God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, President Trump, Shiff's Autopen Pardon, Autopen Operator Identity, Democrat Fake News Process, Designated Liar Jaime Raskin, Wrap-up Smear Technique, Malcolm Gladwell, Anti-Trump 92% Negative Reporting, AOC Bernie Oligarchy Tour, Elissa Slotkin, Anti-Trump Street Interviews, Tariffs Purpose, Child Deportation Hoax, Scott Bessent, China Trade Progress, Budget Reconciliation Corruption, Resistance Democrat Tactics, Violence Inspiring Hate Speech, Governor Pritzker, Smerconish, CNN Rating Collapse, Gaza Supplies Shortage, Putin Proposes Cease Fire, Zelensky's Survival, 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.
Let me get my comments going and then we'll put on a show.
The show you deserve.
Even if you don't.
do do to do a mama
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
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 is a cup or a 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 of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's going to happen right now.
Go.
Perfect.
That's just what I needed.
Well, in Texas, somebody 3D printed a Starbucks.
It's one of those big 3D printers that does concrete walls.
And it's just a little drive-through, so there's no internal seating, so it's a small one.
But how long before robots can make the coffee?
Oh, turns out that's my next story.
Global Coffee Report says that AI robots will soon be making your morning coffee, maybe.
Don't you want that?
Wouldn't you love to tell your robot to make you a fancy coffee?
You know, the reason most people don't make a fancy coffee for themselves is it's just way too much work and time and pain in the ass and you've got to clean up and all that.
If your robot did all of that, I'd make my robot make me some serious coffee.
It'd be the best coffee I ever saw.
That's coming.
My little local mall in my town had a coffee robot for a while.
And it looked like it was more demonstration.
It was before AI.
It was a few years ago.
And I remember I tried it once, but I accidentally ordered the wrong thing.
But once the robot starts making the thing, You can't really stop it.
So I had to stand there for what seemed like 10 minutes while this stupid robot made me a cup of coffee that was the wrong thing.
And then I just paid for it and threw it away.
So it wasn't a perfect robot coffee-making experience.
I think it'll get better with AI.
I don't know if it's still the case, but early this morning...
The lights and the electricity were off in Portugal, Spain, and a big part of France.
Now, I don't think they know exactly why.
I assume it's not cyber, some kind of cyber crime, because I don't know who would go after Portugal, Spain, and parts of France.
That'd be a weird target.
But they're dealing with that.
It kind of reminds you how fragile civilization is.
That there's probably, my guess is there's one piece of equipment that went bad, and it took three countries out of civilization.
So we'll keep an eye on that and see what the hell is going on with that.
That's pretty scary.
Well, the brighter side of news is reporting that the attention economy is turning into the intention economy.
Which I had not been exposed to before.
So attention is all your social media where they're trying to get your attention.
Because if they have your attention, you look at advertising and then they win.
But with AI, they're going to move to an intention, meaning they're going to figure out what it is you're likely to want, maybe before you even know it.
And so they'll be looking at your intentions to give you what you want.
You can say goodbye to your illusion of free will because once your AI gets good enough to know what you want and it starts giving it to you before you even knew you wanted it, why would you even make decisions?
Because it's going to be right.
You know, every now and then you might have to correct it.
It's like, well, no, I don't have time for that cup of coffee.
You were going to make me a robot.
But the intention economy has way more ramifications than just how they sell advertisements.
The ramification is that we come to understand that free will is an illusion.
It's a big deal, but I know you're not ready for that yet.
Popular Mechanics has a story that says that somebody somehow found a chemical fingerprint on Stonehenge.
Do you believe they found a fingerprint on Stonehenge?
I'm not sure I even believe the first part of the story.
But according to them, if they're right, it means that the giant stones came from a different place than they've been telling us for years.
In other words, the whole Stonehenge story was kind of BS.
That's what they're thinking.
But this reminded me that if you watch enough YouTube stories about ancient civilizations, which I do, did you know that all over the world...
There were civilizations that could move gigantic rocks.
So there are pyramids pretty much in, I don't know, just all over the world.
So you've got them in Asia and Central America and South America, and you've got them in the Middle East.
So apparently there were all these different civilizations who could move gigantic rocks, and none of them remember how to do it.
None of them?
So the only way I can explain that is that they never knew in the first place.
Because nobody drew a picture of it.
You know, even if they didn't have written language, somebody would have made a picture, right?
Carved it on a cave wall or something.
But no.
All these civilizations were able to move gigantic rocks somehow without being connected to each other.
Did they...
Individually figure out how to do it?
So individually, all these primitive civilizations figured out how to move gigantic rocks, but then our modern civilization doesn't know how to do it?
How is that possible?
The only explanation I can come up with is that there used to be some kind of advanced civilization that didn't survive, unless those are the aliens and they're under the ocean hiding from us.
Maybe.
But I'm definitely down for the, there must have been an ancient advanced civilization that affected all of those different cultures and somehow helped them move big rocks, but never taught them how.
That's the only thing that makes sense to me.
Well, Trump is causing more trouble.
Gateway Pundit's reporting that he mentioned that we should jail the auto pen guy, whoever it was who, Now, that might be a little extreme, but here's what Trump said.
He goes, also, Trump said on True Social.
Now, how is it even remotely possible?
That the Autopen did all of the signing for Biden, and we don't know who was in charge of the Autopen.
Now, you might say, well, Biden was in charge.
He just said, use the Autopen.
Well, maybe.
But with all these tell-all, behind-the-scene books, there's not a single book, there's not a whistleblower, there's not a single witness who knows who operated the Autopen.
And it couldn't have been that many people, right?
I would imagine that there's exactly probably one person who can actually make the machine do what it needs to do, and they have to get an order from somebody.
So there's probably one person who's just a tech.
But somebody told the tech what to do.
How in the world do we not know that yet?
The only way that makes sense is if we didn't know who it was, it would be a gigantic scandal.
I can't imagine to be any other reason.
Because otherwise, even the Democrats would say, oh, it's no big deal.
It was Biden's chief of staff, and the chief of staff only did it when Biden okayed it.
And then I'd say, oh, okay, that's a reasonably good explanation.
But they don't have any explanation.
So does that mean multiple people were getting the auto pen guy to do the auto pen thing?
Whatever the answer is here, Trump is definitely on to something.
There's something that's being hidden, and it's more than the fact that the auto pen signed a lot of things for Biden.
We really need to know who is behind that.
I wonder if we ever will.
Well, the Mays account on X has a good report here about how the fake news works.
May says the mainstream media feeds off its own dishonest reporting, working together to divide the country and make people angry.
And he says, for example, New York Times put out an headline claiming that Trump was going to end funding for Narcan.
Narcan is the thing that saves your life if you have a fentanyl overdose or opioid overdose.
But that was never true.
The details were buried in the article.
What was true is that they wanted to reorganize the group that made the Narcan available.
So it would still be available.
It would just be housed in a different organization.
So rather than correct that, Rachel Maddow on MSNBC tells her viewers that Trump is taking away Narcan, and then she has Jamie Raskin on later to confirm it.
So they've got fake news, and then they bring on another liar, the designated liar.
Jamie Raskin is one of the Democrats I call the designated liars, because the designated liars will do things that the normal Democrats won't, right?
So if you want to tell a really big lie, you know, one that's easy to debunk, Raskin will do it.
Schiff will do it.
Swalwell will do it.
But most of the normal Democrats don't want to say something that's so easily debunked.
So they have designated liars.
I've never seen anything like it.
They're literally the designated liars.
Anyway, so this is sort of like an instant wrap-up smear.
Do you remember when Nancy Pelosi was explaining the wrap-up smear?
Where you leak to a reporter that somebody did something bad, and it might not be true, but then when the reporter writes the story, then you say, oh, look, it's in the New York Times, so don't trust me.
It's in the New York Times.
But really, it's only in the New York Times because you told them to write the story and they believed it.
That's a wrap-up smear.
So this is an example of that happening in real time.
Do you know the author Malcolm Gladwell?
He looks like one of those, what do you call it, dandelions?
You know when a dandelion grows bad and it's got that big crazy white hair?
He kind of looks like a big dandelion.
Anyway, he's getting a little more political and he's suggesting that somebody like Oprah Could really help us out in politics.
And the example was that Oprah could ask Elon Musk if he didn't want to be seen as a Nazi, why did he give a Nazi salute?
What?
What?
Are you kidding?
I thought it was only the dumbest Democrats who believed that Musk gave a Nazi salute.
Let me say it as clearly as I can.
Anybody who thinks that Elon Musk intentionally got on the stage after winning everything, you know, the election was won and everything was good, you actually believe that he got on the stage and gave a Nazi salute?
That is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard in my life.
You're an idiot if you thought that was true even for a second.
I would see interviews on the street where there'd be some 20-something who believed that there was a Nazi salute.
And I'd say to myself, oh, well, a low-information voter just believed what they're told.
But Malcolm Gladwell is entering the fight like he's one of the educated, well-intentioned, smart guys.
How in the world could you be that fucking dumb?
I mean, this isn't one you have to research.
You just have to ask yourself, really?
Really?
You think that Elon Musk decided that it'd be a good idea to give a Nazi salute?
Or even that you think that he would want to do that?
So dumb.
I mean, that's like seriously, seriously dumb.
Like at a level that's hard to even understand.
So I think the Musk and Nazi salute hoax, it's the new fine people hoax.
The fine people hoax was the same thing.
Did you really think that the sitting president complimented neo-Nazis in a public speech?
Really?
You thought there was some chance that happened in the real world?
It didn't.
The opposite happened.
But how fucking dumb did you have to be to believe that the fine people hoax was ever real?
And again, how fucking dumb do you have to be to believe that Trump, that Musk gave a Nazi salute, or even was in that frame of mind that that would even make sense in any world?
I don't even understand this one.
I mean, that's stupidity at a level that's almost mind-boggling.
But maybe it's more about persuasion.
I don't know.
Maybe they're just hypnotized.
It could be a TDS story more than an intelligence story.
But if your intelligence can't let you see past that illusion, your intelligence is not very high-powered.
That is really, really dumb.
Mike Benz had a good observation about David Brooks.
He was on one of the shows.
And remember how when Trump did anything that wasn't, let's say, perfectly copacetic, they would say, no one's above the law.
And then now we've got these judges who were helping the illegal immigrants try to escape, which would be very illegal.
Instead of saying no one's above the law and it makes perfect sense to arrest the judges because they broke the law, Now it's turned into, well, it might be illegal, but it's heroic.
Really?
So if Trump does it, it's just a case of no one's above the law, so it's cut and dried, goes to jail.
And that would be based on allegations, not on anything he actually did.
But the moment a judge does something that's deeply illegal, helping an immigrant, But who's not here legally, get away.
That turns into a heroic moment.
So, good catch, Mike Benz.
Well, remember when Cory Booker did that filibuster thing where he talked for many hours and nobody knew what his point was?
And it was the biggest waste of time, but he got some attention.
Well, now Cory Booker and Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrat leader, They've decided to hold an anti-Trump sit-in on the Capitol steps.
Now, that was yesterday.
I don't know if they're still there.
I'm not sure how long a sit-in lasts.
But Justin Hughes was reporting this, and I was thinking, what exactly were they trying to accomplish by sitting on the steps?
And what was that conversation like?
All right, Trump is winning everywhere.
We've got to change the conversation to...
The leaders of the Democrat Party are sitting on steps.
At what point did that sound like a good idea?
Like, we could turn things around if we sit on steps, and then people will come talk to us, because we're sitting on steps.
Did I tell you it's going to be a long time?
We're going to sit on those steps for a long time?
Yeah.
Yeah, we finally got a strategy.
What is wrong with the Democrats?
That's their strategy?
To go sit on some steps?
You never see Republicans stoop to anything that stupid.
Anyway.
So here's a summary of what I see happening in the news and politics.
Trump has given us the following proposition.
He hasn't said it in these words, but he's very clear about what he wants.
Trump would say, if you asked him, he said, we need to make a long-term structural change to our economy to survive.
A long-term structural change.
Now, some of that would be doge, but a lot of that would be the tariffs, which should lead to negotiations, we hope.
Those would be long-term structural changes.
So, if you have a president who is proposing that we do long-term structural changes, What does the media do, the Democrats?
We need to obsess over the first 100 days because 100 is a big round number.
For the last several days, the Democrats have just been all over his first 100 days.
His first 100 days.
Why?
Because 100 is a big round number.
It doesn't make any sense.
It's like sitting on the steps of the Capitol.
Well, let's talk about the importance of the number 100.
It doesn't really have any importance, especially if you're doing a long-term structural change.
Yes, but let's obsess about it, and we'll run some polls.
So the Media Research Center did a poll and found out that ABC, NBC, and CBS had 92% negative coverage of Trump.
92% negative coverage of Trump.
So if they had 92% negative coverage, What do you suppose they found when they did a poll to find out if Trump's plans are popular?
So the news told people that almost everything Trump did was a mistake, and then they did a poll to ask the opinion of the public.
Where do you think the public got their opinion from?
The public didn't do their own research.
They got their opinion from the news.
And if the news is 92% negative, which is a pretty good indication it's just biased and not real news, of course the public's going to have a low opinion of his first 100 days.
Of course they will.
And then they sell that to us as it all makes sense.
Now, if you didn't know that the news was 92% negative on Trump, you would look at the polls and you'd say, whoa, looks like the public has really turned on Trump.
Nothing like that happened.
And pollster Mark Mitchell of Rasmussen Reports, he did a deeper dive, which I won't get into.
You should look at his account on X. But he did a little summary of the idea that Trump is less popular.
And he said, okay, here's the most important takeaway from all of my posts today.
So he posted on this quite a bit.
Trump approval drop is a psyop.
And according to Mitchell, his policies are popular and will remain popular.
Biden was a failed president and Trump is polling, mostly like Obama.
Now, which of the major news entities said to you, well, it looks like Trump's taking a dip in popularity, but it's not really that different than Obama.
That's kind of important, right?
Now, would I say that Obama's first 100 days were critical?
Not really.
Nobody's first 100 days really matter too much.
Is there any president who's ever been judged by history on their first 100 days?
Never.
They're only judged on the entire body of work.
So why in the world are we obsessing about the one thing that we know no historian is going to care about in 10 minutes?
Like, when it gets to 120 days, nobody's even going to care about the first 100 days.
But, yeah, so Mark Mitchell says it's a psyop.
Sounds about right.
All right, you wonder how dumb the Democrats are?
Well, when you watch Bernie Sanders and AOC go out in their oligarchy tour...
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I might be the first person who said to you when I heard about that...
That's going to be a huge fail because most people don't even know what oligarch means.
And time goes by, and then the Democrats themselves are saying, Bernie, AOC, people don't know what an oligarch is.
So Senator Elisa Slotkin is one of those people who's criticizing Bernie and AOC for talking about oligarchs.
But here's her suggestion.
For improving the messaging.
Are you ready for this?
She said, instead of saying oligarchs, you should say kings.
That Trump wants to be, or his cronies want to be kings.
Now, that is so dumb.
So dumb.
That has no persuasive power whatsoever.
Chuck Schumer, he tried that out on some interview.
He's like, they want to be kings.
And I just said to myself, how many kings can you have?
Can you have multiple kings?
And if you have multiple kings in the same country, wouldn't that be the same as no king at all?
Because how can you have multiple kings?
This is so dumb.
It's like there's nobody who knows even the least bit about communication.
Or Persuasion, who's guiding these poor Democrats.
But, oh my God, King's is an improvement over oligarch?
No.
The entire approach needs to be changed.
It's not that they use the wrong word.
What is it that the Democrats always say when they make giant mistakes?
When the Democrats make gigantic mistakes that have lasted a long time, do they ever say, wow, You know, we should just retool this and stop doing that gigantic mistake thing.
No.
They always tell you it's about how they messaged it.
And that's what's happening again.
They're trying to say, if we'd only picked the right word, you know, this could have been a genius move.
If we'd picked the right word.
No.
There's no right word.
The entire approach is just bullshit.
So there's no word that fixes that.
So that's funny.
And then Bernie pushes back.
He goes, well, gee, as he was asked about in an interview, he said, we had 36,000 people in LA and 34,000 in Colorado.
We had 30,000 people in Folsom, California.
He goes, I think the American people are not quite as dumb as Ms. Slotkin thinks they are.
To which I say, Bernie, you didn't even answer the question.
The reason people showed up is because of star power.
It had nothing to do with whether you were saying oligarch or king.
Do you think there was anybody who said, hey, look, Bernie and AOC are going to talk, and then their mate or their boyfriend or girlfriend says, but are they going to talk about oligarchs or kings?
Because I know what a king is.
I don't know what an oligarch is.
No!
They just said, is it Bernie?
Is it AOC?
Oh, they're celebrities.
Okay, I'll go watch because I don't like Trump.
So every part of this is stupid.
Just almost mind-bogglingly stupid.
And it's wonderful to watch.
You've probably seen all the...
The interviews on the street, there's been a bunch of them, where somebody will go up to one of the Tesla protesters or Democrats protesting, and they'll say, why are you protesting?
And they'll say stuff like, Trump is a monster, and Trump is a dictator, and Trump is Hiller.
And then somebody will follow up and say, can you give me an example in which Trump is a fascist or a dictator, or can you give me a policy you don't like?
And they're always stumped.
They don't have any idea what they don't like.
They actually are on the streets protesting, and they can't give you any details about what it is they're protesting against.
Now, you might say, well, those are very entertaining, but I feel like Republicans could do a lot more with that.
I don't know exactly how.
You'd have to experiment with it a little bit.
But I would love for the...
The street interviews and maybe even other interviews, whenever the press is talking, you know, let's say the right-leaning press, whenever the right-leaning press is talking to the Democrats, I'd like to see that they had a list of maybe 10 questions to see if the Democrats could answer them.
So here's one of the questions.
If tariffs and trade barriers are so bad, why does China and every other country insist on having them?
That's an unanswerable question.
Because the real answer that Democrats can't get near is that these countries have been taking advantage of us, and we should stop them from taking advantage of us, and so Trump is using tariffs to negotiate until they stop taking advantage of us.
Now, I had a back and forth with probably a Democrat, I can't tell, on X today, and they don't seem to understand.
That if we don't put tariffs on these other countries, that we'll just be the victim of tariffs, like we have been, and that we're just giving our money away.
They don't seem to understand that concept.
Is that really that hard?
But they don't.
Here's another one.
How do you know that the tariff situation won't work out?
How do you know?
Because they act like it's already a fact.
That the tariffs have destroyed the country.
That's not even close to true.
I don't know how they'll work out either.
But if you're telling me that you know now how everything works out with tariffs, well, that's just stupid.
Because they're at the beginning part of negotiating, and the first part, Trump has gotten everything he wanted, which is the full attention of the other countries.
They've made it one of their top priorities because they have to.
And if you were to judge how it's going so far, I'd give it an A+.
But there's still a possibility that it goes off the rails, we don't get a deal, we have shortages, and then our businesses have to close.
That's possible.
But we don't know that.
And certainly there's enough time to right the ship and get some deals or get the framework of some deals.
Before any of those bad things happen, or at least, you know, the bulk of the bad things.
So how in the world can you say that the tariffs have not worked?
It's way too early.
It's just stupid to imagine that you know how it turns out in four months or maybe end of year.
How about this one?
The people who say that Doge was a big mistake.
How would you know that?
I mean, it could turn out to be not successful.
But how do you know after the first few weeks, when maybe there was a little bit of uncertainty about how things were going, how do you know they didn't adjust?
How do you know they didn't move to your beloved scalpel system and make sure that the normal elected officials were appointed are the ones who make the actual cut decisions?
How do you know?
How do you know which of their claims are going to prove out?
Some of them won't, but some of them will.
How do you know if they're going to save more money than they've saved already?
Because not only have they taken a whack at a number of the expenses and corruption, but they've put in place a system, a system of sort of permanent doge, which in theory...
Should prevent some of the worst excesses from coming back while they chop away at new things that they find all the time.
How could you possibly know if Doge worked?
It's way too early.
Now, if you said, I don't know that it'll work, well, that's reasonable.
If you said there's not confirmed evidence that Doge worked, I'd say that's true.
But to say that you know it didn't work and it won't work?
Where's that coming from?
You don't have any inside knowledge about what's happening in any of these government entities.
Here's another question for Democrats.
If everything is broken and wrong and Trump has destroyed the economy, why is the stock market so strong and employment looks good?
Those would be the two things that would always go bad if the economy were heading in the toilet.
So why aren't they?
The stock market's sort of the same as it was a year ago.
No big deal.
And employment looks pretty good.
So how do you explain that?
So there should be some kind of like 10 questions to ask Democrats to see how well they understand anything.
Anyway, I think if Democrats understood the issues, they would have different opinions.
Here's another fake news, but sort of true, but fake.
I guess the Trump administration deported some parent, I think a mother, maybe more than one, who had children.
And then the mother decided that she would take her children, who were born in this country and therefore are citizens, that although she was not a citizen and she had a deportation order, She would take her children with her back to Honduras, I think, in one case.
And that causes the Democrats to say, you deported children.
Which Rubio has to explain, no, we deported an illegal alien and she decided to take her children because why wouldn't she?
Why wouldn't she?
Of course she's going to take her children.
That's not our decision.
We didn't make the children leave.
We just made the mother leave.
So, there's that.
And also we should mention that's the same way we treat criminals in the United States.
When you send a parent to jail, they don't get to take their kids.
But if they could, some of them would.
Don't you think?
If somebody had a baby, and let's say they're a mother, if they had the option of taking their baby to jail with them, Again, there was some facility that would allow that to be safe.
They probably would.
But we wouldn't be putting children in jail.
That would be the mother's decision.
Anyway, Scott Besant is agreeing with Trump that China actually is talking to us about trade, but they're a little bit shy about what that looks like or who they're actually talking to.
But there's a significant disagreement about whether there's any actual progress.
Do you think there's progress in the conversations with China?
My guess is there might be a few things where we think, oh, that opened up a door or something.
But I feel like we're probably pretty far away from any kind of a deal with China.
Partly because it's such a big, complicated thing and partly because it's China.
Apparently we're having some kind of conversation with him.
It's better than nothing.
According to Axios, Trump is looking to bail out American farmers if they get too damaged by the tariffs and trade war because you don't want to lose your farmers.
So I don't know if there will be other industries that Trump will try to save, but that's going to get really expensive really quickly, isn't it?
If Trump does some kind of a major spending thing to save certain industries so they can keep the trade war going, it's going to be really expensive at the same time that they're looking at the budget.
I don't know how that's going to work.
Well, Trump is, according to Zero Edge, he's floating this idea of eliminating income taxes for people who make under $200,000 a year.
And instead, using the bonanza of tariff income to make up the difference.
I don't think that's going to happen.
To me, that sounds like total bullshit.
So, if I can be honest, I don't think there's the slightest chance that people who earn under $200,000 are going to have no income tax and we're going to make up the difference with tariff income.
It might be good persuasion to make people feel good, and maybe it helps them politically.
But no, that's not going to happen.
And there's no world in which that happens, I don't think.
You can mock me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's any chance that happens.
So according to The Hill, the House of Representatives is now working on the budget bill.
Which is not as easy as you think, because they've got all these different committees.
So there'll be five House committees, and they'll all go look at every part of the bill.
And it's the big funding bill that has all Trump's priorities in it.
And they've been asked to remove $1.5 trillion in spending.
Do you think the House...
Is going to find $1.5 trillion to remove from the budget?
Again, there's no chance of that at all.
My best guess is that they'll remove nothing and that the budget will be bigger than it was last time.
I don't think there's any chance of that.
How ridiculous.
And I saw that David Sachs was talking on the All In Pod.
About how he was hoping that the Doge savings, and especially where Doge found there was some corruption, that when the house gets down to the nuts and bolts, they will protect all of the Doge savings,
and they'll protect whatever Doge did to get rid of the corruption.
They'll get rid of entities and that sort of thing.
To which I say, we've got a problem here.
Congress has a system for adding corruption.
Adding corruption.
And that system is they negotiate with each other.
And one senator will say, well, you know, if you give me this funding for my state, I'll vote for you, for your funding, for this other thing.
So that's a mechanism or a system for adding corruption.
Or at least adding spending that you didn't want, which I would call corruption.
What is our system for getting rid of corruption?
There isn't one.
If we had a system for getting rid of corruption, it would already be used.
There's no such thing as a system for getting rid of corruption.
So when David Sachs says he's worried that the Doge savings and the corruption recommendations won't be taken seriously, that's the only thing that could happen.
Because there is no system for removing corruption.
Once it gets to the House, it's only in the add corruption system.
It's not in the minus corruption system.
So if you had to guess what's going to happen with the budget reconciliation, it's going to look like every other year.
They won't be able to cut anything because there will always be somebody who's got some blackmail.
They're doing some horse trading or something.
They won't be able to cut anything.
Now, when I say anything, maybe there'll be some little around-the-edges minor thing.
But basically, the budget's going to be the same amount it always was.
They're going to run out of time.
Thomas Massey is going to do social media posts saying he's not going to vote for it because they had plenty of time to cut it, but they didn't cut anything important.
And we're just going to kick the can down the road.
Until we become bankrupt.
That's the plan.
Because there's no other plan.
There's no other system in place that could ever cut $1.5 trillion from the budget.
We don't have anything that could do that.
The House can't do that.
And it's in the House.
And Doge is not in the House.
So even if Doge could do it, it's not their domain now.
It's in the House.
And I guess the...
Senate was only trying to get rid of $4 billion.
So you have to get both the House and the Senate to agree on the budget.
The House is trying to get rid of $1.5 trillion, and the Senate, where they're even more corrupt, is like, well, maybe $4 billion, which would be basically a rounding.
You could get rid of $4 billion just by sneezing on it.
So if I had to guess, We will have less than a $5 billion cut, and we will be running as fast as we can into a debt crisis, and nothing useful will happen in the House.
Nothing.
There will be no decrease in corruption, no decrease in ridiculous spending, no nothing, because we have no system that could bring us to a better place.
If you look at it as a system, as opposed to a goal, the goal is to save $1.5 trillion.
But there's no system to do that.
None.
Now, if I'm wrong, somebody tell me.
What exactly would be the system that would do that?
And why didn't that system ever do it before?
It's because it doesn't exist.
We don't have a system that could possibly get us to a better place on the budget.
So that's what to expect.
Gee, I wonder if there will be any diversions that happen so that we're not thinking about how bad Congress is and the budget.
Oh, yeah.
So the House subcommittee is going to hold a hearing on drone sightings after reports about those New Jersey skies.
Now, when was the last time you worried about the drones over New Jersey?
I don't remember worrying about it for a long time because Trump said, oh, don't worry, it's all approved.
We don't know exactly the details, but there's nothing weird going on there.
It's not any foreign entity.
It's not a UFO.
But suddenly, the House subcommittee needs to do a deep dive into those drones.
And once again, it's going to be stories about possible UFOs and UAPs.
And it's going to divert us again.
So exactly at the right time they need a diversion?
Well, there it is.
I don't know if it's intentional, but it seems weirdly coincidental that the diversion happens at the same time they need it.
Here's another thing that's making me laugh.
The Democrats consider themselves the resistance.
Have you noticed that?
So a lot of people who are Democrats, especially the political ones, consider themselves part of, quote, the resistance.
Have we ever had that before?
In the history of U.S. politics, has anybody ever called themselves the resistance?
Because that framing is dangerous.
Because it'd be one thing to say we're the opposition party.
And then I say, oh, I get it.
You would like your policies to be more persuasive than the other policies.
But as soon as you say you're the resistance, doesn't that sound like the French resistance during World War II?
You know, literally battling Hitler?
Resistance is a military term, in my view.
As soon as you say resistance, everything's on the table, including violence.
But if you just said we're the...
Party and a power, and so we're trying to get back in power.
I'd say, oh, normal.
And apparently the resistance is co-ordaining some of the colleges, the Ivy League colleges that Trump is going after for being racists.
So some of the leaders of the most prestigious colleges, the Ivy Leagues, etc.
They're sort of informally getting together and calling themselves the resistance.
Now, unfortunately, it sounds too cool to be part of the resistance.
So you're going to get a lot of Democrats who say, ooh, I wouldn't be interested in being the party out of power, but could I be part of the resistance?
Because I can't wait to tell my lover that we'll have better sex.
And I completely get that.
So I remember when I got cancelled, and some of you were wondering why I wasn't so unhappy about it.
It's because when I got cancelled, the bad guys, as I'll call them, they cast me in the role of the resistance.
So I didn't plan it.
But every time I see a meme that uses my face and has some reference to why I got cancelled, I think to myself, Wow, I actually became like Che Guevara.
At least my image.
So I'm an image of the resistance.
And it's the resistance against DEI and CRT and racism against white men, basically.
So I never really minded getting cancelled.
It was a pain in the ass.
But in terms of how I felt about it...
It just made me feel like I was part of the resistance.
And then I felt, it's kind of cool.
It's kind of cool that people recognize me as, you know, an image of the resistance.
So it's a very dangerous term because people want to be in it.
Now, let's talk about those colleges.
Now, of course, what Trump wants them to do is be less anti-Semitic and less DEI.
Now, what is the dividing line between free speech, which would be somebody saying something bad about Israel, versus hate speech, where maybe there's a risk somebody gets hurt?
And I've been listening to Glenn Greenwald on this, because he's just so good at explaining his point of view.
So I think Greenwald...
I don't want to try to capture his opinion because I might get it wrong, but the basic idea is he's a real pro-free speech, and that would include free speech about Israel.
And so when he sees the colleges, or if he sees the Trump administration trying to squash just the Israel talk, but not squashing talk about other countries, then he says, reasonably, Why are we just picking up this one special group of people?
And I have an answer for that.
So I asked Grok to define hate speech, because hate speech is illegal, and free speech is legal, and that's the way it should be.
But here's hate speech.
Grok says hate speech is typically defined as expression that incites violence, discrimination, Or hostility against individuals or groups based on protective characteristics like race, religion, gender, or sexuality.
Then it says free speech includes a broad range of expressions, and it could be offensive, but it wouldn't activate anybody for any violence.
So hate speech is only restricted if it incites imminent lawlessness.
That's a grok definition.
And they say context matters.
This is also grok.
A statement might be free speech in one setting, for example, if you're just talking privately to a friend, but it might be considered hate speech if he did it in public.
So that makes sense.
Let's take one example of something that's happened with the Democrats and see if you think this is just offensive or it's inspiring people to lawlessness.
So this is Governor Pritzker, Democrat Governor J.B. Pritzker, and he said in a speech he was calling for mass demonstrations and urging people to, quote, rise up against Trump, declaring that, quote, Republicans must not know a moment of peace.
Is that a free speech, or did he target Republicans for activities that would seem lawless?
Because if you don't allow me a moment of peace, as in I can't walk on the sidewalk without being accosted, that's hate speech to me, isn't it?
Now, I would also add that the anti-Semitic stuff that's happening on the campuses, there's something different about the anti-Jewish speech versus the anti-Albonian speech.
You know, I can say bad things all day long about the British, but nobody would even imagine that that would cause any violence.
And I could say pretty tough things about the British.
But if I said tough things about the Jewish population, the next thing you know, somebody's pushing.
Next thing you know, there's violence.
So to imagine that free speech about the Jewish population anywhere, It's the same as free speech about every other group, which I think is close to Greenwald's point of view, but I don't want to characterize his point of view because he does it so much better.
It seems to me that you can't treat everybody the same because the Jews have a situation where there's an identifiable group who wants to wipe them out.
But the British don't have that.
You might argue that they do.
But since there's nobody trying to wipe out the British, except maybe by population change, it's not going to lead to anything.
There's no way that that becomes anything dangerous.
But it wouldn't take much anti-Semitism before Jewish students don't feel safe walking to classes.
Likewise, Governor Pritzker...
It doesn't take much speech before you wouldn't want to wear a Trump 2028 hat and go in public.
It's already too dangerous.
So if the speech the Democrats are using against Republicans make it unsafe to walk down the street, and they do, isn't that a speech?
Because it directly leads to violence.
And I would say the same about the Jewish students, that it doesn't seem to me that it's just turning into words, like, oh, I have a preference.
It looks like it pretty directly turns into something more than words.
And I would say the same is true of DEI and CRT.
So that's the reason I got canceled, right?
So I got canceled because I consider CRT and DEI to be hate speech.
The whole point of CRT and DEI is that white males like me have stolen stuff from other Americans and we damn well better give it back.
That's dangerous.
That gets you killed.
So to me, CRT and DEI and ESG even are a hate speech because it does activate people to say, you know what?
I could slap this guy around in public and nobody would care because we're all mad at them.
And they stole all of our stuff and made us create the country and then stole everything.
That's completely different from saying the French are rude, right?
If I say the French are rude, nobody's going to go punch a Frenchman.
Completely different.
So I would throw the anti-Semitism into the same category as DEI.
And the same category as Governor Pritzker saying that Republicans must not know a moment of peace.
To me, those are all three hate speech.
And worthy of being at least discouraged, if not made outright illegal.
I think they are illegal.
So Smirkanish on CNN.
I've told you before that Smirkanish is his own man.
And even though he's on CNN, he's notably...
Been commonsensical, which seems notable.
But he was slamming the Trump-Hitler comparison, and he was saying that if you keep comparing Trump to Hitler, and you keep comparing his followers to Hitler, that it's going to lead to assassination attempts.
And he points out that if you look at assassination attempts in the past, it was almost always in the context of this kind of speech.
So, whenever there was ever an attempt on a president, there was always somebody saying that a president was Hitler, like Reagan.
I think JFK, I don't know the details, but probably somebody was saying that we're all going to die or something if Kennedy gets elected.
So, good for him.
And he quoted, this is Smirkanish, he said, anyone with the slightest understanding of history knows the comparison is dumb, you know, comparing to Hitler.
And it's ugly, and it's potentially dangerous.
Now, if it's potentially dangerous, and it's speech, it's hate speech.
That's what it is.
So even Smirkanish is agreeing that the Trump is Hitler, Musk gave a Nazi salute.
This is Hayes' speech.
You should go right to jail.
No, probably not right to jail.
But we should certainly figure out a way to stop it.
So the Daily Caller was reporting on that.
According to a number of people who looked at CNN's latest ratings, Apparently they're in full collapse.
So the Caitlin Collins show in the evening and Abby Phillips show got fewer than 500,000 viewers in primetime.
And they're well below 100,000 for viewers under 55. Now that sounds bad, doesn't it?
The CNN's ratings continue to plunge and they're down below a lot of podcasts.
Sounds bad.
But here's what you're forgetting.
Their DEI scores are excellent.
Their DEI is excellent.
So it's not all bad, right?
So the Wall Street Journal is reporting that Gaza is running out of food and water and medicine.
So, of course, there's a move to try to get...
More food and water into the affected areas.
But it's kind of complicated in ways that I wasn't aware of.
So you would think that this would be easy, right?
Why don't we feed the people who are starving?
We have food.
It's not for lack of food.
It's for lack of distribution.
So if you have the food and the people want the food and you know where the people are, how do you not solve that?
Well, it turns out that if the Israeli government directly distributed the food, then they would be considered occupiers, because that would mean they control the food for the local population,
which would be an argument that they're occupiers.
But if international units provide the food...
And all Israel does is maybe, you know, add a little security for the international people.
Then it looks like somebody else is feeding them.
So it's not, you know, it's not under the total control of Israel, even though it sort of is.
So there's a problem there because the Israelis don't want Hamas to get fed and they don't want it to go on forever.
But they don't want to be the ones who are bringing the food in.
So they're talking about a pilot plan in which private American companies would be involved in the aid, and they would have a humanitarian zone so that anybody who wanted more food and water could leave wherever they are and go to the safe zone where there's food and water.
Now, I don't know if they have to stay there, or they can just get it and take it back with them.
That's a little unclear.
But this is the idea that it always had to be.
We always had to get to the point where, obviously, the long-term plan is to depopulate Gaza, obviously.
And the best way to do it, and again, best does not include any moral or ethical dimensions, just what works and what doesn't work, is to say, if you want food and water, you've got to leave and you've got to go over here.
And then from here we might ship you to another country.
So I think what you're seeing is something that's suggesting the endgame.
And the endgame is the only way you're going to survive is if you get out of Gaza.
And we filter you so there's not too many Hamas people sneaking out.
So I think that's where it's going to end up.
Some kind of a safe zone where you've got to leave to get the food.
And again, I'm not judging it in terms of its moral or ethical or anything else.
I'm just describing it.
It just seems likely that's where it's going.
Apparently, Putin has suggested a ceasefire in Ukraine.
Now, this came soon after.
A Ukrainian commander, there's a video of a Ukrainian military commander, saying that if Zelenskyy gave up Crimea and all that other land in a peace deal, that he will, quote, regret any negotiations or territorial concessions.
Now, when a military guy who has been on the front lines says that the leader will regret, what does that sound like to you?
Hate speech.
He's going to kill them.
So remember I said it's impossible to understand what Zelensky is up to.
Like, he's not acting like somebody who wants peace.
So why would he act that way?
Because he's not going to win the war.
And my speculation was that he didn't have a way to survive the peace.
And that's getting more and more clear, because apparently there are enough Ukrainians.
Who would say, if you give away our land after all this fighting, all this blood we spilled, if you just give it away, we're going to kill you.
They don't have to say the actual words, but it looks pretty obvious that he would not survive the peace.
And so, not surviving the peace makes Putin say, hey, how about a ceasefire?
So, Putin is so good at this.
The persuasion part, that once he realizes that Zelensky can't do anything, he can't move toward peace, then Putin can, because it won't happen.
So he'll say, how about a ceasefire?
And then Zelensky will say, is it going to lead to a deal?
Yes, it'll be the first step toward we keep Crimea and all the places that we occupied.
And then Zelensky is going to have to say, forget your peace fire and fire some drones.
So then it's going to look like maybe Putin's the one who wants peace and Zelensky doesn't.
And probably neither of them want peace.
I think Putin may be just waiting for the U.S. to get uninvolved and then he can have his way with the country.
He's getting pretty close to it.
Now I'd like to make one comment.
I believe that I had the best take on Zelensky, that he couldn't survive the peace, and that's the only way to explain what we're seeing.
And yet, to Douglas Murray's point, I've never been to Ukraine, so I guess I got lucky in that one.
All right, well, Data Republican and the New York Post are reporting that Hunter Biden was using USAID money For Burisma back in those days when he was on the board.
So in 2014, one of the Burisma guys was personally thanking Hunter, we've got his emails now, for their support in getting the USAID to fund some giant project for Burisma.
And then there's some indication that Hunter had some influence on the USAID.
So it's exactly what you thought.
The top Democrats had influence over USAID, and they could open it like a piggy bank and make a sprinkle of money in their direction.
And so that's what Hunter was doing.
He was just taking money and giving it to the people who were paying him.
So that's exactly what you thought it was.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I have for you this morning.
I'm going to say hi to the locals people privately, but hope I didn't bum you out.
Maybe I did.
I don't know.
The rest of you I'll see tomorrow, same time, same place.
If you're on YouTube or Rumble or X, see you later.
