of this comprehensive defeat, many party leaders have decided that they do not need to make significant changes to their policies or their message.
They have instead settled on a convenient explanation for their plight.
So they're just going to say it's Elon Musk's problem.
I think it's the oligarchy and possibly the chaos.
Oligarchy and chaos.
So at the same time that even the most prominent Democrats are saying, oh, it looks like the Democratic Party has just completely fallen apart.
The the.
They're ready to take possibly take control of the house through clever means.
And I hate that.
But notice the New York Times used the word imaginary.
An imaginary world.
That's right.
Because the Department of Imaginary Concerns is where all the Democrat problems should go.
Because they're literally imaginary.
They do live, quite literally, in an imaginary world.
I was just watching one of the anti-Tesla protests, and they had some young man with a beard Who is telling the crowd, there are only two things they need to know.
One is that Musk gets, they claimed, a million dollars a day from the government or something like that.
Now, he doesn't give any details, but the government doesn't give away money to something like Tesla, or I don't know, maybe it's SpaceX, I don't know, unless it's good for the government, meaning good for the public.
And then he says, But the people on social security will only get $65 a day and And also sort of suggesting that the mosque is going to cut that number Now these are not related numbers He is talking to morons And let me be clear about this.
I'm not saying that all Democrats are dumb.
There are plenty of brilliant Democrats Especially the lawyers the lawyers are pretty clever But the protesters are morons.
There's no other way around it.
The protesters are morons.
And they're cheering for that like they understand it.
Do they understand that Musk's entire approach is to protect Social Security and Medicare payments at at least their current level?
And he's the only one who can do it.
Because if he doesn't get the national debt under control, Everybody loses everything.
Everybody loses everything.
And do you think that there's anybody at a Tesla protest who has ever even heard that?
They don't even understand that we have a debt crisis, and there's literally only one plan to get it under control, and that's Doge.
They are morons.
And, well, that's pretty much the whole thing.
How many of you think that the government should defund NPR and put it out of business?
In the comments.
How many think that's a good idea?
Defund NPR and put it out of business?
Because they're too left-leaning.
They're pretty much all Democrats.
All right.
If you think that, you have been fooled by the news.
The government only funds 1% of NPR directly and at most 3% indirectly.
So let me bring you up to the smart people.
There is no scenario in which the government cutting funding ends NPR.
It's 1% of their funding.
It wouldn't make any difference at all.
Why are we even talking about it?
This is a totally imaginary concern.
So the imaginary problems are not just on one side.
So I'm going to take the defund NPR, which I think we should because I don't know why we're giving them 1% or 3% if you count the indirect funding.
I don't know why we're doing that, so I'm in favor of cutting it.
But no, NPR is not going to go anywhere.
How mad are you that you didn't know that?
For those of you who said, yes, cut the funding and get rid of NPR.
How many of you are embarrassed right now that you thought that cutting the funding, the government funding, would make any difference at all?
To me, that pisses me off.
That I had to sort of, you know, deduce that and figure it out.
I think maybe Catherine Marr might have said that at one of the hearings.
But is your news serving you?
Because I think your social media and your news is acting like if that funding got cut, NPR would go away.
So yeah, no this was this is a complete fake story.
NPR can't go away.
Not from government funding being caught.
According to Doge, so Elon Musk did a big event in Wisconsin.
There were huge lines, got a big applause, people were thanking him and gave him a standing ovation for his extraordinary service to the country.
But here's what they found, that millions of non-citizens got social security numbers.
So the claim is that from 2021, and it got bigger in subsequent years, that the Biden administration was giving illegal, well let's say non-citizens, social security numbers and registering them to vote.
And that some number of them, we don't know, they sampled and found out that Some number of them did vote.
We don't know the percentage Not only that but they they were qualified for the maximum Social Security benefits like right from the jump and They were automatically enrolled in meta Medicaid Now I'm gonna stick to my Stick to my process So I've been burned at least twice By repeating a claim
that Doge made about something that, you know, they discovered.
Only to hear the Democrats debunk it in a way that sounded pretty believable to me.
So, if this is true, it is one of the ways that the election was rigged.
And it looks like it would be intentional, if this is true.
However, I would wait to see if there's a counter to this, because the Democrats have been saying from the start, well, you make lots of claims, but where's the proof?
And that's a good point because Doge isn't really about showing all their work and they'll show the big numbers.
They show the big stuff, but it's not about showing all the details there.
I don't think they're making databases available for the public or anything.
And. Maybe.
There's some other explanation for some of it.
I don't know what it would be.
It could be a database problem as opposed to a real thing.
But if it's true, then our system was in fact rigged for the recent elections.
And there'd be no doubt about it.
Maybe not rigged enough, because Trump won, but this would have been quite obviously an attempt to rig the election.
In a way that looks illegal to me.
Speaking of how bad the Democrats are, there was a Republican Party of New Mexico, they had a headquarters, that was targeted for arson.
So somebody set fire to the Republican Party of New Mexico's headquarters.
Now, do you think that the Democrat leadership will disavow this?
Along with all the other violence against Tesla owners?
No, they will not.
And so I blame them.
If the leaders don't disavow this, they are encouraging it.
And I think that calling, you know, Musk and Trump a Hitler really just gives a free pass to any crazy person who wants to be a hero.
Aye, I could stop Hitler!
All I have to do is beat up somebody in a cyber truck, and I'm stopping Hitler.
Boy, am I a good person, because I haven't done anything in my life that's worthwhile.
But at least I helped stop Hitler by keying a car.
So, if the Democrat leadership doesn't say no, then I do think some action should be taken from a RICO standpoint.
We'll talk more about that.
Here's one that's just blowing my frickin' mind.
Sawyer Merritt is reporting this.
Apparently in New York, one of the lawmakers, Senator Pat Fahey, has introduced legislation to revoke the permits for Tesla's five existing direct sales locations, so that Tesla would not be able to sell their cars in New York State.
It's the state, right?
Yeah, not the city, the state.
Now, I don't know what the odds are of that being passed, you know, even in New York.
Seems like it probably wouldn't.
But just think about how evil and broken and corrupt that is.
Because there's nobody who thinks that Tesla, the company, did anything wrong.
In fact, Tesla, the company, It's one of the jewels of American industry.
It's probably the single greatest contribution to decarbonizing the country, if that's what you wanted.
I'm not arguing you want that.
But if you did want that, and you're a Democrat, you would be cutting out your own legs.
And this is pure evil.
Why would you even think of doing this?
Well, it's because You were told that Musk and Trump are Hitler.
There's two Hitlers now.
It's double Hitler.
And so you would do anything you could to decapitate them.
So there are at least two more stories of people in Teslas who were stopped and beaten up through the window of their car.
A 61-year-old woman and another gentleman, I think he was 70. And they're literally beating up senior citizens just because they have Teslas.
And I think there are a bunch of other ones.
Now, even in Europe, apparently in Rome, there was a facility where 17 Teslas were torched.
So it's going global.
Why would it go global?
Why would it be happening in Rome?
Now, probably that's just crazy people copying.
It doesn't seem necessarily like that would have been part of the same movement, but, you know, maybe just the crazy spreads.
Anyway, Elon Musk said it is time to arrest those funding the attacks.
Arresting their puppets and paid foot soldiers won't stop the violence.
I agree.
It will not stop the violence.
So, Who's funding it, you might ask?
And the answer comes to us from a former Wall Street Journal reporter named Azra Nomani.
So she was posting today that there are 24 NGOs that are funding this anti-Tesla stuff.
24 of them.
And most of them have tax-deductible status, claiming they're nonpartisan.
Does this look nonpartisan to you?
If you have PAX, And they're not returning a request for comment, of course not.
And that they have a combined revenue, the 24 NGOs of $124 million.
Now I've got a few comments.
How impressed are you that the Republicans and conservatives are the most well-armed segment Of American society and maybe the most well-armed of anyone anywhere.
And there's been no real counter protest that suggests violence.
So there've been a few counter protesters who are just having their trolling fun.
You know, it seems like they're just doing it for clicks, you know, not really trying to stop anything, but there haven't been any well-armed people showing up to counter protest.
There haven't been any huge muscular fighting kind of looking people, and there are lots of them.
Why is that?
Now, I'm not suggesting it.
I don't want to see that.
It would just cause, you know, more problems.
But I'm really impressed that the political right has this much restraint.
Now, there would be a time when I would say, well, they're just not brave or they're You know, they're not committed.
But it could be that the January 6th thing caused everybody to have pause.
Because we know that if any conservative goes anywhere near a protest, they could end up in jail for five years.
So maybe that January 6th prosecutions completely eliminated the counter-protestability, or even the protestability, of one half of the country.
And that would be an interesting outcome, but it's possible.
But also, there's no one funding a counter-protest.
So this is probably more evidence that there's no such thing as a large, spontaneous protest.
I don't really think there is.
I've heard someone say the Tea Party, but I'll bet the Tea Party had some funding in the background.
I just don't know.
As long as these NGOs are funding what is clearly a destruction of property, or they should know that that's what's going to happen, it does seem like there's a RICO case to be had, but I don't know whose job it is to make it.
Is that Pam Bondi?
I don't know.
But something's going to happen.
I don't think that the bad guys can just keep pushing forever and not get a strong response.
Especially in a Trump presidency.
So we'll see.
Rasmussen did a poll on Musk and say that now 50% of the people they polled now view Musk unfavorably.
Including 41% with a very unfavorable opinion.
That's basically the 41%.
That's basically just Democrats.
Look how quickly the Democrats can change their opinion of Elon Musk if the top tells them to change it.
They're pure NPCs.
They were just told to change their mind, and they did.
And they'll just forget everything he's doing for the country.
Imagine being in his head.
Imagine being Elon Musk.
You're the richest person in the world, and the first thing you have to worry about is that money will become useless.
Because if the US debt crushes the country, his billions of dollars aren't going to be worth much.
So he could go from richest person in the country to, well, we're all just struggling to become cannibals and eat each other, you know, which is sort of the alternative.
So he's got the most to lose, but also he's got the only plan to save the country and he's taking remarkable risks.
I mean, he's got all kinds of death threats.
Tesla's being attacked.
He might never be able to recover.
He might never be able to just go in public.
He probably could never eat at a restaurant again.
I mean, the level of risk he's taking on is extraordinary.
And he's doing it for primarily the benefit of the country.
And if you look at all the other stuff he does, They're clearly designed for the benefit of the country, but they also make money.
Now, in this case, it's more for the benefit of the country.
I don't see how he's going to make money, except in the way we all would make money if the country stays in business.
So I think that doing what he's doing to save the country in the context of the Democrats fantasizing that he's doing the opposite is one of the bravest Most, uh, highest character thing I'll ever see in my life.
Cause generally, at least the people you're trying to save like you, you know, if, if a ship goes over and you know, you pull up and you're saving people out of the water, they don't hate you, do they?
Do half of the people you pull out of the water and you save their life, do they hate you?
No. Generally speaking, when you're saving people's lives, and that's what he's doing.
He's saving the lives of Americans.
We're all gonna fucking die if the debt isn't controlled and fast.
He is the only mechanism that can do that.
Let me say it again.
We're all gonna fucking die.
That's how bad it is.
We're all gonna fucking die.
He's saving the country.
And they're trying to kill him.
Now that is pure evil.
Pure evil.
And I'm a little bit, no, I'm a lot disappointed.
I'm a lot disappointed that the Department of Justice hasn't already put the boot on this.
Now, I don't know what tools they have, but they got tools.
I mean, clearly there's some way to shut this down.
And if not, I don't know how ugly it's going to get, but it's not going to get better.
Well, let's talk about Signalgate, the story that never dies.
Jeffrey Goldberg was mocking Mike Waltz for saying that he didn't know how Jeffrey Goldberg's phone number got in his phone.
But Mike Waltz said, I don't know how it got there.
Sometimes You know, it just gets sucked in with other phone numbers.
Now, that's the worst lie ever.
So let me just say, Mike Waltz is clearly lying about what happened.
Unless he doesn't know a single thing about how the app works.
But by now, somebody would have told him, no, phone numbers don't get accidentally sucked in somehow.
I mean, even I think Laura Ingram was interviewing him.
And you should look at her face when he's trying to do that.
It got sucked in by itself.
She was just, hmm.
She went a little bit easy on him.
I think just, you know, because they're on the same team in a sense.
But she wasn't buying any of it.
And I don't think any of us are buying it either.
So I asked yesterday on social media, what are the technical possibilities that Mike Waltz really doesn't know how it happened?
And that maybe he was guessing because he didn't know.
And he just thought, well, I don't know, maybe it just got sucked in there somehow.
Which could indicate that he doesn't know how it got there.
That's possible.
So I'm not sure.
I don't think he's necessarily guilty of doing it himself.
He might be.
But the only thing we know for sure is that the explanation he gave was just absolute bullshit.
And I don't think he's walked it back or anything.
So I asked, could a virus or a cyber attack influence the contacts in Signal?
In other words, if somebody had found a way to penetrate their phones, Even though they're, you know, government phones and they should be more protected, I guess.
Could somebody who is, you know, the top level, let's say a government entity, could they penetrate his phone and put a phone number on there that wasn't there?
Some of the people said, no, no, there's no way to do that.
You cannot do that on an iPhone and other things like that.
Other people would say stuff like, I'm a cybersecurity expert for 20 years, you could absolutely do that.
And then they would describe how.
But another cybersecurity expert said, yes, you could do it, but you wouldn't want to give away the fact that you had done it for such a small win.
Which is what I said.
I said that the other day.
You know, if you were up to no good, you wouldn't want to give away the game.
That, and then everybody would know this signal was compromised.
Other people said, well, you know, the signal, um, the head of signal had been arrested in France recently, but then he made some kind of a deal and then he got released, which sort of suggests that maybe the, you know, at least the NATO countries or however you want to organize this, uh, you know, may have just gotten the back door, which would allow, Potentially.
Maybe one of our foreign friends that sometimes act like adversaries to do it.
Maybe they didn't like what he thought about Ukraine.
Maybe it came from that direction.
We don't know.
But here's the thing that made me laugh.
Somebody said, if you have a signal app, You could have it open on more than one device.
So all it would take is for one more person in the whole world to know his password.
You wouldn't need to do any clever cyber security.
You would just have to know his password.
Now my question to you is, do you think that anybody on his staff knew his password?
I'm gonna say yes.
Probably yes.
So if you knew the password, you could just open it up on another device, change the contact, close the app.
I don't know.
How long would it take for somebody to figure out you did that?
So I don't know.
I'm not going to blame anybody, but everything about that story is hinky.
Well, you probably have heard the story by now that in France, Maureen Le Pen, who was favored to become the next president.
Are they presidents or prime ministers?
I'm so dumb, I don't even know that.
But the next leader of the country in the next election.
But she was just found guilty and sentenced to jail and banned from running for office.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the court ruled that Le Pen and other members of the party illegally used millions of euros in European Union funding that was earmarked for assistance helping lawmakers in the European Parliament with their work.
But instead, judges said, Le Pen and her lawmakers used the money to pay party staffers, that would be people on their own staff, Or in her own party, who weren't involved in working for the Parliament.
So the funding was diverted to another use.
But Le Pen's argument was that it was appropriate to move that funding or to use it for that purpose, because the assistants were political aides and not direct employees of the European Parliament.
Now, I don't really understand that defense, but It kind of looks to me a little lawfarish, doesn't it?
Have you noticed that with the Trump lawfare, when you heard what the charges were, you would say, really?
Can you explain that again?
Like, that's not like, I understand murder, and I understand theft, and I understand most crimes, but why do I not understand these 34 felonies that don't make any sense?
You know, what is this with E. Jean Carroll, and how do you turn that into something?
You know, they all have that quality where you go to yourself, huh, really?
And even if this funding were used incorrectly, wouldn't that be more, at least in the United States, wouldn't it be a civil case?
Wouldn't you sue her and say, hey, give us back our European Union money that you used in the wrong way?
Why is it even a crime?
As opposed to a civil disagreement where the courts decide who gets the money.
So, it looks very suspicious.
Now let's put it in context, as Mike Benz helps us do.
Apparently, as you know, she's not the first populist leader who has been taken out by lawfare.
As Benz points out, It's Marine Le Pen in France, Bolsonaro in Brazil, Imran Khan in Pakistan, Matteo Salvini in Italy, and Donald Trump in America, and Georgescu in Romania.
All coincidentally got taken out by lawfare.
All coincidentally populists.
Do you see the pattern?
Populists just get taken out by Suspicious lawfare.
Now, I don't know how many of them were guilty-guilty and how many of them were just doing what everybody does all the time, and they just figured out a way to lawfare it.
But that's pretty creepy and terrible.
Now, Le Pen will be challenging, you know, so she'll be challenging in a higher court, I guess.
So we'll see how that goes, but oh my god.
Meanwhile, Eric Abinanti is summarizing for us one of the authors of Abundance, that book that says that if Democrats could act more like Republicans, they might succeed.
That's not what the book says.
That's my humorous summary of it, which isn't too far off.
But Derek Thompson was one of the two authors with Ezra Klein.
But here's what he says.
Just listen to this.
Something has happened in the last 50 years of liberalism.
The rules that we wrote in the 60s to protect the environment have created strictures and rules that keep us from building the things we need in the 2020s, like housing and energy.
When you give that power at the local level, it has the ability to stop development entirely.
And that's really what we've seen in so many areas that are governed by liberals.
And then he says, the five states with the highest rates of homelessness are all governed by Democrats.
Every single time as he had 10% vote share of progressives, the number of housing permits declines by 30%.
So as an area becomes more liberal, it permits fewer homes.
Now this is, you know, one anecdote of many.
So, basically, the liberals are all about restricting things.
Don't do this, don't do that.
At the same time that they need things.
They need energy, they need affordable homes.
So, they're completely self-immolating.
The Democrats are filled with idiots, honestly, they're just a lot of idiots, who can't tell that there's a Some kind of a connection between all of these restrictions and the fact that they can't get anything built.
So I do think, I'll say it again, that the authors of Abundance have done quite a good service in trying to wake up the Democrats to, you know, get rid of regulations that are unnecessary, like Republicans.
So maybe if they become more like Republicans, we'll have something.
Meanwhile, Trump is mad at Zelensky for backing out of the mineral deal.
Did I predict that Zelensky would not accept the mineral deal?
I think I did, right?
Because I don't think Putin or Zelensky are going to accept any deal about anything.
I think they will say they're going to do it, and then as soon as our negotiators walk out the door, they're going to do a press event and say, well, you know, We can't really do that, but if you added a bunch of things to the deal that we want and you don't want, then we might do a deal.
So that's why Trump is mad at Putin, and now he's mad at Zelensky for trying to back out of the mineral deal.
And he said, Zelensky, I see he's trying to back out of the rare earth mineral deal, and if he does that, he's got big problems.
We made a deal on rare earth, and now he's saying I want to renegotiate.
But I do wonder if the negotiators Or maybe making agreements that couldn't be accepted by the bosses.
So there might be a little bit of the fact that Zelensky isn't in the negotiations.
You know, something's just happening without him.
So he's just going to kill everything that he wasn't involved with.
Anyway. Meanwhile, Trump says he's going to bomb Iran if they don't accept a new nuclear deal.
And he gave him two months.
Now, this is a problem.
Because Trump doesn't bluff.
And he just said he'll bomb Iran if they don't accept a new nuclear deal.
And they're never going to accept a new nuclear deal.
So did he just basically tell us in two months he's going to bomb Iran?
Because that's what it sounds like to me.
Do you think that they could bomb Iran enough that it would once and for all get rid of their nuclear program?
I can't imagine how deep You know, in the mountain, they've tunneled to protect that stuff.
But even our biggest bunker busters, would we know exactly where all the places are that we need to hit?
How long would it take them to just reconstitute it, if we even took it down completely, which seems unlikely?
I'm not really seeing this as being a winning play, unless Iran goes for it as You know, they're just worried that it's going to happen.
Now, they should be worried that it's going to happen, because like I say, Trump isn't big on bluffing.
He probably plans to bomb.
But that's going to open up the question of whether the United States is just doing Israel's bidding to bomb all of their enemies.
And I have to say, it would look a lot like that.
So, you know, you're on your own to come up with your own narrative that fits the facts, but it sure would look like the United States was just a puppet of Israel and was, at least that's how people would interpret it.
So again, you can make an argument that it's in the US best interest as well, or that we're protecting an ally or that we're just making sure that part of the world doesn't become more of a hell hole than it already is.
So you can make an argument either way, but you know that At least half the country is going to say, did Israel just get us into a terrible war?
So, if Trump's not bluffing on that, things are going to get real spicy in about two months.
Anyway, and Iran's Supreme Leader said if the U.S. did that, that we would receive a strong reciprocal blow.
Which is probably not nearly as fun as it sounds.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's all I've got for you today.
I'm going to go back to my limping around and I'm going to say a few private words to the people on Locals subscribers.