God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, TicTac UFOs, Crew-less Ships, President Trump's Humor, 18-21 Trump Supporters, District Judge National Rulings, Mayo Clinic DEI, DOGE Social Security Data, Brandon Straka J6 Documentary, Federal Free Speech Censorship, Misinformation, Free Speech Shutdown, MS-13 Maryland Dad, ADHD Economic Incentives, Leticia James Mortgage Allegations, Luigi Mangione, Self-Deportation Assistance, Seafood Executive Order, Palantir ICE Tool, AI Drone Military Vehicle, Full Drone Warfare, China Houthi Assistance, Hamas Rejects Ceasefire, Ukraine War, 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.
All right, today I'm going to be practicing my segues.
Segway meaning transition from one story to the other.
*Dude to the music*
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and honestly, you've never had a better Friday.
I mean, you've had a good Friday, but you've never had one this good.
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 or 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...
That's right, the simultaneous sip.
It happens right now.
Go. Terrific.
That's the good stuff.
Rawr! All right, you ready for this?
So, according to a study that's been written about in The Conversation, Daniel Jolly and Ewan Dinnick, They say that there's new research that shows that poor sleep quality can make you believe in conspiracy theories.
Has anybody had that experience?
Where you wake up and you didn't have a good sleep and all of a sudden you're like, oh, we didn't land on the moon?
Anybody? No?
But here's what's wrong with this study, according to me.
The way they studied...
Whether sleep determines how much you believe in a conspiracy theory is they came up with a fake one, and then they just had people evaluate the fake one.
And then, toward the end of their article about how they've done this research, they talked about how important it is to understand conspiracy theorists, because conspiracy theorists might be involved with vaccine hesitancy.
climate change denial and violent extremism.
Yeah.
So here's the problem with that kind of research.
It really kind of requires that the researchers either use a conspiracy theory test that nobody really believes as a real conspiracy theory.
That's just sort of a made-up one.
But as soon as they test anything that's real, as in people really believe it, like...
Vaccine hesitancy or climate change?
Then they need to be the judges of what's true and what's a conspiracy.
And I'm not sure they're good at it.
What if the researchers themselves didn't get enough sleep?
They would come to work and they'd be like, I don't think we landed on the moon.
How much sleep did you get?
I got about four hours.
I couldn't wait to get to work.
Yep. I think you would need to be extra smart to see that conspiracies are real.
So here's what I think.
I think if you don't get enough sleep, your brain will still want to give you an answer to anything that's confusing.
So the less sleep you get, the more likely you might glom onto some simple conspiracy theory.
But the real conspiracy theories?
You know, the ones that have lots of detail and you'd have to really understand how all the moving parts work.
Like later, I'm going to tell you about the Biden administration completely ending free speech in America, or attempting to.
And it has a whole bunch of moving parts.
You would have to be really unsleepy to even understand the whole conspiracy before you could even have an opinion on it.
So I've got a feeling that the two things that make you believe in conspiracies are being sleepy, but also being very awake.
The two extremes.
The place where you're probably not believing in the conspiracies is, oh, you had a pretty good sleep, but you're not really keyed into all the details of what's going on in the real world.
Anyway. The so-called Tesla Diner in Santa Monica is almost open, and it's going to be kind of cool.
So you'll be able to go there and buy food, and the staff will allegedly, we don't have confirmation of this, be on skates.
So it's like a diner with skates that shows two big screens that have...
30-minute movies that are designed to be the right length for how long your car charges.
And I guess anybody can go there to eat.
You don't have to be charging your car.
And it doesn't need to be a Tesla.
You can charge any electric vehicle.
And here's what I love about it.
I love the fact that they made something where you could take the kids and you could turn it into an event.
How many people are sitting around on the weekend and thinking, I need to take my car to get it charged.
But, you know, I also got to watch the kids and they're bored.
So you can just put them in the car and say, hey, family, we're going to lunch.
And you would go to this cool diner and you would watch a cool movie and the staff would be skating around so it would be more interesting than not and get your car charged.
So it's sort of experimental in the sense that nobody knows how it's going to work out.
I love it as an idea.
As a concept, it feels like it understands everything about human interaction.
It's completely permissive.
You don't have to charge your car, so it's not like we have too many rules.
And it's just automatically interesting.
If there were a place I could go where the staff is on skates, I would go there.
Even if the food wasn't amazing.
And who knows?
Maybe the food is amazing.
But it seems like a tremendous thing to test.
Well, there's a little update on the Daily Mail about the Area 51 linked Navy sailor, this is the title, who saw the latest Tic Tac UFOs rising from the Pacific.
You know, it's always Tic Tac UFOs now.
Tic Tac UFO, Tic Tac UFO.
And there's nothing about the update that makes me think that there are any alien ships at all or that the Tic Tacs are really anything.
And they never leave a heat signature, which is a little suspicious.
And they always move at speeds that cannot be understood.
And often there's more than one of them.
And they operate in unison in ways that we can't even understand.
Synchronized flight.
So, all right, so I don't believe a single thing about any of these tic-tacs rising from the ocean, caught it on radar.
I don't believe any of it.
However, it does make me wonder about the following.
You know how every time there's some mystery, you always end up finding out that somebody's making money off it?
So, is it possible, and I'm just going to put this out here, it's not a belief, But it's a question.
Is it possible that the PR and marketing people that make Tic Tacs like to insert this story a little bit more often than it might happen naturally?
If you were the PR people for the actual candy, or the, I don't know what they call it, but the breath freshener called the Tic Tac, wouldn't it be good for a business to every...
Every two months, three months, insert an update onto the story about the Tic Tacs, even if nothing's happened.
So this is one of those, literally nothing new has happened.
So it's regurgitating an old Tic Tac story.
And I'm thinking, hmm, who would have a financial motive to continually recycle a Tic Tac-related UFO story?
Tic Tac.
Because once it gets in your mind, you're thinking, I could use a Tic Tac.
I'll pick one up.
I'm just saying.
It's not an accusation.
I'm just saying that if the Tic Tac company had figured out to do this as a marketing scheme, I would be so impressed.
Because I think it would work just to keep it in people's minds.
Because it's not like a negative interaction.
You know, we don't hate the aliens.
We think they're maybe interesting.
So... Maybe it's a reason to get some tic-tacs.
You never know.
Here's something kind of cool.
As you know, China is building naval ships like crazy, and the United States has sort of forgotten how to do shipbuilding.
So that's a problem, because for decades the U.S. Navy has kept the world safe.
Well, that's our version of it anyway, by essentially controlling the oceans.
Because nobody had a navy like ours.
But China is developing a navy like ours, if not a bigger one, and we don't have the ability to keep up.
However, according to Tom Hale and IFL Science, there's a startup that's from 2024, so it's brand new, and it's being led by a team that used to work for Amazon Robotics and iRobot.
And the U.S. Navy, so they're the right qualifications.
And they want to make unmanned, or let's say unpersoned, because I'm so woke, unpersoned, ships, especially for shipping goods.
So they'd be crewless, let's call them crewless ships.
Now, what is interesting about this is that...
I'm sort of reading a little bit between the lines here, so this is my own assumption, is that if you make a ship that doesn't need to have any human being on it, and it's just AI-based, it's got to be cheaper and a whole lot easier to build,
right? Because you don't have to worry about humans.
There's just no humans to be on it to leave out.
So, you know, there's no bathrooms, there's no food, there's no...
You know, there's no AC maybe.
I don't know.
So in theory, we can build these drone crewless ships and we would be able to do it maybe kind of quickly.
And some of these could be for military and some could be shipping.
And here's what they think would be the benefits.
Lower fuel costs, smaller carbon footprint, more cargo space because no humans, And they say that even the pirates might lose interest if there's no one on board to pay a ransom.
Well, I feel like the pirates might figure out how to threaten to destroy the ship, but they wouldn't know who to talk to, I guess.
So, it might be a problem.
The pirates would be like, where's all the people we threaten?
Ah, arg!
We have no people to threaten.
What do we do now?
Well, we'll say we'll destroy the cargo unless they give us money.
And then they'd say, who gives us money?
There's nobody on the ship.
Well, but we'll contact the mother company.
How do we know who the mother company is?
How do you know who owns it?
So, might be a problem for pirates.
Well, let's check in on Trump and see if he's said anything funny lately.
Oh, yeah.
He recently said, he said this before, but he said it at a press thing.
Jimmy Carter died a happy man.
You know why?
Because he wasn't the worst president.
Joe Biden was.
Now that makes me laugh every time I hear it.
And I'm going to give you a humor lesson.
And it goes like this.
The type of humor that works depends entirely on the situation.
Right? So it's not as if funny is funny, a joke's a joke.
That's not true at all.
There are things that are funny in person that you just say, you know, sort of off the top of your head at an event that are hilarious that wouldn't be funny in any other context.
So if you were to write this as a, let's say, a joke within a play, the audience would think, that's not that funny.
But if you say it in a press event, and you're the sitting president of the United States, and Jimmy Carter has only been deceased, what, a few months?
It's still way too fresh.
And Biden's only been out of office a few months, and he's still alive.
It's so inappropriate, but not illegal.
I mean, you know, he has the right to say it.
So what makes it funny is not that it's funny as a joke.
What makes it funny is he's not supposed to do it.
And Trump is the master of doing humor that's only funny because you did it live and you weren't supposed to talk that way.
You know, some of his posts are the same thing.
It's just something you're not supposed to say.
So it's funny because it's inappropriate.
And Trump knows that for sure.
Well, according to the post-millennial, Hayden Cunningham is writing, that Americans between the age of 18 to 21 are overwhelmingly supporting the GOP, according to a Yale Youth Poll.
Now, here's why I think that might be true.
The younger the person, the less they care about the policy.
And the more they care about the vibe.
Would you say that's true?
If you're talking to a 45-year-old who follows politics and cares about all the details, they might care about policy a lot.
But if you're talking to an 18- to 21-year-old, they couldn't describe a single policy.
But they can feel.
And I think what Trump brings to the party is Like that joke about Biden.
It's inappropriateness.
And if you're 18 to 21, you're really drawn to people breaking rules.
If you're a rule breaker and I'm 19, I want to see more.
I want to see exactly what you're up to.
He did what?
He challenged the courts?
Now you have my interest.
He did what?
He said a joke that nobody's supposed to say?
Hmm. I'd like to see a little more of that.
He did what?
He closed the border using a bunch of tricks that the Supreme Court can't even figure out if it's legal or illegal?
Huh. He deported an MS-13 guy to one of those terrible jails in El Salvador?
Hmm. Did he now?
So there's something about Trump.
Continually being the thorn in the side of how you're supposed to do things.
That's very appealing to people the younger they are.
Now, I've said this before about this trend of the youngest people being pro-Trump.
I noticed this several years ago.
Locally, I won't give you more details than that, but I can tell you that when I asked around of young people, You know, wherever I could run into one, a family member or otherwise.
And I'd ask the question.
There was no wokeness.
There wasn't a single woke bone in the boys.
In the boys.
Now, the girls could be a little bit mixed.
But when you're talking to boys, 100% anti-woke.
Absolutely. They didn't want to be...
They didn't want their...
They didn't want their speech regulated.
They didn't want to have to use a pronoun.
Absolutely not.
So boys, I think, responded to the anti-woke part.
According to Fox News, Peter Pinedo, the Supreme Court is going to make a big decision about district judges.
So you know how these...
District judges have been doing rulings that would prevent Trump from doing things even though they're just a district judge.
They're making rulings that affect everything in the country, which most people don't think is what they were supposed to be doing.
They should have stuck to things that are in their domain, and they're definitely on things that are completely national and not in their district.
So, it turns out that the Supreme Court has taken, I guess it took three separate nationwide injunctions, so it's looking at three separate ones, and then it combined them together,
so it consolidated the three cases into one situation, I guess.
And so they're going to see oral arguments about that.
And they'll decide whether district judges can issue rulings that affect the entire country.
So this is exactly what you wanted.
You wanted the Supreme Court to say, can these district judges make rulings that affect the entire country when it doesn't seem like that was ever an intention of the Constitution or our system?
So I'm really happy about this.
This would be a gigantic clarifier, and it would free the Trump administration to do the things that they've been trying to do without these federal judges that, of course, are being judge-shopped, without them getting in the way.
Now, I'm assuming, I'm getting ahead of myself, because I'm assuming that the Supreme Court is going to say, no, that's the Supreme Court.
I don't see a situation where the Supreme Court says, oh, yeah, you can take our power, and you can just have our power and do it at the district level.
Is that even possible?
It seems like there's no way it could go the wrong way, because the Supreme Court would be looking out for its own power base, if you want to call it that.
From their perspective, it would just be...
Probably protecting the Constitution and protecting the Supreme Court, etc.
So I think it can only go one way.
But we'll see.
Well, let's check up on all the criminals.
Have you noticed that the news is often about criminals?
In a whole bunch of different contexts, there's always a criminal involved.
So the criminal today is the Mayo Clinic.
The libs of TikTok discovered that the Mayo Clinic simply renamed their DEI office.
You know, now that DEI is officially and federally illegal, and you could be banned from getting federal funding if you got any DEI stuff.
So apparently the Mayo Clinic just renamed their DEI office to the Office of Belonging.
The Office of Belonging.
And all they did is change the names.
But, you know, it's the same person doing the same job.
So they're in trouble.
They got some risk there.
And then there's one of the cases that I guess the Supreme Court will...
We'll be ruling on directly or indirectly.
So according to Fox News, you know how Doge was going to rewrite these social security programs so that they would be deficient and not written in 100-year-old code?
Well, a federal judge, one of these district judges, just paused Doge and said they can't access the social security data even to fight fraud, which was the point of it.
Now they have to delete their non-anonymized data, which probably just ruins the whole thing.
They have to undo some of their smart code upgrades.
They've got to jump through a bunch of hoops bureaucratically to get anything done.
So basically, a federal judge, they probably shouldn't have any jurisdiction over it, and the Supreme Court is looking at exactly that now.
Simply just pushed a bunch of bureaucracy in front of Doge so they can't get their job done.
Incredible. So, here the federal judge is taking the side of Social Security fraudsters.
To me, they're both criminals.
Now, technically, there's no crime whatsoever that the federal judge violated.
But I think the Supreme Court...
Is about ready to tell them that you can't do that.
So is that a crime?
To me, it looks like somehow the federal judges and the Social Security fraudsters are on the same team because they're operating that way.
I mean, I don't think it's intentional, but they're operating like they're part of the same criminal enterprise.
Just, you know, the way it looks, not the truth.
All right, here's another criminal situation.
This time the criminals are the FBI and the Department of Justice under Biden, not the current group, although some of these criminals are still working in those places.
So do you remember Brandon Straka?
He was the walk-away guy who was doing the walk-away from the Democrats and become a Republican, which is what he had done.
So he had attended the January 6th event.
And apparently done nothing illegal.
Just nothing.
But they ginned up some charges and said he did something that he didn't do.
And next thing you know, he got prosecuted.
But he got a...
He was released by Trump's action of his pardons.
So he got pardoned.
And do you think he was done?
Here's the problem.
If you try to jail an activist who has a background in film, what do you think is going to happen after that?
If you unfairly, meaning criminally, because you knew you were doing it unfairly, if you criminally convict somebody who is an activist with experience in film, do you think he's going to get out?
And when he's pardoned, do you think he's going to create a documentary that outs every single one of these fucking cunts?
That's what he's doing.
By name, he's showing the actual criminals, some of them still working, and he's going to show every part of their crimes, and it's going to be, and I guess it's already completed, a documentary to show just the criminal behavior of the people who put him away.
How much do I love that?
I can't even express it.
I love it so much.
And I love the fact that he's naming names.
He's like, this person still works for either the FBI or the DOJ.
This person still works their Y. They're criminals.
And if I had to guess, they're all going to lose their jobs over the documentary.
Because really all he has to do is pull together what actually happened in the real world.
He doesn't have to make anything up.
He just has to say, this happened.
This happened.
And it's probably well documented.
So I've told you before the documentary effect is dangerous in that it's generally a one-sided presentation that's very persuasive.
I trust that Brandon Straka, since we've all been watching him, he's a public figure, I trust that his documentary will be equally persuasive, and it's not going to show the other side, because the other side is a bunch of fucking criminals,
and I think they're going to pay.
time for a little justice.
Here's what Brandon says.
After four years of having the truth silenced by a corrupt plea deal, I can finally share what really happened without fear of reprisal, thanks to my pardon.
So you're going to see never-before-seen footage proving his innocence.
Now, I didn't have a link for that, but I'm sure that'll pop up on social media pretty fast.
All right, so good luck, Brandon.
According to Reclaim the Nat, that's a publication, Christina Moss is writing, that there are some declassified Biden-era domestic terror strategy documents that show this broad surveillance tech partnership and global speech regulation agenda.
Now, that's pretty complicated, isn't it?
Let me simplify it.
The Biden administration put massive Mechanisms in place to destroy free speech in America.
That's what that is without the technical part.
The Biden administration, very directly, and there's no hyperbole here.
There's no exaggeration.
The Biden administration tried very hard, and they would have succeeded if Trump had not been elected.
They had destroyed...
Free speech in America.
And it's complicated, so it's hard to even understand.
So probably nobody will ever be held accountable for it.
But probably one of the greatest crimes or attempted crimes in the history of the United States.
If I told you that somebody put together a plot to end free speech in America, and knowing that free speech is the You know, the bedrock primary right that makes all the other ones possible.
You could argue the Second Amendment does that, but I think the First Amendment is even more on point.
So here's the basic idea.
So the Biden administration was worried about something called misinformation and all those misinformation people.
So they created this gigantic structure, Which even connected to international efforts to also fix misinformation.
But, like the criminals that they were and are, they didn't define misinformation.
That's the end of free speech.
Because they can say what you say about vaccinations is misinformation, so you must be banned from social media.
That's the end of free speech.
There's no other way to look at that.
They could say, if you're saying things about, let's say, Ukraine and whether we should end the war, well, that's misinformation.
So you must be banned from social media, possibly lose your job, won't be able to get hired by the government.
That's the end of free speech.
If they had defined misinformation as something specific, Where you could even know if you were violating it or not.
Well, that might have been something different, but they didn't do that.
They kept the definition open.
And then they created this massive mechanism of, I don't know, fact checkers and people who were involved in making sure there was no misinformation.
And then they were going to do this massive education thing where they would train both adults and children To identify misinformation.
Do you think that they taught them things like I teach?
When I teach people how to identify misinformation, I say stuff like, well, if the information is only coming from one anonymous source, and you're seeing it read by the traditionally lying media,
you shouldn't trust it.
Now, that would be teaching people to identify misinformation.
When I teach you that if something's too on the nose, you shouldn't trust it, that's learning to identify misinformation.
When I tell you, as I just did, that a documentary will be super persuasive, but it doesn't mean it's true.
They're all persuasive.
That's learning to spot misinformation.
Right? So I can go on.
But when I teach you to spot misinformation, as I've been doing now for years, I teach you a technique.
What do you think the Biden administration criminals were going to do with misinformation?
They were going to tell you what was true.
They weren't going to teach you to spot misinformation.
They were going to say they were.
But, for example, they would say, If somebody says that the climate models are not real, that's misinformation.
Now, is that the same?
No. That's simply telling you what's true.
That's brainwashing.
Exactly. That is brainwashing.
So they were trying to disguise disinformation training.
Well, they were trying to disguise brainwashing.
As training you to spot brainwashing.
Completely unethical, immoral, some of the worst criminal behavior you'll ever hear in your life.
And Trump stopped it by his victory.
So this is one of those stories that if you look in the history books in 10 years, this won't be there.
Do you know why this won't be there?
This should be one of the biggest stories of the past 25 years, that there was a president who tried and got close to ending free speech in America, and that the mechanism for it is very clear now,
because the documents are all available.
There's no guessing.
There's no speculation that maybe they were trying it.
It's not a conspiracy theory.
It's all well documented.
There will be no history that records that the Biden administration came very close to ending free speech forever in America.
Because it's complicated.
That's all it takes.
Because it's complicated, it'll never be in any history book that any child will see.
Now, it might be in, you know, books that become bestsellers for adults, but even that's not going to affect too many people.
You know, even a bestseller could be 50,000, 100,000 copies.
So it won't be completely forgotten by history, but it will never be taught.
You know, there will never be a course that teaches college students, yeah, you know, in the Biden administration.
They were this close to ending free speech forever.
But it is the case.
Unbelievable. All right, let's talk about the Maryland dad.
You know, the MS-13 Maryland dad.
So one of the things I like to do with that story is I do like to see how the Democrats are handling it.
The Republican version is that he absolutely, definitely was MS-13.
He was picked up with other MS-13 people.
He had MS-13 clothing that's well-identified.
There was a source that said he was MS-13.
And you say to yourself, hmm, I don't know.
He looks pretty MS-13 to me.
But then you hear the Democrats say, oh, that's pretty sketchy.
I don't know.
The police officer, was it a police officer, who originally picked him up, got dismissed for bad behavior soon after.
So you go, hmm, maybe the person who was the principal who identified him as MS-13, he did something else that makes him look sketchy.
So maybe we can't totally trust that guy.
But I was reading in The Hill that the thing where he got picked up with other MS-13 people, he was waiting at a Home Depot for work.
So you know how the migrants often will wait in the parking lot of Home Depot so that people will pull up and say, I need two people to dig a ditch today.
And then...
You know, say, I'll take you and you, and then they just go off and they get some day work.
If he was hanging out with two MS, I guess a couple of MS-13 people who were also just looking for day work, and he was just standing there looking for day work too, that's not exactly hanging out with MS-13.
That's hanging out at Home Depot.
It wasn't up to this guy.
To know whether these people were MS-13, but I think he recognized them from before, so maybe he did.
Maybe he didn't.
We don't know.
He was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat, which wasn't too surprising, and it's not proof that you're gang-related, but it's a strong indication.
It would be a weird coincidence if you just happened to be a fan, and you were the only person from El Salvador who didn't know.
They're wearing a bull's hat and a particular image on a bull's jersey with, I guess, three monkeys covering their eyes and ears and mouths with dollar bills.
If you didn't know that those were gang-related, that'd be kind of weird.
Now, don't you think if you were not an MS-13 and you knew what the clothing of an MS-13 person was, And you had an option of what you're going to wear.
Would you ever wear clothing that would identify you as MS-13?
And wouldn't the MS-13 people kill you immediately if they knew that you were not in the club, but you were pretending to be?
So that's something.
And then apparently the immigration judge, Judge Kessler, had said about the source.
So really, I think most of the case depended on the source being reliable.
Because there was a source that said, not only is he in MS-13, he has a rank and he has a nickname, like he has a gang nickname.
That would be pretty conclusive that he's in a gang.
So the immigration judge said about the source that the source was a past, proven, and reliable source of information.
That verified the respondent's gang membership, rank, and gang name.
And that was sufficient to support the fact that he was actually a gang member.
So that's from an immigration judge.
And she had decided that the informant was reliable.
Now, I guess you would have to take the word of the judge.
But would it be fair to say that he has been adjudicated as a gang member?
Do you remember how they like to say that Trump was adjudicated as some kind of criminal or something?
And they wouldn't say he did it because that would be too far.
They'd say he was adjudicated to have done it.
So there was a process.
Now, if you're worried about the...
The due process, at least as part of it, looks like an immigration judge whose job it is to determine who's telling the truth and who is credible and who is not, looked at the source and said,
okay, this is a reliable source.
But I'd like to know more about it because I'd hate to hear that...
All the judge did was ask some law enforcement person, hey, is this source reliable?
Oh yeah, totally.
Because they just wanted the person to be deported.
So, I'm not sure I believe it, that the source is reliable.
Remember what I told you just five minutes ago?
That if you're looking for misinformation, One of the ways is an anonymous source.
The least dependable source of information is an anonymous source.
But it wasn't anonymous to the judge.
Still, it was one person saying it.
Yeah, it was still one person.
So I'm still leaning toward...
It seems far more likely that he was gang-affiliated than not.
But you should know that this is not the home run 100% proof that he was a gang member that you'd really like to hear, because then you'd feel more comfortable about it.
And clearly there was an error in having him deported to El Salvador.
But the weird wrinkle on that is if you're deported to El Salvador, and the problem was that you had a...
You had a deportation order, but there was a hold on it that was also legally valid.
It was more valid than the deportation order because it was the higher level order, I guess.
If the reason that some immigration judge had decided he should not be sent back to El Salvador specifically is because that's where the risk came from.
Isn't that the safest country in the world?
Could you really say that he would be safer hanging out with known MS-13 people in the United States?
Would that be safer than going to El Salvador?
Now, anything safer probably than being in the...
Well, I don't know.
Maybe it's safe to be in those prisons because they're just so controlled.
I don't know.
But it would be a terrible life.
You know, it's barely a life.
So it's a way more interesting case than I thought it would be.
So that in order to...
I mean, I think it's ironic that the reason he couldn't be deported to El Salvador, tactically, even though he was, is because it would be too dangerous, but it might be the safest place in the entire hemisphere if you were out of jail.
If you're in jail...
Then it's a jail-level risk, which is never good.
Well, I haven't said much about this, but there was a big story in the New York Times that ADHD might be not what the experts have been telling you forever, and it might not even be a condition that needs to be treated in many cases.
So there's no doubt that the drug works to change behavior and to get you what you want.
But, you know, there's a downside to giving a kid, you know, basically some kind of speed.
And there's one, I guess, Ritalin can make you not grow as tall, although that might be temporary.
We don't know.
There's a thought that maybe the entire thing was driven by the economics of the industry, because once pharma could make money and once there were special people whose job it was to handle the ADHD kids that couldn't be handled any other way,
and once you had programs and education about it, that it became sort of its own little engine.
And whenever a kid came in who was a little overactive, they'd say, hmm, looks like ADHD.
And there would be, you know, tons of overdiagnosis.
I saw a comment by Chamath Palihapitiya, one of the all-in pod guys, you know.
And he says that one of his kids was at one point identified as an ADHD kid.
But that he wasn't buying into the, you know, the whole thing looked a little sketchy to him.
And he says, sort of as, I guess, a summary, I find it more plausible that economic incentives drove an entire industry to spring up around an FDA-approved drug.
That looking back, mostly doesn't work.
People make money diagnosing it, tutoring around it, coaching around it, etc.
Now, that could be right.
I saw Matt Walsh talking about how he thought it was a fake condition, too.
Now, I wouldn't call it fake in the sense that maybe there's some percentage that's real and some percentage that's not.
But I do think that if you simply change people's environment, you could probably drive a lot of it out of the situation.
And I also wonder if there's a reframe that would work.
Because if not paying attention is the big problem, what if you just made those kids exercise like immediately?
You know, you start a class and then there's a bunch of ADHD kids who can't pay attention.
And you just say, all right, kids, we're going to take a break.
And you just make them exercise like crazy, you know, in play.
You know, not anything that hurts them.
But you just make them play, play, play until they can sit in one place and be glad that they are.
And then you see if they can pay attention.
And then the other reframe is when I was a student, and I should tell you that I went to a very small school, very small, but I was a valedictorian.
And I think at least part of the reason I was valedictorian, besides Being kind of smart.
Is that the way I approached my schoolwork was that it was a contest.
And I was competing against the other students, not just the ones in my class, but in the world.
And whoever competed the best would get the prizes.
And the prizes would be the good jobs and the better life and the better mate.
You know, all those things.
When I would look at my schoolwork and it would be super boring, I would not say, oh my God, it's boring and it's not connected to anything in the real world, so I just can't even pay attention to it.
There's no meaning to it.
Because even the ADHD people can pay attention when they have meaning.
Like if it's something they care about, they have no problem paying attention.
They can do it all day long without any medication at all.
I never got bored with boring schoolwork because I was looking at the future and I was saying, if I can get through this but other people get bored by it, I win.
It's a contest.
And it's easier to do something painful in the context of a sport or a contest because you're thinking about the prize.
And then you can do unpleasant things to get a prize because the focus is on the prize, and then suddenly it really does mean something to you.
So for me, that was my most effective reframe.
It just sort of came naturally as a kid because I would sit there and think, if I do better on this test than other people, don't I win more prizes?
And the answer is yes.
You win more prizes your whole life.
Well, let's talk about another criminal.
I call her Letitia Jessie James.
I'm going to add the Jessie part because it sounds more criminal.
Letitia Jessie James.
And as you know, quite ironically, she has been referred to the Department of Justice because of a number of alleged financial fraud that she...
She did to get her own mortgages for some property.
So one had to do with saying that her primary residence was Virginia, which it wasn't.
One had to do with saying that her five-unit place was a four-unit place, which it wasn't.
And apparently at one point she said her father was her husband.
So there might be some more, but those are the ones I remember.
But what I didn't know...
Because I've been saying incorrectly, I've been saying, no, these are just, you know, worst case scenario, it's going to be a big fine.
And it might be expensive, but it's not like she's going to go to jail or anything.
But apparently Kyle Welch, this George Washington University School of Business professor who specializes in financial fraud, says that if the allegations are, if they hold up, they could carry jail time.
And lead to disbarment.
So jail time plus disbarment, that would be a pretty big penalty.
Now, what does Letitia James say about all this?
What is her defense against very specific allegations of wrongdoing?
Did she say, I didn't do that thing with the five unit building?
Did she say, I never said my father was my husband.
Did she say, I never said that Virginia was my primary residence?
Nope. What she said was that the allegations about her own mortgage fraud are, quote, retaliation against all of the actions that have taken successfully against Donald Trump.
Well. It might be a little bit of retaliation, but if it's true, it's also a bunch of crimes.
So I think that's as close as you can get to admitting you did the crime.
Is to say that the reason that they're after me is retaliation?
No. If you're innocent, imagine you're in this situation.
If you were in this situation, And you knew the truth was you had committed no crimes.
Would you start with saying that they're only coming after me for retaliation?
No, you wouldn't.
No one would.
They would start with, none of this is true.
And then they would say, it's just because of the retaliation.
But you wouldn't start with, it's because of retaliation.
You would start with, none of these things hold up.
I didn't do that.
If it were true.
So I guess that's as close as you can get to admitting you did the crimes.
Well, let's talk about sexy Luigi Mangione, who, as you know, is the hottest of all the murderers.
Apparently the grand jury in New York is going for four different charges.
Although I think I only wrote down three of them.
But I'm going to read them in a sexy way so that you can hear them the way the Democrats hear them.
And I'd like you to imagine there's bad porn music in the background.
I don't know even what that sounds like because, you know, I've never listened to it.
But he's guilty of two counts of stalking.
He might be guilty of a firearm offense.
And maybe murder through the use of a firearm.
Is that sexy?
I mean, I know you're turned on.
Try to get through the rest of the day thinking about that, huh?
Yeah. Sexy.
Apparently the last charge would make him...
Eligible for the death penalty.
Yeah, ladies.
What's that do to you?
He's eligible for the death penalty.
Now, if that doesn't turn you on, I don't know what will.
Meanwhile, according to Neil Monroe, writing for Breitbart News, Trump is developing some kind of a plan that might provide money.
For illegal migrants who want to self-deport, meaning that if the only thing stopping them from doing it is they can't afford to do it, you know, because they somehow have to get back home and all that.
And so Trump's considering some kind of a stipend or a way to help people afford the self-deportation.
And I think that's a good idea.
Because a lot of these people might want to come back for work programs.
They might want to come back and try to become members of the country through legal means.
And if they self-deport, especially if they get a little help doing it, they could maintain their proper rights to come back.
And that would be great.
Here's a weird one, according to Rapid Response, talking about stuff that Trump does.
I guess he signed an executive order to restore American seafood competitiveness.
Now, how many of you knew that there was a problem with seafood competitiveness?
I did not.
I was not aware of that at all.
But apparently, it's real.
It's like a real big problem.
And of course, it's self-induced by too many regulatory burdens.
And, of course, there's unfair trade that we're always dealing with with other countries.
And so apparently this executive order would get rid of the regulatory stuff and combat the fair trade part and enhance production and exports.
Now, I didn't think this was necessarily a big deal until I saw a comment by Chef Andrew Gruel.
If you're on X, you'll probably be familiar with him.
Very popular commenter and a professional chef.
And he said that he worked in an area in which he saw this firsthand and agrees this is a giant problem.
So that's a good source.
So if Andrew Gruhl says it was a big problem and this will be a big step toward fixing it, I believe it.
So that's just good news.
According to 404 Media, And Joseph Cox, I guess.
Somehow they get access to an internal Palantir, the company Palantir, Slack message.
And they found out that Palantir, according to 404 Media, did a recent build of a tool that helps ICE find the physical locations of people who have been marked for deportation.
Now, it doesn't say how they do that.
So it must be a combination of data.
So they must be able to identify where people are from some combination of maybe phone usage and buying patterns and maybe connection to other people.
I don't know what the data is that they use.
But Palantir would use their magic to do that.
So that's interesting.
The Defense Post.
It's writing that there's yet another drone, AI-driven vehicle.
So this one's like a little, I don't know, it looks smaller than a Jeep, but it's AI-driven and it can do all kinds of things.
It's fully autonomous.
It's a tactical vehicle.
It can go 35 miles an hour.
It can carry a payload that's pretty substantial.
And it can do a variety of missions across multiple terrains and conditions.
And it doesn't even need GPS to do what it does.
So it's modular and you can change it to do all kinds of different missions, etc.
Now, this is like the, I don't know, the millionth time I've told you a story like this.
But these are real.
I mean, the thing is actually built and it looks like they can build more of them.
So, at the same time, we're going to look at the peace deals, potential peace deal with Ukraine.
Because if we don't get a peace deal with Ukraine and Russia, what happens then?
So, I think what happens, at least in maybe the Trump perfect world, is that Europe takes over the defense.
But part of what Europe would need to do is buy American weapons like this.
And since Ukraine doesn't have enough humans to do all the war fighting, and it's safer and more effective to use drones, every one of these new inventions I think is just going to end up in Ukraine for at least testing.
So the U.S. would get to test all of its new drone-related stuff.
By just throwing it into the war.
Europe might pay for it.
So the US essentially would be getting revenue and free testing without risking American soldiers.
And the war would go on.
So Ukraine wants to fight.
If Europe gives them money and the US provides the hardware that Europe has to pay for, and we know that we're...
Probably only, you know, a year away from all war being all drones all the time, because humans just can't keep up with drones.
It might be the first time we see a full drone war.
You know, drones on the ground, drones in the sea, drones in the air, and just hardly any You know, human Ukrainian soldiers, except for the ones operating the equipment.
So I feel like that's where things go if we don't get a peace deal.
Speaking of peace deal, Secretary Rubio has said, if we don't get one soon, and it sounds like we're not close, that he's going to stop trying, meaning Trump will stop trying.
Stopping trying.
I think automatically goes to the all-drone concept.
So I think what you're going to see is the P-Steel dying, and then you're going to see the first all-drone war, and that we're probably just months away from that.
And the Russians will, of course, try to keep up, so it will become a drone-on-drone war, and then it will be Russia's technology.
Wherever they're getting it from, maybe China, versus American technology, and then we see who wins.
It'll be basically a technology plus money plus cleverness, and it won't be soldiers dying versus soldiers dying.
I think that's where it's heading.
We'll see.
Well, the U.S. says that Chinese satellite firm It's helping the Houthis target American warships.
So it's called the Chinese Chang Guang Satellite Technology Company.
Now, what happens if we're sure that they're the bad guys and they're helping the Houthis?
Does that mean we would try to attack the Chinese satellites?
You know, even though it's a private company, it's not the government satellites.
But would that be starting World War III in space with China?
Or are we just going to say...
All right.
I don't know what that means.
I see it in the comments.
So I worry about this, that this could be an escalation.
We'll see.
There's also the story of whether Trump waved off an Israeli plan to attack Iran.
So a reporter asked the question this way of Trump, did you wave off an Israeli plan to attack Iran?
And Trump says, I wouldn't say waved off.
I think that Iran has a chance to have a great country and to live happily without death, and I'd like to see that.
That's my first option.
But then there's further reports that he wasn't the only one who may have waved off the war, but that Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Hegseth, Susie Wiles, and J.D. Vance all worked together to recommend not going to war or supporting Israel going to war with Iran.
Now, how much do you like that?
If that's what happened, and of course you can never be sure, But if that's what's happened, that's what we wanted, isn't it?
Didn't we want a block of people who are really good at doing what they do?
You know, they can be as lethal as you need them to be, but they're smart enough to know it doesn't work most of the time and to be opposed to starting new wars.
How could Trump ever be Trump if he starts a war?
If Trump starts a war, then the best thing about Trump just goes away forever, which is he doesn't start wars.
It's bad enough that the Hootie situation is happening, because that's pretty much starting a war, but you could explain it away as a special case.
It's not a war, we're just trying to keep our shipping safe or something.
But if we were to actively participate in a major attack on the Iranian homeland, I don't think that problem would ever go away.
Because whatever it is that Iran has as a reaction to that probably involves cyber stuff, probably involves the sabotage in the homeland of America, in which we're very susceptible to that.
So a lot would depend on how much Iran wanted to respond or if they decided that their best play is to just take the hit.
We don't know.
So I like the fact that our government is not all on one side saying, yes, war, war, war, but that we have serious people who are very smart and I trust because they have records of being on the right side of things.
And Susie Wiles has a great reputation, etc.
We've seen J.D. Vance's comments from the leaks from the Signal stuff.
We know he's not big on starting wars.
So I love the fact that there is a trusted set of advisors who are talking to the president and saying, doesn't make sense.
It's not in our best interest.
I like that.
So, in related news, Hamas has rejected Israel's ceasefire proposal, and they don't want any kind of temporary pause.
This is what Hamas says.
No, we don't want any temporary pause to give you back any hostages.
We want everything on the table.
So they want a permanent ceasefire, full reconstruction of Gaza.
And the release of the Palestinian prisoners.
In return, Israel would get all of its hostages back.
Now, let me give you some real-world interpretation.
I think that Israel has decided that it's much better off giving Hamas nothing, destroying them once and forever, never giving Gaza back, Just completely owning Gaza and then resettling all of the Gaza residents in Arab countries or keeping them in essentially outdoor prison camps for the rest of their life and then make the other Arab countries say,
hey, if you're on their team, why don't you open up your country?
Why don't you let them live in your country?
And that would be a good argument forever.
Meaning that the Gaza residents would have the worst life ever.
But is that Israel's problem?
And they could certainly make it look like it was the other Arab countries hating them so much that they can't even take them in.
And then Israel would say, well, why should we like them more than you do?
It would be a strong argument.
So, in my opinion, Israel has a...
Close to a free pass to simply increase the size of Israel in a strategic way and get rid of their biggest enemy once and for all.
And the expense of that is the remaining hostages, who are probably most of them dead or near death or in a situation in which life wouldn't be much of an upgrade.
I think maybe Israel is taking the real-world decision that the hostages, they've done what they can do, and there just won't be any new hostages coming.
And Hamas is silly to imagine that they're going to get reconstruction and people are going to move back in and then Hamas will be back in charge and they can reconstitute.
None of that's going to happen.
And by the way, Am I the only person who told you that a long time ago?
I think I am.
I think I'm the only person who told you they're not going to reconstitute Gaza.
Back when everybody thought that was the obvious likely thing, is that war would go on for a while and then Gaza would be rebuilt.
And I kept saying, there's no way.
No, Israel is not going to rebuild Gaza.
They're just not going to let Hamas ever have Even one inch of control of Gaza.
It's just never going to happen.
And I thought that was always revealed in Israel's statement about what their intention was.
They said on day one, kind of day one after October 7, they said that the reality in Gaza would never be the same.
What did that mean to you?
It wasn't just talk.
The reality in Gaza would never be the same.
And then they said that their ambition was total victory.
Well, what does that mean?
Total victory doesn't mean Hamas reconstitutes.
That wouldn't even be close to total victory.
Total victory means Hamas is gone and there's no way they're coming back.
And there's no other way to get it done.
You have to actually just depopulate Gaza.
Now, again, if you're new to my program, what you're not hearing is my preference because it's not my country.
I'm not Gaza and I'm not Israel.
I'm an American.
And so my filter on the entire conflict is power.
It's not morality.
And it's not ethics.
I think people like comic Dave Smith will try to put things in the frame of morality and ethics.
And I think it's good that people try to do that, but it's not relevant because nobody's ethics will make any difference.
If I make a really good argument that Israel should do something different, it won't matter.
They're not going to do anything different because I made a clever argument about ethics.
Or that Dave Smith has an opinion about ethics.
And by the way, his and other people's opinion about ethics, perfectly valid.
I'm glad that people are having that conversation.
But it isn't relevant to anything that will happen in the real world.
So I just take a real world view that if Hamas had power...
That would be terrible for Israel in ways that are almost impossible to imagine.
At the same time, if Israel has all the power, which largely they do, things are going to get really bad for Hamas in ways that are almost impossible to imagine.
And also, a lot of people who maybe were mildly supportive or had a preference for Hamas and lived there, Their lives will be absolutely horrible.
And I don't support it, and I don't oppose it, because it's none of my control.
I have no control, and my opinion has no sway.
So I just observe it and try to predict it.
So all I can do is observe and predict.
If you want to say that it's unethical and immoral, I agree.
And if the power were reversed, it would be immoral and unethical in the opposite direction.
So the immoral and unethical just sort of follows from who has the power.
And right now it's Israel.
And it doesn't look like that's going to change anytime soon.
So that's just the reality of it.
You don't have to be in favor of it or opposed to it.
It's just what it is.
And there's no way it's going to change.
So, anyway.
Oh, more on that Russia-Ukraine thing.
When Rubio says that we might be done with negotiating if something doesn't happen pretty quickly, he says in a matter of days they would know if any deal could happen.
You should always expect that in a negotiation of that magnitude, there would always be at least one walk away.
You know, where one side says, all right, I'm done.
There's no deal to be had.
We're done here.
And it's just part of the negotiating.
So if you think that that's what Rubio is doing, you might be right, because it would fit the pattern of Trump negotiating, which is to say, all right, we're going to give it our best shot.
Uh-oh, looks like we can't make a deal.
You're going to have to go kill each other for infinity and then walk away.
And then hope that both sides beg you to come back and then they get more flexible.
I don't think that's going to happen in this case.
So whether or not it's intended to be part of the negotiation, the backing out, I don't think there's any backing in because there's nothing to be had.
I think that Russia prefers continuing fighting.
I think Ukraine prefers it for their own reasons.
And if both sides prefer it, which seems to be the case, you really can't expect to get a deal.
And that's what it looks like to me.
Two sides still want to fight.
And I think that especially when it becomes drones versus drones, well then, of course, they're willing to fight because they won't even be losing people at that point.
So they're heading toward a situation in which they're...
More incentivize the fight, not less, because the people part will be removed and there will be still something that looks like war happening.
So I'm sure that's what they want.
Then in related news, according to the European Conservative, I guess that's a publication, Kiev is nearing a deal on minerals.
So that there would be some Trump-related deal for a mineral thing where the U.S. and maybe some other countries would be part of a deal to exploit minerals and share the money with Ukraine.
I'm going to say I don't think that deal is going to happen.
Even though the news is it's getting close and there's been compromises that make it really close, I don't believe it.
I just don't think you can make a deal with Ukraine.
Maybe it's because we ask for too much.
Maybe it's because they're too weaselly and can't be trusted.
I just don't think it's going to happen.
Now, I'll root for it to happen.
Because we would like to get those minerals.
And wouldn't it be good if we got some money out of Ukraine and monetized it?
And wouldn't it be good for Ukraine to also be making some money that would be hard for them to do without the international help?
I just don't think that we're dealing with an entity that can make a deal.
I just don't think...
I don't think we have what you need to make a deal.
I think there are too many interests, too many criminals.
And I think that literally the problem in Ukraine is that the people who would normally skim all the money off a deal like that may be seeing that the deal is being structured so that there's no corruption allowed.
That would kill the deal.
Probably the money people in Ukraine Just have one business model, which is they skim money off of every deal.
And if they can't find a way to skim some money off a mineral deal, they would probably try to kill it so that later maybe they can do a mineral deal where they can skim some money, like a lot of money, because there's so much involved.
Well, that's what I think is happening.
No peace deals anywhere.
And drones will be the preferred war weapons for a long time.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, that brings me to the conclusion of my prepared remarks.
I'm going to say some stuff privately to the subscribers on Locals.
The rest of you, thanks for joining, and I will see you again, same time, same place, on X and Rumble and YouTube.
